Bridge Today • June 2003 page 1

June 2003

ß
˙
∂
ç

Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

In this issue:

Vanderbilt Memories
Follow the thought processes of Barnet Shenkin as he replays
hands from this year’s Vanderbilt Teams — hands that are still
keeping him up at night. Page 11.

Features

2 Viewpoint 19 The Cave Team Quiz

3 Lonely Hearts 25 The Tell Principle

by Pamela Granovetter by Steve Bloom

6 Kantar’s Korner 32 Hand of the Month

9 The Pairs Game 33 May Tournament Results

by Martin Hoffman
34 Between Sessions:
17 Why I Lose at Bridge Recipes for Success
by Barry Rigal

ALERT: Please do not e-mail this e-mag to anyone. Much time, energy and money was spent to produce this
product, and most people can afford to pay for it. If you would like someone to see an issue, please contact
us with his email address (write to matt@bridgetoday.com) and we’ll gladly pass on a sample excerpt. Sub-
scriptions are $33 per year for 12 monthly issues. Thank you!
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 2

Viewpoint

W e’ve often heard the question: How many points does it take to make
game? Usually the discussion centers on three notrump, and whether
there are good spot cards in the hands or a long suit. Mad scientists try to add
a half point here for a ten spot or subtract a quarter there for 4-3-3-3 shape.
And we all love to ponder over those 23-, 24-point games (like in our “Lite 3NT
Forum”) and see if a defender could somehow have done better. But ...

Has anybody ever considered how many points it takes my mother to make
game? My mom, bless her, is 80 years old and plays bridge practically every day
of the week. But it still usually takes her about 27 or 28 points to make game.
And I don’t want to tell you how many points her partner needs to do it!

Come to think of it, when I started playing, it took me at least 26 points, in

high cards. This may be the reason that beginners are generally taught by
teachers who are not star players. The star players are perfectionists. They
can’t conceive of missing a game if it’s possible to make it. They can’t bear the
thought! Lesser mortals, however, understand that beginners enjoy making a
contract, even if it’s not the best score in town. Perhaps too many expert ideas
are passed down to intermediates and beginners. For example, the 1NT
opening for beginners should, I think, be 16-18, not 15-17. For the reason
stated. And the opening bid should start at 13, not 12.

We’re thinking about things like this because we’re putting the final
touches on a new beginners’ course for people who have never seen a playing
card! It’s a user-friendly course with cartoon characters (the teacher is a young
lady called “Bridget O’Day”) and interactive quizzes at the end of each lesson.
It’s designed for people to learn bridge during their lunch breaks on the
Internet. It’s free at the new Bridgetoday.com, to be launched this summer.

In addition, our friend Sandy Trent (of the famous Trent weak twos) has
been working on a new series of weekly novice columns for Bridgetoday.com,
in which she’s actually focusing on getting the students to think. (Revolution-
ary.) For example, she gives two hands and compares them:
ß A x x ˙ K Q x x ∂ J x ç Q 10 x x and ß A x x ˙ K Q x x ∂ x x ç Q J 10 x.
Both have 12 points. The second hand is much better, isn’t it? Sandy is
teaching her beginner students to evaluate their cards. (I’m personally looking
forward to Sandy’s columns myself!)

Readers, could you please help? We’re looking for suggestions on how to
advertise our new beginners’s course, and Sandy’s great lessons, to people on
the Internet who don’t yet play bridge (without resorting to spam email). We
very much look forward to your suggestions for promoting the game of bridge
into a popular past-time once again! — the Editor
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 3

Lonely Hearts
by Pamela Granovetter

Are today’s players treating the heart suit unkindly?

Recently I kibitzed a very strange set of Notice that East failed to bid hearts over
bridge hands during an OKbridge set game. West’s 2ß bid, and instead jumped to four
Here are the real-life hands (from a single spades. The popular idea that once you find
OKbridge session!) that I found most dis- a fit, you should never bid a second suit
heartening. because it tells the opponents too much
about your hand, sounds good in theory,
Hand #1 North but it’s flawed.
North dealer ß8
All vul ˙94 Although I wholeheartedly agree with
∂ A Q 10 2 making life difficult for the opponents, it is
ç875432 obvious that concealing your hand from the
West East opponents means you conceal it from part-
ß975 ß A K 10 3 2 ner too, so you consequently miss the best
˙K8632 ˙ A Q J 10 5 spot from time to time. For example, you
∂K43 ∂5 reach 5-3 fits instead of 4-4’s (or 5-3’s in-
ç Q 10 çK6 stead of 5-5’s!), and the 5-3’s often score one
South trick less — sometimes the game-going trick!
ßQJ64
˙7 In sum, it is my heartfelt opinion that
∂J9876 this is a poor strategy. I like to reach the
çAJ9 right spot even if the opponents find out
something about my hand. On this occa-
West North East South sion, East was punished by the heartrending
— pass 1ß pass 4-1 spade split, and went minus 100 instead
2ß pass 4ß (all pass) of plus 620.

Opening lead: ˙7 Result: Down 1 North-South must have been heartbro-

Score: -100 Points: -1.88 ken to win less than 2 imps on this board!
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 4

Hand #2 North Once again, East suppressed the heart

South dealer ß73 suit and this time he paid more. The heart
None vul ˙ 10 2 of the matter is that East-West were using
∂ K 10 4 2 Drury. East reasoned that if West couldn’t
çQ6532 bid 2ç, there was probably no game. What
West East East failed to consider was that having
ßJ84 ßAK652 hearts as a second suit is worth more than
˙AK63 ˙QJ95 having a four-card minor on the side, be-
∂J ∂875 cause finding a 4-4 or 5-4 heart fit can
ç 10 9 8 7 4 çA produce a thin game, whereas the same
South can’t be said of a minor-suit fit.
ß Q 10 9
˙874
∂AQ963
çKJ

South West North East

pass pass pass 1ß
pass 2ß (all pass)

Opening lead: ˙7 Result: Made 5

Score: +200 Points: -3.61

Hand #3 North By now West was beginning to feel a

West dealer ß62 little heartsick. Yet again, East would not
All vul ˙A32 bid those hearts....
∂J76
çK7652 The auction should go:
West East
ßQ95 ß A K J 10 4 3 West North East South
˙ K 10 7 5 ˙QJ84 pass pass 1ß pass
∂A853 ∂ K Q 10 2ç pass 2˙ pass
ç J 10 ç— 3˙ pass 4∂ pass
South 5∂ pass 6 ˙* (all pass)
ß87
˙96 *East knows they are off a heart honor because West
∂942 would jump to four hearts over two with AKxx.
çAQ9843
Notice that once again, East-West lost
West North East South very little for missing a great slam. This idea
pass pass 1ß pass of suppressing the heart suit apparently has
2 ç (Drury) pass 4ß (all pass) seeped into the bridge-world consciousness
heart and soul!
Opening lead: ˙9 Result: Made 6
Score: +680 Points: -2.88
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 5

Hand #4 North This time East bid his hearts, which is

North dealer ß973 heartening, but perhaps it was only because
All vul ˙965 he did not yet know about the spade fit.
∂ Q 10 4 However, he didn’t show a five-card suit
ç A 10 6 5 with the 3˙ bid, so West proceeded to
West East complete the description of her hand (three-
ßJ64 ß A K 10 5 2 card limit raise). Now East bid Blackwood,
˙Q74 ˙AK832 found an ace, and lightheartedly jumped to
∂A9853 ∂K6 slam. But, alas, he bid the wrong slam and
çKQ çJ ended with the heartbreak of defeat when
South the ßQ was offside. The correct bid over
ßQ8 5∂ is six hearts, offering partner a choice.
˙ J 10
∂J72 Neither slam is great but 6˙ is better,
ç987432 because 6ß requires the ßQ singleton in
either hand or onside doubleton or third,
West North East South whereas in 6˙ declarer can bang down the
— pass 1ß pass ßA-K and try to set up diamonds (discard-
1 NT (forcing) pass 3˙ pass ing spades on two diamonds and a club).
4 ß (limit raise) pass 4 NT pass
5∂ pass 6ß (all pass) Fate was particularly cold-hearted on this
day; after all, West didn’t have to hold such
Opening lead: ç4 Result: Down 1 good heart support every time, did she? And
Score: -100 Points: -7.67 if all this wasn’t bad enough . . .

Hand #5 North
West dealer ßA8
N-S vul ˙ 10 7 6 4
∂K74
çAJ97
West East Opening lead: ç4 Result: Made 4
ß973 ß652 Score: -630 Points: -9.30
˙AJ83 ˙K
∂A852 ∂Q963 This time it was South’s turn to suppress
ç53 ç 10 8 6 4 2 the hearts. But this time it was right not to
South bid that unhearty suit. The South hand
ß K Q J 10 4 screams for a notrump contract (no single-
˙Q952 ton, no aces). The North, South and West
∂ J 10 players realized why North-South scored so
çKQ well. Only East was surprised to lose 9.30
imps, because from his point of view hearts
West North East South were not a consideration.
pass pass pass 1ß
pass 2 NT pass 3 NT
(all pass)
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 6

Kantar’s Korner
by Eddie Kantar

“What does this mean?”

