From the editors......
W e have just watched one of the most
fascinating federal elections in
Canadian history, an election in which
the party that had formed a majority gov-
ernment for the past nine years managed
to elect only two members. As the results
came in on election night, Conservative
party strategist Hugh Segal commented
that "the people had spoken, and the peo-
ple were always right". The Canadian
people had decided that it was time for a
change, and even though his party was
being obliterated before his eyes, Mr.
Segal understood that in a democracy the
will of the people is sacred. It is the basis
for all we believe in.
In an election for the position of
Director of the ACBL, the process is not
quite as directly democratic: the elected
and/or various Units vote on behalf of the
members to select our District representa-
tive on the ACBL Board of Directors.
This summer the directors of the various
Units in District 2 held such an election.
There were two candidates: the incum-
bent, Doug Drew, who has held the posi-
tion for many years, serving well and
with great vigour, and Jonathan Steinberg,
who has a long record in bridge adminis-
tration, and is currently a member of the
ACBL Board of Governors, a volunteer
advisory body. We did not make any
comments during the campaign process
since we do not see it as the job of this
magazine to endorse political candidates.
However, when the votes were counted
in late September, it was clear that here,
too, the people had spoken and that again
it was time for a change: Mr. Steinberg
was elected with a significant majority
(39 - 31).
Shortly after this, Mr. Drew filed a
protest with the ACBL based on alleged
technical irregularities; the ACBL
Election Committee, consisting of three
members of the ACBL Board, rejected
this protest unanimously. We congratu-
late them on their good sense. The posi-
tion of director is not a sinecure or a
reward for service, it is a demanding and
important position. The membership is
entitled to get the director that they
clearly selected, and the ACBL must act
in good faith on behalf of its members
and accept their choice. Like Kim
Campbell on election night, the defeated
candidate must accept the verdict "with
disappointment, but without reserva-
tions".
Now that the election is over, we do
feel it is appropriate to make three points.
First, on behalf of the membership of
District 2, we want to thank Mr. Drew for
his many years of distinguished service,
which included a year as ACBL President;
we are sure he will continue to contribute
to bridge organization in some capacity.
Second, we want to congratulate Mr.
Steinberg on his victory and wish him
well as he represents our District on the
ACBL Board.
Finally, we think that to ensure a
continuing source of energy, new ideas,
and freshness on the ACBL Board of
Directors, and to keep possible suspicion
of political favours or pork-barrelling
from creeping in, it is important that the
number of terms that a Board member
may serve should be limited. Many
members of the ACBL have been on the
board for twenty years or more. Here,
too, it is time for change.
Mr. Steinberg, this should be one of
the first messages you carry to
Memphis.
 c a n a d i a n

Master Point
a m a g a z i n e f o r b r i d g e p l a y e r s
331 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Ont., M5M 1H2
Tel: (416) 781-0351 • Fax: (416) 781-1831 • E-mail: ray@masterpointpress.com
November 1993 Vol. II Number 5
From the mailbag ... 3
Doppelganger by David Silver 4
Newtonian leads by Allan Falk 9
Toronto 4 Montreal 0 by Ray Lee 11
The significant-other dilemma by Roselyn Teukolsky 15
Reading the hand.... 17
Bridge anacrostic by "Griffin" 18
Percy E. "Shorty" Sheardown
Shorty Remembered by Bruce Gowdy 21
A double-edged sword by Ray Lee 22
Improving 2/1 auctions by Fred Gitelman 23
Restricted choice - fact or fiction? by Eric Sutherland 28
Suit lead by John Gowdy 30
A framework for discussion (part 9) by Mary Paul 32
For Future Experts
Competitive bidding by Joe Seigel 35
He who hesitates by Barbara Seagram 36
Software review - Positronic Bridge 38
Reading the hand - solutions 39

Canadian Master Point is published five times per year. It is available free of charge through a number of bridge clubs
and bridge supply houses in Ontario and Quebec. Copyright © 1993 Canadian Master Point. All rights reserved; reprinting
of contents without the express written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Correspondence and articles should be sent
to the above address with SAE if return or reply required.

ED. BOARD: Ray Lee, Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, Diane Bryan, John
Gowdy
 From the mailbag .....
Congratulations!
The ACBL Bulletin and September
Canadian Master Point arrived on the
same day. I read Canadian Master Point
first from cover to cover. A wonderful
bridge magazine indeed.
I hope you have kept all the photo-
graphs in your archives. They may be
needed by the CBF magazine someday.
JOHN ARMSTRONG
Editor, The Kibitzer
Many thanks for the kind words, John.
We appreciate all the support you have
given us, since before our first issue.
Ed.
The Silver-Tongued Devil
Thank you for printing “A
Reasonable Man”! I started reading it on
the subway, and was laughing out loud by
page 2. Couldn’t stop. Every word a de-
light. Portrait of Silver catches every
arrogant self-righteous “expert” and de-
scriptions of Gowdy’s attempts at self-
control just AMAZING!
All the articles are interesting -- I
hope, however, to see more of this sort
from the talented David Silver.
MARILYN WHITE
Toronto, ON
As you can see, we have so far managed
to wring an article out of the busy Mr.
Silver for every issue. We also hope to be
publishing a Silver collection in book
form next year sometime, if David can
find time to finish it! Ed.
Canadian Master Point
Partnership Database?
Congratulations on publishing
Canadian Master Point magazine. I find
the articles both interesting and thought-
provoking and am always looking for-
ward to the next issue.
I have a suggestion to make, one
that may benefit some of the many bridge
players living in the greater Toronto area.
I have been playing this wonderful game
for over ten years, and have accumulated
over a thousand masterpoints. I have no
shortage of partners.
However, I am looking for a partner
who not only wishes to improve their
game, but is willing to devote some time
and effort to forming a solid partnership.
By this I do not mean just playing two or
three times a week. My ideal partner
would be prepared to spend many hours
discussing various aspects of the game
with me, and would be willing to try new
ideas and systems published in magazines
such as yours. I have yet to find such a
person.
Why not print a form in your maga-
zine that could be filled out by players
who would send their bridge data to you?
You could arrange for potential partners
to get together. I for one would be will-
ing to pay a fee for this service.
S. ROY-CHOWDHURY
Mississauga, ON
Actually, we know of just such a service,
run for profit, in the UK. It actually
wouldn’t be very hard to set up, if there
were sufficient interest. What do our
readers think? Are there enough people
out there who would like to see it hap-
pen? Ed.
 Doppelganger
D a v i d S
M ay I explain
the process,
Mrs. Silver?"
asked Professor
Igor. "After all,
you can't make an
intelligent decision
unless you know
exactly what we're going to do to your
husband." She nodded assent and he
continued.
"Well, the idea is, in layman's terms,
to clone your husband. Replicating him
physically is the easy part, existing tech-
nology is quite sufficient for that, but
giving him consciousness and memory,
that until now has been impossible.
"But now, with the new Mohican
Neural-Sync transplant methodology, we
can utilize your husband's lower neural
pathways to propagate an audioencepha-
lographic interferotric effect which can
be used to transmit EEG mapping elec-
trodes to the host. Unfortunately, as a
result of the recent government cutbacks,
we have limited capacity equipment and
we can only transmit a very limited num-
ber of neural nodes. That's why your hus-
band is such an ideal subject....
"Thank you, Professor Igor," inter-
jected President Oldham, "But I must
make certain that Mrs. Silver is fully
aware of all the risks. You do understand,
don’t you, that the process has never been
tested? We wanted to try it out on a labo-
ratory rat first, but we're currently under
a restraining order obtained by the Rats'
Rights Action Committee. However, no
group or individual has raised any objec-
tion to our using your husband for this
experiment, and David was only too
happy to take part..”
Indeed, given the alternatives that
had been carefully explained to me, in-
cluding my current pitiful pension entitle-
i l v e r
ment, he was right. I had one last hope
-- my wife. I waited, in confident silence,
for my beloved to withhold her permis-
sion.
"Mrs. Silver," repeated President
Oldham. "How do you feel about giving
your consent to David's being the subject
of this experiment? After all, there is the
possibility of early widowhood if any-
thing goes wrong. But there are, of
course, obvious advantages, should we
meet with the expected success. You see,
our new cloning process, invented right
here at Mohican College, will bring fame
and fortune to all the participants, even
David."
"Even posthumously?" she asked as
I wondered what that had to do with any-
thing.
"Of course," Oldham replied. "But
we mustn't think negatively; after all,
aside from the money and fame, there
would be other benefits. Think of it, two
Davids to help around the house, run er-
rands, earn salaries, and.." he leaned for-
ward and lowered his voice, "Perform
other duties!"
"Twice a year instead of once? Be
still my beating heart!" she replied. Far
from making any opposition to the pro-
posal, my darling seemed distressingly
eager to sign the release form which
President Oldham was placing on his
desk before her. She grabbed the pen
from his hand, scrawled her signature on
the document, rose from her seat and left
quickly without wishing me good luck.
I began to have misgivings as two
burly graduate students strapped me on to
the laboratory table. Professor Igor was
injecting green fluid into my arm and as
I began to lose consciousness, I said,
"Igor, I've always wanted to know what
your last name is, but you're not on the
faculty list."
November 1993
 "I don’t use one; but you’ve proba- good as I was, and who understood me
bly heard of the fellow I did my graduate perfectly. "Know thyself" the philoso-
work with... Dr. Fran..." I lost the rest of pher has advised, and I certainly did.
his reply as I drifted off. The test conditions were quickly es-
I awoke to find myself staring at me. tablished, and Silver 1/4 and I found our-
Igor introduced me to “Silver 1/4”, ex- selves playing an intense IMP match
plaining that the computer had calculated against local experts Wright Cardinal and
that (Silver ÷ 2 = 1/4). Everyone seemed F.I.R. Baker. Things were going our way,
to find that extremely funny for some and after a series of slight gains, three
reason and the name stuck. Aside from vulnerable game swings and an 800 pen-
appearing much older than me, Silver 1/4 alty, I picked up the fourth hand.
was a perfect replica. I assumed they had Wright passed and my partner
given him some extra wrinkles to avoid opened with one (12-14) notrump; Baker
confusing the original with the clone. doubled and I held:
They were arguing about testing proce- ♠Axxx ❤--- ◆xxxx ♣QJ9xx
dures.
"Well," said Professor Igor. "We I briefly considered toughing it out in one
could give them intelligence tests and see notrump doubled, but what's the point of
if they score identically." having an elaborate rescue system if you
"Great," said President Oldham, don't use it? So I made the systemic bid
"But if we use the chimpanzees for a con- of redouble, which would force a 2 ♣
trol group again, we'll be the laughing response from partner.
stock of academia. I have a better idea: Cardinal ignored the alert and
send them off to a bridge tournament with passed, and Silver 1/4 bid 2 ◆ . Baker
some trained observers. David is a fa- came in with 2❤ and I raised partner to
mous expert, and we can compare Silver 5◆. Baker asked for an explanation of
1/4's level of play to the original's." the bidding before slowly passing. The
As an aside here, it is worth noting ❤A hit the table with a resounding whack
that I have often surmised that consistent as I proudly put down the dummy. The
success in bridge competitions is depen- play was quick and the outcome predict-
dent upon having an established partner- able, plus 400 for us.
ship. Many bidding situations are
obscure unless there have been prior dis- Silver
cussions and/or agreements as to what ♠ Axxx
"treatments" apply in specific situations, ❤ ---
and misunderstandings frequently occur.
So impotant does this factor appear to be
◆ xxxx
that I could name some extremely suc- ♣ QJ9xx
cessful partnerships whose victories Baker Cardinal
could be credited more to their empathy ♠ Kxx ♠ J109x
than to their individual ability. ❤ AKQxxx ❤ J10xx
My own tournament record would
more accurately reflect my bridge skills ◆ xx ◆ xx
if I had only been able to find a partner ♣ AK ♣ xxxx
who understood my advanced bidding Silver 1/4
methods. But bridge players of my intel- ♠ Qxx
lectual abilities are extremely rare, and ❤ xxx
the few that I have met have been reluc-
tant to play with me, for reasons presum-
◆ AKQJx
ably relating to professional jealousy. ♣ 10x
But at last I had a partner who was just as

