Having read this section I realized how much Martin’s personality, perseverance and superior intelligence allowed him to survive but there was certainly an element of luck, an angel watching over him. I think one reason that I liked this part of the book so much was his strength of character, how he figured out at every turn what he needed to do to make it to the next day, week and month. It wasn’t always a pleasant or easy read but as I did know the ending it helped me to get through the worst parts.

Even before the concentration camp, life became more and more difficult and more horrible too. Imagine coming home from picking berries to be told that your grandfather had been taken to prison and he was to be resettled. Martin prays to God, asking God to keep grandpa safe. ‘I promise I will be really good and try to do your will.’ And I could imagine so many Jews saying similar prayers.

He had already survived death just to reach this point. It seemed close to him always. Two weeks after he left the Ghetto of Ungar where he was living, it was liquidated and none of the boys his age survived.

The story continues on as he and his family are sent by truck and then trains to Auschwitz. And he thinks the kind of thoughts that many of us would understand: ‘If only I had been good …’

As he got off the cattle car at Auschwitz one man told him to say he was 18 even though he was 14 when questioned in the selection process. Martin says that probably saved his life.

He describes his experiences at Auschwitz and I expected much of what happened but I felt I was there with him through the horrible, the bad and even some good. But there was always his spirit, his intelligence and his will to live. How else could this child survive. And somehow I wanted to read on even knowing how awful it would be, perhaps made more palatable because I knew he survived.

So now you know why despite having read several books about Auschwitz that I found this part of the book special and I couldn’t put the book down.

Finally we come through the death march and eventually liberation. He had survived. I rejoiced with him.

Martin had such a winning way about him that everyone along the way helped him, including the American soldiers. He eventually was placed with a Jewish family in England. He had many emotions — joy in being liberated and sadness at losing his family and all the people he knew. It was interesting to read about him adapting, learning English, becoming interested in the opposite sex and generally growing up. Things were difficult in England after the war. But youth, brilliance and perseverance got him through all the challenges. And eventually he found gambling and bridge.

And so we arrive at the second major part of his life — the game of bridge and at this time rubber bridge and eventually duplicate. He was naturally a brilliant bridge player. There seemed an inevitability to his success at rubber, duplicate, tournaments and internationally. I liked reading about tournaments across Europe, players of the time, and international competition. But of course there were lots of ups and downs, and of course women! He seemed to have a lot of shall I call it ‘fun’ after the sessions.

He played with the top players of the time and enjoyed the perks of being one of the top bridge players in Europe. There is never a dull moment. He became a bridge professional on cruise ships and after that resumed his bridge career in England. Things always seemed to happen around him: bridge, women, adventures, money coming and going.

The later part of the book deals with marriage, his life as a bridge player and a gambler, and the ups and downs in both. He had much to overcome, and his life did reach some serious lows. The book comes to a much happier conclusion when he arrives in the United States still a bridge professional. And he says it took half a century to turn the terrors into triumphs.

As you can see, our Home page is now running as it should. The site is stable and hopefully you can see a small improvement in responsiveness. The latter is a small silver lining in a very dark cloud.

Anecdote

Yesterday evening we were invited over to our daughter’s for an early dinner (we got home to St. John’s two days ago). After supper and after the little ones were packed off to bed, we were chatting and my daughter asked the usual, “What are you up to?”.

Hmmm, what to say. So I explained a bit about the problem with our website (she has built a couple of websites of her own). I explained to her how with experience and knowledge of computer systems, one can often solve problems by making a couple of guesses and checking them out.

However, I said the most powerful tool I’ve ever come across for solving the problem of a system (of any kind) that has stopped working properly, is to concentrate on what has changed. This is especially true when one is convinced that nothing has changed — that will simply not be true if the system was working and stopped working.

I apply that simple strategy whenever I do problem solving. I’ve been using it while recovering this website.

When I went to bed last night, I was mulling the strategy over and realized there was one change that I made while recovering the website — because of the other problems I had wanted to post updates. Because of the other problems, when I posted a blog using my “blog site”, it didn’t show up on the Home page. So I simply posted them on the main blog site. That broke the Home page!

Fixing this was trivial. I simply removed those posts and voila, back to normal!

I’m not quite ready to declare the website stable (there is an issue with recent blog posts showing up on the home page), but at least I now feel very close.

I’ll work on the above issue. If it starts to take too long, I’ll take time out to begin restoring the Aces on Bridge columns that so many loyal visitors enjoy so much.

…John

In the meanwhile, I’ll continue going over every type of configuration file and settings to see if I can spot/guess what the “permalink problem” is (it causes an “internal server error”, which gives me a small clue).

…John

Dear James:

Hello from New York. I loved you last letter more than all the rest. More please. This time I have exciting news: Daddy has asked Betsy to marry him. Wow! That would mean my mother would be younger than myself. Sounds like a miracle, doesn’t it, but I bet it’s happened before, lots of times. Marrying Betsy would make Daddy happy as a clam as he has a bad case of l’Amour à la Papa, as the French call it. He says that children can wait as she pursues her ambition to be a world champion. Guess what? – I approve. We can continue to be just like sisters – my inheritance is already locked up and my fashion businesses are doing great.

The trouble is that Betsy is involved with Guido Amoroso, a Beat poet she met in Greenwich Village. He says he doesn’t believe in marriage although he is already married to his high school sweetheart whom he knocked up in grade 10. More accurately one might say he doesn’t believe in marriage and she doesn’t believe in divorce, especially since she is postgraduately pregnant again. Guido calls Betsy ‘my Nazi bitch’ and wants her to quit bridge and spend more time with him expanding their consciousness with LSD. So naturally poor Betsy, madly in love, is in crisis mode and doesn’t know what to do. What does your guru say? I will pass it on.

James read this passage to Hisashi-san, his flatmate and spiritual advisor who, as usual on a Sunday morning, was knelling on the floor writing with an ink brush large black Japanese characters on a sheet of paper spread out before him. He continued to write in silence until a long wiggle had been completed, then straightened up and gave a sigh of satisfaction before replying.

‘James-san, everyone knows, better a rich man’s toy than a poor man’s doormat. Now let’s enjoy the silence together.’

‘Sensei, the poor woman needs help. We can’t just remain silent.’

‘This Betsy will do what she wants to do. We see the same at the bridge table. Bridge players repeat their mistakes many times – it defines who they are. They take advice as personal criticism. However, if you must reply, tell her this, “Noise hides the Truth,” or “Seek Truth in Silence, the Great Teacher,” or “A life engulfed in noise is a life lived with confusion.” Take your choice.’

‘“Seek Truth in Silence, the Great Teacher,”’ repeated James as he wrote it down. ‘Very good, I’ll go with that.’

As Sensei obviously wanted to get on with his morning calligraphy, James proceeded to read the rest of Heidi’s letter without further comment. It went as follows.

With regard to our bridge, things are going well and we continue to win the women’s events with some ease – but not without some scary moments. With Betsy I have learned to take the triumphs with the disasters, the one following the other in quick succession.

Here is a recent example of a triumph.

 

Both

East

N

Audrey

62

J9853

K1064

109

 

W

Me

AQ9

K4

AJ875

A73

 

E

Betsy

108543

106

—

1086542

 

S

Rhonda

KJ7

AQ72

Q932

KQ

 

W

Me

N

Audrey

E

Betsy

S

Rhonda

—

—

Pass

1NT

Pass

2¹

3

3

4

Pass

5

All Pass

(1) ->

Rhonda opened a strong 1NT. We play Landy and I didn’t have the majors, so I thought that we didn’t have enough to make a game. I passed. Wrong. Audrey expected her hand would play better in hearts, so she transferred. Betsy made a crazy overcall with only 1 HCP in her hand. Support with support, they say, so Rhonda and I did our duty and guess what, Betsy bid game! The lead was the K, won in dummy. A heart was discarded on the A and a club played to Rhonda’s Q. She switched to the K! Crazy, wasn’t it, making 12 tricks on a spade finesse. The funny thing was that Betsy’s hand was the only one that had a singleton or a void, and she had both. I guess that’s pretty unusual.

I have found when Betsy does something crazy, well maybe not crazy, but outside an opponent’s normal expectation, the opponent gets confused and often can’t cope. It’s like they are running back into a burning building because they forgot to turn out the lights. Of course, it works both ways as I am often confused as to what’s going on. So I asked Mel what I should do about it.

‘Don’t do anything, Heidi,’ he advised, ‘Just keep putting down those great dummies. Betsy’s wild guess it often better that a normal player’s reasoned deduction.’