— the eternal question!

What does this sequence mean to you? The bottom line: Even a bad agreement is
better than no agreement. If you just knew
You what 4∂ meant, whether or not you liked
South West North East the way you were playing, look how much
1ç 3∂ 4∂ pass better off you would be.
? *****
Tim Bourke sends this play problem
If you haven’t discussed this one with featuring his beloved weak notrump, Tim
your partner, it’s a disaster waiting to hap- at the helm:
pen. Is this a cuebid for clubs, or a two-
suited takeout for the majors? South dealer North
N-S vul ßA5
This is your hand by the way: ˙AK42
ß A x x ˙ Q x ∂ A K x ç K Q x x x. ∂A985
ç876
The player who held this hand leaped to ç 10
6ç only to find partner with: South (Tim)
ß K 10 x x x ˙ K 10 9 x x x ∂ x ç x. ßKJ74
˙Q86
It could be argued that North might ∂KJ2
have responded 3˙ or even 3ß, intending çQJ3
to rebid 4˙, or possibly have made a nega-
tive double (which risks you passing). Or it South West North East
could be argued that you should make a 1 NT 2 ç* 3 ç (Stayman) pass
safety bid of 4ß; if partner has the majors, 3ß pass 3 NT (all pass)
you are OK, and if partner plays it as a
cuebid for clubs, you are OK. A safety bid *clubs and another
works out fine with this hand, but what if
you had: ß A ˙ x x x x ∂ A x x ç A x x x x. West leads the ç10 and East follows with
Now 4ß is not exactly the best contract. the 4. Plan the play.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 7

Solution

Contract: 3NT North Tim won the opening lead and tested
Lead: ç10 ßA5 hearts to get an idea of West’s second suit.
˙AK42 When West turned up with a singleton
∂A985 heart, discarding a spade and a diamond on
ç876 the winning hearts, Tim exited dummy
West East with a club. West, who started with five
ß Q 10 9 3 ß862 clubs (did you think I would have heard
˙7 ˙ J 10 9 5 3 about this hand if West started with six
∂ Q 10 3 ∂764 clubs?), cashed his four winners but then
ç A K 10 9 2 ç54 had to lead into one of Tim’s waiting K-J
South (Tim) combinations for the ninth trick sans fi-
ßKJ74 nesse.
˙Q86
∂KJ2
çQJ3

I do get poignant letters.
Here’s one from an ACBL
member, David Shaw. He
doesn’t tell me the vulnerability
or the form of scoring, but it really doesn’t
matter. David is looking at “only:”
ß A 2 ˙ A K 2 ∂ A J 5 ç A Q 7 6 5.
He hears his LHO open 2∂ (weak) and
his partner overcall 2ß. Figuring his part-
ner for decent spades along with the çK
and the ˙Q, he counts 14 tricks and bids
7NT. The opening lead is the ∂K and
dummy comes down:
North
ß K Q J 10 9 8 3
˙J53
∂73
ç2
∂K
South (David)
ßA2
˙AK2
∂AJ5
çAQ765
David noticed that his 14 tricks had
shrunk to 11! How should David play?
David should win the opening lead, cash
the ˙A-K (Vienna Coup style) and run the
spades, reducing all hands to three cards.
Dummy has the ˙J, the ∂7 and the ç2.
David remains with the çA-Q-7. Assuming
West controls diamonds (starting with
K-Q-10-9-8-x) and East has the ˙Q along
with the çK, both defenders have to reduce
to two clubs in order to save their red-suit
guard. Now the club finesse brings in the
last three tricks. David didn’t quite bring
this one in, but wanted to know if partner
had a 2ß bid and what a 3ß overcall
would have meant.
An overcall of a preemptive opening bid
with a preemptive hand is misleading. A
simple overcall of a two-level preempt shows
opening-bid or near opening-bid strength
with a decent five- or six-card suit. A jump
overcall is even stronger. It shows about the
strength of an opening 1NT bid with a
reasonable six or seven-card suit. Overcall-
ing too lightly in this position might en-
courage partner to go all the way to a slam
or even a grand — a makeable grand! There
is no justice.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 8

An amusing side note. If East started saves the ∂8, the ˙Q and the çK and
with the ∂8-x and plays the 8 at trick one West saves three clubs.
to give count, he transfers the diamond *****
menace to West in the end game (after Yvonne Update . . .
South discards both of his diamonds to save
clubs) and opens up the way for a double Not playing in any tournaments lately
squeeze. For example: (silver points, we need you) but improving
all the time, overlooking one minor glitch.
ß K Q J 10 9 8 3
˙J53 Playing at home in a heart contract from
∂73 the short side, Yvonne had the ˙K-x-x
ç2 facing the ˙A-J-10-x-x in dummy. As she
ß76 ß54 cashed the ˙K, the following things hap-
˙87 N ˙ Q 10 9 6 4 pened simultaneously: West (second hand)
W E
∂ K Q 10 9 6 2 S ∂84 played the ˙Q, the telephone rang, some-
çJ98 ç K 10 4 3 one knocked on the door and the micro-
ßA2 wave went off. With all of this happening,
˙AK2 Yvonne had a dyslexic moment. She
∂AJ5 thought she had led the queen and West
çAQ765 had played the king, so she overtook with
the ace! Not to worry, West had falsecarded
If East hangs on to the ∂8, 7NT cannot from Q-x trying to scare Yvonne, so the
be made even with the çK in the box. East hearts still came in for five tricks.

Double Dummy Challenge Solution: Let’s say that South wins the
Who do you like in 4ß on this hand opening lead cheaply, crosses to a diamond
with a trump lead and trump continuation and leads the deuce of clubs. If East plays
whenever the defenders get in? You can bet the 9, South covers, West wins and plays a
on the defenders or declarer.... trump. No good. When East gets in with
the çQ, East doesn’t have a trump to lead,
ßK52 and South can ruff a club in dummy for
˙A542 the tenth trick.
∂AK86 Now let’s say that East plays the çQ at
ç 10 2 trick three. South covers and West wins
ß 10 8 3 ß64 and exits with a trump to South. South
˙ K 10 8 N ˙J9763 crosses to the ˙A, ruffs a heart, returns to
W E the ßK and ruffs another heart, stripping
∂ 10 5 S ∂J932
çAJ864 çQ9 West of hearts. Two more rounds of dia-
ßAQJ97 monds are cashed, ending in either hand,
˙Q and the ç10 is conceded to West’s jack. At
∂Q74 this point West remains with the ç8-6 and
çK753 South the ç7-5. West cannot prevent that
ç7 from being South’s tenth trick. Did you
go with the declarer? Ciao.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 9

The Pair Game

by Martin Hoffman

Choices in declarer play

Here are two hands where there were The other declarer won the lead with the
squeeze chances in hearts and clubs. ace, drew two rounds of trumps and then
played a club. West inserted the ten and
1. Nerves of Steel declarer played the king and continued
East dealer North with the ç9, pitching his losing spade.
None vul ßKQ Eventually he ruffed East’s ßA, so he could
˙ A 10 7 4 pitch his losing hearts on the good spade
∂Q92 and good club to bring home the contract.
çK984
West East Points to Remember
ß976 ß A J 10 8 5 4 3 1. At the first table, declarer needed East
˙J52 ˙K96 to hold the ˙J and West the ˙K, a 25%
∂85 ∂3 chance. If this were the case, East could not
ç Q J 10 7 6 ç53 attack the “frozen” heart suit when he wins
South the ßA. Declarer would then play three
ß2 rounds of clubs, ruffing one, and hope that
˙Q83 West held the ˙K and the high club.
∂ A K J 10 7 6 4
çA2 2. At the second table, declarer needed
West to hold the ç10 (West already was
West North East South certain to hold the çJ). The fact that West
— — 3ß 4∂ led a club rather than his partner’s bid suit
pass 6∂ (all pass) made this chance very likely.