Canadian Master Point

Partner ruffed the ❤A and led a club to
the ten and ace. Baker shifted to a spade
which was ducked to declarer's queen and
another club was led. Baker won the ♣K
and put another spade in play. However,
with the trumps dividing, declarer was
able to draw trumps, ruff a heart with
dummy's last trump and cash three more
club tricks. My doppelganger had all my
famed analytical skills and I listened ap-
preciatively to him admonishing Baker
for trying beat a high-level contract by
cashing quick tricks.
"Surely you didn't expect Silver and
me to bid to an eleven-trick game off
three top tricks? The bidding screamed
for a spade lead. And of course, with
your hand, the expert bid was 4❤, per-
fectly describing your offensive potential.
Then, when the opponents bid 5 ◆ ,
Cardinal would have an easy bid of 5❤.
Because of the felicitous lie of the ♠Q,
5❤ is only one down. Of course an ex-
perienced partnership like us would never
let you play 4❤, but another pair might
not bid on and you could gain a double
game swing. Bidding only 2 ❤ was a
fatuous waste of time."
It is, however, well-nigh impossible
to transmit knowledge from one genera-
tion to the next. Our young opponents,
instead of gratefully taking notes, were
visibly annoyed, at what I had no idea.
Well, that's why they will never become
the bridge player we are; they're obvi-
ously not serious students of the game.
I picked up the next hand, which
presented a problem: tions.
♠Axxxx ❤K1098 ◆Axx ♣x
The problem was that my partner had
opened the bidding 1♠. This was one of
those hard-to-categorize hands. Too
strong for a limit raise, it was not good
enough for Jacoby 2NT which would
promise thirteen or more high card points
as well as four trumps. I have always
held the view that splinters give away too
much defensive information, apart from
allowing the opponents to get in lead-di-
recting doubles, or even find cheap saves,
so 4♣ held no attraction for me. I felt 4♠
was a poor compromise, because I did
have controls and my partner might pass
up a slam opportunity thinking my bid
was preemptive.
But the solution came to me, as it
always does: I responded with 2❤.
This showed ten or more points and,
if partner raised hearts, I could easily cor-
rect later to spades, the higher ranking
suit. I began to appreciate the flexibility
that a well-established partnership enjoys
in describing offbeat hands! For us, there
are no bidding problems, just intelligent
solutions.
The auction became even more in-
teresting as he answered with a jump to
4❤. "What a fit," I thought as I corrected
to 4 ♠ . His next call was 4NT and I
showed my two aces. Now 5NT asked for
my kings so I bid 6◆ to show one king.
At this point the auction suddenly became
very sophisticated.
I have often watched, with a mixture
of admiration and envy, the ease with
which established partnerships exchange
information about their hands. Now that
Silver 1/4 and I had a similar rapport, I
was able to initiate a complex bidding
sequence at the six level to explore the
possibilities of a grand slam in spades!
My partner made a tentative grand slam
try with 6❤, showing his control, so I
identified my club control by bidding
7 ♣ . His response was 7 ◆ , a bid that
completely mystified me until I carefully
pondered the bidding and its implica-
I worked it out! My partner was sug-
gesting that 7NT might be a safer contract
than 7♠ and was asking me to choose.
But I really could not make a rational
decision from what I knew, so I decided
to tell him a little more about my hand
and pass the decision back to him. I bid
7❤, showing my second round control,
and prepared to put the dummy down
after he chose the final contract. He
passed, however, and with some surprise
I became declarer in 7❤.
November 1993
 Something had gone wrong, of six trump tricks out of the spade suit. But
course, but I wasn't upset. This time there with hearts as trumps, the club ruff gives
would be no yelling and screaming from us thirteen tricks: six spades, five hearts,
partner, no apportioning blame, no re- and two diamonds."
criminations, only a calm discussion and "It's our partnership discipline,
analysis of the auction. We would grow David. Good order is the foundation of
as a partnership from this and I could all good things, especially bridge partner-
envisage a time when we would have no ships. But we can't relax, there is an ex-
bidding misunderstandings, ever. cellent pair at the other table and I’m sure
Meanwhile, Cardinal and Baker would they'll be in 7❤ too. It’ll be a push, but it
get a lucky swing, and perhaps be over- would have been a big swing if we’d
confident as the match progressed. missed a cold grand slam."
I examined the dummy and prepared Our opponents sullenly insisted on
to minimize our losses. resuming play and the match recom-
menced. I found myself defending against
Silver 1/4 4♠, confidently bid. My partner led the
♠ KJxxxx ❤7 and the dummy appeared.
❤ AQJ
Dummy
◆ Kxxx
♠ QJ109
♣ ---
❤ KQJ10
Cardinal Baker
◆ AJ10
♠ Q ♠ x
♣ Qx
❤ xxx ❤ xxx Silver
◆ xxx ◆ QJx ♠ xx
♣ AKQxxx ♣ xxxxxx ❤ Axxx
Silver
◆ xxx
♠ Axxxx
♣ xxxx
❤ K1098
◆ Axxx I won my ❤ A and returned the suit.
♣ x Partner ruffed and cashed the ♣AK: one
down.
The opening lead was the ♣ A, and I Undaunted, Baker and Cardinal
ruffed in dummy and paused. After about picked up the next hand and quickly bid
ten minutes' intense thought, I realized to 4❤. Silver 1/4 led the ♠7 after some
that I had thirteen tricks, barring a 5-1 thought, and the dummy appeared:
trump split. I cashed dummy's ❤AQ,
and when both opponents followed, I Dummy
claimed the contract. Cardinal, as is his ♠ KQJ10
habit, insisted that I play the hand out so ❤ QJ109
I came to my hand with the ◆ A, and
◆ AJ10
cashed my king-ten of trumps, discarding
dummy's two losing diamonds. Then, ♣ Qx
very slowly, I played out dummy's six Silver
spade tricks. ♠ Axxx
"You're a genius, David," I said ad- ❤ xx
miringly. "7❤ is the only makeable grand
slam. In 7♠ you have to ruff the club in ◆ xxx
the long trump hand so you still get only ♣ xxxx

Canadian Master Point

Declarer rose with dummy's ♠K and I
ducked smoothly. The ❤Q followed and
Silver 1/4 won the king when Baker
played low. The ♠3 was played to my
ace and I played a third spade. My part-
ner ruffed, and then cashed his ♣A for
one down again. This time, all hell broke
loose.
Cardinal and Baker were certainly
poor losers. Of course they hadn't the
benefit of my experience, but really, to
accuse your opponents of cheating just
because they defend accurately....
Ordinarily, I would "excuse the brisk in-
temperance of youth" but they were up-
setting my other self as well as attracting
attention from the other tables.
"What do you mean by inconsis-
tent?" I bellowed. "We needed a ruff to
beat the first hand so I returned my part-
ner's obvious singleton. I held up my ace
on the second hand because it was the
only way to defeat the contract.
"I can't explain table presence to
whippersnappers. Play bridge at an ex-
pert level for thirty more years and per-
haps then you will approach my level of
proficiency. Your poor sportsmanship is
upsetting my partner: look at him, he's
going to pieces."
And he was, literally, falling apart.
Mohican College technicians appeared
from nowhere, quickly picked up the
body parts littering the floor, stuffed them
into plastic bags and made off. As much
as I regretted abandoning my first win-
ning match since the 1956 Spring
Nationals I had no choice but to withdraw
my team and return to the college for
debriefing.
"David, surely you understood that
it was only to be a temporary clone!"
President Oldham exclaimed soothingly.
"Think of the legal ramifications if one of
you had been in an accident, or wandered
from custody, or even cheated at cards?
Of course the experiment was automati-
cally terminated. It was actually designed
to last a few days longer, but all that ex-
citement must have overloaded the neural
circuits prematurely. Nevertheless, we
learned a lot and got a great deal of pub-
licity.”
"But don’t you see, Bill, I can never
play bridge again?” I was distraught.
“He was the best partner I ever had. How
can I go back to a life of misunderstand-
ings, quarrels, and humiliations after
today? I'm going to have to give up
bridge and devote all my energies to
Mohican College. Perhaps I'll go into
administration; I've always wanted to, but
I could never spare the time."
The President was not a well man,
and suddenly now his eyes glazed over
and he turned a deep purple. I was franti-
cally reaching for the phone to summon
assistance when his affliction alleviated
slightly and he was able to speak.
"David... David.... put the phone
down and listen carefully. You mustn’t
give the game up! Your college wants
you to play bridge, lots of bridge. Your
exploits generate a lot of publicity and we
need all we can get. I am ordering you to
take a leave of absence next semester and
go to the Nationals. Play a few other tour-
naments on the trip down and back .. I’ll
set up an expense budget for you. My
admin. assistant will be at your disposal
to help you with the travel arrangements...
just call him any time."
I had never thought of my bridge
career as being of any benefit to the col-
lege, but he seemed quite sincere. Perhaps
I was being too hasty in contemplating
retirement; after all, it's not whether you
win or lose, but whether you get to play
the game that's important.
Maybe I could even teach Bruce
Gowdy how to bid properly in time for
the Spingold?
November 1993
 Newtonian Leads
A corollary to the Law of Total Tricks
A l l a n F a l k