‘I think I should have doubled 3,’ I observed.

‘Could be,‘ he agreed, ‘that might have gotten you to 4, a better contract. But tell you what, as you are reluctant to double 1NT with an equivalent hand, why not play Brozel over 1NT where double shows a one-suited hand? So you will pass 1NT systematically and when Audrey shows hearts, Betsy can bid 2 to show a black 2-suiter. That way you will easily find your spade fit.’

That makes sense to me: fit your methods to your natural tendencies, mine to pass, and Betsy’s to bid. Now everyone is comfortable and we don’t stumble over our own constructions.

Often we go out to play high stakes Chicago against Wall Street hotshots. The old guys are nice enough, and try to teach us things, but I don’t know what puts me off more: their gold wrist watches, or their gold teeth. Gross. There are two younger guys, gorgeously dressed in matching paisley pink shirts, canary yellow ties, and Aegean blue suits, who we would like to get to know better, if only they weren’t so uptight. (I would send you one of those ties, James, if I thought you’d ever wear it.) Rather than be nice and friendly, maybe going for refreshments after to discuss the hands or whatever, they treat us like we’re the enemy. They open light and stretch to 3NT on inadequate values in an attempt to dominate. Why can’t they be cool, like you, James? We won’t bite (or maybe we will!) I sorta go into my shell, but they can’t push Betsy without getting pushed back. She fits right into the New York scene, where pushy is the norm, even for waiters.

Betsy says that the spade suit is the key to most auctions.

‘If you’ve got ‘em, you have to bid ‘em. If I jump to 2 it’s all about what they’ve got, but if I jump higher it’s about what I’ve got.’

Here is an example of the mysterious single jump from an early board.

 

N-S

South

N

Rex

J9

KQ97

AJ103

J43

 

W

Me

73

4

7542

KQ10852

 

E

Betsy

AQ10862

J10653

K9

—

 

S

Greg

K54

A82

Q86

A976

 

W

Me

N

Rex

E

Betsy

S

Greg

—

—

—

1

Pass

1

2

Dbl

Pass

3

Pass

3NT

—

—

—

—

Greg: what does that 2 tell you?

Me: It’s a preempt.

Greg: I know that. What does it tell you?

Me: It tells me she is offering to buy you out cheap.

Greg: Right. 3NT.

He won the second round of spades and started the hearts with A and low to the dummy. Surprised that I showed out early, he tried the clubs leading from dummy. When Betsy showed out he went into shock. He tried to endplay me in clubs, hoping I would have to lead away from the K. That way he managed to go down 300.

‘Some preempt,’ he commented sourly, ‘6-5 in the majors.’

‘With 7-7-7-5 you should have taken my generous offer,’ suggested Betsy sweetly.

She ended the match in typical fashion by making a game she shouldn’t have bid.

 

E-W

West

N

Rex

AK762

J6

942

Q75

 

W

Me

J1083

7

K763

AJ103

 

E

Betsy

Q5

AK10952

A10

K42

 

S

Greg

96

Q843

QJ98

985

 

W

me

N

Rex

E

Betsy

S

Greg

Pass

1

Dbl

Pass

1NT

Pass

4

Dbl

Pass

Pass

Pass

—

I bid 1NT to show my spade stopper and point range thinking I might get to play this one, but Betsy had other plans. 3NT would have been best (I would get the clubs right) with 4 down 1 on good defence. Greg led the 9, Rex winning the AK and leading a third one. Betsy ruffed with the T, over-ruffed by Greg with the Q. Sometimes it’s not good to get your wish. He got his ruff but it was a big mistake. Betsy won the Q exit with the K in dummy and led my heart, finessing the 9 successfully. After drawing trumps she could discard her losing club on the established J. As Betsy says, if you want to win more often, you can’t afford to wait for the cards to be right – you have to give the opponents chances to go wrong, which is frequent.

‘Nice finish, Ladies,’ said Rex graciously, ‘I think you can afford to buy us a drink.’

‘We don’t drink,’ replied Betsy, ‘we smoke.’

‘I bet you do,’ observed Greg with a big smile.

Now that was more like it, but too little too late, as they say.

LYFH

We miss you, Betsy and me, both. We miss London, too. Good, old, cold, crazy and damp London with all its quaint customs. Remember that funny little man in the big hat who carved the lamb? We all thought he was French but it turned out he was English with an unbelievable cockney accent. Those were great days….and nights!!

Yesterday we arrived in Dallas and were driven around topless downtown. The Caddie was topless, not us, Silly. Texan men are tall and handsome and show you lots of straight teeth when they greet you, but they make me feel like the only hamburger at a dog show. I like suave and they don’t have it, not like you, James, who is very suave.

This morning we flew in Daddy’s Lear Jet to Huntsville where the prison is to play a match against the Texas All Stars, a team made up of male inmates, who compete against prisoners in maximum security facilities in other states. The rivalries are quite intense with Oklahoma Lifers being the current champions, I understand.

Before the game we were introduced by the guard (Elmer, who was the fattest man I have ever seen in a uniform) to our opponents, two men wearing numbers across their chests, one called Mike, kinda dreamy and handsome, like Davy Crockett, and the other Sonny, sorta bald and wrinkled, like Sam Houston. Eat your heart out, Truman Capote.

‘Do you play often against women?’ I asked pleasantly enough as they were looking at us rather suspiciously. Imagine that! They were suspicious of us!

‘Not often,’ says the short one called Sonny (104375). ‘They play us sometimes, but women don’t show enough initiative. Did Bonny Parker ever rob a bank on her own? No. Have you ever heard of a female prison break? No. They settle in and make friends with the guards and tell them everything hoping to get themselves a little time off for good behaviour.’

‘I once broke out of a county jail with a woman,’ says Mike (106783). ‘We had a fast getaway car filled with gas, fresh plates, a good head-start, some cash, and we were burnin’ it across the flatlands before the sun come up, when she says she’s got to go pee. So I says, I’ll stop the car and you can pee at the side of the road. And she says, no, there might be rattlers out there in the dark, and we have to stop at the next roadside café. So we keep going and she holds out until sixty miles later we come to this 24-hour café where we stop. I order a cup of coffee, but she takes so long I decide, hell, I might as well have breakfast. So we had breakfast and guess what, the cops arrest us in the parking lot. You know what she did? While I was having my coffee, she phoned her mother to tell her not to worry she was safe, and said where we were. That’s women for you.’

‘Hey, take the responsibility and stop bitching about your girlfriend,’ says Betsy. ‘You made the mistakes. First, you should have stopped the car right away and ordered her to get out and either pee or start walking. Second, you’re the one who decided to stop at the café, not taking into account that it’s a daughter’s duty to keep in touch with her mom who’s bound to be worried.’

‘Absolutely!’ I chirped in. ‘Those may not be the sound of wedding bells in the background, but police sirens are totally major for sure.’

‘Be The Man’ says Betsy. ‘Treat your women right and the dancers will dance, the singers will sing. I don’t know about Texas, but that’s how it works in Chermany.’

‘Can’t we cut out the fuckin’ song-and-dance and get on with the game?’ asks Sonny.

‘Just a reminder, Boys,’ says the guard, ‘this is Friday so there’s demerit points for every time you use the F-word. The demerits will be doubled if you use the F-word in front of our guests here.’

‘I hereby officially protest,‘ says Sonny. ‘First: the F-word is not word, because it’s not found in Webster’s Dictionary and it’s not in the Bible, either. Second: this is a clear violation of our right to Freedom of Speech.’

‘What are you, a fuckin’ lawyer?’ asks the guard. ‘The Warden has been clear on the point – it’s one of his ten commandments. Even Charlton Heston hisself can’t change them. So that’s 4 demerits for you, 1-0-4-3-7-5. I am adding blasphemes to the list although it ain’t Sunday yet.’

‘Jesus Christ!’ exclaims Sonny.

‘Two more,’ says Elmer, writing it down.

We had what looked like a shaky result coming out of the box.

 

None

North

N

Me

A105

954

AQ974

73

 

W

Mike

Q9764

8

1065

A652

 

E

Sonny

J832

KQ103

J82

J4

 

S

Betsy

K

AJ1062

K3

KQ1098

 

W

Mike

N

Me

E

Sonny

S

Betsy

—

Pass

Pass

1

Pass

2

Pass

3

Pass

3

Pass

3NT

All Pass

 

 

 

Maybe Sonny’s criticism about women not showing initiative applies to me. I prefer to bid out my hand and let my partner decide the best contract from her side. So I just bid where my points were and she decided on 3NT. Mike led the 6 won by Betsy with the king. She ran the diamonds, pitching hearts then the K, winning, and a low club losing to the stiff jack, holding herself to 9 tricks. Of course, Sonny had to gloat over the result.