After East opened 3ß at two tables the
contract was 6∂. A spade lead would clearly
doom the contract. At both tables, however,
West led the çQ
The first declarer won in hand and made
his plan accordingly. He would draw
trumps and play a spade, hoping that the
˙K is on his left and the jack on the right.
Since West is marked with a long club suit,
he would eventually be squeezed in hearts
and clubs. Down one.
3. At the second table, West’s only
chance (after the club lead) was to play the
6 or 7 on the second round of clubs. De-
clarer must now put in the 8 or 9 to make
the slam. There’s a chance declarer might
change his mind when West follows low,
and play for the heart-club squeeze. In any
case, West must have nerves of steel to play
low on the second round and declarer must
have nerves of steel to finesse as well!
4. Neither West led his partner’s suit,
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 10

which suggests something interesting about At a fourth table, against 5∂, West led
preempts these days. his singleton club. Declarer won in hand
and drew trumps. Then he gave up a heart,
2. Opening Lead Matters ruffed the spade return and gave up an-
other heart. East got squeezed.
North
ßJ9864 At a fifth table West led his singleton
˙92 club. Declarer won in hand and drew
∂Q3 trumps. Then he gave up a heart. East
çK832 overtook West’s ˙J with the king to lead a
West East second club. When South led another low
ß A K 10 7 2 ßQ53 heart, East won with the ten and played a
˙QJ5 ˙ K 10 4 3 third club to break up the squeeze. But the
∂9842 ∂6 ˙Q fell under the ˙A and South’s ˙8
ç4 ç 10 9 7 6 5 made the last trick! Oh, well.
South
ß— Points to Remember
˙A876 1. When planning a squeeze, don’t lay
∂ A K J 10  7 5 down the ace, losing control of the suit.
çAQJ First lead low ones, if you can.

At only one table the contract was 6∂. 2. When leading against a slam with an
West led the ßA. Declarer ruffed and ace-king combination, it’s usually right to
played ace and another heart. West shifted lead one of them. It’s wrong only when
to a trump, but declarer ruffed a heart in declarer is going to ruff the lead and now
dummy and played off all his trumps. The has the time to set up a ruff in dummy. So
last trump squeezed East in clubs and before you avoid the ace-king lead, make
hearts, so the contract came in. sure the auction indicates that declarer is
void.
At several other tables the contract was
5∂. At one of these tables West began with
a trump lead. Declarer won in hand and
played ace and another heart. West won
and continued with a second trump. The
contract was now doomed.

At a third table the defense to 5∂ also

began with a trump. Declarer won in hand
and played a low heart. West won and
continued with a trump. Declarer now drew
the missing trumps and played another low
heart. West now shifted to a spade, which
declarer ruffed. Declarer played off the rest
of his trumps, squeezing East in hearts and
clubs to bring home the contract.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 11

Vanderbilt Memories
by Barnet Shenkin

The Vanderbilt KO Teams was played in Philadel-

phia this March during the ACBL Spring Nationals.

How did I do in the Vanderbilt? I lost,
which was not exactly unexpected. I was
added to a team with a couple of weeks to
go and with two days to go found Bob Jones
as a partner. The team was: Richard
Pavlicek-Lee Rautenberg, Mike Kamil-
Marty Fleisher. These were two new part-
nerships but Kamil and Fleisher were in
form, coming second in the open pairs at
the start of the tournament. Bob and I had
played a pairs tournament a few years back,
but that’s all.
We were seeded #17 just outside the top
brackets and won our first couple of
matches in some comfort. The third match
we played against Whitman-Baze-Ross, and
Aa-Grotheim from Norway. We took a lead
of over 40 by the half and Terje Aa pro-
duced a nice bid:

West dealer North (Jones) What was I to do? Double with only
N-S vul ßAKQ three hearts and a flat distribution or pass? I
˙852 decided to pass. The contract went down
∂7632 three for minus 150 against a vulnerable
çAJ7 3NT, which was bid at the other table.
West (Grotheim) East (Aa) There North overcalled 2NT, although that
ß J 10 9 7 6 5 ß8 certainly is not clear and could easily go for
˙J6 ˙ Q 10 7 4 3 a number. Anyway, we learned a new
∂Q ∂ J 10 8 4 bridge term: “the invisible trump raise” —
ç K Q 10 6 ç954 no trumps and hardly any points either!
South (Shenkin)
ß432 We held on to win by a reasonable mar-
˙AK9 gin and were not unhappy to learn that the
∂AK95 defending champs and number one seed
ç832 had been eliminated (the Milner team
playing with Sam Lev and four Poles).
Grotheim (West) opened 2ß and Jones Amazingly their losing score was over 100
passed. Now Aa (East) made the obvious imps, so we had to treat our new opponents
call: He bid 3ß. (Jim Foster-Allen Hawkins Jr., Ron and
Linda Smith) with respect.

My wife, Maggie, came in to watch a few

boards and this is what she saw:
Bridge Today • June 2003
I picked up:
ß A Q J 10 7 ˙ A 6 ∂ 8 ç A J 8 3 2.
I bid 1ß. LHO passed and my partner
bid 4˙. Now we had agreed to play 2˙ as
game forcing and 3˙ invitational with
hearts, and 4ç and 4∂ were splinter bids.
But what was 4˙? I was 95 percent sure
this was a splinter bid, too, but I was not
going to bid Roman Keycard Blackwood
and a spade slam, just in case he had hearts.
So I bid 5ç and heard 5∂, which was good,
because now I was able to bid 5˙, a two-
way shot (catering to hearts or a splinter).
Bob raised to 6˙.
Now I had a terrible headache. Was Bob
trying for a grand in spades or did he hold
hearts? I wished I had just raised his 4˙ bid
to 6˙ and been out the auction. Finally, not
wanting to go back to my teammates after
playing in a 2-0 fit, I decided that I would
bid 6ß. After all, I had a decent suit. Lefty
led a diamond and I saw this:
North
ß6
˙ Q J 10 9 8 7 5
∂A75
çK94
∂4
South
ß A Q J 10 7
˙A6
∂8
çAJ832
I nodded wisely, won the ∂A and ran
the ˙Q, which held. Now a trump to the
queen and king. West played another
diamond, which I ruffed. Then I drew the
remaining trumps, which split 4-3, cashed
the ˙A, which brought down the king, and
claimed. At this point my loving wife left
the table, never to return.
page 12
We scored up with our teammates.
“They missed the slam,” they said. “We bid
it,” I replied and that was 13 in.
After this result we were never in danger
and won going away.
The next match we were a big underdog
against Jimmy Cayne-Geir Helgemo, Bobby
Levin-Steve Weinstein, Michael Seamon-
Ron Smith.
Kamil-Fleischer had a dream start, and
when Pavlicek-Rautenberg had done fine
we found ourselves up more than 50 imps.
The next quarter we played Levin-
Weinstein and the last hand of the set was
critical when Bob produced a nice duck in
a slam to stop me from being squeezed:
North
ß K Q 10 2
˙ 10 5 3
∂KQ2
ç986
West (Bob) East (Barnet)
ß65 ßJ874
˙92 ˙J876
∂98653 ∂J
çAJ75 ç 10 4 3 2
South
ßA93
˙AKQ4
∂ A 10 7 4
çKQ
Against 6NT, Bob led a diamond. De-
clarer cashed three diamonds and led a club
to the king. Bob ducked. If he had won,
declarer would later have squeezed me in
the majors. After the duck, South cashed
the last diamond, and I was down to 4-4 in
the majors. But declarer thought I might
hold the çA, and tried to bring home
either major suit for four tricks. Down one.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 13

We picked up some more imps and in North

each of the other quarters gained a few ßQ2
imps to win by 73. ˙J87542
∂KQ
On another hand in this match I had çAK6
this problem when Bob opened 1ß vulner- West
able: ß — ˙ A K x x x x ∂ x ç 9 x x x x x. ß 10 9
˙A963
It went pass by RHO and I had an awk- ∂ J 10 9 7 5
ward bid. I could invite in hearts (3˙) but ç53
then miss a grand slam in clubs. I bid a
forcing notrump and heard 2ç. Now I Jaggy took the ace in hand and thought.
thought if clubs were genuine (not a 3- I now reckoned that one of the other pos-
bagger) we could have a slam. I bid 4∂ and sible leads was the winner. He played a
when partner bid 4ß I saw that my losing high trump from hand and crossed to
diamond would go on the ßA (if they dummy with a second trump. Now a heart
didn’t lead a diamond) and bid a confident to the 10 and king. I won the ace and
6ç. The diamond did go away but unfortu- returned a diamond, taking out an entry.
nately we lost three trump tricks to go down This was the full deal:
2. This was a flat board when Levin-
Weinstein were down 2 in four hearts at ßQ2
the other table! Partner’s hand was: ˙J87542
ß A Q x x x ˙ x x ∂ K J x ç K J x. ∂KQ
The other three club honors were over the çAK6
K-J-x, so nothing made on this hand except ß 10 9 ßKJ8653
2˙ or 3ç. ˙A963 N ˙ 10
W E
∂ J 10 9 7 5 S ∂8632
In the semifinals we played against Mark ç53 ç87
Gordon-Rick Zucker, Wynn Allegaert-Jaggy ßA74
Shivdasani, and Mark Molson-Boris Baron. ˙KQ
∂A4
We took an early lead and then I had ç Q J 10 9 4 2
this opening lead problem, as West:
ß 10 9 ˙ A 9 6 3 ∂ J 10 9 7 5 ç 5 3. Without the hearts breaking he could
discard only one spade on the ˙J and went
Barnet Wynn Bob Jaggy down one. When he tried a “finesse” by
West North East South leading the ßQ, Bob covered that! So we
— — — 1ç gained 13 imps when Kamil-Fleischer
pass 1˙ pass 3ç stopped in game.*
pass 6ç (all pass)

Any suit except clubs was possible. My *The ˙A or the ß¡ would also have beaten the
choice was between the ∂J and the ˙A (to slam. After the ∂J lead, it would have been interest-
try and give partner a ruff). I led the ∂J ing to see what West would do if declarer had led
and saw this dummy: the ˙Q at trick two. — Editor
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 14

Here was another anxious hand from the I decided no harm could be done by
semi-final. I held: bidding 5ç, showing one keycard (we
ß A K J 8 6 5 ˙ J 10 7 ∂ Q ç Q 6 5 played 5ç as 1 or 4, 5∂ as 0 or 3). I was
responding Keycard for clubs. I now saw
Our match was being shown on the 5˙.
Internet when I got another headache.
I was really confused. It was not a queen-
Barnet Bob ask in clubs (5∂ would have been a queen
1ß 2ç ask); perhaps it was a transfer to 5NT. At
2ß 2 NT any rate it is always good to bid 5NT in
3ç 3˙ these situations and let partner make the
3ß 4 NT final mistake. Bob passed quickly. He held:
? ß Q ˙ A K 9 4 ∂ K 10 4 3 ç A K 8 2.

