canadian

Master Point
a m a g a z i n e f o r b r i d g e p l a y e r s

331 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Ont., M5M 1H2

Tel: (416) 781-9327 • Fax: (416) 781-1831 • www.masterpointpress.com

July 1996 Vol. V Number 3

Rectifying the Count by David Silver 2

Canadians at the Cavendish by Fred Gitelman 9
Making the game better by Bill Milgram 13
One squeeze is worth two finesses by Roselyn Teukolsky 15
It can drive you crazy by Andy Stark 18
Bridge crossword by “Griffin” 21
Tricks from the air by Prakash J. Paranjape 23
Responsive doubles in “crowded house” auctions by Ron Bishop 25
The art of lying low by Ray Jotcham 28
Deciphering cyberspace by “Face” (Colin Lee) 30
Ask the Bridge Doctor by Karen Allison 32
Crossword solution 33
Kicking the habit by Barbara Seagram 34
Review: C ounting at Bridge (Lawrence) 36

Canadian Master Point is published four times a year. It is available free of charge through bridge clubs and bridge
supply houses across Canada or by subscription ($16/yr, US $16 for US subs). Copyright ©1996 Master Point
Press. All rights reserved; reprinting of contents without the express written permission of the publisher is prohib-
ited. Correspondence and articles should be sent to the above address with SAE for return of reply.

ED. BOARD: Ray & Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, John Gowdy, Ron Bishop
 Rectifying the Count
D avid
Silver’s team
has lost the
Ruritanian
Invitational Teams
Championship to
the mysterious
Count Alucard and
his incredibly for-
tunate entourage. Penniless, and aban-
doned by their heartless team-mates,
Silver and Cardinal little suspect that their
greatest adventure still lies ahead. Now
read on, to the conclusion of “The Legend
of Zelda”.
I t is with a heavy heart that I take up my
pen to write the last words in which I
shall ever record the singular gifts by
which my friend Professor Silver was dis-
tinguished. In an incoherent and, as I
deeply feel, an entirely inadequate fashion,
I have endeavoured to give some account
of my strange experiences as his bridge
associate from the chance which first
brought us together at the period of the
“Study in Silver” up to the time of our ill-
fated trip to Ruritania. It was my intention
to chronicle our exploits at the Ruritanian
Invitational Team Championships and to
stop there and to have said nothing of sub-
sequent events. My hand has been forced,
however, by the recent letters to Can-
adian Masterpoint in which Count
Alucard defends the memory of his pro-
tegé, and I have no choice but to lay the
facts before the bridge-playing public ex-
actly as they occurred. I alone know the
absolute truth of the matter, and I am satis-
fied that the time has come when no good
purpose is served by its suppression. It
lies with me to tell for the first time what
really took place between Mercilla Fortuna
and Professor Silver in the bowels of
Castle Zelda.
July 1996
S ilver
It may be remembered that after our
inexplicable loss to Count Alucard’s team
in the finals, Professor Silver and I were
stranded in Streslau without sufficient
funds to return to Toronto. I was in the
depths of despair since I was committed to
playing in the Summer Nationals with
three clients whose continued patronage
was essential to my livelihood. Professor
Silver, however, was steeped in lethargy
and had scarcely stirred for a week. It was
not in his nature to take an aimless holi-
day, and something about his pale, worn
face told me that his nerves were at their
highest tension. He saw the question in
my eyes, and, putting his finger-tips to-
gether and his elbows on his knees, he
explained the situation.
“You have never before heard of
Count Alucard?” said he.
“Never, before this last event.”
“There’s the genius and the danger of
the thing!” he cried. “The man pervades
the bridge world, and no one has heard of
him. I tell you Cardinal, in all seriousness,
that if I could beat that man, if I could free
the bridge world from him, I should feel
that my own career had reached its sum-
mit, and I should be prepared to turn to
some more placid line in life. But I could
not rest, Cardinal, I could not sit quiet in
my chair, if I thought such a fiend as
Count Alucard was sitting at a bridge table
unchallenged.”
“But what has he done?”
“He is the organizer of half that is
evil and of nearly all that is undetected in
our great game. He sits motionless, like a
spider in the centre of his web, but he does
little himself. He only plans. But his
agents are numerous and splendidly con-
trolled. Is there a match to be stolen, a
bottom board to be apportioned, a cham-
pionship snatched from an expert’s grasp
3
— Alucard gives an order and the matter
is carried out. His agent may be exposed
and reviled, but the central power which
uses the agent is never caught — never so
much as suspected. This is the evil that I
deduced, Cardinal, and which I came to
Ruritania to extinguish.”
“But who are these agents of whom
you speak?”
“Not ‘who’, Cardinal, ‘what’! Count
Alucard’s agents are legendary monsters
known in bridge clubs hereabouts as the
‘Un-Players’. Long dismissed in the
West as a primitive myth, the Un-Players
lurk unseeded in tournaments, ready to
pounce on their unsuspecting prey. I had
read about them, of course, but I never
believed they existed until I investigated
the strange case of Orlando Whiffle. Oh,
come now, you know Whiffle. He’s the
club player who can barely follow suit,
has the attention span of a fruit fly and yet
wins thousands of masterpoints every
year. One evening, he fell asleep while
playing a grand slam and his cravat
slipped. To my horror, I saw twin incisor
scars on his neck, the mark of the Un-
Player. I spent the next few months ex-
amining the necks of certain opponents
— you may recall the unpleasantness that
ensued when Midge Griffin misunder-
stood my intentions during an IMP match;
so far I have identified three of them in
our local duplicate club alone.”
“Silver, this is monstrous! But tell
me, how does he transform them into
good bridge players?”
“Not into good bridge players —
winning bridge players. No evil alchemy
can change an untalented card pusher into
a real bridge player. No, they maintain
whatever level of ability they had when
they offered up their jugulars to him. He
seduces them with the promise of winning
without acquiring skill, of success without
effort, of bushels of masterpoints for sim-
ply showing up at the table. He accom-
plishes this by convincing them that they
are lucky, that luck will overcome supe-
Canadian Master Point
rior opponents, that luck can be substi-
tuted for hard work, study, and practice,
in short, he teaches them the Lots of Luck
bidding system.”
“But, Professor, most bridge tourna-
ments are two-session events: how would
an Un-Player manage to attend afternoon
sessions?”
“Aha, you see, contrary to public
opinion, the light of the sun does not de-
stroy Un-Players, it merely substantially
diminishes their powers. How often have
we heard bridge players complain that
they have great games in the afternoon
sessions only to suffer meltdown in the
evening? It is not fatigue which robs
them of victory, but the intensity of the
supernatural forces newly aligned against
them.
“And there is a very practical reason
why Un-Players are attracted to bridge.
As a result of the physical deterioration
which bridge players suffer, owing to
their sedentary life style and appalling
dietary habits, humans and Un-Players are
virtually indistinguishable at the table. Of
course the females, since they cast no re-
flection in a mirror, are forced to go to the
powder room in pairs, making them easy
to spot. ”
“But Professor! What does this
imply for our rubber bridge match against
Alucard and Mercilla tonight? I had
hoped we could win enough money to buy
a plane ticket home. Maybe we should
wear crucifixes and chew garlic? “
“No, that’s yet another example of
inept research by that charlatan, Van
Helsing, which has been accepted by a
gullible public. Religious symbols serve
only to keep an Un-Player at least two
feet from the wearer, insufficient to pro-
tect you at the bridge table. Garlic is more
effective, as its aroma will compel an Un-
Player to leave a room immediately; un-
fortunately it usually has the same effect
on everyone else. But don’t despair,
Cardinal, I have thought of a way of nul-
lifying the powers of our opponents. By
all means, let us away to Castle Zelda Alucard (North)
tonight. All you have to do is play well, ♠ 76
and not question anything I say.” ♥ Q4
——————————- ♦ Q85
“Welcome, gentlemen, to Castle Zelda,” ♣ AJ9643
said Count Alucard, baring his fangs
amicably. “Won’t you try a glass of the
Cardinal
local vintage, the grapes come from my ♠ K1052
own vineyard.” ♥ 1082
“I never drink wine,” said the pro- ♦ K1094
fessor, to my astonishment. “I will, how- ♣ 102
ever, take some wild rose tea if you have
some, which I doubt.” trick with my king, and returned the ♥10
“You know too much, Von Zelber,” which held. Another heart lead from me
snarled our host. “Let’s get on with our drew the king from declarer and the ace
game, shall we?” from Professor Silver, who then cashed
Atypically, Professor Silver and I two more hearts for one down!
were substantially ahead when the critical “Dammit!” said Mercilla uneasily.
part of the match began just as the clock “The cards were certainly placed badly.”
struck midnight. Mercilla opened the bid- “On the contrary,” said Professor
ding with one spade, and a normal Un- Silver, “the only card that mattered was
Player auction unfolded: onside: I held queen-third of clubs.”
Mercilla Alucard Alucard
1NT 3♣1 ♠ 76
3NT2 ♥ Q4
1. Eastwood — do you feel lucky? ♦ Q85
2. Acceptance — normal for ♣ AJ9643
Mercilla about 90% of the time
Silver Cardinal
As anyone who knew him would expect, ♠ J84 ♠ K1052
Professor Silver led a heart. Mercilla ♥ AJ965 ♥ 1082
rose with dummy’s queen while I fol- ♦ 32 ♦ K1094
lowed low after contemplating the ♣ Q87 ♣ 102
dummy and my hand.
(see top of next column) Mercilla
Mercilla immediately called for a low ♠ AQ93
club playing the king from her hand. ♥ K73
Professor Silver followed smoothly with
the queen! Furrowing her brow, Mercilla ♦ AJ76
inexplicably tranced for a few minutes ♣ K5
and finally produced a low diamond.
Smiling coquettishly at Professor Silver “When I dropped the ♣Q under your
when he followed low, she confidently king, you assumed that it was a singleton,
called for dummy’s queen. I won the and that prohibited establishing the suit