‘See that, Mike: 6NT is cold. I can lead a heart, but you can never get in to cash your winner. I bet Frank and Larry get there.’

Golly! 6NT on 26 HCPs? Are these guys Italians, or what? I thought.

‘I’d like to meet these Larry and Frank,’ says Betsy.

‘Take my word for it, Miss,’ says the guard, ‘you really don’t.’

Later we found out Frank and Larry were in 4, going down on the bad trump split. So my aversion to weak 3-card raises and preference for 3NT were justified yet again. 10 IMPs for the good guys.

Betsy was still fuming when this hand came up soon after. They tell us, there’s no right bid with an 8-card suit, so as usual she went for the max. The lead was the Q followed by 7, to the A, followed by the J.

 

None

North

N

Me

10963

A1087

A652

9

 

W

Mike

Q7

96532

J1073

108

 

E

Sonny

AKJ52

KJ4

K94

75

 

S

Betsy

84

Q

Q8

AKQJ6432

 

W

Mike

N

Me

E

Sonny

S

Betsy

—

—

1

5

Pass

Pass

Pass

—

Betsy ruffed with the A and could count 10 tricks off the top, one short of game. She starts playing off a string of trumps and Sonny’s face gets all red and he starts blowing through his nose, so Betsy catches on that something is up. She stops to think. With nothing to lose and something to gain, she plays off all but one of the trumps to this 4-card ending with 104375 still to play

 

N-S

East

N

Dummy (Me)

10

A10

A

—

 

W

Mike

—

6

J107

—

 

E

Sonny

K

KJ

K9

—

 

S

Betsy

—

Q

Q8

2

 

He throws the 9, so Betsy plays a diamond to the A dropping his K and setting up the Q for her 11th trick. You’d think they would congratulate her on her triple squeeze, but this Sonny character starts whining about his partner’s defence.

‘What knucklehead defence was that!’ he practically screams.

‘Why did you play the 5 on my Q? I thought you had 6 spades.’

‘That wasn’t count that was The Obvious Switch Signal asking for a diamond.’

‘Why a diamond? You’re the knucklehead. Just play bridge.’

‘Whoa,’ intervenes Elmer. ‘Boys, the game is cold after any spade lead. Tighten up your inner defences and stop acting like assholes in front of these nice, young ladies. Pardon my language, Ladies. Remember without discipline and teamwork, we can’t ever hope to beat them Okees.’

It turns out this Sonny is a bit of a blank cartridge, and after some more good results I tried to lighten the atmosphere. ‘What do you guys do for fun when you’re not playing bridge?’ I ask.

‘I play backgammon with Billy Crapshoot who is teachin’ me the finer points,’ says Sonny sourly. “I’ve got 5 years left to break even.’

“And at the rate he’s losing money, to pay it back we’ll have to rob a big bank as soon as we gets released,’ adds his pal.

‘Is there any weed around these parts?’ asks Betsy sweetly.

‘There’s ragweed galore in the desert,’ Sonny informs us, ‘if you can get to it.’

‘Do you smoke it or chew it?’ inquires Betsy hopefully.

‘Stay away from ragweed, as it really f-f-f-f-messes up your brain. The wetbacks use it a lot,’ says Mike.

‘They get high even on cactus juice, but Mexico has never won anything in their whole history, so who needs it?’ says Sonny dismissively.

‘They won the Battle of the Alamo, I believe,’ Betsy reminds them.

Well, that pretty well wore out our welcome and even Elmer finally got hostile. So they cut it short and as punishment we never got the tour of the execution facilities, thank God for that. I enclose a Polaroid snapshot of Betsy and me and the rest of the team in front of the Sam Houston memorial.

I really miss you, and I hope there is one of your letters, or two or three, in my postal box when I get back to New York next week.

LYFH (Love, Your Friend, Heidi)

PS We won! It wasn’t even close. As Daddy says, the smart ones don’t get caught and the rich ones don’t get convicted! (He’s joking, I think.)

‘I had hopes for the Metropolitan when Eddie Johnson took over in 1935, and we were invited to come to New York, but the war intervened, and I lost my chance. I had hesitated because Tauber wanted me for one of his productions, but he ran out of money before it was staged. During the War I stayed in the countryside on my late husband’s estate, learned bridge, and bore my dear daughter. One must never regret giving life to others, but by the time the War ended my operatic career was beyond recovery. Foolishly I had kept myself out of the picture, so I was condemned to oratorios in the Midlands.’

That was the story she told, but there were other versions, many including scandalous details. On the night of which we write, it was James and Nora’s good fortune to score 56.4 % which was sufficient to top the field East-West. Here was one board played on defence against the Reverend Reginald Forsythe, a pessimistic Presbyterian.

 

Both

South

N

Margaret

A10864

Q5

KQ1087

10

 

W

Nora

7

KJ102

9642

AK92

 

E

James

KJ952

76

J53

753

 

S

Reginald

Q3

A9843

A

QJ864

 

W

Nora

N

Margaret

E

James

S

Reginald

—

—

—

1

Pass

1

Pass

2

Pass

2

Pass

2NT

Pass

3NT

All Pass

 

Nora led the 7. James won his K and pondered the significance of this lead. He could read it as a singleton. Thus their holdings in the majors were marked as being 6-6. There was a good possibility that the division of sides was 7-7-6-6 with Madame having the winning high cards otherwise given to the partnership. She might later be called upon to make a critical decision. It was matchpoints, not IMPs, so James thoughts were focused on how to protect his partner from a tough decision. That objective might best be served if he returned a heart, just in case she had a problem when a heart was led towards the dummy where the diamond tricks lay. An immediate heart might give declarer problems in communication, and without full knowledge of the distribution he might even be tempted later in a matchpoint context to take a losing club finesse himself rather than play safely for 9 tricks. Given the uncertainty of the situation he decided that to protect his partner from a later decision was the top priority, so he immediately returned the 7.

Nora could win the K and return a heart without giving away a trick in the suit with her winning clubs intact. Squirm as he might declarer could manage just 8 tricks. The timing was all wrong. ‘Why?’ he asked himself, ‘do women always give me problems. What have I ever done to deserve this?’ Of course he did not include his dear wife, Margaret, in the general condemnation – it was just his eternal misfortune.

Out of kindness James offered to escort the obviously delighted Madame Nora back to her rooms located in the vicinity of Albert Hall for a celebratory nightcap. Her living room was small, poorly lighted, but richly decorated. Prominently featured was a huge red velvet sofa facing a tapestry of an oriental theme with a dragon that looked out threateningly with smoke coming out of its nostrils. On an end table were framed black-and-white photographs of her in costume with legendary performers of the past.

Madame soon returned with two glasses of wine in her hands. She had changed to something more comfortable, a long, silk dressing gown embroidered with a floral design. It made her look much younger than her sixtysomething years.

‘Je viens celebrer la victorie,’ she trilled in a rich contralto as she handed James a glass of port before sinking softly beside him on the sofa. ‘Do you know that tune?’ she asked after sipping the vintage wine.

‘Yes, I believe it is from Samson and Delilah. My father had a record of that with Caruso, I believe.’

‘Marvelous. Delilah was a favourite role of mine. I sang it with Jobin in Montreal before the war. I wore a black body stocking in the first scene, quite the scandal at the time. Ebe Stignani had the voice, but I had the body and most of all, the temperament. I can only imagine her luring Samson into her tent with the words, ‘come and try my chicken soup’. Ha-ha. Raoul was a bit stiff, having been taught by Jesuits, but we sold out the house on every performance. Montrealers try so hard to be sophisticated, but really they love their hockey more than opera. Caruso was well before my time, but I did sing with the great Chaliapin when I was very young. Shall I tell you a naughty story about Feodor Ivanovich and myself?’

James nodded enthusiastically, realizing there would be no way to stop her short of walking out. The port was delicious.

‘In the days before radio I toured America in The Barber of Seville where I played a very young Berta and Chaliapin played Don Basilio. Although his was a small part, he was the main attraction and he ran the whole show. One night after a performance in Cleveland that went particularly well, he came up to me and suggested, more a command really, that we should rehearse next day. We had little to do together on stage, so I said, ‘I know my part backwards,’ and he said, ‘I assure you that won’t be necessary. I shall call on you shortly before noon.’ Of course the whole company knew what that meant, and they all urged me to keep the master in a good mood for the rest of the tour. I was easily persuaded, for in those days I was up for anything.