We were playing 2-over-1 game-forcing.
Could 4NT be natural and quantitative or
Keycard Blackwood for clubs or Keycard
Blackwood for spades? We had discussed
4NT as Keycard for the last suit bid, but
did it apply here?
That was 12 easy tricks. He had meant
4NT as Keycard for spades. So what hap-
pened at the other table? Molson and Baron
bid to the obvious contract in the replay —
also 5NT! For a push.

After we were leading by more than 40 have defeated this by leading a diamond
imps, the other team came back a little. and then forcing declarer, but he led his
Then this board came up: singleton club. South made his contract.

North dealer North Baron (South) saw his partner pass and
All vul ß— 3∂ by East, which he doubled. Now West
˙AJ9875 raised to 5∂. Molson bid 5NT with his two-
∂2 suiter. Unfortunately for his team and
çQJ8752 luckily for mine, South now picked spades,
West East bidding 6ß instead of 6ç, which would
ßA7543 ß62 have been a shoe-in. When Kamil led a
˙ 10 2 ˙Q63 diamond he soon had more trumps than
∂J9854 ∂ A K Q 10 7 6 declarer! We won the match by a mere 22
ç4 ç63 imps.
South * * *
ß K Q J 10 9 8
˙K4 Our team had survived a harrowing last
∂3 quarter to reach the final. Out of the frying
ç A K 10 9 pan and into the fire, we had to play the
giants of bridge, the Nickell team (Nick
Pavlicek and Rautenberg reached 4ß Nickell-Dick Freeman, Paul Soloway-Bob
after a 2˙ opening from North, pass from Hamman, and Jeff Meckstroth-Eric
East and a 4ß bid by South. West could Rodwell).
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 15

After a fair first quarter we were up by 3 It was pointed out to me later that if I
imps, but the momentum swung against us had led the ∂J from dummy at trick six,
beginning with this hand. I held, second instead of a third club, East would have
seat, favorable: won and led a club. I would discard my ∂Q
ß 10 9 7 5 4 3 ˙ 8 7 5 ∂ Q 6 2 ç J and West would ruff with the ß7. Now he
can’t make that ß8 and I save a trick.
Meckstroth opened a strong club. Now I
hadn’t traveled 5,000 miles from Scotland In the replay Marty Fleisher (East) and
to give Meckwell a free run! I bid a confi- Mike Kamil (West) bid to 6∂ uncontested:
dent 2ß on my robust suit. It went pass,
pass, double, all pass. Kamil Fleisher
West East
With trepidation I awaited the dummy — 1∂
and wondered what the commentators on 1ß 3ç
VuGraph were saying. Rodwell led the çQ 3∂ 3˙
and I saw . . . 3ß 4ç
5∂ 6∂
East dealer North
E-W vul ßQ6 Dick Freeman (South) led a low spade.
˙9654 Quite reasonably Marty tried the ßJ, hop-
∂J ing for three quick discards. North played
ç K 10 9 7 5 2 the queen and now Marty had no chance
West East when diamonds were not 2-2. I think he
ßAKJ87 ß— took the normal and reasonable line of play.
˙J83 ˙AKQ
∂ 10 6 4 ∂AK9873 Had he guessed to play the ßA-K, drop-
çQ8 çA643 ping the queen, he still would not be home.
South If he continued with the ßJ, playing North
ß 10 9 5 4 3 2 for two or three diamonds, he would go set;
˙ 10 7 2 and this is the indicated play. Instead, he
∂Q52 would have to continue, double-dummy,
çJ with a diamond to the ace and force an
entry to dummy with the ∂10.
Not the dummy of my dreams, but I did
not give up. I covered the club lead with If you choose to play the ßA-K and the
the king. Meckstroth won and cashed three queen does not fall, you must then ruff a
top hearts and played a low club. I threw a spade. If the queen comes down third, you
diamond, and when West followed I won a try the ∂A and ∂9 to the 10. If the ßQ
trick! I played another club pitching a does not come down third, you have an-
second diamond as West ruffed. He cashed other chance. After trying for 2-2 diamonds
the ßA-K and played a diamond. When and seeing they’re 3-1, you eliminate hearts
East won and played a club West had to and play a third diamond. If someone
make two more trumps (I ruffed with the started with exactly 3-3-3-4 or 3-2-3-5
10, and he discarded). So I scored two shape and the çK, he’s endplayed in
trumps and a club for down five, -1100. trumps to lead from the çK.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 16

We lost 16 imps on this board and the
momentum in the match. The other team
as often happens (particularly with their
squad) played both very well and in luck
and were unstoppable.
had no right to be in the final with such a
field filled with talent. Most teams, how-
ever, can now take heart: If you have a little
luck and take most of your tricks, anything
is possible.

So we lost in the final and I am now zero Note to Readers

for three in finals in the USA, but it was a
lot of fun to get there and I would enjoy
nothing more than trying to improve that
statistic. It was very pleasant for our team.
We enjoyed a lot of support from many
well-wishers throughout our wins and
upsets. Perhaps a few others thought we
You may be surprised to see so few good
hands from our team reported here. Of
course, we had them — how else could we
reach the final — but it is my usual style of
writing to show our difficult, or problem,
hands, probably because these are the ones
that haunt me.

We invite you to submit hands to

Bridge Today Forums

The Switch in Time Forum

The Redouble For Fun and Profit Forum

The True Confessions Forum

The Lite 3NT Forum

The Ruffing Air Forum

The Frozen Suit Forum

Ask Dr. Roth

Send by e-mail to:

Matt@bridgetoday.com
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 17

Sports Psychology

Why I Lose at Bridge

by Barry Rigal

First in a three-part guide on how to get the

most from your own game and partner’s

It can be an enjoyable process to dissect make so many errors involving memory? Do

the errors that others have made at the
bridge table, and to explain them away, or
even simply to laugh at them. It is a much
tougher and more painful process to exam-
ine your own mistakes, and try to learn
from them. Only a fool would suggest that
he did not make any mistakes; it must be
sensible to try to identify why errors have
occurred, and try to minimize the chances
of repeating them. In a spirit of unusual
humility, I have set out in this three-part
series some of my most regularly occurring
mistakes — perhaps others can learn from
them too.
The mistakes I shall be examining fall
into three basic categories:
• Errors involving memory and concen-
tration
• Faults of personality and temperament
• Insufficient application of technique
In this issue, we’ll look at errors of
memory. Like all keen players — certainly
everyone who reads this magazine — I
would have no difficulty in remembering a
properly sorted bridge hand, even if shown
it for a very short time. Similarly, the four
cards that make up a trick are easy enough
to recall. So how does it come about that I
any of these errors ring a bell with you?
Errors Involving Memory and Concentration
1. Taking your eye off the ball
Defending a suit contract, do you ever
lead a doubleton with the suit divided like
this?
Dummy
Q 10 9 7
You Partner
53
Declarer
Partner wins the king, and starts to
think. You can tell he cannot be sure that
you have a doubleton, and you are mentally
encouraging him to continue the suit.
Finally he leads the ace, on which declarer
plays the jack, and then he leads the 4, on
which declarer plays the 8. You ruff, but
now you have a problem. Did declarer play
the 6 on the first round (in which case
partner’s 4 is suit-preference for the higher
suit) or the 2, in which case the 4 is his
lower card? You were so busy
concentrating on your partner
giving you a ruff that you did not
notice declarer’s card.
Bridge Today • June 2003
2. Focusing on your own problems to the
exclusion of other issues
As a variation on the previous theme, it
frequently happens to me that I have a
difficult play in a suit to make, and this
requires me to concentrate on my own
cards. For example, we play suit-preference
in trumps, and when I hold two small cards,
I may have to make an almost instanta-
neous decision as to whether to play high-
low or follow up the line. I make my deci-
sion, and before I can do anything more the
trick is turned over, before I have registered
what card my partner played to the trick.
Again, I was concentrating on less important
things, at the cost of missing my partner’s
signals.
In both of these cases you can improve
your chances of memorizing the cards
played, by not allowing any trick to be
turned over too quickly. And always try to
repeat the cards to yourself; the act of
stating the words, even silently, leaves you
with a much better chance of remembering
them.
As a separate action, try to separate the
act of selecting your card from the process
of remembering the other cards played to
the trick. Once you have decided to play a
card, then look at the other cards face up
on the table, and only turn over the trick at
that point.
3. Over-tiring yourself
How often do you find that you play less
well toward the end of an event simply
because you are tired? I find that there are
very few opportunities to relax at the table,
precisely because I refuse to make use of my
best chance to “turn off,” when I am
dummy. I like to follow the hand through
page 18
and to work out the full distributions as
quickly as possible. What this means is that
I generate a few extra possibilities to criti-
cize my partner and the opponents, but
never get a moment to relax at the table.
The remedy is obvious: Close your eyes
as dummy (or leave the table if neither your
partner or the opponents mind) or find
some other way to empty your mind. Make
the most of your time off.
4. Failure to take preparation for an event
seriously enough
Bridge tournaments are fatiguing events,
and major championships can go on for a
fortnight or more. How can you expect to
play well at the start of an event if you
arrive in a time zone six hours different
from your own on the day before the event
begins? And it is not good preparation for a
weekend event to set out on what will be
(with luck) a two-hour drive to the tourna-
ment two-and-a-half hours before starting
time. If you are going to take the event
seriously, respect your body and time-clock
enough to give yourself a chance.
I am not suggesting
staying in shape (those
of you who know me
well will echo this), but
I do think there is a fair amount of logic in
not eating too heavily between sessions, and
restricting alcohol consumption to a sensible
amount. No one plays better with a hang-
over.
In the July Issue, I’ll look at faults of
personality and temperament. See you then.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 19