Canadian Master Point

without surrendering the lead to
Cardinal’s presumed ten-fourth. A heart
return through your king would, as we
have seen, set the contract. As I antici-
pated, you switched to the diamond suit
as your primary source of tricks. Of
course, the ♦K onside is not enough in
itself to produce nine tricks, you also
needed the suit to split 3-3, but suits al-
ways divide favourably for you, don’t
they, Countess? But there you were, ‘a
pauper in the midst of wealth’, with nine
top tricks waiting to be cashed.”
Mercilla became uncharacteristi-
cally silent as Professor Silver and I won
the next two rubbers handily. But, after
leaving the room briefly to take nourish-
ment, she perked up and soon landed in
another vulnerable game. Once again,
success depended upon a lucky lie of
cards to bring in dummy’s long suit.
Mercilla Alucard
1♣ 1♦
1NT 3♦1
3NT2 dear Countess,” Professor Silver said ma-
1. Eastwood — do you feel lucky?
2. Of course ‘I couldn’t make the contract’. The con-
Professor Silver led the ♥K and a sur-
prisingly strong dummy contributed the
ace to the first trick:
Alucard (North)
♠ 842
♥ A
♦ AJ10976
♣ 32
Cardinal
♠ KQ73
♥ 764
♦ KQ
♣ KJ94
July 1996
The contract seemed Mercilla-proof,
since, as usual, most of the outstanding
high cards were well-placed. The clubs
were all under declarer, and the diamond
position filled me with a sense of im-
pending doom. Accustomed as she was
to her finesses always working, Mercilla
played a club to her queen and didn’t
even bother to wait for Professor Silver
to follow with a low club before leading
a small diamond to dummy’s ten. I won
this with the ♦K and returned the ♥5 to
my partner’s ♥8. He exited with a spade,
which went to my queen and Mercilla’s
ace, and she confidently played another
diamond to the jack. I won the ♦Q and
returned my last heart to the Professor’s
ten, then watched him cash two more
hearts. Declarer was thunderstruck. She
looked up at her partner with tears in her
eyes.
“What’s happening? All I needed
was a three-two diamond split with one
honour onside — but they were both off-
side. The contract couldn’t be made.”
“Let me rephrase that for you, my
levolently. “Instead of ‘The contract
couldn’t be made’ you should have said
tract is in fact unbeatable due to an ex-
traordinarily fortunate lie of the cards.
You failed because you took a zero per-
centage play in the diamond suit instead
of anticipating the only position in which
you could succeed.”
“Nonsense!” interjected Count
Alucard, with some heat. “The probabil-
ity of the double finesse’s succeeding is
75% and the suit will split 3-2 68% of the
time giving a total probability of more
than 50%! Not a sure bet by any means,
but not a zero percent line of play either.”
“Sir, control yourself! Bridge anal-
ysis is, or should be, an exact science. No
purpose is served by getting emotional.
Let us look at the entire hand, and reflect,
if you will, on whom you are playing
against.
7
 Alucard
♠ 842
♥ A
♦ AJ10976
♣ 32
Silver Cardinal
♠ 1095 ♠ KQ73
♥ KQ1098 ♥ 764
♦ 854 ♦ KQ
♣ 106 ♣ KJ94
Mercilla
♠ A6
♥ J532
♦ 32
♣ AQ875
“On the face of it, your partner is right
about her chances. But you are playing
against experts and you must expect an
expert defence. With no dummy entries
outside the diamond suit, I put it to you
that there is no way you can bring home
AJ10xxx opposite two little for five tricks
when the honours are split and the suit is
dividing 3-2, if Cardinal and I are defend-
ing. When you take your first finesse,
neither of us will contribute an honour;
you will win that trick, and later the ace,
but that’s all. Even if both honours are
onside the play will go the same way.
“No, the only real hope is to play for
a doubleton KQ in either hand, the situa-
tion that actually existed! Duck the first
trick entirely , then play the ace when you
regain the lead — and five diamond
tricks are yours. You know, there’s re-
ally no point in being lucky if you can’t
recognize a felicitous situation when you
see one.”
The next few hands were played out
in an ominous silence, broken only by the
occasional sniffle from the Countess
Fortuna. It was as we were finishing
what all had agreed would be the final
rubber, the now infamous hand came up.
Canadian Master Point
It began innocently enough. Mercilla
opened the bidding with 1♠, my partner
passed, Count Alucard bid 2 ♦ and
Mercilla bid a firm 2♠.
Alucard continued with 3♣, and
Mercilla, after some thought, bid 3NT.
Her partner considered this for some
time, finally emerging from his trance
with a call of 5NT. Mercilla alerted, then
looked confused, cancelled the alert, and
then alerted again. The professor and I
gazed impassively at her as she finally
produced a bid of 6NT, which ended the
tortured sequence. Silver led the ♠J, the
dummy was put down, and we defended
the slam.
Alucard
♠ K
♥ Q5
♦ AKJ105
♣ KQJ105
Silver Cardinal
♠ J10 ♠ Q874
♥ K1082 ♥ 97643
♦ Q8742 ♦ —
♣ A3 ♣ 9864
Mercilla
♠ A96532
♥ AJ
♦ 963
♣ 72
Declarer looked pleasantly surprised to
find herself in quite a good contract, one
that would require little more than a rou-
tine diamond finesse to bring home.
Winning the ♠K, she cashed the ♦A, and
was horrified to see me contribute a small
heart to this trick. Visibly shaken, she
called for the ♣K, which Silver won; the
professor exited with his ♣4, and the
Countess was once again in dummy.
Her only chance now for twelve
tricks, it appeared, was to find me with
the ♥K, but it was not to be. Mercilla
seemed almost to expect it now when her
♥J lost, and yet another promising hand
had ended up in the minus column.
“Bad luck, my dear,” Alucard said
solicitously. “It’s just one of those hands
that can’t be made.”
“It is always a mistake to propose
theories without examining the facts,”
said Professor Silver. “It is in fact a typi-
cally lucky hand. All you need is the ♥K
on your left and the hand is cold.”
“That’s enough!” cried Alucard, ris-
ing to his feet. “I’ve had all I can take of
your condescending pedantry, Professor.
Would you care to put your money where
your mouth is? You are up a few hundred
dollars — perhaps you would like to
wager double or nothing you can make
twelve tricks against a spade lead?”
“Indeed,” replied Professor Silver to
my horror. I protested, but there was
nothing for it but to replay the hand with
Silver as declarer.
“Once again,” he began, “we found
the charming Countess adopting a line
that against expert defenders could never
succeed, instead of taking advantage of a
fortuitous lie of cards that allowed her to
make her contract. Observe the situation
after declarer has discovered the diamond
position, and knocked out the ♣A.
(see top of next column)
“This hand is much more subtle than it
seems, since finding the ♥K with East
will not actually help declarer. On the
surface, of course, there would be twelve
tricks — four diamonds (by leading the
nine from hand), four clubs, two spades,
and two hearts. Once again, however, the
Countess forgot the calibre of here op-
position. An alert East would put up the
♥K on the first lead from dummy, and
declarer would be doomed.
“If she cashed the ♠A after winning
her ♥ A, what in the world would she
throw from dummy? No matter which
diamond she chose, she would be unable
to gather more than three diamond tricks
without a second finesse, for which there
July 1996
Cardinal
♠ —
♥ Q5
♦ KJ105
♣ QJ105
Mercilla Alucard
♠ J ♠ Q87
♥ ?1082 ♥ ?976
♦ Q874 ♦ —
♣ 3 ♣ 986
Silver
♠ A9653
♥ AJ
♦ 96
♣ 7
is no means of transport. Suddenly, the
trick total is reduced to eleven.
“It is critical, therefore, that the
heart suit, playing its accustomed pivotal
role, afford declarer not just two tricks,
but two entries, in order to cash the ♠A
after the diamond plays. Yet, surely, the
doughty Cardinal would have had no dif-
ficulty making such a routine play as the
♥K?
“So you must think more deeply
about the hand, since your only hope is
indeed that the ♥K is favourably placed
— but with West! I shall demonstrate: I
play out dummy’s clubs, and then lead
the ♥Q off dummy, overtaking with the
♥A, and reaching this ending:
(see top of next column)
“When I lead the ♠A the Countess can-
not afford to part with a diamond, for
then I shall discard dummy’s heart and
lead the ♦9, making the rest of the tricks.
Never one to embarrass a lady, I might
point out her alternative, which is to jet-
tison the long-preserved ♥K.
“But alas, the age of chivalry is past.
I no longer need the ♦5 in dummy: I sim-
ply play a diamond to the ten, return to
my hand with the ♥J, and repeat the dia-
9
 Cardinal
♠ —
♥ 5
♦ KJ105
♣ —
Mercilla Alucard
♠ — ♠ Q8
♥ K ♥ 976
♦ Q874 ♦ —
♣ — ♣ —
Silver
♠ A9
♥ J
♦ 96
♣ —
mond finesse for my twelfth trick.
“A charming paradox — the slam is
cold with the ♥K offside, and impossible
with it onside. My Bridge 101 students
encounter something very similar in
week five, in a homework exercise from
Professor Ottlik’s well-known text. A
very lucky hand, of course, but it takes a
skilful declarer to recognize the situation
and play for the winning ending.”
“No, Mercilla! Stop!” screamed
Alucard as Mercilla reached across the
table and grabbed Professor Silver. He
struggled briefly, but she was too big and
strong for him to escape. Before anyone
could intervene she sank her fangs into
his throat and drank deeply from his jug-
ular vein.
It was a scene from nightmare and
the details of what happened afterwards
are not clear in my memory, but I know
for a certainty that three events occurred
in rapid succession: Mercilla fell to the
ground dead, Professor Silver sat down
smiling, and I fainted.
——————————-
I awoke to a strange humming noise in
my ears. After a moment’s reflection I
Canadian Master Point
realized that I was listening to the sound
of jet engines, and, opening my eyes, I
perceived that I was seated in the first
class cabin of an Air Canada 747. Pinned
to my shirt was an envelope addressed to
me. I opened it and read:
My dear Cardinal (it said)
I write these few lines to allay your
fears both for my safety and for your own
financial well-being. As to the first, we
were never in any serious danger. A real
bridge player’s blood is 80% caffeine, a
poison that in that quantity is sufficient to
kill a small bull. My own blood in addi-
tion contains a substantial concentration
of nicotine, an even stronger poison;
poor Countess Fortuna died instantly.
I am pleased to think that my forth-
coming monograph, ‘Silver’s Defensive
Methods Against Extraordinarily Lucky
Opponents’, will free bridge from the
further predations of Count Alucard’s
agents. Luck is based on confidence and
the key is to point out remorselessly every
mistake they make. It will take some dis-
cipline, since bridge players are by na-
ture kind and considerate, but I am sure
that we shall all do what must be done.
The Un-Players will be restricted to a
diet of novices and amateurs, who are in
any case their lawful prey.
I have transferred our winnings to
your bank account in Toronto; you
should have sufficient money to support
you until the Summer Nationals. As for
me, His Majesty has appointed me to the
position of Official Dummy to the Court.
My duties are always to place His
Majesty in a contract he can make, and
always to put down a dummy strong
enough to justify his bidding. After
thirty-five years of partnering Bruce
Gowdy, neither of these tasks should
present a problem.
Pray give my greetings to all my
friends in the bridge world, and believe
me to be, my dear fellow, very sincerely
yours.
Professor David Silver (retired)
 Canadians at the Cavendish
fred gitelman
T he 1996 edition
o f t h e
C a v e n d i s h
Invitational Pairs
was held at the
Loew’s Hotel in
New York City on
May 11 and 12.
During its 22-year history, this event has
become well-known for its tough bridge
and huge cash prizes. This year’s
Cavendish consisted of forty pairs: al-
most all of the top American players par-
ticipated and there were also entries from
Norway, Sweden, Italy, Brazil, England,
Israel, Poland, Turkey, and France.
George Mittelman and I were the only
Canadians in the field.
The Cavendish Pairs is run as a
Calcutta. In a Calcutta, an auction is held
before the event begins in which each
partnership is sold to the highest bidder.
The money that is collected during the
auction is put into a pool and is awarded
to the owners of the top eight finishers
(after money is deducted for tournament
expenses and for charity). This year’s
auction was extraordinary — in less than
two hours, auctioneers Zia Mahmood and
Bob Hamman managed to raise over
$800,000 US! George and I were sold
for $22,000, slightly more than the aver-
age price. Lauria and Versace of Italy
were the most expensive pair, going for
$41,000. First prize would be worth well
over $200,000 — by far the biggest prize
ever offered for a bridge event.
The tournament consisted of each
pair playing three boards against every
other pair with the results being IMPed
on a board-by-board basis across the
field. The event was divided into four
Canadian Master Point
sessions of nine or ten rounds, with two
sessions on both Saturday and Sunday.
The first session was a disaster for
George and me. Much of it was self-in-
flicted, but some of our poor results were
the result of good bridge by our oppo-
nents. For example, Michael Seamon
held this hand at unfavourable vulnerabil-
ity:
♠ K532 ♥K985 ♦862 ♣K10
George opened 1♦ on his left, Gaylor
Kasle overcalled 1♠, and I raised to 2♦.
Michael made his first good decision by
cue-bidding 3♦, showing at least a limit
raise. George now leapt to 5 ♦ and
Gaylor tried for slam by bidding 5 ♥ .
Michael realized his hand must be worth
gold opposite partner’s marked diamond
shortness and placed the contract in 6♠.
Gaylor held:
♠ AJ1096 ♥AQ76 ♦— ♣A752
and took all 13 tricks when everything
broke nicely. Only two other pairs man-
aged to diagnose the perfect fit and get to
slam; our loss on this board was 224
IMP’s, our biggest of the session. Our
best result of the session came against the
same pair:
(see top of next column)
Gaylor started the ♥K, ruffed in dummy.
George tried the ♦A and was pleased to
see Gaylor follow with the ♦ K. He
cashed the ♠A and ♦Q and ruffed a dia-
mond in hand. After a heart ruff in
dummy, another diamond ruff, and an-
other heart ruff, George played a good
diamond through Michael. The defence
had no answer. If Michael discarded or
ruffed with the ♠K, George would dis-
 Fred
♠ AJ104
♥ —
♦ AQ9652
♣ K104
Gaylor Michael
♠ — ♠ K86
♥ KQ107642 ♥ A98
♦ K ♦ J843
♣ Q8763 ♣ AJ9
George
♠ Q97532
♥ J53
♦ 107
♣ 52
Both vul.
West North East South
Gaylor Fred Michael George
4♥ dbl pass 4♠
pass pass 5♥ pass unfavourable vulnerability? George bid
pass 5♠ dbl all pass
card a club and hold his losses to one club
trick and one trump trick. When Michael
tried ruffing low, George overruffed and
exited in trump. Michael, down to all
clubs, was endplayed into giving George
a trick with the ♣K. +850 was worth 214
IMP’s for George and me. Notice that
the opponents are almost certain to make
6♥. The ♦A is the only lead to give de-
clarer a problem, and even on that lead,
declarer should make 6♥ by double fi-
nessing in clubs.
Despite this great result, we finished
the first session -775 IMP’s and in lowly
38th place (out of 40). We had had some
bad luck but had not been sharp and we
deserved most of our poor results. We
were going to have to play much better if
we were going to finish in a respectable
position.
The second session was a good start
July 1996
towards respectability as we won 522
IMP’s and moved up to 25th place.
Before the last round I thought we had a
chance to win the prize for the best score
of the session. Unfortunately, our oppo-
nents in the last round were Eddie Wold
and Mark Lair. On all three deals they
simply bid to the right contract and took
the maximum number of tricks. There
was nothing we could do but sit back and
lose 100 IMP’s.
While that last round had been
somewhat frustrating, I was still very sa-
tisified with our results in the second ses-
sion. We had gone from near last to the
middle of the pack and we still had two
sessions left. We were playing in form
and I was confident that we would have a
strong finish.
The third session started very well.
George held:
♠ K1042 ♥A862 ♦A842 ♣2
His right hand opponent opened 1NT (15-
17) in third position. Would you act at
2♣ showing both majors. I have to admit
it would not occur to me to bid with
George’s hand. Bidding was a big win-
ner, however, as my hand was:
♠ A5 ♥J9643 ♦K5 ♣6543
I jumped to 4♥ which made in comfort.
+620 was worth 172 IMP’s to the good
guys.
There were five possible slam hands
in the third session and George and I were
on the right side of all of them. We bid
three slams, two of which were excellent;
the third was not a very good contract but
the cards were very friendly and the slam
made. Most of the field judged better
than we did and stayed out of this sub-par
slam, so our lucky +1370 was worth 191
IMP’s.
The last two slam deals of the ses-
sion were not really slam deals at all —
only 11 tricks were available in each
case. Fortunately our opponents in both
cases bid to the six level: we won 136
13
IMP’s the first time and 171 the second
time.
Largely due to our good fortune on
these slam deals we won the third session
with a score of +939 IMPs. Not only did
this get us a nice cash prize, but we were
in 11th place — within striking distance
of the leaders. We also seemed to have
some momentum going. Our play and our
scores were getting better and better. I
confidently expected to finish in the
money.
Unfortunately it was not to be; our
play was somewhat flat in the last session
and many of the decisions we made back-
fired. I enjoyed the following hand (de-
spite the fact that we got a terrible result).
I held:
♠ A7 ♥2 ♦A5 ♣KJ987542
After two passes, my RHO opened 1♣
with both sides vulnerable. Now, this was
not just a normal 1♣ opening. This was
Brian Glubok’s latest hyper-modern
Polish-Swedish hybrid 1♣ opening. It
could show anything from a balanced 12
count to a game force in any suit; it was
forcing but did not promise strength.
Having no idea what to bid, I decided to
apply maximum pressure and jump to 5♣.
The bidding continued with two passes
and a double, confirming a strong hand
from opener, and three more passes.
The lead was the ♥Q and dummy arrived:
North
♠ KQ
♥ 1087653
♦ Q108
♣ 106
South
♠ A7
♥ 2
♦ A5
♣ KJ987542
Canadian Master Point
LHO continued the ♥9 to the ♥K which
I ruffed. Assuming you are going to try to
make your contract, how do you play?
My plan was to cash two rounds of spades
ending in dummy and ruff another heart
hoping for a 3-3 break. I would then exit
a low club. RHO was marked with the
♦K and ♣A. If the ♣A were singleton he
would be endplayed into either leading a
diamond from the ♦K or giving a ruff and
discard. In either case the contract would
make.
Alas, hearts were 4-2 and LHO was
able to overruff with the ♣Q (he had Qx
in both clubs and hearts). It looked like I
was now going for 500, but LHO, holding
the ♦J, had only one safe exit — his small
club. RHO won the ♣A and was end-
played. He tried his last heart but I was
able to ruff and enter dummy in clubs to
use the good hearts for my diamond loser.
-200 was worth a 122 IMP loss for George
and me.
What would you bid on this hand
when your LHO opens 1♦ and your RHO
responds 1♥?
♠ AKQ962 ♥KQ ♦K10 ♣KQ2
Double seems like a standout but George
bid a simple 1♠! He was rewarded when
1♠ was passed out and I put down this
dummy:
♠ J103 ♥109432 ♦J87 ♣94
With LHO holding ♦AQxxx and RHO
holding the ♥A, no game contract can
make. Most players holding George’s
cards forced to game. The defence slipped
at some tables (including ours, where
George was allowed to make 11 tricks) so
we won only 50 IMP’s for staying low.
George received quite a bit of abuse
from various experts for his 1♠ overcall.
I believe, however, that against our par-
ticular opponents he made a great bid.
Both of our opponents were highly disci-
plined players who would never open
light, respond light, or psyche. RHO was
very likely to have one of the missing aces
for his response and LHO was marked Lauria-Versace finished third while
with the other two aces and the ♦Q for Lanzarotti-Buratti finished fifth. This
his opening bid. Thus, without even wor- foursome were also the winners of a very
rying about losing a spade or a second strong Cavendish Team Event that took
club trick, there are almost certainly four place in the two days prior to the
unavoidable losers. Cavendish Invitational Pairs. Mark Lair
Shortly after that I held: and Eddie Wold gave further indication
of the quality of their new partnership
♠ J ♥9852 ♦Q83 ♣KQ962
with a strong fourth place showing in the
With both vulnerable LHO opened 4♠ Cavendish Pairs.
and George doubled. We play this dou- The organizers of the Cavendish did
ble for takeout and I judged to respond a sensational job in the running and pro-
4NT, tentatively showing the minors. If motion of the 1996 edition of the
George bid 5♦ I would correct to 5♥ Cavendish Invitational Pairs. I have la-
(yuck). I was pleased to hear George bid mented in the past that it is too bad we
5♣ but RHO went on to 5♠. My double cannot have bridge tournaments in North
ended the auction. 5♠ was down one and America with the class, prestige, quality,
since 5♣ was also going to go down we and professionalism of the invitational
were well rewarded with 143 IMP’s. On events in Europe. The Cavendish, how-
the next deal we did even better, winning ever, ranks right up there with the best of
179 IMP’s by pushing the opponents into the European tournaments. Certainly in
game and then doubling them for a 500 one area — the size of the prize pool —
point penalty. the Cavendish Invitational Pairs is in a
As the event was winding down it class by itself.
felt like we had chance to place in the
high overalls if we could finish strongly.
It was not to be. In the second last round
we had our biggest disaster of the tourna-
ment, a 225 IMP loss. The cause was
once again lack of homework — we had
never discussed bidding over our own
gambling 3NT openings (has anyone ever
had a good result from this convention?).
We ended up +11 IMP’s in the
fourth session and 12th overall. Not a
spectacular performance but it was some-
what satisfying given that we were in
38th place after the first session, and that
we had managed to win a session.
The winners were Fred Stewart and
Steve Weinstein — their second
Cavendish win. The victory was a popu-
lar one as both Steve and Fred are among
the most liked and respected players in
North America. Neil Chambers (an ex-
Canadian) and John Schermer, also a
very classy pair, finished second. The
Italians continue to assert themselves in
just about every event they play in.