‘The next day before noon he appeared at my hotel room in this elaborately decorated dressing gown with the grey hairs on his chest peeking through and a dozen pink roses in his huge fist. By noon he was on top of me naked in bed making beautiful manly sounds.

‘You are as big as a horse,’ I commented over the noise meaning it as a compliment to his prodigious manhood. His English was poor and he misheard what I had said.

‘You tink I was a bit hoarse?’ he replied, stopping what he was doing. ‘I thought so, too. I fear I am getting a cold.’

‘What about me?’ I asked, startled, because every singer fears catching a cold on tour.

‘You? You are always flat.’

‘I’m flat certainly, just the way you like me,’ I replied, ‘flat on my back.’

He roared with laughter, and we instantly became great friends. The tour became a tour of love: the baritone loved the soprano, the soprano loved the conductor, the conductor loved the harpist, the harpist loved the first violin, the first violin loved the tenor, the tenor loved the audience and the audiences loved everybody. Of course, with Chaliapin even his wives knew you could never hope to be his one and only. He was a giant, certainly, but a baby as well, a baby who sucked on vile black cigarettes.‘

James laughed politely, a bit apprehensive about where this might be leading.

‘Indeed? I know you can still buy Chaliapin blend cigarettes in the Burlington Arcade,’ he observed lamely. ‘Well, as it is getting late maybe I should….’

“Yes, you should go as I still have what remains of my reputation to protect, and you must have some pretty young thing wondering what is taking you so long, but first let me ask you a question about one of the hands we played tonight. You will remember when I led a spade and you, dear, dear boy, returned a heart defeating Forsythe and his mousy wife in 3NT. Yes? Well, I must ask you why did you return a heart?’

James remembered his thought process, but he didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, so he replied evasively, ‘I can’t say actually, except it seemed a good move at the time. I was thinking about a spade, or maybe a club…’

‘Exactly! But you chose a heart. All the time you were thinking, I was saying to myself, without moving my lips, “heart, heart, heart…” and your brain received my brain waves. I do this quite often – I lead a card in a suit I don’t want returned and then I concentrate as hard as I can on the suit I want partner to lead back, and very often that’s the suit he or she returns. Of course, one must be playing with a compatible and sympathetic partner who is ready to receive such a message. It’s the same mental power that makes the Ouija Board work. Think about it, and tell me what you conclude, while I fetch a tiny goodnight glass of port.’

James did not protest. Foolishly he remained seated on the sofa waiting obediently almost against his will for what would come next. He would really prefer a cold lager as he was feeling quite warm facing the snorting dragon. Was it possible, he wondered, that his decisions were being guided subconsciously, like the movements of a planchette on a Ouija Board, by some Invisible Hand?

Board 4.

W

West

1092

J93

AK107

K64

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

Pass

1

4

4

?

 

 

 

Your call?

Board 5. 

W

West

AKJ7

AK52

632

J10

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

Pass

Pass

1

Dbl

2

2

Pass

?

 

 

 

Your call?

Board 6. 

W

North

KQ105

KQ83

J54

97

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

—

Pass

1

Dbl

1

2

Dbl¹

Pass

3²

Pass

Pass

?

 

 

 

(1) see text

(2) see text

The auction requires a lot of explanation.  First of all, South’s double was alerted and described by North as showing four spades.  Second of all, North had first bid an insufficient 2.  When the director was called and explained the options, North changed his call to 3.  Your call?

There’s more.  After the auction is concluded,  South corrected the explanation of her double, saying that double was “Do Something Intelligent” … just about my least favorite agreement, because I believe that it is difficult for partner to do something intelligent when he has been given, basically, only “pass the blame” information, nothing about suit lengths and very little about hand strength.

Anyway, do you change your call should the director allow the bidding to rollback to you?

Board 11. 

W

West

3

J962

J975

AJ64

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

—

—

2

Pass

2

3

3

4

4

Pass

Pass

?

 

 

 

Your call?

Board 14. 

W

West

9

A763

AK73

9876

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

—

2

Pass

Pass

Dbl

Pass

3

?

 

 

 

Your call?

Board 20. 

W

West

Q4

Q109852

852

87

East

West

1

2¹

3

?

(1) weak, no further discussion

Finally, an uncontested auction.  Your call?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Board 4.

Double was the winner (+500 for better than 90% of the mps), even though partner’s 4 call was lighter than anticipated.

 

4

Both

West

N

North

AQJ874

K6

Q65

92

 

W

West

1092

J93

AK107

K64

A

E

East

6

A1087542

J9

J87

 

S

South

K53

Q

8432

AQ1053

 

Board 5. 

Raising to 3 was the winner, as partner went on to 4 and can make up to eleven tricks (+450 is a shared top).

 

5

N-S

North

N

North

Q9

Q108

K1097

9642

 

W

West

AKJ7

AK52

632

J10

A

E

East

106543

J73

5

KQ87

 

S

South

82

964

AQJ84

A53

 

Board 6.

Doubling was the winner (+300 for an unshared top).

 

6

E-W

East

N

North

842

J97

Q972

A84

 

W

West

KQ105

KQ83

J54

97

9

E

East

J93

A1052

A106

1062

 

S

South

A76

64

K83

KQJ53

 

Board 11.

5 was the winner .  (Well-timed overcall, pard!)  The opponents chose to double 5 rather than bid on to 5 .  (Whether 5X goes for -100 or -300  — depending upon declarer’s ability to guess the clubs –, it scores more than 90% of the mps).

 

11

None

South

N

North

AKQ9654

A

82

1085

 

W

West

3

J962

J975

AJ64

J

E

East

82

KQ10543

K

K932

 

S

South

J107

87

AQ10643

Q7

 

Board 14. 

Doubling was the winner (+500 for an unshared top), as partner shows up with a ton of defensive values.

 

14

None

East

N

North

AQJ5

Q95

Q108

KQJ

 

W

West

9

A763

AK73

9876

9

E

East

K108732

K2

96

A32

 

S

South

64

J1084

J542

1054

 

Board 20. 

Raising to 4 was the winner on the 52-card layout.  (+170 is a 23% board; + 620 is a 64% board.)

 

20

Both

West

N

North

J76

63

KJ64

KQ43

 

W

West

Q4

Q109852

852

87

K

E

East

A852

AKJ4

Q7

AJ9

 

S

South

K1093

7

A1093

10652

 

How did you do?

You lead the J and see:

 

1

None

North

N

North

—

—

—

—

 

W

West

—

—

—

—

J

E

East (you)

AQ98

7

964

J10865

 

S

South (dumm

752

52

Q753

KQ73

 

You are playing standard carding.

1. J, 3, 4, A.
2. K, 7, 2, 3
3.  Q, 9, 5, A
4. 4, J, Q, 2

What do you play and why?

Do you remember the club spots played at Trick 1?  If so, you realize that the only unseen clubs are the 9 and the 2.  Where might they lie?

You can be sure that declarer owns the 9.  After all, your partner would not have played the 4 at Trick 1 from a holding of either 942 (he would have played the 2) or 94 (he would have played the 9).

Who owns the 2?  Well, if partner were dealt the 42 doubleton and thus declarer were dealt the A9 doubleton, then declarer might have tried to discard a spade on the third round of clubs before giving up the lead to the A.  Thus, all indications are that partner was dealt the 4 singleton and you must give him a ruff right now.

If you fail to give your partner a club ruff at Trick 5, declarer will arrange to finesse you out of your T8 and pitch a losing diamond on dummy’s fourth club.

 

1

None

North

N

North

J

KQJ10864

A2

A92

 

W

West

K10643

A93

KJ108

4

J

E

East (you)

AQ98

7

964

J10865

 

S

South (dumm

752

52

Q753

KQ73

 

The spot cards spoke.  Were you listening?

PS: If West were dealt 42 doubleton (so that declarer were dealt A9 doubleton), a club return by you would deny declarer the ability to pitch a loser on the third round of clubs … assuming your partner has a third heart.  

It takes the processes of card play and step by step builds the concepts you need to learn. Here is a simple example from the very beginning of the book.

One of the things that separate experts from beginners is the idea of counting: count your points, count your tricks, count your winners, count your losers, count out the opponents hand and so on.  And yet most of us aren’t all that good at it or at least don’t always do it.  On the very first page of this book Eddie simply and carefully teaches the reader how to count winners.  It is so obvious and so simple and so perfect. He walks through many examples and in doing makes everything clear.  What is a sure trick? Why you can’t take more than two tricks in a suit if you are on a two-two fit even if you have the A,K, Q and J.  And before you know it, you are chanting “Take tricks from the short side first.”