Cave Team Quiz

by Matthew Granovetter

Here are five problems from last month’s John (Jocko) Roberts Teams, held in Las Vegas.
See if you can find the winning actions.*

1. South dealer North

None vul ßK5
˙ A 10 7
∂8
You lead the ∂Q. Partner encourages
ç K Q 10 7 6 4 2
with the ∂9, declarer winning the king.
West (you)
The ç5 is led to your ace, partner follow-
ßAJ864
ing with the ç3. A two-part question:
˙KJ62
∂QJ4
(A) Do you cash the ∂J or do something
çA
else?
(B) If you do cash it, partner plays the
South West North East
∂5 and declarer the ∂2. What now?
pass 1ß 2ç pass
3ç pass 3˙ pass
3 NT (all pass)

2. South dealer North 3. With no one vul, you hold in fourth

E-W vul ß975 chair:
˙J63 ß A K Q 10 9
∂KQ82 ˙ 10
çA96 ∂ 10 9 6 2
East (you) ç653
˙K ß J 10
˙82 LHO passes and partner opens 1˙. RHO
∂ A 10 9 4 3 bids 1NT. What is your call?
çJ852
Suppose you double. (You have a good
South West North East lead!) Now it goes pass, pass, to the notrump
1ß pass 2ß pass overcaller, who removes to 2ç. What
3ß pass 4ß (all pass) would you do at this point?

Partner leads the ˙K. You lead ace from

ace-king. What is your plan as East? Be
specific. *Thanks to Barry Rigal, who researched these
hands.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 20

4. North dealer 5. East dealer

E-W vul None vul

West (you) West (you)

ß7532 ß87
˙A ˙8
∂65 ∂ A Q J 10 4
ç K Q J 10 6 2 ç J 10 9 5 2

West North East South West North East South

— pass pass 1 NT — — pass 1˙
? ?

(A) What is your call? (A) What is your call?

(B) If you choose to trap pass (are you (B) If you choose to pass, the auction
planning to double 3NT?), the auction continues:
continues:
West North East South
West North East South — — pass 1˙
— pass pass 1 NT pass 1ß pass 1 NT
pass 2∂ pass 2˙ ?
?
What is your call?
What is your call? Will you continue to (C) If you choose to pass again, the auc-
trap pass? tion continues:

West North East South

— — pass 1˙
pass 1ß pass 1 NT
pass 2 ∂* pass 2ß
Congratulations to ?
Fred Gitelman and
Brad Moss, winners *game force, artificial
of the Cavendish
Pairs. What is your call?

We’ll look at some

hands from this
event in the July
issue. The top 10
finishers can be
found on page 33 in
this issue.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 21

Solutions to Cave Team Quiz On the ∂Q lead partner encouraged with

the 9, declarer won the king and led a club
1. South dealer North to your ace. You cash the ∂J and partner
None vul ßK5 follows with the 5, giving count (he can’t
˙ A 10 7 afford to give count with the 7, because you
∂8 might have started with Q-J-10, and he’ll
ç K Q 10 7 6 4 2 need the 7 after overtaking your 10 on the
West (you) East third round). Declarer followed with the 2
ßAJ864 ß97 under the jack. Partner clearly has started
˙KJ62 ˙98543 with five diamonds, because he has denied
∂QJ4 ∂A9753 the 10 with his 9 play at trick one, and if
çA ç3 partner held six diamonds originally, he
South would now play his lowest (remainder
ß Q 10 3 2 count), the 3. So another diamond lead
˙Q (which is what happened in real life) will
∂ K 10 6 2 set up declarer’s ninth trick. A spade lead
çJ985 will give declarer his ninth trick there, so
the only hope is that partner has the ˙Q or
South West North East that declarer’s ˙Q is singleton. Lead the
pass 1ß 2ç pass ˙K ... your dreams come true.
3ç pass 3˙ pass
3 NT (all pass) Perhaps a better defense is to shift to the
∂4 at trick three. Partner can win the ace
and shift to hearts. But will partner know
to do this? Or will he think you have
started with ∂Q-J-6-4? Take credit if you
2. South dealer North shifted to the ∂4, even though partner may
E-W vul ß975 not read it.
˙J63
∂KQ82
çA96 At the table, West, Bjorn Fellenius, led
West East the ˙K. East, Roy Welland, falsecarded
ßK2 ß J 10 with the ˙2. Declarer won and led the ∂J.
˙KQ95 ˙82 Welland won the ace, led back a heart and
∂765 ∂ A 10 9 4 3 received a heart ruff. The ßK was the
çK743 çJ852 setting trick. If you play the ˙8 at trick
South one, declarer is alerted to the heart ruff and
ßAQ8643 may play ßA and a spade, hoping that the
˙ A 10 7 4 club suit is frozen, so that the defenders
∂J cannot attack clubs successfully.
ç Q 10
The ˙2 play at trick one is a reasonably
South West North East safe falsecard, because as East you’re prob-
1ß pass 2ß pass ably the one who is going to win the
3ß pass 4ß (all pass) defense’s next trick (with the ∂A).
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 22

3. North dealer North Zia was West, partnered by Bob

None vul ßJ62 Hamman. He led the ˙10. Declarer took
˙J865 six tricks for minus 300. The double of 2ç
∂K84 is not as strange as it appears. For years, top
çJ97 players have been touting the sound strat-
West East egy of the penalty double of 2ç or 2∂ at
ß A K Q 10 9 ß87 imps. There is a small risk (it’s not game if
˙ 10 ˙KQ942 they make it) and lots of reward.
∂ 10 9 6 2 ∂AQ53
ç653 ç 10 4
South One more interesting point: South would
ß543 have done better sticking it out in 1NT
˙A73 doubled! There he’s minus only 100. Con-
∂J7 sider this next hand from another match
çAKQ82 (below)....