Let’s start by treat- On Problem 1, I doubled assuming that

ing this as a quiz. the opponents had simply got carried
What do you lead, away with themselves, or alternatively
and just as impor- that partner would have something distri-
tant, why do you butionally unusual that would prompt
lead it in each him to pull to 5❤. So I led the ♣K, ex-
case? pecting down one on a bad day.
Had I bothered to give the matter
1. This was the first hand out of the thought that it deserved, I should have
the box in our Grand National Teams reasoned as follows: they have only an
District Final. Sitting West, I held eight-card spade fit, and not more than
♠Q6 ❤K9742 ◆1043 ♣KQ10 twenty high-card points. They must not
only have distributional justification for
This was the bidding: this game venture, but if, as experts, they
are applying the Law of Total Tricks, they
No-one Vulnerable must have two singletons between them
plus a two-suited fit. Hence, they must
West North East South have a diamond fit and, since partner’s
takeout double is known to be flawed
1◆1 Dbl. 1♠ (with only three spades), and without
3❤ 3♠ Pass 4♠ compensating high-card strength, he must
Dbl. All Pass have a singleton diamond. A minimal
takeout double of 1◆ with ♠xxx would
1. 8 - 12 hcp be pretty flippant, so East must hold
♠Axx or ♠Kxx. As long as he also holds
Partner is a sound bidder with Roth- a round ace, we can always beat 4♠ if I
Stone tendencies. lead a diamond.

2. This deal is from thre round ♠ 10987
robin of the Open team competition of ❤ 5
the 1993 European Championships, fea- ◆ A962
turing eventual champions Poland against
Denmark. You, West, hold ♣ AJ73
♠ Q6 ♠ K42
♠KJ10 ❤J762 ◆AJ983 ♣3
❤ K9742 ❤ AQ63
The auction is:

◆ 1043 ◆ Q
Both vulnerable ♣ KQ10 ♣ 98642
West North East South
♠ AJ53
Pass Pass Pass 1♣
❤ J108
1◆ 1❤ 2♠1 3◆
◆ KJ875
3♠ 5♣ Pass 6♣
♣ 5
All Pass
Canadian Master Point
As you can see, after a club lead we never
recovered. Now, on past performance, I
never expected East to hold so little in the
way of high cards, but anything extra
would have been a real bonus for the de-
fence. Had East passed 1◆, we would
never have entered the auction, and there
would have been no clue to the killing
diamond lead.
Notice a significant feature about
the hand, namely that the defence had
some semblance of trump control. It
would be too dangerous, without at least
inferential trump control, to lead their
secondary suit, as they might win, draw
trumps, run their side suit discarding los-
ers, and claim, when you had enough fast
tricks in your suits to set them off the top
(or when you needed the tempo to set up
your own tricks).
On the second problem, you are
aware that your side has a two-suited fit,
and so the opponents probably have the
equivalent. Surely each opponent has a
singleton or void to be in a slam with not
much more than half the high cards and
missing at least one ace. As your heart
holding will probably reveal itself even-
tually (partner will be known to have nine
cards in the pointed suits, plus your side’s
trump length), and is easily finessable,
picture the play: declarer needs ruffs in
dummy, and hand entries. If you lead a
pointed suit, declarer can use hearts once
for transportation purposes, and can even
give up the lead before drawing trumps
and running hearts. However, if you lead
a heart, declarer is going to have to draw
trumps before giving up the lead, or else
your partner will get a ruff.
♠ 9
❤ KQ94
◆ 1062
♣ KQ742
♠ Q6 ♠ Q7543
❤ J762 ❤ 5
◆ AJ983 ◆ KQ75
♣ 3 ♣ J65
♠ A862
❤ A1083
◆ 4
♣ A1098
Ron Anderson, writing this hand up in a
report to the ACBL Bulletin, was not
critical of the defenders’ failure to find
the defence: “A heart lead would proba-
bly defeat the slam, but West had no rea-
son to lead anything but a spade.”
Declarer won the ♠A, conceded a dia-
mond, cross-ruffed for a while, drew
trumps, and then, with an accurate count,
took the winning view in hearts to land
his contract. But not against you!
Yes, it’s true that if declarer works
out what is going on, he can make 6♣
regardless. However, my guess is that, if
you led a deceptive ❤7, 99.99% of de-
clarers would play for a 2-2 club break
rather than taking a first-round trump
play of low to the ♣10.
And now to explain the title of this
article. Back in the seventeenth century,
Newton’s Third Law of Motion stated
that “for every action, there is an equal
and opposite reaction”. In bridge, too,
for every advance in bidding science,
there is a corresponding opportunity for
defenders to learn and profit. As the Law
of Total Tricks gains currency in helping
us all to bid our cards to the hilt, alert
defenders will have opportunities to draw
inferences that can illuminate their path
and guide them to the killing defence.
Allan Falk is a Michigan expert whose
books include “Team Trial”, “Spingold
Challenge”, and (our own favourite)
“Bridge Toolkit”.
November 1993
 Toronto 4 Montreal 0
R a y L e e

T he twenty-
s i x t h I n t e r-
City match bet-
ween Toronto and
Montreal, an an-
nual contest for
the Maurice
“Moose” Paul
Trophy between winning teams from the
Toronto IMP League and the Montreal
Bridge League, took place this year at
the Linton Club in Montreal, early in
October. The result was a resounding
victory for the visiting team.
There were four separate 88-board
matches played, two between teams rep-
resenting Flight A, and one each in
Flights B and C, with total IMP’s to be
the deciding factor. In the event, the
scoring system was irrelevant, as
Toronto won all four matches.
In the top bracket, Andy Altay, Ian
McKinnon, David Lindop, and Ed
Bridson established an early 35-IMP
lead over Bert and Rhoda Habert,
George Retek, Brian Fraser, Murray
Goldenblatt, Mark Stein, and Joe Silver,
a lead that was never challenged. The
final difference was 44 IMP’s.
The second Flight A match was
much closer, and the Toronto squad
(Ray and Linda Lee, Bill and Leah
Milgram) trailed by 5 with 14 boards
left to play; they were able to squeeze
out a narrow 8-IMP win over Eric and
Beverly Kokish, Sharyn Reus, Michel
L o r b e r, N i c k K r n j e v i c a n d J o h n
Robinson.
The Flight B match was also very
close, with Toronto’s Vinay Sarin, Ian
Findlay, Nirmal Parmal, Dev Chopra,
Dave White, and Brian Ranson also
coming from behind in the last set for a
slim 12-IMP edge over Andre Trudelle,
C. Lahaie, Normand Guilbault, and
Claude Rouleau.

Andy Altay accepts the trophy from “Red” MacDougall, watched by (l. to r.) Vinay
Sarin, Ian Findlay, Ed Bridson, David Lindop, and Bill Moore

Canadian Master Point

 The overall result was not in doubt
from the earliest comparisons, however,
since the Flight C Toronto team quickly
established a huge lead and increased it
every session. The final margin for Bill
and Honey Moore, Jim Fitzgerald, Don
Wilson, and Mimi and Henry Fliess was
172 IMP’s over Montreal’s Alain
Boucher, Ginette Plamondon, Pierre Ste.
Marie, and Raymond Richelieu.
The home teams were both gracious
losers and excellent hosts, however, with
the high point of the weekend being the
Saturday night party catered by Marie
Retek: kibitzers attending included Boris
Baran, Doug and Sandra Fraser, Tony
“the Tuna” Reus, and newly-elected
ACBL District 2 Director Jonathan
Steinberg.
With 350 deals played over the two
days, there were many interesting
hands.
Altay and McKinnon have been accused
of playing essentially a rubber bridge sys-
tem, but Ian’s recent conversion to many
of the ideas in Larry Cohen’s To Bid or
Not To Bid is changing all that. As they
often seem to find when they change their
system, opportunities quickly arose to use
the new gadgets. The above auction was
a case in point, while the next hand was
one of their first-ever Flannery auctions:
♠ K109xx
❤ ---
◆ KJ10xx
♣ Axx
♠ AQJ7
❤ Kxxxx
◆ Ax
♣ xx

♠ xxx
❤ KQxxx South North
◆ xx McKinnon Altay
♣ KJx 2◆1 2NT2
3♠3 4♣4
4◆4 6♠
♠ Kx
❤ AJ9xx 1. Flannery -- 5❤ and 4♠
◆ AK10xxx 2. Relay for more information
♣ --- 3. 4522 hand, maximum points
4. Cue-bid

West North East South A trump was led, and Ian played the ◆A
Altay McKinnon and the ◆K, intending to run the ◆J and
1◆ throw a club away if East failed to cover.
Pass 1❤ 2♠ 4♣1 However, East’s ◆Q dropped doubleton,
and the result was a fairly easy thirteen
Dbl. Pass2 4♠ 4NT3 tricks for a 13-IMP gain.
Pass 5♣4 Pass 6❤5
(continued on next page)
1. Splinter
2. Showing slam interest
3. RKC Exclusion Kickback (!)
4. 1 or 4 keycards outside clubs
5. Who cares about the ❤Q?