There are lots of opportunities to practice and lots of exercises.

I have to admit I find Eddie’s use of language and subtle humor make the book very special.  When he talks about taking tricks with spot cards he writes “Until this chapter you have been overwhelming your opponents with aces and kings.” And then “You must learn how to take tricks with deuces and threes as well as the more regal members of the deck.”

He makes every concept seem so easy. I remember trying to teach beginners how to take a trick with the Kx opposite two small. I don’t think I ever quite succeeded.  As I read Eddie’s careful explanation I realize that I didn’t go slowly enough, and I didn’t take the same care as he does to illustrate why and how it works to lead towards the king when the ace is held by the hand in front of the king.

There are lots of problems with complete and careful solutions. And each chapter ends up with key pointers.

And don’t think this book is just for complete beginners. It starts at the beginning but it covers a lot of territory. There are ideas like “the risk of going down extra tricks versus making the contract” or “finessing into the non-danger hand” or the euphonically named “Bath Coup”.

Buy this book for your favorite new bridge player but read it yourself first.  Even good bridge players will learn something and enjoy doing it.

I plan to write some more blogs in the next few weeks now that I remember how much I enjoyed sharing my thoughts with people and some beautiful hands.

I do want to do some other blogs especially some for my favourite Israeli bridge player Norm, who I play with on BBO. Norm has been with me through house moves and toothaches and all sorts of other personal things.

But I have a special feeling for 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know: Practice Makes Perfect. It take me back many years to when Master Point Press was a baby and we published 25 Conventions You Should Know. My mother and I were very much a part of that book.

My mother, who will be 91 in a few weeks, is no longer able to play bridge, but I know that through a lot of her life and especially after my dad passed away getting together with her bridge ladies was an important part of her life. And 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know was their bible.

Practice Makes Perfect is a companion to 25 Bridge Conventions, and is written by Barbara Seagram and David Bird. The idea behind it is to remind people of the conventions but also to provide some bridge hands to play to help readers understand exactly how to use them.

The book works perfectly well in a bridge class since each chapter (one convention) has four hands, which is about what Ray and I would get through in a class of beginners or intermediates.

What I particularly like about the book is the bridge hands. Of course with David Bird as a co-author you would expect good hands. And with Barbara as a co-author you would expect the content to work very well for teachers and students alike.

And with some tears, I just wished my mom still had the mental capacity to enjoy this book.

Here is one deal I liked: the first hand in the third section, Sophisticated Stuff, Chapter 8, which discusses Lebensohl 2NT.  I am going to focus more on the play not the bidding, which is described and explained in more detail in the book.

 

18

E-W

North

N

North

KQ10

Q95

KJ4

A982

 

W

West

A9652

102

Q73

Q75

 

E

East

873

AKJ764

8

KJ3

 

S

South

J4

83

A109652

1064

 

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

1NT

2

2NT

Pass

3

Pass

3

All Pass

 

 

 

A very brief description of the bidding (by me not David or Barbara) 2NT by South is not a notrump raise but an example of Lebensohl. North dutifully bids 3 and South can now play 3 after the opponents pass.

The opening lead is the  10. East overtakes with the  J and continues with the top two hearts. How do you play the hand? (Okay, so double dummy its pretty easy, but think about your options). 

…………..

Its all about guessing who has the trump queen. East did overcall but he has six hearts. As the authors say, given that East has six hearts, West is a favorite to hold diamond length. You therefore trump with the ace and finesse East for the queen. While the book takes you through the rest of the deal you can take it from there.

Also the authors point out that a switch at Trick 3 can defeat the contract. Do you see it? Would you have found it?!

1. Opening lead considerations.

   It is a disadvantage to have the lead coming up to a 1NT overcaller (as opposed to a 1NT opener) since opener’s partner will lead opener’s suit unless he has an even better lead (which opener probably won’t find)! If he does lead opener’s suit it will be through any card or cards that dummy may have in the suit, rather than the opener leading up to it or them if he is on lead (as in systems off). So, w.r.t. opening leads, it is clearly better to simply have the 1NT overcaller’s partner bid his suit naturally and have the lead come from the opener rather than his partner. Also, if you transfer (as in systems on) then opener can double to show a second suit and/or suggest an alternate lead, which he can’t do if you play systems off unless he is willing to risk bidding the suit at the three-level.

2. There is a cue-bid available.

   The 1NT overcaller’s partner now has a cue-bid available for Stayman, unlike the partner of a 1NT opener. In addition to probing for a 4-4 major suit fit, the cue-bid can be used to handle strong one-suited or two-suited hands (see below for invitational hands) by starting with a cue-bid and then bidding a suit (rather than transferring into the suit), which is a forcing sequence. With a weak two-suited hand you would ignore your second suit (as you also would in systems on) and merely bid your best suit at the two-level.

3. A 1NT overcaller’s partner is more likely to have a bust than a 1NT opener’s partner, so you are more likely to be doubled for penalty.

   If the opener’s partner doubles 1NT for penalty (or even if he merely passes), it is a serious disadvantage to be unable to run to two clubs or two diamonds (both of which are forcing in systems on).

4. Your side is less likely to have game-going or slam-going values.

   So the importance of any advantages (if any) that playing systems on confers towards finding the best contract is lessened (especially at IMP’s), since usually only a part score is involved.

   You can handle invitational bids in systems off by jumping in your suit rather than by transferring and then bidding 2NT or then bidding your suit (with six), as you would in systems on. A possible disadvantage to this is that, if you only have a five-card suit, you will play a 5-2 fit if partner declines your invitation and has a doubleton in your suit, whereas you are able to play 2NT using systems on. But, when this is the case, playing your 5-2 fit often works out better than playing 2NT.

There are several other popular conventions that have been insufficiently analyzed (or they would have become unpopular!). Examples: fast arrival, support doubles, requiring support for partner’s suit when using Drury or an immediate cue-bid, two-way new minor forcing, systems on after a 1NT opener is doubled for penalty, negative doubles after a 1NT opener, bidding a suit to show two of the top three honors after your partner has opened two clubs, and fourth suit forcing to game (as opposed to merely forcing to either 3NT or the four level). I cover these in detail in the section on conventions in my book, “Things Your Bridge Teacher Won’t Tell You” (Master Point Press).

This holiday season Linda and Ray Lee have decided to put together a list of great bridge books to give as gifts. For twelve days they will post daily blogs about who they would gift each book to and why.

To celebrate the holidays with Linda and Ray receive 20% off each of these great bridge picks on ebooksbridge.com!

eBooks on sale this December

A link to each blog will appear below as they are posted. Stay tuned for the next installment!

A Book for Cynthia by Ray Lee
A Special Relationship by Linda Lee
A Gift For David by Ray Lee
Who Should Get My Favorite Bridge Book by Linda Lee
Here’s one for Fred by Ray Lee
A Gift for our Bridge Student Friends by Linda Lee
A Gift for my Son by Ray Lee
A Gift for My Sister by Linda Lee
A Gift for Papa by Ray Lee
Bridge Problems that Change The Way You Look At a Hand by Linda Lee
A Gift for Roberta by Ray Lee
One Book That Rules Them All by Linda Lee

(Click this link to read Part 1)
(Click this link to read Part 2)

Sorry this part got delayed — partly because some sites and pages that posted the problem were out of sync, plus I was exhausted from overbidding, as usual.

As some of you have guessed, I was the culprit who was West.  The deal was played years ago, and I was playing with Warren Rosner who tragically passed away last year.  He had put up with my bridge and other antics since we were in college!  He’s probably counting his lucky stars up there somewhere that he won’t have to hear me for the zillionth time ask questions such as, “Why did you lead the HQ from xxx QJT876 xx xx against 3NT when a low one probably would have fooled the declarer?”  With us vul and quiet (rare for me, but they already had picked off two of my suits), the bidding by them went 1C-1D-1N-3N.  Dummmy on his left had something like HK9xx, naturally I was void, and declarer had HAxx.  The next time that you think you had really bad luck on a lead, think about this one!

Anyway, my West hand for Extreme Bridge #6 was:

W

West

865

85

KQ105

QJ76

 

E

Warren

Q2

A10732

J43

832

 

Despite the lack of some exotic play like an inverted triple squeeze with a rotating periwinkle, I think there are more interesting points to this deal than there appear to be at first sight. “Unfortunately”, I often can concoct such things about loads of deals.  I staged lots of drone attacks long before drones were commonplace.