July 1996 15
 Making the game better
bill milgram
T he article by Jim
K i r k h a m
(Whatever LOLA
wants, in the April
1996 issue of CMP)
raised an issue that I
have been concerned
about for some time:
namely, that of the ACBL guidelines
(and their interpretation by directors and
committees) in regard to purported hesi-
tations, or more accurately ‘breaks in
tempo’. Kirkham illustrates how LOLA
(the Law of Logical Alternatives) has
resulted in ‘horrors’ in which commit-
tees have produced some truly incredible
rulings. I myself have been a victim of
LOLA; however, the purpose of this ar-
ticle is not simply to complain, but to
suggest some constructive (rather than
logical) alternatives.
Before considering these, it should
be emphasized that the current situation
not only (often) results in infuriating rul-
ings, but also affords enormous potential
for abuse because it encourages people to
call the director whenever they obtain a
bad board. Since a logical alternative
exists for almost any bid, whenever you
get an unfavourable result, there is at
least a chance that you can find a com-
mittee to reverse it. You simply have to
‘perceive’ a break in tempo in your op-
ponent’s bidding. Whether your oppo-
nents are also aware of such a break,
incidentally, is not necessarily conse-
quential.
Thus, LOLA can lead both to hor-
rors and to conflicts. Can we improve
upon this situation? I have four sugges-
tions.
Canadian Master Point
The first is that we adopt the prin-
ciple of assuming innocence until guilt is
proven. This places the burden of re-
sponsibility on directors and committees
to adjudicate fairly, giving equal consid-
eration to the views of both pairs in-
volved. This suggestion addresses an
elitism that seems to exist amongst those
most closely associated with making and
enforcing the rules. There is no reason to
assume that the average tournament
player is dishonest. If I state that I did
not notice an obvious break in tempo,
then this fact should figure into the rul-
ing. It is quite possible for a break in
tempo to occur without partner being
aware of it. This can cause difficulties in
making fair and consistent rulings, but
automatically assuming guilt by reason of
accusation is not the solution.
Second, any ruling should be made
both by directors and by committees on
the merits of the individual situation. It
is essential to recognize that what is a
‘logical alternative’ for one person may
not be one for another. Bidding system,
as well as style, should dictate what bids
may or may not be made. This means
that LOLA, as it has been used in the
past, should no longer be applicable.
Rather, the basic guideline should be to
determine whether a bid is the same one
that would normally have been made by
the individual in question. Suppose, for
example, that you were planning to bid
Blackwood after partner made an antici-
pated sign-off. If partner does sign off,
but hesitates, your obligation should be
to make the bid that you would normally
have made, even if it results in the ap-
pearance of your using unauthorized in-
formation. The committee’s
responsibility, then, is to decide whether
it’s likely that unauthorized information
affected the outcome of the hand, and to
make the appropriate adjustment if it did.
Third, we need to reduce the re-
wards to complainants. As things stand
now, one can gain considerably from
improprieties by opponents. I’ve never
understood why this should be; why
should we be rewarded for something
that we did not earn? Undeserved re-
wards simply serve to encourage people
to ‘perceive’ infractions. It is possible to
penalize offenders without awarding bo-
nuses to innocent bystanders. Along the
same lines, we should be much more
diligent in applying penalties when direc-
tor calls are made without any clear jus-
tification.
Finally, we should have a much
more thorough recording system. When
complaints have consistently been made
against a given pair, this information is
pertinent and should be available.
Conversely, when a pair repeatedly com-
plains about their opposition, this sug-
gests that they are attempting to obtain
through legal manouevring what they
could not obtain by playing bridge. Good
records would also be helpful in evaluat-
ing the performance of directors and in
selecting committee members. Perhaps
having such records would also act as a
deterrent against frivolous director calls.
As an afterthought, it is obvious
that the application of any guidelines we
have will ultimately depend on the con-
stitution, knowledge, and experience of
the committee. But this is a topic for
another article.
Frankly, we’re amazed that this was the
only response we received to the Kirkham
article, which we thought would be quite
controversial. We’re sure that not every-
one will agree with the thinking behind,
or the practicality of, Dr. Milgram’s
suggestions.
Let’s hear from you this time! Ed.