November 1993
 At both tables on the following hand This hand is an instructive declarer play
in the second Flight A match, South be- exercise. South plays 4♠ after an uncon-
came declarer in an aggressive 4♠ con- tested auction, and gets a diamond lead.
tract after West had opened with a weak Assuming best defence, how do you give
2◆. Linda Lee gave it a good play, but yourself the best chance for ten tricks?
in the end could only assemble nine tricks After you win the diamond and draw
after a club lead and spade return. At the trumps (East has four; West pitches three
other table, Bill and Leah Milgram con- clubs), you play the ♣10. West thinks for
structed a pretty defence to beat it three a while, takes his ♣ A, and plays two
and win some IMP’s. more rounds of diamonds. After ruffing
the second of these, you have come to the
♠ Jx moment of truth: the heart suit.
❤ Axxx Both declarers (Eric Kokish and
myself) took the normal-looking line of
◆ KJxxxx
ace and one heart, which wins if West has
♣ K the ❤ K or the hearts are 3-3. Bill
♠ 973 ♠ xx Milgram later pointed out the superior
❤ Jx ❤ K10xx line of leading out the ❤J. This gives
you the extra chance that RHO will have
◆ AQ10xxx ◆ --- a doubleton king and will feel obliged to
♣ xx ♣ AQJ109xx take it.
♠ AKQ10xx Of course, looking at all four hands,
❤ Qxx it would be easy to see the need to duck
◆ 9 the ❤K in this position. However, tt will
surely take an East with nerves of steel to
♣ xxx duck the doubleton ❤K smoothly, and if
he stops to think about it, you’ll have no
After the same start (club to the ace and problem on the next trick!
a spade return), declarer ruffed a club in The full hand was:
dummy, and played a heart towards the
closed hand. Bill hopped with the king, ♠ 42
and cashed a high club, on which Leah ❤ Q42
discarded the ❤J. Bill led a heart for her ◆ 72
to ruff, and now she played the ◆ A.
Alertly, Bill ruffed this, since his part- ♣ KQJ952
ner’s high-low in trumps had told him she ♠ 8 ♠ 10974
started with three, and gave her another ❤ 10975 ❤ K8
heart ruff for the third undertrick. ◆ K54 ◆ QJ10963
♠ 42 ♣ A8763 ♣ 4
❤ Q42 ♠ AKQJ63
◆ 72 ❤ AJ53
♣ KQJ952 ◆ A8
♣ 10
♠ AKQJ63
(continued on next page)
❤ AJ53
◆ A8
♣ 10

Canadian Master Point

Perhaps the most bizarre hand of the At one table Bill Moore opened the North
weekend was the following, from the hand 3 ♣ , after which South (Honey
Flight C match. Moore) launched into Blackwood and
more Blackwood. Correctly concluding
that the ♣AK were not of much use to
♠ 32 her, she subsided in a safe-looking 6❤.
❤ 4 Now consider West’s lead problem. Can
you blame him for leading a black card?
◆ 965
He chose the ♣5, and South scored up an
♣ AKQ10643 overtrick.
♠ K1098654 ♠ J7 At the other table, South opened a
❤ Q ❤ 97 conservative 1❤ after two passes, West
overcalled 1♠ and North jumped to 3♣.
◆ K2 ◆ QJ10874 Now again came Blackwood, and more
♣ J95 ♣ 872 Blackwood, and South elected to shoot
♠ AQ for 7❤. North, obviously not enamoured
❤ AKJ1086532 with his heart void, converted to 7NT,
◆ A8 and West was again on lead. Again, the
♣5 hit the track, and thirteen tricks were
♣ 10 made!
Apparently, the club lead is mand-
atory against any slam!

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

Our main site, with information about our books and software,
reviews and more.

www.masteringbridge.com

Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support mate-
rial for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

November 1993
The significant-other dilemma
r o s e l y n t e u k o l s k y

I t was never part

of my Life Plan
to have a bridge
would like to think --- plays well. Take
this hand from a recent Regional Open
Pairs. Both sides were vulnerable. He
partnership with was West, and held
my husband. What ♠K92 ❤8532 ◆A7653 ♣2
happened was this:
he was a bridge The bidding:
player, I was a
bridge player, we got married, and there West North East South
we were.
Suddenly there were all these ad- 1❤ Pass 2◆1 Pass
vantages. For one thing, I had a built-in 3♣ Pass 3◆ Pass
partner. No more foraging for three bod- 4♣ Pass 3◆ Pass
ies --- all I needed for a social game was 4♣ Pass 6♣ All Pass
another couple. How wonderful it seemed
to have automatic company on the long
rides to bridge tournaments, plus the 1. Game force
added bonus of a built-in escort in the
parking garage after the game. You get My partner led the ♠2 and a reasonable
the idea. This was not a partnership made dummy appeared:
in heaven; it was forged on the anvil of
convenience. ♠ A863
What then is my dilemma? Well, ❤ ---
believe me, the convenient set-up costs ◆ KQJ1084
me plenty. For one thing, I receive enough
bridge lessons to educate an army. For ♣ A74
another, I endure endless hostility be- ♠ K92
cause my husband believes that the errors ❤ 8532
I make are deliberate attempts to upset
him. “You don't really believe that was
◆ A7653
the right play?” he says, incredulous. I ♣ 2
have to live in terror of making indepen-
dent bridge decisions. If I overbid, it's to South cogitated for a good three minutes
spite him. If I don't lead his suit I'm a before playing the ♠A. I played the ♠4
feminist. If I take a phantom save, or do (encouraging) and declarer followed with
something imaginative that doesn't work, the ♠5. Now South called for the ◆K
the entire Women's Movement gets re- from dummy, I followed with the ◆9,
viled. And heaven forbid I should com- South pitched the ♠10, and West was in
mit the ultimate sin of allowing him to be with the ◆A. Take a minute to consider
endplayed. The marriage rocks on its what you would play at this juncture.
foundation. Hell hath no fury like a man No, my intrepid husband did not
who gets endplayed by his wife. play the "obvious" ♠K. He shot back the
So why do I put up with this? ❤2, right into the teeth of South's heart
Because he often --- but not as often as he suit!

Canadian Master Point

Here were the hands: As you can see, the heart play set up
♠ A863 South's heart suit for him, and probably
❤ --- gave him a moment of hope as he entered
dummy with the ♣A and took a club fi-
◆ KQJ1084
nesse. When clubs didn't break, the con-
♣ A74 tract was doomed. There was no entry
♠ K92 ♠ QJ74 back to dummy for a second finesse. Nor
❤ 8532 ❤ Q74 was there any possibility of ruffing a
heart to dummy and trying for a trump
◆ A7653 ◆ 92 coup, because at the time West returned a
♣ 2 ♣ Q965 heart, South had not yet shortened his
♠ 105 trumps to East's length. Try it. It won't
❤ AKJ1096 work.
◆ ---
♣ KJ1083

Now go back and look at what hap- berating his partner for not ruffing the
pens if West returns a spade instead of a heart and playing for a trump coup, I took
heart. He, in effect, forces South to make a minute to let the effect of my partner's
his contract! South must ruff the spade in breathtaking play sink in. "How in the
his hand (thereby shortening his trumps world did you know to return a heart?" I
to East's length), and when he gets the asked him.
bad news about the 4-1 trump break, he “Well, the bidding and play sug-
can ruff a heart back to dummy and gested that declarer's shape was 2-6-0-5,”
trump-coup East! Here is the situation, he replied, “And I knew something that
with the lead in dummy, after South ruffs South didn't --- namely, that the trumps
a heart with dummy's last trump: weren't breaking. I was also pretty sure
that South's trumps weren't solid, because
♠ 86 if they were, there wouldn't be much to
❤ --- the play of the hand. Yet South tanked for
ages on the first trick.
◆ QJ1084
“I decided that the best hope for us
♣ --- was that you held Qxxx of trumps, in
♠ 9 ♠ QJ which case I'd better not help set up a
❤ 85 ❤ Q7 trump coup situation for South. I knew
that he was out of spades by now so a
◆ 7653 ◆ 2 spade play could only help him shorten
♣ --- ♣ Q9 his trumps. A diamond would have given
♠ --- him the extra entry to ruff a spade him-
❤ AKJ109 self. Which left a heart. Hey, look, it's an
◆ --- easy game if you just think about it!”
So I ask you: Would you play with
♣ KJ him?
On the run of the diamonds, whenever
East ruffs in, South can overruff, draw Roselyn Teukolsky is the author of “How
the last trump and the hearts will be good. to Play Bridge with your Spouse - and
If East refuses to ruff, South can pick up Survive”. She is a regular contributor to
East's trumps at trick 12. the ACBL Bulletin and to “Bridge
After this hand, while North was Today”.

November 1993
 Reading the hand....
The following problem positions are each East’s opening bid shows 11-15 hcp, and
taken from a well-known bridge book. a three-suited hand with a singleton or
They are graded in difficulty as follows: void diamond and no 5-card major. Thus,
◆ Rookie ◆◆ Intermediate ◆◆◆ when West leads the ♣3, you can confi-
Expert. Solutions are on page 39. dently place East with 4414. How do you
play?
1. Flawless technique (◆)
3. Early concession (◆ ◆ ◆)
♠ AK6
❤ A8543 ♠ K
◆ K3 ❤ 75
♣ A83 ◆ AKJ10654
♣ 643
♠ Q85432 ♠ 864
❤ K6 ❤ 1093
◆ A ◆ Q73
♣ 10654 ♣ K1075

South plays in 6♠ against the lead of a West North East South

small trump, East following. How should
South plan the play? 1◆ Pass
1❤ Pass 2◆ Pass
2. Enter with care (◆ ◆) 3NT All Pass
♠ 73 West’s lead of the ♠5 is won by dummy’s
❤ A103 king. You contribute the 4, declarer the
10. At trick two, declarer makes a
◆ A82
slightly unexpected play -- the ◆10 from
♣ AJ1092 dummy.
You win the ◆Q, all following. And
♠ AQJ96 then?
❤ ---
◆ KQJ75
♣ Q75

West North East South

2◆ Dbl.
2❤ 3❤ Pass 3♠
Pass 4♣ Pass 4◆
Pass 5◆ Pass 6◆
All Pass

Canadian Master Point

 Bridge Anacrostic
“ G r i f f i n ”

Place the answers to the clues on the dashes beside them. Transfer each letter to its
correspondingly numbered and lettered box in the grid. The grid will reveal a quota-
tion; the initial letters of the answers will give you the author of the quotation and its
source. Word list page 35; Quotation page 31.
T1 H2 F3 T4 A5 Q6 R7 K8 F9 H 10 L 11 B 12 O 13 Q 14 J 15 A 16