First of all, many people questioned aspects of the bidding and play that took place on the actual deal.  Some were:

1. Why didn’t S bid 3S instead of 3NT?  I don’t know.  Ordinarily, I would have, especially on a hand that looks suit oriented due to all those controls, but maybe the declarer was shooting???

Other slight possibilities are that he pulled the wrong bid from the bidding box or that he didn’t see the cards properly.  (This might have been the case for another situation that I’ll mention later.)  He was an excellent player, but EVERY player except you and me, of course, makes mistakes.  Some that aren’t mechanical types of errors even go undetected after hordes of players and analysts examine the hand in post mortems — even with computers.  BTW, don’t tell anyone else about us, and just let them think we might be screwing up when we play them!  Sometimes we can use that to our benefit.

2. Some people said they would open either version 1S, or at least would do so for the second one.  Today anything that vaguely resembles a 1NT opening is opened as such by loads of experts and other players.  Some players did this many years ago, but I think that the tendency has become stronger over the years.  Sometimes it works well for various reasons, e.g., just because the defenders often find out little during the bidding. 

However, with such great controls, I think there is a good chance that 1NT might make it more difficult to reach the best contracts, e.g., good slams — although for some layouts, the opposite is true.  In addition, the hand with the AJT43 of spades is such a powerhouse for a 15-17 1NT opening that I would open 1S instead.  If anyone wants to count points, I’d promote for the controls, good 5 card suit, etc.  It’s better than lots of 18 point hands that huge numbers of players would open with one of a suit, and then jump to 2NT or raise 1NT to 2NT.  I’ll use the bridgewinners.com polling feature to see what others think.

3. Maybe S should hold off taking the DA, instead of taking it to try to block the suit.  Then sometimes W might discontinue the suit because he can’t read the spot cards, W might have 5 solid diamonds except for the DA but have no outside entry, etc.  Then again, W might have bid with a good 5 card diamond suit, perhaps with other excuses.  Who knows?

4. Maybe S should discard the CT instead of a low one.  It seems like that could work out either way, sometimes depending on defensive mistakes, telltale hesitations, etc.  Also, if a spade-club squeeze develops, sometimes it will not matter.

5. Maybe S shouldn’t cash the 3rd round of hearts to get more information.  Sometimes it risks down 2 if things go wrong.  However, maybe someone has been lulled to sleep by the 3N bid (instead of a supposedly “normal” 3S), you’re behind the 8 ball already if straightforward play makes 4 or 5 spades, you can get more info than 4S declarers can because there probably won’t be any opposing ruffs in NT!, etc.                     

Now, I’ll switch to W’s viewpoint: 

1. As some people said, it was strange that S discarded a club and spade.  Since he evidently held only 5 red cards, eons of bridge experience or 1st grade math would indicate that he held 8 black cards — presumably 4 spades since he didn’t rebid them and therefore also 4 clubs.  BUT — then how does he expect to make it with a virtually certain club loser even if he has the CT? (Or maybe no club loser but a losing spade to be used for an endplay instead.  Whoopee-doo!)  That also might result in down 2 instead of down 1.  If he really had 4-4 in the black suits, he probably would plan to develop one of them, and discard twice from the other.

As previously mentioned, the most likely possibility is that he has 5 spades, but he chose not to show them.  Possibly he is shooting, just loves 3NT so much, etc.  Errors such as those stated above, and later realizing the correct hand are slight possibilities.  Similarly, perhaps he thought he had 4 spades, later realized he had only 3, and he really has 5 clubs.  Sometimes when opponents do unexpected things, it pays to be alert for their possible errors.  Otherwise, they may be the ones who are laughing at the end of the deal!   However, many times there may be no reasonable way to take them into account.  

2. Assuming S has 5 spades, he knows that a significant percentage of the field may be in 4S, but a fair number probably will play 3NT because spades never get bid, or they will get there in various ways even if they are bid and raised.  He doesn’t know it, but 4S usually is making assuming he has as little as the SA, which is virtually certain on the bidding.  Many declarers probably will lead to dummy and then toward the AT or AJ.  (Occasionally, 4S may go down if E has the QJ and declarer concocts a safety play for down 1, a low spade is started from dummy instead and E pops the Q from QT, etc.  However, 4S has pretty decent chances on various layouts even if there is a sure spade loser.  For example, there may be an endplay to avoid a club loser, declarer might be able to trump two diamonds and his last losing club will go on a defender’s trump at trick 13, etc.)

3. If the declarer has SAJ, he may try to do something different from what the 4S declarers rate to do.  Playing to drop the doubleton Q is one obvious possibility.  3NT making 3 isn’t going to be all that wonderful if they make 4S or more.  Of course, he has to be somewhat cautious because he might wind up losing to both the 4S and the 3NT declarers.  Getting part of a loaf usually is better than none at all.  Naturally, if he really is shooting, a partial as in loaf may not be of much interest!

4. After running the diamonds, we probably weren’t getting any more tricks if S planned to play either of us to have Q dub, or for Warren to have the SQ (assuming S didn’t play for highly dubious situations such as restricted choice regarding the possibly missing QJ AND a black suit squeeze).  At least he was not making 4!  I got out with a heart, and declarer played another round so he seemed to be looking for info and/or hoping the defense would screw up.  It wasn’t a big surprise.  So why not give him some info/hope, mess with his head, etc.? I was hoping too.  

BTW, I presented the S hand with the SAJxxx first to see what many players would do.  A fairly large percentage played the SA, and then when E played the T, played W for Qxxx originally.  Some others went to dummy with a club, then led a low spade intending to finesse for the Q, but said they might change their mind if the T came up.     

If declarer had the J, with other things being equal, of course the odds were against my partner’s spot being the T.  However, as indicated above, I thought that declarer might have opened 1S with that hand, particularly playing with an expert partner who presumably has some idea how to play NT contracts, so that affects the odds.  (Of course, I guessed wrong about that part!  What else is new?)  As far as I knew, he wasn’t a shy bidder.   Regardless if I discarded a club or made the technically “idiotic” spade discard, with him having the red suit count, and if only missing the Q in spades, etc., I judged (guessed again?) that he probably would play me for the Q (guarding against me having started with 4 or even 5 spades) if he were about to finesse someone.  Maybe the spade discard portion was just a matter of the number of levels of he knows that I know that he knows …

I couldn’t dawdle or else I’d probably have to explain to a committee why it took so long to pitch a spade from xxx!  In addition, I figured that no amount of time would help so despite all the preceding rambling, I just played a spade without a loss of tempo.  He played me for the Q and went down 2.  Warren and I needed almost every matchpoint that we scraped up on this and all the other deals.  We won a squeaker by less than 1/6th of a board. 

5. Alan Truscott asked us for a deal for his NY Times column.  Even though I’ll probably never know whether my discard changed declarer’s play on that layout, we asked Alan if he wanted to use that deal.  He liked it and called it a Psychological Double-cross.

BTW, bridge journalists sometimes say to me that they don’t want a “book” about a hand, tons of “wonderful” drivel that didn’t happen to matter on an interesting deal, etc.  I can’t imagine why they think I might give them such things! (Naturally, it’s obvious they often have a pretty limited amount of space, and even less when they have to report results, make announcements, etc.)

At the point where I had to discard on the heart, holding S865 and CQJ76, Truscott wrote as follows:

“The obvious discard was a club, leaving South to guess the position of the spade queen. But Stauber threw a spade, a play one would expect from a beginner.

No expert would throw a spade from three small cards in such a position, thus indicating the right way to play spades. Or so South thought. He concluded, as Stauber meant him to conclude, that Stauber had begun with four spades including the queen.”

Hey, that reminds me.  I’ve got to leave to play in a Novice Pairs event.

Bye.

(Click this link to read Part 1)

OK, that was lots of fun, right? I’ve collected comments from various places, but that was the practice round! I think practice should be tougher than the “real world”. Therefore, when it counts, you’ll really “Be all that you can be!” (BTW, if you have more comments regarding Part 1, please send them.)

Anyway, I psyched regarding what South held in the spade suit. The actual holding was AJT43. You can believe me this time because later I will tell you about a bridge journalist who reported the deal, and we all know that journalists always tell the truth!

Sooo — this should be EZ. I’ve made some minor changes to Part 1, but the play is the same, and merely the SQ is missing. Go to it!

I’LL BE BACK again with a summary of the comments, some of mine, and what happened when the deal was played.