West North East South

— pass 1˙ 1 NT
double pass pass 2ç
double (all pass)

West dealer North

None vul ß542
˙8542
∂K43 Peter Fredin, of Sweden, was South. He
ç843 stuck it out in one notrump doubled. West
West East led the ∂J. Fredin called low from dummy
ßAQ98 ßK63 and East followed low as well.
˙J76 ˙—
∂ J 10 ∂A9762 Yes, they did reach 6ç for +920 at the
ç 10 9 7 6 çAKQJ5 other table to go along with Fredin’s +180
South for 15 imps. No, Zia is not planning to let
ß J 10 7 Fredin take over his position as the most
˙ A K Q 10 9 3 exotic player in the game. At least he hopes
∂Q85 not.
ç2

West North East South

pass pass 1∂ 1 NT
pass pass double (all pass)
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 23

4. North dealer North Bobby Levin’s third seat 1NT opening

E-W vul ßQ6 stole the pot when West made two trap
˙QJ643 passes. Declarer had no chance, with re-
∂ Q 10 9 7 3 peated club plays tapping the dummy. He
ç8 was down one, but meanwhile East-West
West East were on for 650 in 4ß. Perhaps passing
ß7532 ß A J 10 9 8 1NT with six solid and an ace is a good
˙A ˙ 10 9 5 2 idea, in the hope of defending 3NT later (or
∂65 ∂4 3NT doubled, if you want to play a little
ç K Q J 10 6 2 çA54 poker with the opponents, raising the ante).
South But after a transfer, it’s time to act. If West
ßK4 had bid 3ç, East could venture 3ß over
˙K87 North’s 3∂ bid. Of course, North-South
∂AKJ82 now have found their save in 5∂. An
ç973 immediate 3ç bid over 1NT (how prosaic)
is the winner!
West North East South
— pass pass 1 NT
pass 2∂ pass 2˙
pass 3 ∂ (inv.) pass 4˙
(all pass)

5. East dealer North West’s çJ opening lead went to the king.

None vul ß A 10 9 6 4 3 Declarer took a spade finesse. East switched
˙AK9 to a diamond. West won two diamond
∂72 tricks and played a third round, giving a
çA8 ruff-sluff. Declarer didn’t want to ruff it in
West East dummy, because hearts might be 4-1, so he
ß87 ßKQ5 ruffed it in hand. Then he cashed the
˙8 ˙J752 ˙A-K, unblocked the çA, and finessed in
∂ A Q J 10 4 ∂9853 hearts, picking up the trump suit. He was
ç J 10 9 5 2 ç43 left with a club loser, and his last hope was
South a second spade finesse, which lost.
ßJ2
˙ Q 10 6 4 3 If West returns a club instead of giving
∂K6 the ruff-sluff, declarer will surely go down
çKQ76 anyway. To make the hand, he would have
to play for 4-1 trumps. This requires a
West North East South trump coup and a first-round finesse in
— — pass 1˙ hearts. Here’s how. . . .
pass 1ß pass 1 NT
pass 2 ∂ (game force) pass 2ß
pass 3˙ pass 4˙
(all pass)
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 24

In another world: After a club lead, spade finesse, two

rounds of diamonds and a second club lead
5. East dealer North to the ace, declarer leads the ˙9, planning
None vul ß A 10 9 6 4 3 to finesse. East may duck or not, it doesn’t
˙AK9 matter. Next comes a spade to the ace and a
∂72 spade ruff. Then a trump to dummy to run
çA8 spades through East.
West East
ß87 ßKQ5 As it happens, West (Billy Cohen) made a
˙8 ˙J752 good decision not to use the Unusual 2NT,
∂ A Q J 10 4 ∂9853 which would have squealed on his shape.
ç J 10 9 5 2 ç43 Then it is possible for declarer to find the
South trump coup, playing for 4-1 trumps. In fact,
ßJ2 even after West presented declarer with the
˙ Q 10 6 4 3 ruff-suff in diamonds, declarer could have
∂K6 made the contract if he had a clue to the
çKQ76 distribution. But he must ruff the third
diamond in dummy, not in his hand!

North North
ß A 10 9 6 4 ß 10 9 6
˙AK9 ˙K
∂— ∂—
çA ç—
West East West East
ß8 ßK5 ß— ß—
˙8 ˙J752 ˙— ˙J75
∂ J 10 4 ∂98 ∂ 10 4 ∂9
ç 10 9 5 2 ç43 ç 10 9 5 ç—
South South
ß2 ß—
˙ Q 10 6 4 3 ˙ Q 10 6
∂— ∂—
çQ76 çQ

Declarer ruffs the ∂J in dummy with the A spade is led from dummy, and East is
˙9 and discards a club. Then he cashes one caught in the trump coup!
high heart, the ßA and ruffs a spade with
the ˙4. Then he leads a club to the ace.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 25

The Tell Principle

by Steve Bloom

Part 7: Forcing Notrumps

I had an odd dream the other night, a Dave on her left passed, her partner, who
dream that was unusual even by my was completely faceless and genderless, bid
warped standards. (Which is saying a lot. 1NT — “Forcing,” she announced — and
Recently my psychiatrist showed me one of the Dave to her right bid four hearts.
those standard ink smear tests, asking what P/K/L bid four spades, of course, and no
I saw. “Say the first thing that comes to one had anything else to say, although the
mind.” I answered honestly with “A guard first Dave mulled it over a bit.
squeeze.” He doubled my Prozac dosage and
submitted my name to one of the Megan’s He led the ace of hearts, and we saw:
Law Websites devoted to repeat bridge
offenders.) North
ß72
Anyway, in my dream, I was in a vaguely ˙Q6
familiar bridge club kibitzing a world- ∂ K Q 10 8 7 3
renowned expert, though I couldn’t figure çQ42
out who she was. One moment she looked ˙A
like Pam Granovetter, the next she seemed South
to be Kerri Sanborn, then she was Lynn ß A K 10 8 6 3
Deas. ˙—
∂AJ54
Two gentlemen came to her table — çA65
players I also didn’t recognize, even though
they both looked exactly like David South West North East
Berkowitz. Pam/Kerri/Lynn dealt, at favor- 1ß pass 1 NT 4˙
able vulnerability, and picked up: 4ß (all pass)

ß A K 10 8 6 3 ˙ — ∂ A J 5 4 ç A 6 5 East Dave played the ˙3, and declarer

trumped. How would you play the hand at
She opened one spade, naturally. The imps? Matchpoints?
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 26

The main danger to the hand is a 4-1 The only winning line is to duck a trump
trump split, in which case you may lose two immediately. West cannot win without
trumps and two clubs. Indeed, East’s low sacrificing his second trump trick, and East
heart signal — whether intended as attitude cannot attack clubs. When East wins the
or suit-preference — strongly suggests that trump and plays the ˙K, you simply dis-
the çK is poorly situated for you. Consider card. This play looks best to me at imps,
this typical layout: and reasonable at matchpoints, also. De-
clarer can always duck a trump and try to
North judge, from the table action, whether
ß72 trumps are splitting. My expert did duck a
˙Q6 trump at trick two, but no line of play
∂ K Q 10 8 7 3 would help on the actual layout:
çQ42
West East North
ßQ954 ßJ ß72
˙A72 ˙ K J 10 9 8 5 4 3 ˙Q6
∂92 ∂6 ∂ K Q 10 8 7 3
ç 10 9 7 3 çKJ8 çQ42
South West East
ß A K 10 8 6 3 ßQJ954 ß—
˙— ˙A72 ˙ K J 10 9 8 5 4 3
∂AJ54 ∂92 ∂6
çA65 ç973 ç K J 10 8
South
ß A K 10 8 6 3
˙—
∂AJ54
çA65

West held all five trumps. Pam/Kerri/

Lynn played quickly for down two. West,
apparently had been thinking of doubling
The Tell Principle states:
four spades. I wonder why he didn’t.
Conventional calls that
This looked like a pretty good result for
describe, “tell calls,” are more
North-South. East-West can make five
effective than conventional
hearts, and surely some pairs will be
calls that inquire, “ask calls.”
doubled in four spades. Yet, when the
traveler was opened, the board turned out
to be completely flat — minus 100's on
every line. Two pairs were doubled in three
spades, down one. One pair was doubled in
four spades, yet miraculously took nine
tricks. Everyone else played in four spades,
undoubled, down two.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 27

“Ridiculous” muttered P/K/L. “Won’t South West North East

even double with three trump tricks and an 1ß pass 2ç 4˙
ace. The level of bridge is just awful in this ?
clu—”
Interesting bidding problem. I guess that
Before she could bite off the final “b” in I would bid five hearts. I am driving to a
club, the room went hazy, blurry, dream- slam, and showing my void along with the
like. Then it crystallized, with everything a club fit seems right. Sure enough, I saw:
little bit different. I was still kibitzing
P/K/L and faceless. They were still playing South West North East
the Daves, but the clothes were weird, 1ß pass 2ç 4˙
futuristic, like a Jetson-masquerade party. 5˙ pass 5ß pass
The duplicate boards were gone, and the ?
table had a shimmering wave of light run-
ning along both diagonals, and climbing in Now what? Partner has a two-over-one
the air up to the ceiling. There were also with some spade support, but how good are
computer-like consoles hovering in front of the clubs? Should we play in spades or
each player. clubs? I’d bid five notrump now, hoping to
get partner to pick the slam.
Pam/Kerri/Lynn pressed something on
her console, and suddenly the light curtain Yep. My console flashed:
above the table turned completely opaque. I
could no longer see any of the other players. South West North East
Nor could I see the console used by P/K/L 1ß pass 2ç 4˙
— it was too small, and seemed to direct its 5˙ pass 5ß pass
light only at the player. But a console ap- 5 NT pass 6ç pass
peared before me, and I saw:
That’s enough for me, but not for P/K/L.
East-West Vulnerable, South deals, and Her next bid floored me — according to my
holds: ß A K 10 8 6 3 ˙ — ∂ A J 5 4 ç A 6 5. console, she bid seven diamonds!