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpontpress.com
Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and
more.
www.masteringbridge.com
Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material
for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.
www.ebooksbridge.com
Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.
www.bridgeblogging.com
Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

July 1996 17
 One squeeze is worth two finesses
rosel y n teukolsk y

T o squeeze or not
to squeeze? That
is the question:
North
♠ AQ
Whether tis no- ♥ KJ63
bler in the play to ♦ Q32
suffer
The slings and ♣ AQ43
arrows of outrageous
fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, South
And by finessing end them? ♠ J109763
To squeeze or not to squeeze? That is the ♥ A104
great existential question of declarer play. ♦ AJ
In the absence of any knowledge (i.e. in ♣ K5
the presence of ignorance), if the choice
is between a finesse and a squeeze, it’s no to the queen, everyone following, and
contest: the squeeze wins hands down. East won the king. Before you could say
This is for two reasons: playing for a : “finesse”, East had the ♦10 on the table,
squeeze keeps hope alive (instead of and my team-mate was at the moment of
going down at trick one, two, or three, truth. Decide how you would play the
you go down at trick thirteen; also — and hand before looking at all four hands
here’s the main advantage — a squeeze below:
correctly executed, even if it doesn’t North
work, gives more ego satisfaction than a
finesse that works. Of course, you have ♠ AQ
the problem of explaining this to your ♥ KJ63
team-mates.... ♦ Q32
Talking about team-mates, here’s a ♣ AQ43
hand that one of mine had to play in a
recent Knockout Event. He held West East
♠ J109763 ♥ A104 ♦ AJ ♣ K5 ♠ 52 ♠ K84
♥ Q987 ♥ 52
and heard his partner open 1♣. He bid
1♠, and when partner rebid 2NT showing ♦ K86 ♦ 109754
18 - 19 points, he drove to 6♠. ♣ J864 ♣ 1097
The opening lead was the ♣2 (“stan-
dard leads”), and here were the hands: South
♠ J109763
(see top of next column)
♥ A104
Declarer played the ♣3 from dummy, ♦ AJ
which fetched the ♣9 from East and the ♣ K5
♣K from South. Next came a low spade

Canadian Master Point

On the lead of the ♦10, South played the will have the following situation before
ace. This is surely the right play: the running trumps:
hand is crawling with menaces — some- North
one is sure to be squeezed. ♠ —
Here is how the play proceeded:
South cashed the ♠A (everyone follow-
♥ KJ63
ing). Needing to return to hand, he ♦ Q3
cashed the ♥K, then the ♥A; everyone ♣ A4
followed, but no queen appeared unfor-
tunately, since if it had, the hand would West East
have been over right away. . Here was the ♠ — ♠ 8
situation when South began to run the ♥ Q987 ♥ 52
trumps in his hand: ♦ K8 ♦ 10975
North ♣ J8 ♣ 7
♠ —
♥ J6 South
♦ Q3 ♠ J1097
♣ AQ4 ♥ A104
♦ J
West East ♣ —
♠ — ♠ 8
♥ Q9 ♥ — From here, on the run of the spades West
can pitch a diamond and a heart, but will,
♦ K8 ♦ 9754 again, be squeezed by the third spade!
♣ J86 ♣ 107 Even if East holds the ♦K, West will be
squeezed in clubs and hearts.
South Suppose the East and West hands
♠ J1097 are interchanged, but East still has the
♥ 10 ♠K. Something like this:
♦ J North
♣ 5 ♠ AQ
West could safely pitch a diamond and a ♥ KJ63
heart, but was squeezed on the third ♦ Q32
trump. The fourth trump was merely the ♣ AQ43
coup de grace! Flushed with triumph, all
finesses spurned, ego soaring, our team- West East
mate claimed his contract. ♠ 842 ♠ K5
After the hand, West mumbled at ♥ 52 ♥ Q987
East that he should have broken up the
squeeze by returning a club at trick ♦ 109754 ♦ K86
three. Not so: South can unblock the ♠A, ♣ 1097 ♣ J862
return to his hand with the ♦A and run
the trumps as before. This time the dia- South
monds and clubs will provide one-card ♠ J109763
menaces, while the hearts will be the ♥ A104
two-card menace. South will no longer ♦ AJ
have the option of testing hearts first, but ♣ K5

July 1996 19
Again, the squeeze will work, this time must explain to his teammates why he
against East. If West holds the ♦K in this went down playing for the squeeze (espe-
layout, the squeeze will fail, but then, so cially since there are other squeezes that
would the diamond finesse! do work even in this layout!).
In fact there are hands where the Clearly, though, a squeeze is the
diamond finesse is on and this particular best line of play, since there seems to be
squeeze doesn’t work; for example, the one that works in just about every case;
hand where West must guard only the plus there is the added chance in the ac-
clubs, and East must guard diamonds and tual situation of dropping the ♥Q. So our
hearts. Something like this: team-mate emerged a hero, especially
when it transpired that at the other table,
This would be one hand where South North-South had ended up in 6NT which
had no play on an opening diamond lead
North from East.
♠ AQ
♥ KJ63
♦ Q32
♣ AQ43
West East
♠ 842 ♠ K5
♥ 52 ♥ Q987
♦ 10975 ♦ K864
♣ J862 ♣ 1097
South
♠ J109763
♥ A104
♦ AJ
♣ K5

Now available online: Bobby Wolff's Aces on Bridge!

Due to the graciousness of United Feature Syndicate, Inc. coupled with

the innovative ingenuity of Ray Lee, Owner and Publisher of Master
Point Press, starting March 25th, Bobby Wolff's Aces on Bridge column
began appearing daily at:
http://aces.bridgeblogging.com

The “Aces on Bridge” column, which has been appearing daily for over
25 years, is syndicated by United Feature Syndicate in more than 130
newspapers worldwide. All columns appearing online are posted at least
two weeks after the original printed date.