Extreme Bridge #6

Both Vul, S dealer, Matchpoints

N

North

K97

QJ9

9862

K94

 

S

South

AJ432

K64

A7

A105

W

West

N

North

E

East

S

South

—

—

—

1NT¹

Pass

2

Pass

2

Pass

2NT²

Pass

3NT³

All Pass

 

 

 

(1) 15-17 HCP

(2) 2C was Stayman, but maybe without a 4 card major

(3) When something will confuse two opponents and only one partner, it must be reasonable to do it, right? Ha! Ha! So bid 3N instead of 3S (showing 5 cards), which also would have accepted the invitation!

Lead: DK asks attitude (usually about the A or J). E plays the D4. Assume regular Smith Echo and other standard defensive signals to make things “simple”.

If you have seen this deal before, please do not comment until I show the entire deal, probably in a day or so.

For whatever you want to make of them:

1. If the opponents wanted to bid over 1N, it is not certain now what they were playing then, but assume they were using 2C = H & S, 2N = C & D. When the deal occurred, some of today’s common methods did not exist or seldom were played.
2. It was the final of an ACBL National event, and when the deal was played, all four players had won at least one REAL National very recently — Not the other kinds that the ACBL concocts by the truckload!

I’ll start the play as it actually went, but feel free to comment on bids, plays, or whatever that you would do differently.

S decided to take the DA to possibly block the suit. Then it went H4, 8, Q, A. E won the DJ and played the 3. W took the T & Q, E pitched the H3, and you discarded the S3 and C5.

W got out with H5, and you took two heart tricks ending in your hand. E followed with the 2 & 7, and W played the S5 on the 3rd round.

Now it’s your turn to plan the rest of the play. I’ll put it on some other FB pages, and also on bridge websites such as bridgewinners.com and bridgeblogging.com under my Al the Plumber blog. So if you want to comment, you may want to do it on those.

I’LL BE BACK! (Possibly early if someone has a question about a typo, something else that may be needed to analyze the hand, etc.)

W

Dummy

A106

AK4

AK5

AQ86

 

E

You

KJ

Q762

QJ10

KJ73

Bidding: you open 1NT (12-14), partner bids 5NT and you decide to bid seven based on the fact that you have two four card suits, the 10 of diamonds and an optimistic nature.

Opening lead: 4 of clubs. You play the 6 from dummy, RHO plays the 10 and you win the Jack.

Analysis: the contract has a good chance. You need a 3-3 heart split, a successful guess as to the location of the spade Queen, or a defensive mistake. The play seems straightforward: begin by running clubs so as to force a discard (or discards) that may be helpful; cash three rounds of hearts hoping your long heart sets up; and, if not, decide which way to finesse the spade (the distribution of hearts and clubs in the opponents’ hands may provide a clue). But, there is more to the hand! What is it?

Solution: the key detail to the correct play of the hand is the order in which you cash your clubs! You must win the second club in dummy (in order to preserve a choice as to where to win the third club) and carefully observe what club LHO plays. Noting whether it’s higher or lower than the 4 will tell you if he started with two clubs or more than two. If two, you must win the third club in your hand; otherwise you must win the third club in dummy! Why? So that on the fourth club the hand short in clubs is forced to discard before his partner.

Illustration: if either opponent holds three spades including the Queen, four hearts without the Jack, four diamonds without the Jack and two clubs, then his partner can hold at most one Jack (if he holds none the hand is cold unless declarer has three or more spades). A spade pitch on the third club can’t hurt. But the only pitch on the fourth club that is certain not to cost a trick, no matter what declarer’s distribution is, is from the red suit in which partner does not hold the Jack! – an unsolvable dilemma unless the clubs have been played in the wrong order, in which case his partner can reveal that the safe pitch is a diamond by discarding his lowest diamond. The recommended line of play gives the defender a 50% chance of guessing wrong as opposed to a 100% chance of guessing right. This is a significant increase in your odds of making the contract and should not be squandered – especially in a grand slam!

North (dummy) tables  : KJ  : QJ10  : QJ1083  : J104

East (you) hold  : AQ109  : K63  : 765  : A972

Declarer plays the 4 of clubs. Which club do you play?

There is no clearly correct answer to this question without a firm partnership agreement, which you don’t have. If you play the 9 or 7, partner may read this as encouraging (especially since you are marked with the Ace when he holds the first trick) and continue with the Queen. If you play the 2, partner may play you for five clubs since many players play it this way, and again continue with the Queen.

Now, when you play your highest remaining club (other than the Ace) on his Queen, partner may read this as a suit preference for spades and shift. If so, you will collect +150 on the deal. But, on the other hand, partner (who can have at most an additional Jack based on the bidding) can’t be positive that your card is a suit preference since you may have started with only three clubs, and he may reason as follows:

Partner must have at least one outside Ace or the contract can’t be set unless declarer has specifically Ax of diamonds, at most four hearts, and a spade holding weaker than 10xx (or 10xx or 10xxx and he guesses wrong). If partner has four clubs and two outside Aces or five clubs and one outside Ace, then if I continue clubs he will cash out and set the contract. On the other hand, if I switch to a spade and his only outside Ace is the diamond Ace or the heart Ace then (barring declarer’s unlikely holding mentioned above) we won’t set the contract unless he holds five clubs (in which case we will also set it if I continue clubs). Furthermore, if he does hold the spade Ace, but not the Queen, I only break even (unless he started with Ax of clubs, in which case I must switch to have any chance to set the contract).

So, partner has a dilemma and may go wrong. If so, declarer will make and you will be -120 on the deal. I recommend that you eliminate partner’s dilemma. How?

Overtake his lead of the club King with your Ace and return the 9! If you do this, partner is forced to shift. Not only does your 9 suggest a spade switch but, looking at the dummy, nothing else makes any sense. So, you will collect +50. True, you have cost your side two tricks or 100 points if partner would have guessed right without this play. But if he doesn’t, then you will have cost your side 220 points. At IMP’s, the raw score difference between +50 (two IMP’s) and +150 (four IMP’s) is two IMP’s whereas the raw score difference between +50 and -170 (five IMP’s) is seven IMP’s. However, the actual cost to your side will depend upon the result at the other table (among other possible scenarios, if your teammates play a strong 1NT opener they may get to 3NT from the North side and make with a heart lead).

Personally, I think the odds that partner (even if an expert) will switch unless forced to do so are less than even money, in which case you are taking much the worst of it in any scenario. But then, you know your partner better than I do!

It is hardly the same game to which I was introduced in 1957. Zone 2 was in the limelight with its sensational players continually making their mark in international play. You may remember the names Johnny Crawford, Johnny Gerber, Oswald Jacoby, Boris Koychou, Harold Ogust, Al Roth, Howard Schenken, Sidney Silodor, Tobias Stone … for starters. Money was not a factor. They participated without remuneration .. just for the love and glory of this rapidly developing fascination. Many had daytime jobs and were not dependent upon bridge to support themselves and their families. The Board of Directors was honored by the participation of top level representatives like Sidney Silodor, Tommy Sanders, Don Oakie, Eric Murray and Edgar Kaplan and in 1963 was joined by an up-and-coming newbie named Bobby Wolff. They shared a common goal — the furtherance and improvement of the bridge venues which were beginning to come upon the scene. They voluntarily (without pay) dedicated their minds and time to promoting our game to take it to another level and have it recognized as the greatest mind sport in the world. Today, the direction is not the same. In lieu of striving to elevate bridge to the highest strata .. in some bridge environs .. it equates to High Card Wins.

On another subject, other continents (such as Asia and Europe) have introduced a curriculum into the schools for teaching bridge (some starting back in the nineties). Bridge zeroes in on mathematics, logic, understanding, concentration, problem solving and even more — which will serve the students in greater and more practical areas as they mature. There are millions, yes millions, of children abroad who have been blessed to have bridge already on their rosters. We are light years behind, despite the continuing efforts of many energetic individuals who have been (and still are) giving their all to enlighten the public that we are missing a chip (or a card) by not giving serious consideration to such an upgrade. Easier said than done.

Playing bridge at clubs and tournaments was a popular source of enjoyment, learning and accomplishment. Seeing oneself improve and achieve was the focal point. Aside from rubber bridge games, monetary gains were not in the picture. Master points were issued for winning — an incidental means of recognition for topping one’s rivals. It was awarded for scoring higher than one’s competitors and was an intriguing incentive. Today they are often awarded to players in different classifications (especially the lower ones like ‘C’) — even for coming in below average. Why should we settle for mediocrity or worse? To what depths are we sinking? The original McKenney Trophy (renamed for Barry Crane) saluted those at the helm in the master point race. Master points were much harder to garner .. unlike today — when in many cases they are jestingly equated to an attendance record. Their attraction may ‘up the ante’ in the way of ACBL membership and club attendance, but does not say much for furthering the importance and unequalled electricity of the game.