The Bidding: South West North East

South West North East 1ß pass 2ç 4˙
1ß 5˙ pass 5ß pass
5 NT pass 6ç pass
I’m seeing the same board, I thought, a 7∂ pass pass double
coincidence that might have bothered me (all pass)
in the waking world. My console quickly
recorded bids around the table, Seven diamonds, wow. I’m glad some-
body doubled — I almost doubled myself.
South West North East
1ß pass 2ç My kibitzer console seemed to pick up
my consternation, and flashed:
Two clubs? I guess this isn’t the same
board. Would you like a bidding explanation?
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 28

(YES?) (NO?) slam with his spade void. The opening lead,
the ßQ, was trumped by East, but the hand
I touched (YES?) and immediately saw was not quite the same:

Standard North
ß72
That didn’t help. ˙J65
∂ K Q 10 8 7 3
As if it could read my mind, the screen çQ4
flashed: West East
ßQJ954 ß—
Would you like a fuller explanation? ˙A72 ˙ K Q 10 9 8 4 3
∂96 ∂2
(YES?) (NO?) ç973 ç K J 10 8 2
South
I banged about four times on the (YES?) ß A K 10 8 6 3
and saw: ˙—
∂AJ54
ß A K 10 8 6 3 çA65
˙—
∂AJ54 Pam/Kerri/Lynn claimed for down one,
çA65 -100.

South West North East “Sorry, partner,” said the faceless North.
1ß pass 2ç 4˙ “I should have seen that coming and bid
5˙ pass 5ß pass seven diamonds myself over five notrump.
5 NT pass 6ç pass The grand is cold from my side. I earned
7∂ pass pass double this bottom.”
(all pass)
Yet, when the virtual traveler was
1 ß = natural, at least five spades opened, this was again completely flat, seven
2 ç = diamonds diamonds at every table, -100. When played
4 ˙ = natural, preemptive by South, the contract was doubled, and
5 ˙ = Exclusion Kantar Blackwood, for diamonds. down a trick. Five Norths declared seven
5 ß = one Kantar card diamonds, all undoubled, and all five de-
5 NT = queen ask clarers went down two.
6 ç = queen of diamonds, but no king of spades
7 ∂ = natural “How—?” asked P/K/L. “Oh, the morons
Dbl = Lightner, lead-directing ruffed the heart lead and drew trumps.
When spades didn’t split, they had only
All standard, Bridge Today Standard eleven tricks. Ridiculous! A three-year-old
2053. should know enough to test spades after
only one round of trumps. The hand is easy
Oh. That explains the clothes. So this then.” Apparently, declarer play won’t be
was the same hand, and East doubled the any better in half a century.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 29

Two-Over-One Systems ßAQxxx ˙Axx ∂Kx çxxx or

ß A Q x x x ˙ A x x ∂ x x ç K x x.
Here’s a question for you — should our
two-over-ones be game forcing? I see two How will we fare?
pretty obvious arguments here. On the plus
side: Opener Responder
ßAQxxx ßKJx
Advantages of 2/1 Systems — Simplicity ˙Axx ˙xxx
∂Kx ∂xx
Game forcing auctions are very easy, çxxx çAQxxx
there is no need to bounce around to show
a good hand, and the bidding flows Facing the first hand, let’s be generous
smoothly. Simplicity, in bridge, is a very and have everything split, with one of the
good thing. Never underestimate simple! two finesses onside. We’ll lose two hearts
Personally, I wouldn’t dream of playing and three minor-suit tricks, so two spades is
with a new partner and not using our 2/1's our limit. Of course, if opener has the other
as game forcing. In my regular partnership, 13 count, we’ll take 11 easy tricks:
our 2/1's are not game forcing, and we have
pages and pages of notes detailing forcing Opener Responder
sequences. We also play numerous hyper- ßAQxxx ßKJx
modern transfer rebids, tacked on to our ˙Axx ˙xxx
system so that responder can describe both ∂xx ∂xx
forcing and invitational hands. Definitely çKxx çAQxxx
not simple, and only for truly mad scientist
partnerships. The king of clubs is worth three tricks
more than the ∂K. How is poor partner to
Disadvantages of 2/1 Systems — Hand know that? Unfortunately, our modern
Evaluation bidding sequence,

Experts love to harp on “fluid hand 1ß 1 NT

evaluation,” how the value of a hand
changes dramatically as the auction
progresses, yet these same experts saddle us
with methods that require us to commit to
game after hearing only one bid from part-
ner. Rather illogical, yes? Here are two
simple illustrations:
2ç 3ß
is purely quantitative, straight bulk bidding,
and opener has no way to judge honor
placement. The irony is that our Neander-
thal ancestors 50 years ago would have bid
this hand:

Suppose partner opens one spade, and 1ß 2ç

you hold something like
ß K J x ˙ x x x ∂ x x ç A Q x x x.
Today, we show our three-trump limit raise
by bidding one notrump, and then three
spades. OK, let’s give opener some ordinary
13 count, like:
2ß 3ß
Opener is quite well-placed.
For a second example, suppose partner
opens with one spade, and you hold:
Bridge Today • June 2003
ß — ˙ K x x ∂ A Q x x x ç A J x x x.
That’s a fine hand, and you happily force
to game with two diamonds. Frankly, with
this hand, I would be wondering how to
investigate a slam, and establishing a game
force at such a low level would certainly be
useful.
Anyway, you bid two diamonds, lefty
overcalls two hearts, and partner rebids two
spades. Now what?
This promising hand doesn’t look so good
anymore, does it. Give partner a super 15-
point hand, with fitting honors, like
ß A K J x x x x ˙ J x ∂ K x ç K x,
and game is no lock. I don’t know about
you, but my partners occasionally deliver a
bit less for their opening bids.
We know, now, that this hand is no
longer worth a game force, but it is too late. convinced of the Tell Principle, and its
Our system has us bidding like automatons, universality. If a low-level convention
adding points and
punching in our
responses. Our system
like automatons, adding points absolutely certain of
OK, on the one
and punching in our responses. that, and so, to the
hand, 2/1's offer
great simplicity,
while, on the other hand, they remove
bidding judgment from many game deci-
sions. If that is the extent of the debate,
then put me in the 2/1 camp. I’ll take
simplicity over an occasional reevaluation
any day. It is not even close.
But the debate is not finished. Two-over-
one systems have another huge disadvan-
tage, but one hidden so well that few people
recognize it. Indeed, I never saw this prob-
lem until I started writing these articles:
page 30
The One Notrump Black Hole
The price of this great simplicity is to
force us to respond one notrump on most
hands. Think about it — when partner
opens one spade, and the next hand passes,
don’t you bid one notrump close to half the
time?
The modern auction, 1ß-1NT, translates
to “Partner, I can’t force to game, nor do I
have an obvious raise, but I may have
virtually any other hand. There isn’t a
chance that I’ll ever describe my hand to
you, so you describe your hand, and I’ll
place the contract as best as I can. Oh, and
please, dear opponents, stay out of our
auction. This is tough enough without
interference.”
That, of course, is a Tell Violator, a Tell
Violator of truly major magnitude. I am
violates the Tell
Principle, then it
has us bidding must be wrong. I am
question — Should
2/1's be game forcing?
I say no, not if the price is to turn our one-
notrump response into some sort of pattern-
sucking black hole.
Great. So I know that our methods are
wrong. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any
methods that work any better. But . . .
A Possibility
Here is a possible approach. We played
these methods in a few club games, with
nice results, but I would hardly call that a
rigorous test. Feel free to modify these, and
Bridge Today • June 2003
don’t blame me if you get awful results!
Working from the top down, we played:
1ß 3 ß = preemptive
1ß 3 ç, 3 ∂, 3 ˙ = natural, strong
1ß 2 NT = natural, invitational
After a 2NT response, opener used trans-
fers. Thus, an auction like
1ß 2 NT
3∂
could be based on a hand like
ß A J x x x ˙ A Q x x x ∂ x x ç x,
planning to pass three of either major, or
opener could have a hand like
ß A J x x x ˙ A Q x x ∂ A Q ç x x,
planning to bid 3NT next.
1ß 2 ß = normal raise
1ß 2 ˙ = limit raise or better in spades.
After two hearts, opener rebids as follows:
2 ß = any minimum, a hand that would not drive to
game opposite a three-trump limit raise
2 NT = any medium hand, 14-16.
3 ç, 3 ∂, 3 ˙ = shortness, 17+
3 ß = 17+ without shortness
Over two spades or two notrump, re-
sponder can relay to ask for shortness, like a
Jacoby 2NT auction.
1ß 2 ∂ = hearts
1ß 2 ç = diamonds
These calls are either standard 2/1's, or
weaker hands with good suits. Opener will
usually accept the transfer with minimum
hands with no great fit for partner.
page 31
1ß 1 NT = all other hands
Notice what we have left are normal,
balanced or semi-balanced, weak responding
hands, hands with clubs, or game-forcing
balanced hands. Opener rebids as to a
standard forcing notrump, and responder
clarifies his hand-type with the next call.
Thus:
1ß 1 NT
2ç 2 NT
Two notrump is forcing. Invitational
balanced hands start with 2NT.
1ß 1 NT
2ç 2˙
Two hearts is natural and forcing, show-
ing a 2/1 with primary clubs, secondary
hearts.
1ß 1 NT
2∂ 2˙
Two hearts is similar. Opener has shown
spades and diamonds, while responder has
shown clubs, and bid the fourth suit (in my
universe, this is a transfer, of course)!*
And that finally brings me back to my
strange dream. In 2003, playing modern
standard, everyone bid to the poor four-
spade contract, while, in 2053, playing some
type of transfer responses, everyone bid to
the fine diamond grand slam. Still, every
single North-South pair finished minus
100. Some things never change.
*See the article by this author in the Winter
2003 Issue, where he discusses transfer bids on
the second round of the auction.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 32