Canadian Master Point

 It can drive you crazy
and y stark
P laying bridge
has a lot in com-
mon with driving a
car; in fact the
analogy is so good
that it’s a little
scary. Think about
it: in driving you
can have an accident, get caught speed-
ing, or simply have a wheel fall off. At
the bridge table you can have a bidding
accident, bid too high and get doubled, or
simply have a wheel fall off (I told you it
was scary!).
Sometimes our thought processes,
like our vehicles, seem to run out of gas,
or perhaps we lose our way. Usually we
can attempt to place the blame on our
map-reading navigator (I mean partner),
but sometimes we are clearly at fault for
going down the wrong road. A good ex-
ample was this hand that came up re-
cently in a sectional Swiss in Brantford:
♠AKJ8 ♥A764 ♦K ♣AK108
Holding this fine collection as dealer, you
decide to rev up the proceedings by open-
ing 2NT. If anyone asks you later why
you selected a notrump call holding a
singleton, tell them you had a club mixed
in with your diamonds. If they don’t buy
that, tell them it must have been a heart
mixed in there with your red king.
They’ll buy that one; everyone buys that
one.
You’ve heard of defensive driving,
of course. Well, this is defensive bridge.
You see, with some partners you not only
have to defend roughly half the contracts,
you have to defend all of your auctions
and actions. Those partners, like certain
July 1996
car models, do not last long.
All right, back to the hand at hand:
partner responds with a Puppet 3♣, and
you respond 3♦, denying a 5-card major,
but promising at least one 4-card major.
Partner bids 4♦, showing at least four
cards in each major suit, and you arrive
at your first fork in the road. Which way
do you go — hearts or spades? Let’s say
you choose the spades route, which at
least looks like a paved road, while opt-
ing for hearts look suspiciously like you
might need four-wheel drive and good
suspension.
After you bid 4♠, partner checks for
controls and, as fast as it takes you to get
to the bottom of your driveway, there you
are in 6♠. The lead is the ♥10, and this
is what appears in front of you:
North
♠ Q763
♥ Q983
♦ AQ95
♣ 2
South
♠ AKJ8
♥ A764
♦ K
♣ AK108
You win the first trick by playing the ace
on the king, which had covered the queen
which had covered the ten. The cover
play — nice start. Then you cash the ace
of trumps for a little look-see, only to
discover that LHO has all five missing
trumps. This is like checking your blind
21
spot and having someone in the car be-
side you show you their middle finger.
Nice feeling, eh?
So much for spades as the better
trump suit. Oh well, you’re not down
yet, and just think: if you were in six
hearts you would have gone down on a
spade lead. The key now is not to give up
just because you appear to have blown a
tire .... keep truckin’. You might find a
way to limp home provided you don’t
throw in the towel and call CAA, which,
sadly, is what I did.
Try this : cash the ♦K, then cash
the ♣AK and ruff a club with the ♠6
while LHO follows to all three rounds.
Now cash the ♦AQ throwing hearts from
your hand: LHO follows to all three dia-
mond plays. Now ruff the ♦9 in hand
with the jack of trumps, and let’s say
LHO pitches her heart, coming down to
four trumps. Here is the four-card end-
ing:
North
♠ Q7
♥ 98
♦ —
♣ —
West East
♠ 10954 ♠ —
♥ — ♥ J5
♦ — ♦ J
♣ — ♣ Q
South
♠ K8
♥ 7
♦ —
♣ 10
Now play the ♣10, and watch LHO
choose her poison. Ruffing in with the
four or five allows you to score the ♠7,
and you have two more tricks coming by
Canadian Master Point
power. But if she ruffs in with the nine
or ten, you overruff with the queen and
exit a heart. When LHO is forced to win
this trick she is endplayed in trumps.
Neat, eh?
So I went down in a cold contract,
right? Well, not actually, although in real
life this line gave me a great chance of
making it. Let’s go back to that turning
point where you play a diamond from the
board and ruff with the ♠J. LHO has a
chance now to make a spectacular defen-
sive play — something akin to choosing
the lane that actually moves during rush
hour. Instead of pitching her last heart,
she underruffs! Here is the four-card end-
ing after this play:
North
♠ Q7
♥ 98
♦ —
♣ —
West East
♠ 1095 ♠ —
♥ 2 ♥ J5
♦ — ♦ J
♣ — ♣ Q
South
♠ K8
♥ 7
♦ —
♣ 10
Now what can you do? Nothing — her
lane change just cut you off. If you lead
out the ♣10 now, LHO trumps in with the
nine, and you overruff as before. But
now when you lead a heart from dummy,
East wins it, and West still has to score a
trump trick. There is no way through the
traffic, once LHO underruffs on the dia-
mond trick.
This hand actually turned out to be
 North a push, but it provided an opportunity for
♠ Q763 the declarer at each table to shine. This
♥ Q983 was the complete deal:
At the other table our opponents reached
♦ AQ95 6 ♥ from the North side, and having
♣ 2 avoided the spade ruffs, declarer had to
play the trumps for one loser. Can you
West East see how to do this as the cards lie?
♠ 109542 ♠ — The answer is to intrafinesse: start
♥ 102 ♥ KJ5 with a low heart and play the nine when
♦ 872 ♦ J10654 West follows small. Later run the queen
♣ J94 ♣ Q8653 through East, pinning West’s doubleton
ten. Ah, the intrafinesse — it’s like
South sneaking off with your parents’ car.
♠ AKJ8 Great when you get away with it, but hell
to pay when you don’t.
♥ A764 Like I said — scary.
♦ K
♣ AK108

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpontpress.com
Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and
more.
www.masteringbridge.com
Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material
for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.
www.ebooksbridge.com
Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.
www.bridgeblogging.com
Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.
 Bridge cryptic by “Griffin”
THEME: The four unclued words have something in common,
which is left to the solver to discern. The eight unchecked let-
ters in the theme words may be rearranged to form the phrase
VIP NOT IN. All bridge terms can be found in The
Encyclopedia of Bridge. As is usually the case with cryptic
crosswords, punctuation is inserted with intent to decieve, and
should generally be ignored. The completed grid may be
found on page 42.

Canadian Master Point

ACROSS
1. Persian poet? Quiet! It’s not fair to a star player (4,6)
7. Rules? South follows the code (4)
9. and 14. I cover, I hear — that’s right! (6)
10. Bid like royalty? (6)
11. Avail oneself of practice (3)
12. First to play a club? Not even close (4)
13. When West leaves, a layer is left (3)
14. see 9
15. Get out of bed — with honour? (4)
16. Throw can be won or lost — it’s arguable (4)
17. Gives us airs out in the country (6)
21. Get Sid out and about — after all, it’s a small apartment (5)
23. Recoils from a foot (5)
25. Squeeze out of its shell? (6)
26. You find points missing from these juniors (6)
29. East sat in the wrong direction — classic! (4)
30. Theme word
31. I hear we can drink — it’s a swinging place (3)
33. Posed test initially (3)
35. Take the plunge if the colours are right? (4)
36. In true love — regret (3)
37. Al’s bid is confusing — like his off-the-cuff remarks (6)
38. Baseball stat, initially (3)
39. Regretful miss is too confused without a ring (4)
40. Theme word

DOWN
2. Like a bad suit — could be several of them (6)
3. Show support for partner’s salary increase? (5)
4. Theme word
5. Bullets usually take two hands (6)
6. A touch of experience (4)
7. Doubtless defenders don’t (4,5)
8. Without an honour, even your lawyer wouldn’t recommend continuing (4,4)
18. Sports equipment found in player’s kitbag (3)
19. French ace sits South,the fool! (3)
20. Idle cards held by French East? On the contrary, they’ll play for
several tricks (20)
22. Princess comes on tough in her area (8)
23. Theme word
24. Christopher’s outfit when he was small? (3)
27. Could the nun see bananas when hidden? (6)
28. Cry like a baby over a little mistake (6)
30. Break apart a small bottle (5)
32. In the corner, I caught a glimpse of Mr Kokish (4)
34. The end of the story? (4)

July 1996 25
 Tricks from the air
prakash j .
T he Indian team
has been se-
lected for the Bridge
Olympiad. It is
Jaggy Shivdasani,
Santanu Ghose,
J.M. Shah, K.R.
Venka-taraman,
Arvind Podar, and Rajesh Dalal. They
beat the Formidables (Kiran Nadar, R.
Tewari, R. Bhandari, and Satyanarayana)
by a narrow margin in an eight-­session
128-board final.
The following deals from the earlier
rounds of the trials are rather interesting.
Krishnan
♠ 3
♥ J865
♦ AJ842
♣ 1065
West East
♠ K10852 ♠ 94
♥ A10 ♥ 942
♦ 53 ♦ Q1076
♣ KJ43 ♣ A972
Prabhakaran
♠ AQJ76
♥ KQ73
♦ K9
♣ Q8
This deal came up in the knock-out
quarter-finals while J.P. Goenka’s team
were pitted against Indian Blues. The
Canadian Master Point
para N jape
bidding was simple: South opened 1♠
and the uncontested auction went 1♠-
1NT­-2♥-3♥-4♥. West led the ♥A and
continued with the ♥10.
B. Prabhakaran from Madras, one
of India’s most gifted card players, was
sitting South. He considered the lead and
the play to trick two. Holding A10 of
trumps, West could have opted to wait
for the possibility of getting two tricks in
trumps. He didn’t, so Prabhakaran de-
cided that he probably had a spade stack.
Moreover, after having had a chance to
see the dummy, West would surely have
considered trying to cash club tricks if he
thought that diamonds were friendly for
declarer. He didn’t, and therefore the dia-
monds, too, it seemed to him were un-
likely to break. Prabhakaran backed his
judgment and pursued an amazing line
that lulled the defenders into a fatal error.
Winning the second trick in hand
with ♥K, he immediately played the ♠J!
West didn’t cover and Prabhakaran won
that trick. He next ruffed a spade and
entered his hand by playing the ♦A and
♦K in that order. Another spade ruff
followed. East was down to ♦Q10, and
♣Axxx and had to make a discard. The
dummy seemed to be dead at that point,
and a lazy East let go his ♦10.
That was the end of the defence.
Prabhakaran came to his hand by ruff-
ing out East’s ♦Q (establishing the dia-
monds in dummy), and played his last
trump discarding a diamond from the
dummy. West had to keep both his
spades, so had to discard a club coming
down to bare ♣KJ . The four-card end-
ing was :
 North North opened 1♣ (Precision), East
passed, and I chose the negative 1♦ re-
♠ —
sponse. West passed, and North bid 1♠.
♥ — East now came alive with a take-out
♦ 8 double. Judging that my high cards
♣ 1065 were now working, I simply bid 3NT,
which became the final contract.
West East West led the ♦8, I covered with the
♠ K10 ♠ — ♦J, and the trick went to East’s ace. East
♥ — ♥ — duly switched to a club. I now played
the ♠K, which held, and then the ♠Q.
♦ — ♦ —
West was forced to take the ♠A now,
♣ KJ ♣ A972 otherwise I would abandon spades and
take the insurance finesse in diamonds
South
— low to the seven — to score three
♠ AQ diamonds, and two tricks in each of the
♥ — other suits. On this trick East discarded a
♦ — heart; West continued the attack with
♣ Q8 another club. What now? Two club
tricks have been set up for the defenders,
so I can’t afford to concede any other
Now Prabhakaran exited with a small tricks, yet no extra trick is available in
club and the defenders had to surrender. any suit without giving up one!
The second deal is from the I found a neat solution in a true sui-
Sponsored Trials that were held before cide squeeze on East. I led the ♦4 from
the main selection trials. Playing for the dummy, forcing East to split his ♦109.
Monotona team from Mumbai, against Winning with the ♦Q, I exited with a
the Build India team from Bombay, I club. If East won and played the ♥Q
was sitting South on the following deal: without cashing the fourth club, I would
win in dummy, cash the ♠J on which
Deepak Podar East would have to give up his fourth
♠ KQJ65 club, and throw East in with the third
♥ A865 heart to give me two diamond tricks with
♦ J4 my K7.
In practice, East chose to cash his
♣ AK fourth club. I won the subsequent heart
N.K.Gupta Col. Hareesh return in dummy and played the ♠J: East
was squeezed in the reds. A perfect sui-
♠ A10842 ♠ 9 cide squeeze! Notice that cashing the ♠J
♥ 72 ♥ QJ104 early will not work because East-West
♦ 83 ♦ A1095 could manage to create a club entry into
♣ 10843 ♣ QJ72 the West hand and cash the good spade if
they played their spots correctly on the
Paranjape first two club tricks.
♠ 73
♥ K93
♦ KQ762
♣ 965