Directing (in most cases) is a far cry from the standards exhibited by such legends as Harry Goldwater, Maury Braunstein and their peers as well as more current standard bearers like Solly Weinstein and Chris Patrias (and others I have overlooked). They knew the game inside and out and had the courage of their convictions, not being subjected to outside influences. Same is true of some Appeals Committees. Too many other distractions and home invasions have tainted the thinking of some at the helm. There is no denying other enormous stumbling blocks .. distance of venues, cost of travel, availability and willingness of qualified experts to serve, the resorting to telephone committees and more. I have no answer .. but it must be addressed.

Back to participation at the table. What are the reasons for playing? They are manifold. To some it serves to pass idle time, socialize, see old friends and meet new ones, chat, entertain oneself, etc. Great — whatever floats your boat! However, organized bridge which includes sanctioned clubs, tournaments and NABCs has the responsibility to hire, educate and dutifully train their directing staff to respectfully guide the players from veering off the straight and narrow. It is understandable that people new on the scene get caught up in the exuberance of their new found toy. I often suspect that individuals go astray by not being groomed and educated how to conduct themselves at ‘Lesson One.’ The ethics and manners of the participants go a long way toward making it enjoyable for all and assuring the game is conducted on a level playing field. Being a beginner or a ‘social player’ are poor excuses. No one is beyond teaching or above learning.

Now to professionalism and sponsorship.

Few people know that though Charlie Goren, who undisputedly was responsible for putting bridge on the map, was a “sponsor.” Charlie was a superb promoter and without him — who knows if I would have met Norman or Bobby .. or even be here now typing away. He was a popular personality and revered by the general public as an expert .. but not judged so by his peers. Fifty years ago this year, Charlie appeared at my wedding to Norman. Most of my guests were bridge players and when he came into view, traffic stopped. It was like the Pope or President of the United States was making an unscheduled guest appearance. Charlie earned his reputation in spades .. but not in the field of expertise! Sponsors are not to be knocked, but recognized for what they represent. In some special cases, though thought of as playing sponsors, a couple current players more than hold their own and in certain instances are as good as some of their teammates. Two of the most high profile players who come to mind are Nick Nickell and Marty Fleisher .. experts in their own right.

Now on to professionalism which has enveloped the world in which we live. Few of these pros have ‘real’ nine to five jobs .. and who can blame them? Certainly not I! Nothing beats getting paid to play the game you adore. When the economy was booming, there was no limit to what some of the very top pros were receiving. No doubt the very best still are. However, now in 2013, many paychecks have been reduced considerably and oft-seen sponsors have disappeared .. making some of the lesser known pros scratch and claw for business. Understandable! I find no fault with paying to learn from, and play with, a top bridge star, but feel strongly it should be kept in its proper perspective. If you can afford it .. go for it. That’s what money is for.

However, at some point, I believe the powers-that-be must draw a line. How??? The answer to me is obvious .. by not allowing mediocre playing sponsors to buy a berth on an international team to represent one’s country. I think the buck should stop there. World competition should be about sending the very best a country or zone has to offer! From recent performances by Zone 2, the results are disappointing. Our stature in world bridge is on the decline and I find it sad since I remember the good old days when, though we didn’t always win, we were in contention and never far behind.

I had intended to address another matter in detail (the social aspects of bridge as opposed to the serious side) .. but I got caught up in this rant and will save my original thoughts for another time. Enuf!!!

A Halloween Hand

by Anisa Nixon

Once upon an evening still, while I pondered a hand most ill,
For any strong suits or which defenses best,
There came a knock-knocking on my apartment door,
As if someone was inclined to disturb my rest,
And the relaxation for which bridge was best,
Was not to continue, any more.

I grumbled and stood as quickly as able, my horrible hand flat on the table,
Bidding my partner a moment, please,
To see who was knock-knocking at my door.
I unlocked the lock, with scared, quivering knees,
Sure I could hear the ominous creaking of trees,
Over the sound of my heart’s sudden roar.

 

The knob turned without sound, my imagination abound,
For it was All Hallows’ Eve tonight,
Upon which our game had never fallen before.
My mouth was dry, my throat was tight,
As I turned the knob towards the right,
And slowly creaked open my dangerous door.

The clock struck three and I jumped, truthfully,
For the Witching Hour had me on guard.
I then stood in silent shock, my hand on the door,
As my former partner whose gaze was hard,
Showed his hands still full of our old cards,
Which held no luck, any more.

I couldn’t stop a scream, wishing it were a dream,
That he had returned with such a hand.
It was a nightmare at my door.
I shook my head against his demand,
That I take back that last grand slam,
Which I had never even asked for.

On that dark eve I just could not believe,
Even as my spine prickled with chill,
What my old partner would come back for.
Because I had moved on from that partnership thrill,
As he’d outlined in his last will,
Since he had died, three years before.

But in a blink he had vanished, as if he had been banished,
From this moment, now quiet and still,
Leaving me alone standing at my door.
I turned back to the table and my current partner Jill,
Picking up the hand I’d left there to swill,
And gasped to see it a different score.

Our new bidding started and I played brave-hearted,
With this fresh hand given to me,
Thanks to an old partner at my door.
We took all our tricks with no debris,
And I made a new decree,
Not to turn away old partners, any more.

At least not on All Hallows’ Eve!

Last week we announced

In honor of Ian McKinnon winning the Alan Truscott award we are also awarding user Kiki with a 15$ gift certificate for ebooksbridge.com for giving support to his Duplicate Bridge Schedules, History and Mathematics. You will receive an email shortly containing your unique coupon code and information on how to redeem.

For everyone else who entered you will receive your unique coupon code email to redeem your 5$ coupon with ebooksbridge.com. The coupons are mailed to the email address associated with your bridgeblogging.com comment account. We hope you enjoyed the contest and we appreciate all the support and love you have for each of the nominees.

It showcases players at the top, acting ethically and often at a cost to their standing. 

Maybe more of our experts should emulate such behaviour. Yes, that would be you Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel. 

This is bridge at the top in every way. Thank you to these players for doing the right thing. 

_________________________________________

John Simon Sportsmanship Award
Recipients: Jeff Ruben & Andrew Stayton (USA)
and Debbie Rosenberg (USA)

Jeff Ruben & Andrew Stayton Debbie Rosenberg
The John Simon Sportsmanship Award is granted occasionally for acts of sportsmanship by bridge
players that define how we all should act. This year there were two incidents at the North American
Bridge Championships in Philadelphia in July that stood out.

Firstly, in the David Bruce 0-5000 Life Master Pairs, Jeff Ruben and Andrew Stayton, who had won the
event, were checking their matchpoint scores against their estimates. They noticed that their score for
one board greatly exceeded their estimate. Upon checking further, they discovered that the score for
that board had been entered incorrectly, and furthermore, that the correct score would drop them
from first to second place. They immediately reported the correction to the Tournament Directors.

Secondly, Debbie Rosenberg woke up in the middle of the night realising that her team in the Richard
Freeman Mixed Board-a-Match Teams had scored a board incorrectly, winning a full point rather than
the correct half a point (board-a-match in the ACBL is scored as a point for a win on the board and half
a point for a draw). The margin of her team’s win was less than half a point. Rosenberg also immediately
reported the error to the directing staff, dropping her team out of first place into second. 

While it is true that these actions are covered in the rules of the game, the behaviour of Ruben, Stayton
and Rosenberg is laudatory and shows that there is sportsmanship at all levels of the game

I beg to differ with the last sentence. How many would want to keep a tainted title? I won’t pretend to know but clearly there are those who would keep any ill-gotten gain, the price is moot. I would say it shows that there are some ethical players who abide by the letter, spirit and intent of the law. Clearly there is quite a contingent who feel otherwise. Pity. 

TY Jeff, Andrew and Debbie for showing us that sportsmanship is alive and well with you. WD!!

And SHAME on you others who just can’t do the right thing……GL to you. 

CF 

Option 1:

Option 2:

Option 2 is more consistent with the order of the suits in tournament bidding boxes, where as option 1 is in reading order.

Which would you prefer for your blogging tools?

To submit your vote you can visit our facebook page at www.facebook.com/BridgeBlogging or you can comment to this thread with your vote.

At the Toronto Regional I held this:

Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me – no more.