Hand of the Month

Tale of the ß9

This hand from the Cavendish Teams ßK8

had many angles to it. First let’s look at how ˙Q3
Benito Garozzo scored his ß9 to set four ∂—
spades doubled: çK743
ß94 ß—
North ˙J4 N ˙A98765
W E
ßK876 ∂Q S ∂—
˙Q32 ç Q 10 9 çA5
∂87 ßAQJ
çK743 ˙—
West (Garozzo) East ∂6
ß943 ß2 çJ862
˙ J 10 4 ˙AK98765
∂ Q 10 5 2 ∂KJ9 Declarer led the ß8 to the jack and
ç Q 10 9 çA5 ruffed the ∂6 with the ßK. Then he led a
South low club from dummy to his 8. Garozzo
ß A Q J 10 5 won the second trick for his side and led a
˙— heart, which declarer ruffed with the ßQ.
∂A643 Declarer ducked a club to the ace. East
çJ862 played the ˙A, ruffed with the ßA.
Delcarer led a club to the king, but at trick
South West North East 13, a club was led off dummy and West
1ß pass 2ß 4˙ won the trick with the ß9.
4ß pass pass double
(all pass) To make four spades, you have to do
what Eric Rodwell did at his table: Lead a
Garozzo led the ß3. The 6 won the trick. club from dummy in the 8-card position
A diamond was led from dummy and East above. West wins but there’s no effective
played the king. This has become a popular defense. Meanwhile, do you see anything
play from K-J-x (see the May issue, page 18). wrong?
Declarer ducked. East played the ˙K,
ruffed by declarer with the ß10. Now That ∂K play! It may be fashionable but
declarer led the ∂A and ruffed a diamond it was the wrong moment. Doesn’t East
with the ß7. At this point the position was: want West to win the diamond to lead a
second trump? Then not even Houdini
could score 10 tricks.
Bridge Today • June 2003 page 33

May Tournament Results

Bridge Pro Tour

Cleveland $12,000 Open Individual,
Independence OH, top 4 with earnings
1. John Neidlinger, Youngstown, OH ....... $4,125
2. Sukumar Roy, Shaker Heights, OH ...... $2,050
3. Hjalmar Beijl, Cleveland, OH ............... $1,000
4. Alice Williams, Turtle Creek, PA ............ $500
United States Women’s Team Championships,
Orlando, FL
1. (Massie - NPC) Kathy Wei-Sender, Betty Ann
Kennedy, Jill Levin, Sue Picus, Tobi Sokolow,
Janice Seamon-Molson

$20, 000 BPT Bonus Pool Race for 2003
1. Paul Neidlinger, Youngstown, OH ....... $4,125
2. Adam Wildavsky, Jackson Heights NY... 4,000
3. Charles Jurgens, Encino, CA ................. 4,000
4. Charles Miner, Orlando, FL ................. 4,000
5. Chris Compton, Dallas TX ................. 2,100
6. Sukumar Roy, Shaker Heights, OH ........ 2,050
7-8. Harvey Brody, San Francisco, CA ....... 2,000
7-8. John Hurd, Charleston, SC ................. 2,000
9. Cynthia Goatz, Las Vegas, NV ................ 1,250
10-11. Robert Heitzman Jr, Suffern NY ...... 1,050
10-11. Michael Seamon, Miami Bch, FL ..... 1,000
2. Cheri Bjerkan, Sue Weinstein, Renee
Mancuso, Pam Wittes, Stasha Cohen, Becky
Rogers
3. Lynn Baker, Debbie Rosenberg, Kerri
Sanborn, Karen McCallum, Disa Eythorsdottir
4. Valerie Westheimer, Judi Radin, Shawn
Quinn, Mildred Breed, Kay Schulle, Sylvia Moss
 
Top 2 teams to represent USA in this year’s
Venice Cup World Women’s Teams

John Roberts Teams and reported prizes, Las Vegas

(1) Perry Johnson, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, Eric Greco, Jeff Hampson $50,500
(2) Malcolm Brachman, Mike Passell, Eddie Wold, Claudio Nunes, Fulvio Fantoni $37,800
(3) Rose Meltzer, Peter Weichsel, Alan Sontag, Kyle Larsen, Chip Martel, Lew Stansby $25,200
(4) Reese Milner, Sam Lev, Piotr Gawrys, Krzysztof Jassem, Bob Blanchard, Marc Jacobus $15,000

Cavendish Pairs. Las Vegas

Place Score (imps) Players’ Prize Auction Pool Prize
1. Fred Gitelman - Brad Moss ........................ 2665.00 ........... $26,810 ......... $231,350
2. Walid El Ahmady - Tarek Sadek .............. 2343.00 ........... $17,236 ......... $148,724
3. Ross Grabel - Jon Wittes ............................ 2062.00 ........... $11,490 ........... $99,150
4. Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes ................ 2057.00 ............. $8,618 ........... $74,362
5. Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood ................... 1856.00 ............. $7,660 ........... $66,100
6. Bjorn Fallenius - Roy Welland .................. 1815.00 ............. $6,702 ........... $57,838
7. Peter Bertheau - Fredrik Nystrom ............ 1398.00 ............. $5,744 ........... $49,576
8. Boye Brogeland - Espen Erichsen .............. 1388.00 ............. $4,788 ........... $41,312
9. Glenn Milgrim - Chris Willenken ............. 1383.00 ............. $3,830 ........... $33,050
10. Andrea Buratti - Massimo Lanzarotti ...... 1364.00 ............. $2,872 ........... $22,478
Bridge Today • June 2003
Between Sessions
Recipes for Success
by Matthew Granovetter
My bridge game improved a lot during
the years when I ate dinner every night at
Victor Mitchell’s apartment on the upper
East Side of New York City. Jacqui, his
wife, is a gourmet cook, and I remember the
meals even better than the fabulous bridge
conversation. If you’d like to try it for
yourself, here is of my favorite dessert
recipes, which may or may not have had a
positive effect on my game, and may help
(or may not) yours as well. At worst, you’ll
have a good time disproving the theory. Eat
all you want while playing computer bridge.
Jacqui Mitchell's Mom's Michigan Banana
Bread
1/2 margerine melted
Mash 2-3 bananas.
2 eggs.
3/4 - to - 1 cup sugar
1/2 cup of water
1 t-spoon of baking powder
1 t-spoon of baking soda
dash of salt
2 1/2 cups of regular flour
optional (1 t-spoon of vanilla)
Bake 160 degrees for 1 hour.
OK, now here’s one of my own recipes. It
hasn’t made me a better player, but it has
made me an appreciated host....
Matthew's Chicken Soup
In big pot boil water and add a little salt/
pepper, two halves of an onion, sliced carrot,
one stick of celery cut in 2 halves, a quarter
of a cup of barley (optional), and one quar-
page 34
It can’t hurt dept.
tered chicken. Cook for one hour or one
and a half hours, loosely covered (letting air
in).
Take out chicken, use for something else.
Take out celery if you can. Put lid on tight
and put pot of soup in refrigerator over-
night.
The next day skim off the chicken fat
layer on top (use fat to fry onions and mix
with mashed potatoes, may freeze fat in cup
in freezer for later use).
Reheat soup. While reheating, make
matza balls:
Mix in bowl: 3 eggs, some oil, some of the
soup, salt, pepper, and enough matza meal
(cheap specialty item in Jewish food section,
simply a bag of finely crushed matza) to
make a nice liquidy soft mixture; you'll
probably use a third of a bag, maybe half a
bag. Let mixture rest for a few minutes
while soup comes to boil. Mixture gets a
little harder as it sits. Roll medium size
matza balls in the palms of your two hands
like rolling a snow ball and drop them into
boiling soup one at a time. Wash hands
after every few matza balls so mixture
doesn't stick to your hands when you roll
new ones. After dropping in soup, matza
balls should cook very quickly, a minute or
two and they are done. Just keep soup
warm for serving later. Make sure top of pot
is not completely on, so air gets in and soup
will not evaporate.
No noodles needed. Give everyone a
matza ball and carrot slice when you serve.
Enjoy!