O 17 K 18 D 19 E 20 K 21 N 22 G 23 F 24 J 25 N 26 K 27 S 28 Y 29 C 30

K 31 P 32 I 33 Z 34 U 35 O 36 A 37 O 38 F 39 T 40 A 41 V 42 S 43 Q 44 I 45 K 46

I 47 J 48 N 49 F 50 S 51 T 52 A 53 T 54 Z 55 P 56 Q 57 AA 58 D 59 T 60 X 61

B 62 O 63 C 64 V 65 L 66 H 67 T 68 U 69 I 70 A 71 K 72 M 73 F 74 C 75

Y 76 S 77 Q 78 M 79 E 80 D 81 K 82 T 83 J 84 U 85 K 86 W 87 AA 88 A 89

P 90 AA 91 N 92 R 93 B 94 BB 95 Y 96 K 97 A 98 CC 99 C 100 R 101 O 102 BB 103

Z 104 R 105 D 106 AA 107 P 108 R 109 E 110 T 111 BB 112 X 113 Y 114 M 115 E 116 O 117 CC 118

I 119 L 120 V 121 F 122 C 123 B 124 K 125 V 126 BB 127 G 128 L 129 BB 130 AA 131 H 132 CC 133 K 134

P 135 S 136 Q 137 AA 138 E 139 L 140 O 141 F 142 H 143 D 144 G 145 F 146 Z 147 U 148

A 149 W 150 R 151 O 152 Y 153 E 154 P 155 V 156 Z 157 A 158 X 159 W 160 Z 161 D 162 M 163

D 164 C 165 I 166 K 167 X 168 AA 169 T 170 T 171 S 172 D 173 H 174 C 175 P 176 E 177

W 178 V 179 H 180 R 181 J 182 S 183 D 184 Z 185 H 186 AA 187 O 188 U 189 F 190

B 191 BB 192 K 193 T 194 Y 195 CC 196 CC 197 M 198 AA 199 H 200 C 201 K 202 S 203 R 204 R 205

M 206 G 207 J 208 D 209 A 210 P 211 D 212 AA 213 T 214 K 215 I 216

A. Coup: choice of __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __

evils (2 wds) 89 5 16 41 71 98 149 53 158 210 37

B. Starts auction __ __ __ ___ ___

12 62 94 124 191
C. Attorney's action __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___
30 64 75 100 123 165 201
D. Duck to do this! __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
(3 wds) 59 81 106 209 144 162 173 164 184 212 19

E. Get too high __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

20 80 110 116 139 154 177

November 1993
F. Pointless hand ___ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __
122 9 24 39 142 3 146 190 50 74
G. Sworn statement ___ __ ___ ___
207 23 128 145
H. Mean pitch? __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
2 10 67 132 143 174 186 200 180
I. Convention: __ __ ___ ___ ___ __ __
4♣ or 4◆ 33 45 166 216 119 47 70

J. Code of __ __ __ __ ___ ___

behaviour 15 25 48 84 208 182

K. Duck to do this! __ __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __

(3 wds) 18 21 46 97 125 134 167 193 202 215 8
__ __ __ __ __
27 31 72 82 86
L. Holdup __ __ ___ ___ ___
11 66 120 129 140
M. Indigenous ___ __ __ ___ ___ ___
206 79 73 115 198 163
N. Score __ __ __ __
49 92 22 26
O. Bridge innovator __ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __ __ ___
17 102 141 152 188 36 13 38 63 117
P. On the way by __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
(2 wds) 32 56 90 108 155 205 135 176 211

Q. Hurries __ __ __ __ ___ __
44 6 14 78 137 57
R. Board 26? ___ ___ __ ___ __ ___ ___ ___
(2 wds) 101 151 7 204 93 181 105 109

S. Need a top? __ __ ___ __ __ ___ ___ ___

Finesse the --- 28 77 172 43 51 183 203 136
(2 wds)
T. Legal call ___ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __
(2 wds) 111 60 54 170 4 1 40 194 214 171 68 52 83

U. Take pleasure in ___ __ ___ __ __

148 85 189 35 69

Canadian Master Point

 V. Subject to ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___
scrutiny 156 179 175 121 65 42 126

W. ----- pass ___ __ ___ ___

160 87 178 150
X. Pointless hand __ ___ ___ ___
61 159 113 168
Y. Recap the __ ___ ___ __ ___ __
auction 96 153 114 76 195 29

Z. Discourage __ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___

34 147 185 55 157 104 161
AA. Disappearing ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___
trump trick 138 199 187 213 131 91 58 169 88 107

BB. Deliberate __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

sacrifice 95 127 103 130 112 192

CC. Finish (2 wds) ___ ___ __ ___ ___

197 196 99 118 133

November 1993
 Shorty remembered
B r u c e G
O n September 13th, 1993, in his 82nd
year, Percy E. “Shorty” Sheardown
moved peacefully for the last round.
“Canada’s Mr. Bridge”, as he was undis-
putedly and affectionately known to all
bridge players of his time, became the
Dominion’s first Life Master soon after
his return from overseas service in World
War II.
A one-time Classics student who
could read Greek and Latin or sing
German folk songs for pleasure, Shorty
played bridge professionally and operated
the original St. Clair Bridge Club almost
continuously after leaving the University
of Toronto. He always had time for a
game with anyone: expert, novice, or one
of his adoring LOL’s. These latter loved
him so much that he could freely sacri-
fice, undoubled, at any time! It was quite
common to look at the travelling slip at
the old Toronto Whist Club and see
twelve scores of +650 N-S and one of
-300 E-W -- Shorty down six, undoubled
(usually versus Mrs. Doolittle, a dear
90-year-old with at least four cigarettes
going at once, who had an unbelievable
passion for Shorty).
Shorty was a great teacher, and
many of the top players in the 40’s and
50’s (Murray, Drury, Elliott, Kehela,
Gowdy, and Da Costa, among others) can
attribute their world-class skill levels in
major part to Shorty’s tutelage. He had
amazing feel for the table , never thinking
just of his own thirteen cards, but always
mentally placing, usually correctly, the
whole fifty-two around the table. The
accuracy of his declarer play and defence
was eerie, and often left opponents wish-
ing there had been a skip in the move-
ment! never forgotten.
Canadian Master Point
o w d y
His philosophy was simple: “good
players strive to analyze all the factors,
and then play for the best result possible,
not the best possible result”. I recall one
hand from a 1949 tournament in Detroit
where Shorty was on lead holding
♠xxx ❤AQx ◆xxxx ♣xxx
against the auction 1NT -- 3NT. What
else would he finger but the ❤A? Maybe
you’ll hit partner’s suit, and, if not, it may
not cost a trick; also, it gives you a chance
to look at dummy.
On this particular occasion, dummy
had ❤J10x, declarer ❤xx, and your truly
❤K98xx. Declarer did not think - 50
was a good result (since they held the
remaining 31 points) and he summoned
the director, claiming that we must have
had inside knowledge. After all, how
could anyone make such a lead? The late
Russell Baldwin gave one of his classic
rulings: if declarer and his partner wished
to kibitz us for the remaining rounds, he
would be glad to find a substitute pair!
Peter Czowski, in an interview pub-
lished in Maclean’s magazine 35 years
ago, asked Shorty “What is the fascina-
tion of this game-that-is-a-passion that
drives people in pitting brains against
brains?” Shorty’s reply was that it was
the competition: “It’s like a beauty con-
test; if you lose at poker or gin rummy,
you can shrug it off on bad hands, but not
in duplicate bridge. If you lose, you
lose.”
In 1987 Shorty was amongst the
group given the special ACBL 50th
Anniversary Honorees Award, a fitting
tribute to one of the greatest players the
game has known. He will be missed, but
 A double-edged sword
R a y L e e

I well remember starting to play bridge

in Toronto in the late 60’s, and getting
to know Shorty Sheardown. I quickjly
noticed, watching the regulars at the
St.Clair Club, that this quiet man was
accorded a respect by the rest of the play-
ers that matched or even bettered that
given to the legendary Kehela. I soon
found out why.
One of the great bridge aphorisms
then current was “never double Shorty”,
and I saw a graphic example of the ac-
curacy of this from the kibitzer’s seat one
day in 1971. Playing in an early round of
the CBF Team Trials that year in Toronto,
Shorty sat South on the following layout
against George Sereny (West) and Al
Lando (East), with Dr. Ron Forbes as his
partner.