July 1996 29
 Responsive doubles in
”crowded
“crowded house” auctions
ron bishop
T raditional respon-
sive doubles,
those made ‘in re-
sponse to’ partner’s
simple suit overcall or
takeout double, serve
to keep our side com-
petitive by showing
length, and to some extent values, in suits
that have not yet been bid. I’m sure that
most expert partnerships have agree-
ments as to the level at which their side’s
doubles cease to fit the classical defini-
tion of “responsive” and simply show
values, in the modern style; but I’m also
quite sure that many such pairs have
spent little time discussing what these
doubles actually show.
Few pairs spend as much time on
competitive bidding discussions as they
should. Many pairs play responsive dou-
bles only when the responder has raised
the opening bidder’s suit —
1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - dbl
but some also play a variety of competi-
tive double when the responder makes a
negative double or makes a simple NT
bid. Single-suit showing doubles (some-
times referred to as ‘Snapdragon’ or
‘Fourth suit’) are a variety of responsive
double with a specific goal in mind —
1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - dbl
Responsive doubles seem to work best
when there is sufficient room remaining
between the raise of opener’s suit and the
next level of the overcalled suit. Hence
the auction
1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - dbl
(and its cousins), where the overcall has
July 1996
taken up the most room and where the
raise has used very little, is advantageous
to the overcalling side. Here there is
ample room between the raise and the
next step of partner’s suit. Light new suit
freebids (such as 2♦ or 2♥ here) can be
used since the overcaller has a retreat
point at 2♠ if the new suggestion does
not ‘suit’ his hand (pun intended).
Many partnerships, if they have any
agreement at all, probably have one as to
the length of any unbid major guaranteed
by a 2-level responsive double. Hands
with this required length (usually at least
five cards), that also have sufficient
strength, can make better use of the avail-
able space by making a light freebid in-
stead of doubling.
Problems multiply in those auctions
in which a raise has taken away all of the
available space, leaving no room between
that bid and the next level of overcaller’s
suit. We have come to recognize the spe-
cial problems of these auctions, which
we’ll call the ‘Crowded House’. The
auctions
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - ??
and
1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - ??
are both ‘crowded house’ auctions. We’ll
try to show why traditional responsive
doubles don’t adequately serve their in-
tended purposes and what we can do to
negate the ‘space-consuming’ interfer-
ence. We’ll deal with the other two
Crowded Houses,
1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣ - ??
and
1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - ??
31
in a future article, since those two se-
quences have special problems of their
own (the first with both majors still out-
standing, and the second with the lack of
room between the raise and 2NT, which
is useful as a competitive step).
The auctions under consideration
are:
(1) 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - ??
(2) 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - ??
The structure proposed is as follows:
A. Double is the equivalent of a
non-forcing freebid in the next highest
available suit (spades in (1) and clubs in
(2)). However, if the next action of ad-
vancer (overcaller’s partner) is a conver-
sion back to the overcalled suit at the
3-level, then the double assumes an ad-
ditional use; to show a ‘2 -1/2’ raise of
overcaller’s suit (this raise is somewhere
between a competive raise and an im-
mediate cuebid).
The overcaller (because of the
“zero-room” used by this ‘Double = next
suit’ action) still has the opportunity to
rebid their own suit at the 2-level.
1♦ 1♥ 2♦ dbl
pass 2♥
This generally shows a distaste for the
advancer’s suit as well as additional
length/strength in their own suit. The
overcaller also has the opportunity to
ignore the advancer’s suit and introduce
the fourth suit on their own, if they have
sufficient playability there (and in their
original suit);
1♦ 1♥ 2♦ dbl
pass 3♣
Overcaller can also raise advancer’s
‘known’ suit, by jumping to the 3-level.
1♦ 1♥ 2♦ dbl
pass 3♠
B. 2NT is Lebensohl (basically a
way to make a non-forcing call in the suit
Canadian Master Point
that takes up most room (clubs in (1),
diamonds in (2)).
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2NT
instructs overcaller to bid 3♣
Overcaller can accept the relay if he is
prepared to have the advancer pass the
new denomination with a single-suited
competitive hand. Obviously, the over-
caller can take some other action if inter-
ested in greater developments.
C. The cheapest bid in the next suit
up is the equivalent of the old-fashioned
‘responsive’ double: it’s a two-suited
takeout.
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠
shows spades and clubs
Overcaller has a number of options now.
He can pass or give preference to the
fourth suit; he can rebid his own suit
(natural); he can bid 2NT (natural if
available); he can cue-bid the opponents’
suit (as a general force).
D. With a good hand, double first
(opener never passes) and then convert
their normal response of your ‘known’
suit to the fourth suit (conventionally a
1-round force) or to a cuebid (which es-
tablishes a game-force) — remember that
conversion immediately back to the over-
caller’s suit shows the 2 1/2 raise type.
1♦ 1♥ 2♦ dbl
pass 2♠ pass ??
Now:
3♠ = invitational (6+ card suit)
3♣ = natural (show real spades and
forces 1-round).
3♦ = artificial game-force (shows
spades)
3♥ = the 2 1/2 raise.
E. Direct cue-bids are “limit+”
raises.
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦
F. Jump raises of overcaller’s suit
are preemptive.
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♥
G. To force in the last remaining
suit (the one to which double is not a
transfer), bid that suit at the cheapest
level .
1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♣
H. To make a non-forcing call in the
last remaining suit (see G above): usually
don’t bother, the auction has made you a
loser, (a bad bet). In (1) both the remain-
ing suit (spades) and the opponents’ suit
(diamonds), are higher ranking than
yours and you have no security of a fit. In
(2) the opponents’ suit outranks yours
and you would be propelling the auction
past the 2-level of the overcaller’s suit.
But if you feel that you simply have too
good a suit to be kept out of the auction,
go through 2NT which acts as the
Lebensohl relay (see B. above).
So, weak sequences showing the
‘most-room’ suit are not so much ‘weak’
as they are non-forcing/constructive (the
truly weak 1-suiters are not required to
make a call).
I. Jumps in the third or fourth suits
are fit-showing (that suit plus a fit for the
overcalled suit) .
J. A jump in the opponents’ suit is
a splinter.
K. A raise is natural and ‘semi-con-
structive’.
Let’s look at the advantages of these new
methods compared to the old, standard
way of using responsive doubles. These
mechanisms have enabled us to continue
to compete without losing any of the ad-
vantages of regular responsive doubles,
July 1996
while at the same time letting us intro-
duce the most difficult new suit (the one
immediately above partner’s suit) with-
out much danger. Our substitution of the
two-suited limited free-bid for the old
double has given us some added flexibil-
ity, while giving the opposition some
added headaches. One of overcaller’s
often-used options is to pass the advancer
in a named (and playable) strain and this
added ‘no need to continue the auction’
non-forcing nature of advancer’s call puts
more strain on the opening bidder.
Immediate actions by opener may rescue
the opposition from a misfit or step his
side into a hornets’ nest. Passing may
give up the competitive edge that the
opening salvo had given to his side, or
put tremendous pressure on the raiser
who may have just scraped together their
initial bid.
Using ‘double’ as a limited free-bid
for the next higher suit in this Crowded
House situation has also given us the in-
creased ability to have the overcaller
rebid their original suit, usually showing
lack of interest in advancer’s suit. The
competitive advantages inherent in this
method are clearly evident. Using 2NT
as a Lebensohl-style relay to show com-
petitive hands in bypassed suits gives up
only the ability to bid a natural and invi-
tational 2NT; however, such hands do not
occur as frequently as one might think.
33
 The art of lying low
ra y jotcham
T h e 1 9 9 6
T o r o n t o
Regional is now his-
tory, and unlike last
year, I don’t have a
bushel of personal
brilliancies to show.
However, there
were some places where lessons could be
learned.
A point that I continually try to im-
press on my students is that one shouldn’t
enter auctions where one has little hope
of buying the contract, and where making
a bid can give away vital information
about the distribution. Many years ago,
playing against one of the editors of this
magazine, I held an eight-card suit
headed by the jack, and stayed silent
throughout the auction. The opponents
reached 6♣, against which I led my suit;
dummy came down with the AQ, and
declarer finessed, losing to partner’s
king. Partner now returned a diamond,
my singleton. Declarer won this, and
attempted to cross to dummy using the
“safe” heart entry — partner ruffed, and
gave me a diamond ruff, and declarer had
just gone two down in a cold slam.
Now cometh the lesson! Be very
careful in the use of the Unusual Notrump
overcall! My first example hand features
Gloria Silverman as declarer in 7♠ on the
following auction:
West North East South
1♣ pass 2♠ Ottawa, now from Pittsburgh) and Roni
2NT 3♠ pass 4NT Gitchel of Pittsburgh, were my team-
pass 5♦ pass 7♠
I may have the end of the auction wrong,
but the final contract and declarer’s play
are both accurate.
July 1996
North
♠ QJ53
♥ 964
♦ A
♣ KQ654
South
♠ AK104
♥ A107
♦ K96
♣ A102
The ♥K was led: Gloria won the ace and
drew trumps, noting that West followed
twice. Since the auction had marked him
with at least ten red cards, the club suit
had become an open book. Declarer ac-
cordingly played a club to the king, and
confidently finessed the club ten on her
way to thirteen tricks.
At my table, after a Schenken 2♣
opening and a 2♦ response, my 2♥ over-
call set up the defence without giving
away too much information about the
distribution. The offense lost its way,
ending up in 6NT: now on a heart lead,
the hand was doomed when declarer mis-
guessed the club suit. An example of a
gift in exchange for a very simple offer-
ing!
A second example arose in the
Swiss Teams. Peter Grover (ex of
mates, and they are not exactly known for
sitting on their cards. On this hand, after
Peter had opened 1♥ as South, West
again chimed with an Unusual 2NT over-
call, after which our heroes drove to a
heart slam without further interruption,
35
 North
♠ A53
♥ Q952
♦ A2
♣ A1097
South
♠ J4
♥ AJ876
♦ KJ109
♣ J8
Peter won the ♣K lead, unblocking the
jack. Now he led the ♥Q, covered by the
king and the ace. The ♦ J was runn
through West, followed by the ♦A. Now
came a heart to the eight, West showing
out, the last trump was drawn, and the
♣Q forced out: claiming twelve tricks.
Notice Peter was able to play the hand as
though he could see all the cards: the
unusual notrump claims another unusual
result.
At the other table, a pass by South
led to an opening 1♣ bid from North.
Now a preemptive 2♠ from yours truly
led to the best lead, and also to a slightly
less than double-dummy line of play: de-
clarer, fearing a trump promotion, played
a heart to the ace early in the hand. Now
ten tricks was the best he could do.
Against Vince Oddy and Nader
Hanna, I failed to open a weak 2♦ (on a
five-card suit!), and on a non-diamond
lead Vince had the timing to make eleven
tricks in 3NT. On the next board, Vince
joked “I’m not making that mistake —
2♦!”. After two passes, I bid 2♠; Gail
raised to 3♠, and I was faced with mak-
ing nine tricks.
(see top of next column)
Vince’s heart lead unfortunately gave
little away. I won in dummy and led a
low spade on which Nader played the ten.
When Vince’s jack fell under queen, I
had a fairly good picture of the distribu-
tion.
A low diamond from my hand was
won by Vince with the king, who exited
Canadian Master Point
North
♠ K872
♥ AK
♦ Q8
♣ J8763
West East
♠ J ♠ A109
♥ Q942 ♥ J10763
♦ KJ9754 ♦ 102
♣ 104 ♣ AQ5
South
♠ Q6543
♥ 85
♦ A63
♣ K92
with another heart. I cashed the ♦Q, and
played a spade: Nader won, cashed the
♠A, and looked gloomily at the dummy.
Obviously he had no diamonds left, and
a heart would present me with a ruff-
sluff.
Eventually, he cashed the ♣A and
led a low club: having no choice, I
ducked this in hand, and when Vince
could produce only the ♣10, claimed my
contract. The position that had really
worried me was the one where Vince had
started with a doubleton ♣Q, and Nader
would led a low club through. I could
endplay Vince by rising with the king and
exiting a club, but only if he were sleepy
enough not to drop his queen under my
king, or if he held exactly ♣Q10. Since
neither possibility seemed to hold out
much hope of success, I was planning
rely on Nader’s holding the queen.
Here, the weak two-bid gave away
too much information: without it, I might
have played anther spade early before
stripping the hand, and made only eight
tricks.
The moral seems to be: make weak
bids only if you have defensive values
outside your suit or suits. (Why do I
write articles like this? They make my
life at the table so much more difficult....)
 Deciphering cyberspace
“ F A ce ” ( colin
More and
more players are
discovering
OKbridge, the 24-
hour Internet bridge
club. At any time
of the day or night
you can play rub-
ber, duplicate, matchpoint or IMP’s.
Team-of-Four games are also available
(but take a little more preparation), and
there are weekly pairs tournaments. With
players like Paul Soloway, Bobby Levin,
and Richard Pavlicek often around, you
can kibitz or play against some of the
best in the world from the comfort of
your own home!
When you log on to OKbridge you
find yourself in the lobby, and are classi-
fied as a ‘lurker’. You are given a list of
the ‘rooms’ available: each room con-
tains one table and usually four or more
players. Beside the table name is listed
the type of scoring being used as well as
a message about the ‘quality’ of the game
and whether more players are needed.
After you join a table (if you don’t
find one to your liking create your own!),
you can take part in the play, kibitz an
individual player, or watch all the play-
ers. This is the unique feature of on-line
bridge which can’t be found in any club:
you can watch all four hands at once.
Usually you will find, however, that
your table is made of people called Fish,
Slammer, Wolfie, and Kraken. Who are
these guys and where are the bridge play-
ers? Well, in a virtual bridge club you
can go by any name you want. So
‘Wolfie’ could be Chuck who always
wins the duplicate game at your local
Canadian Master Point
lee )
club, or he could be Paul from Australia.
Most people using ‘handles’ list their real
name with OKbridge, and you can look it
up, but not everyone does this. Some of
my most memorable games have been
with people I don’t know except as ‘Ace’
or ‘Spoon’. This doesn’t mean that you
can’t use your real name on OKbridge.
There are lots of names like ‘MikeR’ or
‘Rich’, but don’t be surprised to find
yourself surrounded by various inanimate
objects all telling you that it’s your turn
to play!
After you join a table, and take one
of the chairs (so, you hope, do three other
people), it’s time to create a convention
card. The standard system for OKbridge
is the Standard American Yellow Card.
(If you don’t know what this is you can
pick one up at your local bridge club, or
it’s available on OKbridge, but basically
it’s 5-card majors, 15-17 NT, Jacoby
Transfers, and weak 2-bids.) If you don’t
like this, or want to make changes, you
can create your own card and try to get
your partner to agree to play it.
The mechanics of play are just like
any computer card game: double-click
the mouse on the card you want to play,
or click on the bid you want to make.
The OKbridge software will not allow
you to revoke, make an insufficient bid,
or lead out of turn, so a director is rarely
needed: a big improvement. Hesitations,
by the way, should be assumed only at
your own risk since many pauses result
simply from the Internet connection’s
being a little slow.
Inter-player chat is a nice social fea-
ture (although you cannot talk privately
to your partner during a hand, of course).
There are a number of well-used abbre-
viations that you’ll encounter (capitals
are not important):
GLP — Good Luck Partner (when you
put down the “usual” dummy)
TYP — Thank You Partner (always
with enthusiasm — you don’t want
the opponents to know you are going
down)
BBS/BRB — Be Back Soon/Be Right
Back (need to leave the computer for
a second, to get a drink, or the phone,
or just to complain to someone not in
the room! Usually followed by ‘B’
— ‘back’)
THX — Thank You
NP — No Problem
BTW - By The Way (used both at the
beginning of a sentence and at the
end: ‘you could have made that hand,
btw’)
SIT PLS - Sit Please (this means that
you are invited to occupy an open
seat)
SAYC — Standard American Yellow
Card (a common one-word question
to a new partner is: ‘sayc?’)
An important part of the lingo isn’t words
but expressions. How do you show your
emotions? Emoticons!
: ) The standard smile. Also used is
:- )
: ( The standard frown — usually
when something goes wrong
: - D A laughing face
; ) The wink (do you know some-
thing I don’t?)
There are lots and lots more. Generally
with a little imagination you can figure
them all out. And if you don’t know
what something means, just ask. People
on OKbridge are usually happy to help
you if you don’t know what you are
doing.
I don’t know that bridge on the
Internet will replace bridge in the club,
and I truly hope that will never happen,
but if you can’t get out of the house, or
you want to play bridge against some
good players at 3 am, this is a great way
to do it. So log on to OKbridge and play
a couple of hands with Tuna, Frog, Spike,
and me (Face). You’ll be glad you did!
:)

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpontpress.com
Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and
more.
www.masteringbridge.com
Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material
for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.
www.ebooksbridge.com
Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.
www.bridgeblogging.com
Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.
 f o r f u t u r e
Ask the Bridge Doctor
K aren
This is an edited
version of a recent
bridge class on
Compuserve. Karen
Allison’s Bridge
Doctor classes take
place on Sundays at
2 pm.
Last time we discussed a special bid used
with certain distributional hands — the
Unusual Notrump. The other bid of this
type used in the ACBL Yellow Card sys-
tem is the Michaels Cue Bid.
Like UNT, Michaels shows a hand
with a minimum of 5/5 distribution. If
the opening bid is one of a minor, then
the Michaels Cue Bid shows both major
suits. If the opening bid is a major suit,
then the cue bid shows the other major
and an unknown minor. You can find out
which minor suit partner holds by bid-
ding notrumps at the next level (this is
part of the convention). Again, I
strongly recommend that using Michaels
only with two hand types: weak with
goodish suits or very strong with good
suits, where you are inviting game or
slam.
And again, the reason to stick to these
two strengths is that responder needs to
know that if you’ve got a weak hand,
you’ll quit when he bids the one of your
suits that he fits best. and that if you bid
on, you’ve got a very good hand, indeed.
With a normal opening bid, simply over-
call your higher suit first, then bid the
second suit at your next opportunity.
So here are some examples again.
After an opening bid of 1♣, you hold:
♠KJ10xxx ♥Q109xxx ♦ x ♣ —
July 1996
e x pe r t s
A llison
This is a weak hand with two goodish
suits. There’s a very good chance you’ll
find a fit with one or the other suit with
your partner. This is a fine hand (at any
vulnerability) for the Michaels bid of 2♣.
This hand, on the same auction,
♠AKJxx ♥KQJxx ♦ Ax ♣ A
is also a Michaels Cue Bid, of the very
strong hand variety. You’ll cuebid clubs
over whichever major suit partner re-
sponds, showing a game-forcing, slam-
invitational hand.
And with this hand, over 1♣,
♠AKJxx ♥KQ10xx ♦ x ♣ xx
you should overcall 1♠. There’s very
little risk of missing game that way and
next time it’s your turn, you can bid your
heart suit if you like, showing a shapely
hand that’s about an opening bid in
strength. You can see that Unusual
Notrump and Michaels lead to very simi-
lar auctions.
Ken What do you bid if your opponent
opens 1♦ ?
Bridge Dr. If you hold a Michaels hand,
with 5/5 in the majors, which fits our
rules, that is, either very good or very
weak, then you bid 2♦. And that shows
5/5 in the major suits.
Sharon In the example of the strong
hand, do you bid Michaels twice — once
after 1♣ from RHO and again when part-
ner responds in a major?
Bridge Dr. Well, the second time you
cuebid it isn’t ‘Michaels’ (that’s only the
direct cuebid), but it is a cue bid. The
second time, your cue bid shows strength;
the first time it showed the distribution.
So yes, you cuebid twice, but each cue
41
bid has a different meaning.
Richard Do you cuebid twice with 16
points or what is the lower limit?
Bridge Dr. Once you decide the hand is
one of the ‘good’ variety, you make some
second bid. With only 16, I would likely
treat it as a good hand, but not forcing.
Here’s an example — my opponent
opens 1♣ and I hold:
♠AKJxx ♥AKJxx ♦ xx ♣ x
I’d treat this hand as a minimum strong
Michaels. And after partner responded in
his better major, I’d raise to three, show-
ing a good hand, but not a forcing one.
With anything less, I would simply bid
1♠ over 1♣. and later bid hearts.
The second part of Michaels is the
cue bid of a major suit, which also shows
5/5 distribution. When you cuebid a
major suit, you’re showing 5/5 with the
other major and an unknown minor
As responder, you can simply ‘choose’
the major by bidding it or find out which
minor partner holds by bidding 2NT.
(For now, I’m assuming responder has
some indeterminate weakish hand that
doesn’t want to jump in a suit or invite
game).
So, if the auction had gone
1♠ - 2♠ - pass - ?
to me and my hand were:
♠xxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ Jxxx
I would now bid 2NT, telling partner that
I didn’t like hearts and asking him to bid
his minor suit, intending to play right
there. Suppose I held instead:
♠xxx ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ Kxxxx
If partner rebid 3♦, I’d pass, but if part-
ner bid 3♣, I would raise to four.
Remember that there’s some safety at the
four level when you have a ten-card fit
with decent suits. Either you may be
making it or your opponents may well
have a good fit and be making some con-
tract themselves.
Canadian Master Point
Don What do you respond to Michaels
without support for the majors and little
or moderate strength in the minors?
Bridge Dr. Well, if you’ve got three
cards in a major, you simply bid it. With
2/2, like this
♠xx ♥ xx ♦ Axxx ♣ Kxxxx
bid 2♥; even with fewer cards, you have
to grit your teeth and bid a major.
If you’ve got a zillion of the other
minor, bid it and partner will leave you
alone. If the cue bid is over a major suit
and you can’t stand the other major, then
bid 2NT and let partner struggle at three
of his best minor. Sometimes you won’t
have a good fit: that’s why I recommend
you only use these bids when your suits
are goodish. You may have to play a
contract with inadequate numbers of
trumps; at least they should be good ones.
Finally — when partner makes a dis-
tributional overcall, an Unusual Notrump
or Michaels Cue Bid, and you’ve got a
good fit in his suit, raise the level!
You’ve got a fit and your opponents may
not yet have found theirs or know how
high to bid. If you’ve got five cards or
more in one of partner’s suits, make it as
tough as possible for the opponents. It’s
a good bridge maxim that Points don’t
take tricks, fits take tricks. So when
you’ve found your side’s fit, bid ‘em up!
Bridge Cryptic Solution
from page 24
 f o r f u t u r e
Kicking the Habit
barbara
N o, this is not a
thinly disguised
attempt at getting
bridge players to
give up bad habits
but rather a look into
some of those
quirky habits or rou-
tines we all fall into
when we get cards in our hands. For
many bridge players, the worst moment
of any session is not when you have to
confess that you were a few points shy of
your bid, or when you forget to cash the
setting trick in a redoubled contract, but
rather when LHO places a card face up
on the table and the penny drops — you
have to play the hand! The fate of
Western civilization seems to hang in the
balance as the world waits for you to call
a card from dummy. And the director has
called the round. Yes, the pressures are
enormous, but by cultivating a few good
habits as declarer, the ‘p’ word in your
declarer’s vocabulary will soon stand for
‘plan in peace’, not for ‘panic’.
Let’s start with a self-help quiz on
some of the common declarer bad habits:
1. When dummy comes down, you
(a) thank partner and then immediately
call a card
(b) immediately call a card (who has
time for civility?)
(c) panic and then call the wrong card
(d) analyze the lead, count your losers
(or winners in notrump), develop a
plan for disposing of those losers
(or develop the tricks needed) and
then call a card
If you picked (a), at least you have devel-
July 1996
e x pe r t s
seagram
oped good manners. Never let partner (or
particularly the opponents) know that
dummy is not exactly what you expected,
or more than you could possibly have
hoped for, or anywhere in between. If
you picked (b), see (a). If you picked (c),
you must have skipped the first para-
graph. But if you picked (d), then you
have developed one of the best habits a
declarer can get into — never play too
quickly at Trick 1.
This is your chance as declarer to
map out your strategy and figure out what
needs to be done and when. Far too
many players have fallen into the lamen-
table habit of winning the first trick in
haste and repenting at leisure. Reviewing
the bidding, doing a short analysis of the
lead, and planning out the hand can all be
done (especially if you practise) in a few
moments. Those few moments of plan-
ning before you play to the first trick will
save you the time lost to agonizing hud-
dles as you realize you’ve botched the
play because you didn’t think earlier!
2. When dummy appears, are you
(a) inquisitive?
(b) depressed?
(c) panic-stricken?
(d) some but not all of the above?
If you picked anything but (a), start read-
ing this article again! Remember, as
declarer you get to see and manage half
the cards in the deck! You know exactly
where your strengths and weaknesses are
and have, at least in theory, an easier task
to make best use of those resources than
do the defenders, who can only see thir-
teen of their side’s cards.
When dummy appears, count the
45
high card points held in your hand and You have enough hints from the
dummy’s. Subtract this total from 40 and first few questions to know that the an-
you have the total point count for the op- swer to this one is (b). Always know
ponents. Your next step is to figure out what you plan to do at Trick 2 before you
where the missing points are likely to be play to Trick 1. What suit do you plan to
and/or where you need them to be! tackle next? Do you have to be in hand
Sometimes the only way a hand can be or in dummy? Do you have a choice?
made is if you make some assumptions And never underestimate the importance
and play for them. And don’t forget to of getting the hand off on the right foot,
make a short analysis of the opening lead: so to speak. Fred Karpin, an expert
player and noted writer, devoted an entire
What does it show?
book, Bridge Strategy at Trick One, to
The lead of a queen usually promises
showing how the correct play at the be-
the jack, for example.
ginning sets the tone for the hand and
What does it deny? often determine its outcome! So make
Similarly, leading the queen denies sure you know exactly what your tactics
the king. Leading a low card usually are when you set out and you won’t go
denies having a strong sequence, such far wrong!
as KQ or AK]. Next time, I’ll review some of the
common techniques that should be in
Why did the opponents lead that suit?
every declarer’s repertoire. But for now,
If, for example, leader’s partner has
when dummy appears, take a deep breath
overcalled, and leader fails to lead
instead of grabbing the first trick. You’ll
that suit, ask yourself why. If they
be more relaxed and well on your way to
lead a trump, what are they protect-
kicking some of declarer’s worst habits!
ing? “Why did West not lead a heart
— both the ace and king are missing.
Gee, I guess he can’t have them
both.” And so on.
In analyzing the lead, don’t forget to in-
clude a review of the bidding — ask
yourself questions like “Hmm, West
passed East’s opening bid but has led the
DA. Can’t have much more than another
jack.” This will often help you place key
cards, as the bidding may suggest that the
missing honours are in a particular hand
and that changed context may influence
you to handle finesse situations differ-
ently than by making the recommended
“textbook” play.