♠ Q42
❤ 983 "Shorty" Sheardown
◆ 107532
A trump shift at this point would
♣ 104 defeat the hand, but this is not easy to
♠ --- ♠ 109765 see, and Lando actually returned a club,
❤ AKQ7654 ❤ J2 which was won by the ace. The ◆J went
to the ace, and another club came back to
◆ 864 ◆ AK9 the king. Shorty now ruffed a club low
♣ Q83 ♣ J92 in dummy, and cashed the ◆10, pitching
♠ AKJ83 a club from his hand.
❤ 10 The play to this point had consumed
◆ QJ at most thirty seconds, and the hand was
over in another fifteen or so. Another
♣ AK765 high diamond was led, East perforce ruff-
ing with the nine, and South over-ruffing.
With North-South vulnerable, West The last club was ruffed with the ♠Q,
opened 4❤, and after two passes, Shorty East ignominiously under-ruffing, and
ventured 4♠. After two more passes, East now the lead from the dummy completed
doubled. the trump coup for ten tricks.
The opening lead was the ❤A, and Lando turned me for sympathy: “I
Shorty ruffed the heart continuation. He really thought I had enough to double,”
laid down the ♠ A, found out the bad he remarked, ruefully.
news in trumps, and played the ◆Q, East You did, I thought, but not enough
winning the ace. to double Shorty.
November 1993
 Improving 2/1 auctions
F r e d G i
A great many
club and
tournament play-
ers these days
write "Two Over
One Game Force"
in the General
Approach area of
their convention
cards. The main advantage of playing
2/1 is that the early establishment of a
game force allows for extra bidding space
to explore for slam or choose the right
game contract.
There are two main weaknesses in-
herent in the 2/1 system:
1) You cannot play in 1NT if
your partner opens the bidding
with one of a major. The 1NT
response is forcing.
2) Responder often has a rebid
problem after his forcing 1NT
when opener rebids 2 of a
minor (possibly a 3-card suit)
due to the wide high card
ranges and many possible dis-
tributions of both hands.
If you are going to play 2/1 you’d better
get used to these particular problems
since there isn't much you can do about
them. However, the way that most part-
nerships play 2/1 creates other problems
that are not inherent to the system. The
purpose of this article is to discuss some
of these and to suggest some solutions.
Problem 1: Lack of definition of the 2/1
suit
Since a 2/1 response to a major suit open-
ing is a game force, many pairs use a 2/1
simply to establish a force without regard
to the fact that they may be misdescribing
Canadian Master Point
t e l m a n
their hands. They as¬sume that all of the
room that they save will allow them to
"catch up later". They are wrong.
Imagine, for example, that you hold:
♠AQxxxx ❤x ◆Axx ♣Qxx
You open 1♠ and your partner bids 2⇓,
forcing to game. You rebid 2♠ and part-
ner raises to 3♠. Do you like your hand?
You should. Despite your minimum point
count you have good trumps, good con-
trols and a good fit for partner's suit.
Unfortunately, partner's "suit" may not
really be a suit. Partner could have:
♠KJx ❤AKxx ◆Kx ♣Jxxx
where even the five level is not safe. On
the other hand, if you reverse partner's
hearts and clubs slam is laydown. If you
reverse your hearts and clubs, slam is
also laydown. Would you like your hand
as much if you had a singleton in your
partner's suit? You shouldn't, but when a
2/1 can show just about any balanced
hand it is difficult to make sensible deci-
sions.
There are several popular solutions
to this sort of problem, most of which
involve making some bid other than a 2/1
when responder has a balanced game
force with 3-card support for opener's
major. Some players bid 1NT forcing
followed by a jump to four of opener's
major to show a balanced 13-15 with
3-card support; others use a 3NT response
or a variant of Swiss (4♣ or 4◆) to show
variations of this type of hand. All of
these methods have the problem that they
take up too much room and make it very
difficult to find out how well the hands fit
without getting past a safe level.
The solution that I suggest is to use
a 2NT response to a major suit opening
just like Goren did - as a game-forcing
balanced hand with 13-15 HCP (you can
play that it could also show 19+ with a
3NT response showing 16-18). The 2NT
response can (and frequently does) con-
tain 3-card support for opener's major,
but usually should not contain a side
5-card suit (make a 2/1 with that), al-
though if you have a really bad five card
suit (like Qxxxx) in an otherwise suitable
hand, it may be best to bid 2NT rather
than make a 2/1. Opener's rebids after
the 2NT bid are natural: bid another
4-card or longer suit if he has one, giving
responder a chance to take preference
with three cards in opener's major; rebid
his major when he has six or more, or bid
3NT or 4NT (quantitative) with 5332.
Over opener's 3NT rebid, responder can
elect to pass with 3-card support for
opener's major, especially if he is 4333.
As a consequence, a 2/1 response
will almost always show a good 5-card or
longer suit -- a source of tricks. Having
this information will frequently help
opener decide how well the hands fit and
if a slam try is warranted. It will also
allow opener to feel more comfortable
with raising the 2/1 suit with 3-card sup-
port.
If you currently play Jacoby 2NT,
you will have to find another way to
make a forcing raise of opener's major. I
suggest using the cheapest jump shift
(1❤-2♠ and 1♠-3♣) as a forcing raise.
Hands for strong jump shifts are very
uncommon and modern methods like 2/1
and fourth-suit-forcing are usually effec-
tive for dealing with them. If you play
Bergen raises, the 3 ♣ response to 1 ♠
may already have a use. In this case, I
suggest that you make 3◆ and 3❤ your
Bergen raises over 1♠. I will not get into
my suggested responses to the 2♠ and
3♣ forcing raises here - perhaps in an-
other article.
Canadian Master Point Subscriptions
Canadian Master Point is available free of charge through bridge clubs and bridge supply houses in Ontario and Quebec. As a
service to those for whom this not a convenient way of receiving their magazine, or who wish to be certain of receiving one, we
also offer subscriptions. To be¬come a subscriber, simply send us your name and mailing address with $15.00 (1 year) -- US
subscribers please send US$15.00.
Problem 2: The (misguided) principle of
fast arrival
You hold this hand:
♠xxx ❤AQJxx ◆Ax ♣KJx
You open 1❤ , partner forces to game
with 2♣. You raise to 3♣ (isn't it nice to
know partner has a good five card suit?)
and partner jumps to 4❤. What should
you do now? If you play 2/1 the way that
most pairs do, partner's unnecessary jump
in a forcing auction shows a minimum
hand (the “principle of fast arrival”).
That information is not very useful here.
Opposite this minimum:
♠Ax ❤Kxx ◆xx ♣AQxxxx
you have a laydown grand slam.
Opposite this minimum:
♠Qxx ❤Kxx ◆Kx ♣AQxxx
the five level is not safe. The problem
here is the jump to 4❤. This bid prevents
your finding out at a safe level whether
or not a spade control exists. The theory,
of course, is that without “fast arrival”,
neither partner ever gets to express
whether or not they have extra values.
Standard 2/1 places such a large emphasis
on bidding out your pattern and finding
out how well the hands fit that the bid-
ding is often at a high level before either
partner has been able to limit his hand.
Using fast arrival gives responder a
chance to say that he has a minimum
2/1.
Unfortunately, the price that must be
paid for limiting responder's hand is too
high. There are simply too many times
that you need the four level for cue-bid-
ding, especially when opener's hand is
virtually unlimited (as is usually the case
in 2/1 auctions). Even if both opener and
November 1993
responder are minimum, twelve tricks
can easily exist if the hands fit well. Here
is the solution that I propose:
In the above auction (1❤-2♣-3♣) and
in all similar 2/1 auctions in which re-
sponder can raise opener's major for the
first time at the three level:
- A jump to four of opener's major, in-
stead of a raise at the three level, is a pic-
ture jump. A picture jump shows good
trump support, a good suit of your own
(promised by the 2/1) and no first or
second round control in any unbid suit.
Opener usually has such a good picture
of responder's hand that he can place the
contract (sometimes after using Keycard
Blackwood). Here is an example of a
hand for a jump to 4❤ by responder in
the auction we have been discussing: "Partner, I have serious slam
♠Qx ❤Kxxx ◆xx ♣AQJxx
- A jump in a new suit is a splinter (a
singleton in the suit bid) but it is very
well defined. Like the picture jump it
shows good trumps and a good 5-card 2/1
suit. The splinter bid denies first or sec-
ond round control in the unbid suit. Also,
do not splinter with a singleton ace or
with a void. Here is an example of a
splinter bid of 4◆ in the above auction:
♠xxx ❤Kxxx ◆x ♣AQJxx
Once again, responder's hand is so well-
defined that opener will frequently be
able to place the contract. In the above
example, opener will know that:
♠xxx ❤Kxxx ◆x ♣AQJxx
produces slam while the same hand with
the ◆A instead of the ♠A belongs at the
four level. Notice that in the auction that
we have been discussing, responder never
mentions the word "hearts": the raise is
implicit. It is certainly not obvious that
the splinter should be in support of hearts
(as opposed to clubs) and you should
have an explicit partnership understand-
ing before making this kind of bid.
Canadian Master Point
- With all other hands with 3-card or more
support for opener's major, raise at the
3-level (auctions in which you can raise
at the two level are different - perhaps I
shall discuss those in another article).
Since both opener's and responder's hands
are virtually unlimited at this point, it is
necessary to have a way for either partner
to show genuine slam interest. The an-
swer is a convention called "Serious
3NT" (John Gowdy discussed this in the
September 1993 Canadian Master Point).
This is the definition of Serious 3NT:
When an 8 card or longer
major suit fit is agreed at the
3-level and the bidding is
forced to game, a bid of 3NT
by either partner is com-
pletely artificial. It says:
interest, please cue-bid for
me."
If you fail to bid Serious 3NT when you
have the opportunity and cue bid instead,
that carries the following message:
"Partner, I do not have serious slam in-
terest, but I am cue-bidding in case you
do."
What should you cue-bid? In my
partnerships with Geoff Hampson and
Sheri Winestock we have found the fol-
lowing approach very successful: a cue-
bid in partner's 2/1 suit shows one of the
top three honours; a cue-bid of your own
2/1 suit shows two of the top three hon-
ours; a cue bid in an unbid suit shows
any first or second round control (A, K,
singleton, or void). Cue-bidding is al-
ways up the line: by skipping a suit, you
deny a control in that suit. 4NT by either
partner is always Roman Keycard
Blackwood.
Some consequences of this approach
to slam bidding:
- It is impossible to get to the five level
off two quick tricks in any suit.
- It is almost never necessary to cue-bid Here are some examples of using Serious
at the five level. In case you haven't no- 3NT and the cue-bidding style that I rec-
ticed, cue-bidding at the five level is usu- ommend in 2/1 auctions:
ally a sign of desperation - you don't
know what to do so you cue-bid at the Example 1
five level to transfer the decision to your
partner. ♠ KJxxx ♠ AQx
- You will never get too high when nei- ❤ Axx ❤ x
ther partner has the extra values or knowl- ◆ Qx ◆ AKJ10xx
edge of a good fit needed for a serious
slam try. ♣ Qxx ♣ Axx
- You can never play in 3NT when you
have an eight-card major suit fit after a
2/1 auction. Some players would find
1♠ 2◆
this a serious problem and would not con- 2♠ 3♠
sider playing this method. In my view, 4◆ 4NT
playing in 3NT in these sorts of auctions 5❤ 7NT
is the least of your problems. This is es-
pecially true when responder is known to Opener's 4◆ denies serious slam interest
have at least a five card 2/1 suit and the (else 3NT) and denies first or second
odds are high that at least one person has round club control (else 4♣), but shows
an unbalanced hand and/or has extra val- one of the top three honours in diamonds.
ues. Responder can count thirteen tricks.

Example 2 Example 3

♠ AQJxx ♠ Kxxx ♠ AJ10xx ♠ KQx

❤ Ax ❤ KQ ❤ KJx ❤ xxx
◆ Kxxx ◆ AQJxx ◆ x ◆ AKQJxx
♣ Qx ♣ Jx ♣ Qxxx ♣ A

1♠ 2◆ 1♠ 2◆
3◆ 3♠ 2♠ 3♠
4❤ 4NT 4❤ 4NT
5◆ 6♠ 5◆ 6♠
Opener's 3NT shows serious slam inter- 4❤ denies serious slam interest, a club
est. Responder's 4◆ shows good dia- control, and a top honour in diamonds
monds but denies a club control. Opener's (do not cue-bid shortness in partner's
4♠ is an absolute sign-off - a statement suit). A heart control is all responder
that no club control exists. Responder, needs to know about. What would hap-
despite holding extra values, must pass. pen if you exchanged opener's honours in
hearts and clubs?