3. When you play to Trick 1, do you

(a) have no clue what to do next?
(b) have a clear idea of what to do
next?
(c) have a vague idea, depending on
what happens at Trick One?
(d) have a nervous fit?

Canadian Master Point

 Review
Counting at
Bridge (Mike
Lawrence — soft-
ware by Fred
Gitelman). Win-
dows 3.1 or better,
and 3Mb of disk
space. (Bridge Base
Inc.) Can$ 49.95.
Reviewed by Ray Lee.
T here is a prevailing wisdom that the
printed book is history, and that read-
ing material will soon reach us solely
through computer screens. Perhaps, but in
my view we have yet to see the new media
offering significant advantages over print
in most instances. Counting at Bridge,
however, is an interesting attempt to use
the strengths of the computer to go a step
or two beyond the print medium, in that the
authors of this software package have tried
to create an “interactive bridge book”.
We’ll come back to that “interactivity” a
little later.
First, it’s important to understand that
this is not a “talking book” — one intended
for print and simply moved to the com-
puter screen page-for-page. This is origi-
nal material specially written by Mike
Lawrence in the full knowledge of the ca-
pabilities of the software engine and the
user interface.
As you page through the hundred or
so deals, it feels very much like an indi-
vidual bridge lesson with Lawrence. At
various stages of the bidding and play, he
asks the user to select the next bid or play,
or to draw conclusions about the distribu-
tion of suits or high cards. The correct
answer is carefully explained, with the rea-
soning laid out. I especially liked the dis-
cussions around opening leads: not only is
the right answer explained in each case,
but the reasons why alternatives are not as
good are also given.
48 Canadian Master Point
As one would expect from an author
of Lawrence’s ability and experience, the
lessons are well-chosen and sequenced.
Novice and intermediate players will find
much of interest here, as they discover how
simply counting out the hand, as declarer
or defender, can often turn guesses into
certainties, and failures into successes.
The interface will be familiar to any-
one who has used Fred Gitelman’s excel-
lent Bridge Master declarer-play software
(not to be confused with the Capstone
package of the same name), although it has
been refined and improved for the port to
Windows. The user is offered a great deal
of environmental control (colours, card
display, and so on) and, as always, the on-
screen instructions are easy to follow. As
the hand plays out, you watch a “bridge
movie”, where the cards are played and
removed, making it easy for less experi-
enced players to follow. You can work
through the hands in sequence, or go from
the “Contents” page directly to any par-
ticular deal — although they are unhelp-
fully labelled only by number, which
makes it hard to find any one hand.
Back to the “interactivity” issue. This
essentially consists of being asked to an-
swer questions at various stages of each
hand; the wrong answer leads nowhere, but
pushing the “right” button lets you move
to the next screen and the explanation.
Thus you have a forced pause for reflec-
tion, but unlike in Bridge Master itself,
there is no opportunity to pursue alterna-
tive lines and discover for yourself why
they don’t work, as opposed just to being
told “Incorrect”.
In summary, I think this is a step up
from a printed book, although the step
comes at a not insignificant cost premium.
Developing players will find it useful and
interesting, and an exciting and easy way
to learn.