November 1993
Example 4 opener must be minimum. Responder has
bid out his hand and should pass 4❤.
♠ AJ10xx ♠ KQx
❤ Qxx ❤ xxx Example 6
◆ x ◆ AKQJxx ♠ Axx ♠ Qx
♣ KJxx ♣ A ❤ AKJxxx ❤ Qxx
◆ AJ ◆ KQxxx
1♠ 2◆ ♣ xx ♣ KQx
2♠ 3♠
4♣ 4◆
1❤ 2◆
5♠ Pass
2❤ 3❤
When responder bids 4◆, he announces 3♠ 4♣
serious slam interest. Since opener has 4NT 5♣
denied serious slam interest by not bid- 6♠
ding 3NT, responder would sign off over
4♣ if he did not have serious slam inter- Responder, despite having a terrible hand,
est of his own. Opener is now obligated must bid 4♣ because opener is still un-
to show a heart control, so when opener limited (remember, Serious 3NT by
bids 4♠ responder knows that the defence opener would deny a spade control).
can take at least the first two heart Responder can take some comfort in the
tricks. fact that his 4♣ cue-bid denies serious
slam interest. In this example, opener
Example 5 can take over once he learns that re-
sponder can stop clubs.
♠ Kxx ♠ Qx
❤ AJxxxx ❤ Kxx As you can see, the approach to cue-
bidding that I recommend is quite a bit
◆ xx ◆ AQxxxx
different from the fast arrival methods
♣ Kx ♣ AQ that most 2/1ers play. If you decide to
adopt this approach, you and your partner
should discuss it thoroughly first. Serious
1❤ 2◆ 3NT is a convention for serious players;
2❤ 3❤ It is not something that you can casually
3♠ 3NT adopt. You might ask me about a con-
4♣ 4◆ vention called Last Train to Clarksville,
4❤ Pass which fills some of the holes in the cue-
bidding style that I recommend (holes
When hearts is agreed at the 3-level, that my carefully constructed examples
opener must bid 3♠ if he has a spade con- avoid!).
trol; any other bid would deny spade If there is one lesson to be learned
control (3NT would be Serious with no from this article it is that good partner-
spade control). Responder has extra val- ship agreements are much more impor-
ues and shows this by bidding 3NT; 4♣ tant than which system you play. If you
shows a control and 4◆ shows two of the and your partner decide to play a com-
top three honours. When opener does not plex non-standard system, put in the time
take charge (by bidding Blackwood) de- to do it right. When you truly understand
spite the fact that all suits are known to your system, you will start to see the ben-
be controlled, responder knows that efits in your results.

Canadian Master Point

 Restricted choice
-- fact or fiction?
E r i c S u
Over recent months, we became involved
in a correspondence between two of our
readers regarding the Principle of
Restricted Choice. Briefly, we can state
the “con” argument as “the cards have
no memory”; in other words, if the a
priori odds favour playing for a 2-2 split,
then the fact that East has dropped one of
the missing honours doesn’t change any-
thing. The mathematics of all this can get
pretty complex, so we appealed to the
Faculty of Mathematics at the University
of Waterloo for some help. After further
correspondence, we received the follow-
ing submission from Eric Sutherland, a
UW undergraduate as well as a member
of the Canadian Junior bridge team.
W e have all come across the situation
where we have to play the follow-
ing suit for no losers:
A1054
K9872
Barging ahead, we lead the two to the
ace, and the queen drops on our left. We
then lead the ten from the dummy, RHO
follows with the six (after playing the
three on the first round), and we are at the
crossroads: do we finesse or play for the
drop, and how do we know?
The principle involved in this type
of situation is called the Law of Restricted
Choice. There is a lot of dissent about
this Law, because it seems to defy logic.
After all, what happened to “eight ever,
nine never”? Why would the probabilities
suddenly change in the middle of the
hand?
t h e r l a n d
The reason why Restricted Choice
works is this: if LHO had the doubleton
queen, jack to begin with, then he had a
choice of cards to play on the first round,
because the queen and the jack are equals.
If he had the singleton queen or jack, then
his choice of what to play is “restricted”
to that queen or jack.
Let’s look at some percentages.
First, assume that with QJ doubleton,
LHO will play each card 50% of the time
at random. Since the probability of his
holding QJ doubleton is 6.78% (2-2 break
is 40.7%, with 6 combinations), LHO
will play an honour from QJ doubleton
about 3.39% of the time. The probability
that LHO has a singleton honour is about
6.22% (3-1 break is 49.74% with 8 com-
binations). As a result, the finesse on the
second round rates to win about twice as
often as it loses (6.22 to 3.39).
Sounds simple? Well, let’s throw a
little kink into the works. Let’s suppose
that you are playing against opponents
whom you know from experience would
never play the queen from QJ doubleton,
or even people who play the jack from
this holding by agreement (I’ve seen it!).
Now let’s examine the odds. If LHO
plays the queen, he must have a single-
ton, so it is definitely right to finesse, but
if he plays the jack, he could have either
a singleton jack (6.22% of the time) or a
QJ doubleton (6.78% of the time, since
they would never play the queen); in this
case it is right, albeit by a very small mar-
gin, to play for the drop. Similarly, if you
are playing against someone whom you
know always falsecards, and would never
play the jack from QJ doubleton, the
same holds: finesse if you see the jack,
and go up if the queen is played.
November 1993
 A word of warning, though: be very
sure of your opponents. If you do choose
to play for the drop in these situations,
then you are going against the field, and
single-handedly creating a potential
swing that your partner or team-mates
may have to pay for later.
The moral of the story? Make your-
self familiar with the usefulness of
Restricted Choice, as it crops up in differ-
ent situations. On defence, play your
queens and jacks randomly; when on
play, know your opponents; but above all,
play for the 2-1 odds. You don’t get those
odds in real life..... or do you?
Remember “Let’s Make a Deal”?
Monty Hall tells you that there is a fabu-
lous prize behind one of Doors 1, 2, and
3, but there are “zonks” behind the other
two. You choose Door 1, and Monty
opens Door 3 to show you a giant rocking
horse. He then asks you if you want to
switch your choice to Door 2. Do you
switch? This problem has caused more
heated arguments than you can imagine.
Bridge players should have no dif-
ficulty recognizing another Restricted
Choice situation here! Switch to Door 2,
and your odds of winning are 2-1, not
50-50. Let’s say that Door 1 was the
right door -- then Monty could have cho-
sen to show you Door 2 or Door 3, with
equal probability. However, if Door 2
was wrong, Monty was forced to choose
Door 3, since Door 2 has the prize behind
it. Because he is forced to pick Door 3
when Door 2 has the prize, and only picks
Door 3 half the time when Door 1 has the
prize, Door 2 has a better shot at making
you a winner.

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

Our main site, with information about our books and software,
reviews and more.

www.masteringbridge.com

Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support mate-
rial for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

Canadian Master Point

 J o h n G o w d y ' s T o y
S h o p p e
Suit lead
J o h n G o w d y

I n today's active
game, we need
methods that allow
1. The transfers in this group take
place under the following conditions:

us to compete effec- a) you are weak with a long suit, and

tively while main- plan to pass partner’s response
taining our own b) you have invitational values, and
aggressive posture. a 1-suiter; you intend to raise partner’s
SUIT LEAD, a response
Meckwell innova- c) you have a game-going 1-suited
tion, covers a lot of hand with little or no fit; you will cuebid
ground and I think it will be played by over partner’s response
most top-flight pairs within the next cou- d) when you have weak support for
ple of years and will be come a mainstay partner's suit such as three small but good
of all tournament players in the next ten. lead values in the suit being transferred
It's that good! to, such as A or KJ (minimum); you will
SUIT LEAD applies when you bid return to partner’s major at a minimum
one of major (either an opening bid or an level over his response. In the event your
overcall) and LHO doubles (takeout or side doesn't declare the hand, the opening
negative). leader has good idea of what to lead.
e) you have invitational values with
Example: 1♠ - dbl - ? a good fit and a side suit; you will jump
Now anything below 2NT by your part- in partner’s major over his response.
ner is SUIT LEAD.
2. Transferring to partner’s major
SUIT LEAD responses fall into three cat- shows a 3-card constructive raise in part-
egories: ner's suit allowing partner to make a good
decision in either raising, doubling or
1. 1NT = transfer to clubs bidding, and more importantly, the player
transferring has with one bid shown his
2♣ = transfer to diamonds hand and does not feel the pressure to act
2◆ = transfer to hearts later in the auction.

2. 2❤ = transfer to spades 3. The direct raise, in line with

"fast arrival", is preemptive and it comes
with a message. Your partner knows that
3. 2♠ = "poker raise" you have no good lead value, therefore
the high cards in your hand are likely in
the suit raised.

November 1993
We also play this structure with Bergen
Raises so that after:
1♠ dbl ? 1◆
2NT = 3-card limit raise
3♣ = 4-card limit raise
3◆ = 4-card constructive
raise
3❤ = whatever you agree -
fit, invitational or
preemptive
3♠ = preemptive
When we overcall (e.g. 1◆ - 1♠ - dbl)
the same structure applies. The only dif-
ference would be that 2♣ would be a
transfer cuebid. It allows the overcaller
to show a dead minimum by bidding 2♠
and to show some interest in game by
simply accepting the transfer (2◆).
The one final problem occurs when
the opponents bid a lot in front of the
overcaller, or more rarely the opening
bidder.
Example:
1♠ Dbl. 1NT1
4❤
1. Transfer to 2♣
and you hold:
♠AQJxx ❤x ◆xxx ♣Kxxx
You would like to bid either 4♠ or 5♣
depending on partner's hand, so you
should play double as an inquiry - saying
that partner must bid either 4♠ or 5♣
depending on which of the hand types he
held. Therefore, when you bid 4♠ you
are on your own and don't care.
This is a complicated structure and
if you are planning to play it you should
understand that it requires full and com-
plete discussion on your understanding of
all possible sequences by you and your
opposition. The rewards are easily worth
the effort.

Anacrostic Solution (see p. 18) The hand referred to is worth repeat-

ing:
Mollo. You Need Never Lose At
Bridge. ♠ AKQJ9
❤ 8765
‘Curious hand,’ observed Oscar the ◆ ---
Owl, Senior Kibitzer at the Griffins
Club. ‘Played by South with a void in ♣ A432
trumps, the grand slam in spades is vir- ♠ 10432 ♠ 8765
tually unbeatable. Played by North one ❤ --- ❤ AKQJ10
spade is about the limit of the hand, and
as we have just seen, even that’s no cer-
◆ A765432 ◆ ----
tainty.’ ♣ 76 ♣ Q1098
♠ ---
❤ 9432
◆ KQJ1098
♣ KJ5

Canadian Master Point

 A framework for discussion
(part 9)
M a r y P a u l

W e have concluded our survey of major suit openings, and

are now ready to deal with auctions that begin with an
opening bid of one of a minor. Remember that the assumed
system structure involves weak two’s, strong notrumps, and
5-card majors with a forcing 1 Notrump response. This month’s
article starts the discussion of sequences after an opening bid of
one of a minor when the opponents do not enter the auction.

OPENING BIDS -- ONE OF A MINOR

(NO DIRECT INTERFERENCE BY OPPONENTS)

General

Opener holds 3-3 in the minors Does he bid clubs first? Y N

Does he bid his better minor? Y N

Opener holds 4-4 in the minors Does he bid clubs first? Y N

Does he bid his better minor? Y N

Opener holds 4-5 in the minors Which suit is bid first? Y N

Is it a matter of texture? Y N

Opener bids 1♣ Could it be shorter than 3? Y N

Is it forcing? Y N

Opener bids 1◆ Does it promise four Y N

diamonds?

Responses to 1C opening bid

1♣ - ? 1◆ Can it be shorter than a 4-card Y N

suit?
1maj Does it deny four diamonds? Y N
Can it be a 4-card suit? Y N
1NT 8-10 hcp? Y N
Does it deny a 4-card suit (ex. Y N
clubs)?

November 1993
1♣ - ? 2♣ Is this weak? Y N
Is it inverted? Y N
If so, what is min. hcp?
What is min. suit length?
2 suit Strong jump shift? Y N
Hcp promised?
Suit texture promised?
Can it be a 2-suiter? Y N
Does it promise a club fit? Y N
Weak jump shift? Y N
Maximum hcp if so?
2 NT Point range?
Does it deny a 4-card major? Y N
3♣ Weak? Y N
Maximum hcp if so?
3 suit Weak with a long suit? Y N
Splinter for clubs? Y N
3 NT Point range?
Distribution expected?
4♣ or 4◆ Weak hand? Y N
4❤ or 4S Is this to play? Y N
4 NT Ace-asking? Y N

Opener's first rebid after 1C opening

1♣ - 1◆ - ? Do you bid suits up the line? Y N

What is the possible distribution of a 1NT rebid?
Does a raise to 2◆ promise 4-card support? Y N
Does it show extra values? Y N
1♣ - 1maj - ? Does opener raise with 3-card support? Y N
Does opener rebid 1NT on balanced hands? Y N
Over 1❤, does opener bid 1♠ or 2❤ holding four
spades and three hearts?
1♣ - 2♣ What is 2◆?
(inverted) - ? What is 2maj?
What is 2NT?
What is 3♣?
What is 3 suit?
1♣ - 2 suit - ? If this is strong, what does opener show first?
Is this a new suit natural or a cuebid?
Does a rebid in a higher-ranking suit promise Y N
reversing values?
Does a raise promise an honour? Y N
1♣ - 2NT - ? Is 3♣ Stayman or for play?
1♣ - 3♣ - ? Is this a limit raise, is a new suit bid simply a NT Y N
stopper?
1♣ - 3NT - ? What does a new suit bid mean?
Is 4♣ Gerber? Y N
What is 4NT?
Canadian Master Point
Variations

1♣ - 1◆ - 1❤ - ? 1♠ Is this forcing to game? Y N

Does it promise a 4-card suit? Y N
1♣ - 1◆ - 1❤ - ? 2♠ Is this forcing to game? Y N
Does it promise a 4-card suit? Y N
1♣ - 1◆ - 1NT - ? 2♣ Is this Stayman? Y N
2◆ Is this Stayman? Y N
2❤ Natural with 5◆ and 4❤? Y N
2♠ Natural with 5❤ and 4♠? Y N
3♣ Limit hand? Y N
3◆ Limit hand? Y N
1♣ - 1maj - 1NT - ? 2♣ Is this Stayman? Y N
2◆ Is this Stayman?
3♣ Forcing or limited?
3◆ Weak or strong?
Looking for preference? Y N
What distribution?
3maj Limit hand? Y N

1♣ - 1maj - 1NT - 2♣ (checkback)

2◆ - ? 3♣ To play? Y N
3◆ Forcing? Y N
2maj - ? 2NT Forcing? Y N
1♣ - 1 suit - 2NT - ? 3♣ Is this Stayman? Y N
3◆ Is this Stayman? Y N
1♣ - 1 maj - 2NT - ? 3maj Is this forcing? Y N
Does it promise a 6-card suit? Y N

Auctions after 1D opening bid

Sequences can be inferred from the above, with the exception of:

1◆ - 2♣ - ? Is this forcing to game? Y N

What is the medium hcp strength?
Does a raise to 3♣ show extra values? Y N
Does it promise 4-card suppoty? Y N
Does a rebid of 2◆ guarantee a 5-card suit? Y N
Does a rebid of 2maj show reversing values? Y N
1◆ - 1maj - 1NT - ? 3♣ Strong or weak?
1◆ - 1maj - 2NT - ? 3♣ Stayman? Y N
Transfer to 3◆? Y N
1◆ - 1maj - 1NT - 2♣ (new minor forcing)
2maj - ? 3♣ Weak, strong, or limit?
3◆ Weak, strong, or limit?

November 1993
f o r f u t u r e e x p e r t s
Competitive bidding
J o e S e i g e l

A common situa-
tion at match-
points in a
competitive auction
is one in which a de-
cision has to be
made whether or not
to bid on, to double
the opponents, or to
pass. Although any-
thing can be right on one specific hand,
you must take into account the long-term
probabilities. If you consistently take the
correct action, then in the long run your
decisions will pay dividends. Basically,
the more confident we were of making
our contract, the more we must protect
our score by doubling the opponents
should they bid on. It follows that the
more high cards we have, the more likely
we are to defeat them.
Of course, vulnerability is also a
major factor. We are more likely to con-
sider doubling if they are vulnerable,
while at unfavourable vulnerability, the
penalty may not be enough to offset our
game or slam.
When the points are about even, or
on very distributional hands, we must be
very careful about doubling. The more
distributional our hands are, the more we
should be inclined to bid on, as high cards
in our long suits will not take many tricks
on defence. However, if we have already
pushed them up a level, be content to
leave them there -- it’s probably not nec-
essary to double, and we may be turning
a plus into a minus by bidding on.
Factors that will help you make the
decision when you are considering dou-
bling are vulnerability, and whether your
side or the opponents or both have found
a good fit. Queens and jacks in their suits
are not likely to be useful offensively, but
will only be good defensively if you have
some length: Qx or Jxx are “death hold-
ings” that tell you the hand is going to
play well for them.
You have to be aggressive to win at
matchpoints, but don’t confuse this with
lunacy. There are times to be aggressive,
and times just to sit there.

Anacrostic Word List I. Namyats T. Sufficient Bid

(see p. 18) J. Ethics U. Enjoy
K. Establish the Suit V. Analyze
A. Morton’s Fork L. Delay W. Trap
B. Opens M. Native X. Bust
C. Lawsuit N. Etch Y. Review
D. Lose the Lead O. Vanderbilt Z. Inhibit
E. Overbid P. En Passant AA. Devil’s Coup
F. Yarborough Q. Rushes BB. Gambit
G. Oath R. Last Hand CC. End up
H. Underhand S. Other Way

Canadian Master Point

f o r f u t u r e e x p e r t s
He who hesitates.....
b a r b a r a se a g r a m

At one time or
another, every-
one finds themselves
West has no right to bid 5❤ on a bare
minimum hand when partner has only
made a limit raise. If East had not hesi-
in a situation where tated, then West could bid whatever he
a little extra time is wished, however undisciplined, taking
needed during a bid- his chances on the result. If a player
ding sequence. wishes to commit suicide, there is no law
There is nothing against this. But the hesitation bars him
wrong with this -- from making such a dubious call, since it
you are always is suggestive of extra values in partner’s
within your rights to take whatever time hand.
you need. However, whenever this oc-
curs, it is the partner of the player who North's hand:
has hesitated whose actions are now
going to be placed under scrutiny. In ♠5432 ❤KJ1065 ◆K6 ♣93
other words, any action taken by the part-
ner of the "hesitater" must be based solely
on his own cards. Any bid which is now West North East South
made that is even slightly dubious and
not 100% clear-cut may be overturned by 1◆ 1❤ 2◆ Pass*
the director and the score may be ad- Pass 2❤ Pass* Pass
justed.
There is a widespread mistaken be- * After long hesitation
lief that partner's hesitation bars you from
any further bidding on the hand. This is North has the simple overcall at the one
not so. If you have a clear-cut bid, you level which he made at his first turn.
must still make it, not drawing any infer- However, he does not have a 2♥ rebid.
ence from partner's hesitation. Again, if partner had not hesi¬tated, his
bid would be allowed to stand; there is no
West's hand: law against stupidity. Given the hesita-
tion, however, the score or contract may
♠xx ❤AQ10xx ◆Axx ♣Qxx be adjusted.

West North East South

West North East South 1◆
1❤ 1♠ 1❤1 3♠ 2♣ Dbl.1 3♣ 3NT*
4❤ 4♠ Pass* Pass Pass 4❤ All Pass
5❤
1. Negative
1. Limit raise (10-12 hcp) * After long hesitation
* After long hesitation

November 1993
North's hand: In Summary

♠J1098 ❤KJ432 ◆752 ♣Q Less experienced players often get very

If no hesitation had occurred, this player
would most likely not have bid again. It
would appear strongly as if he drew an
inference from partner's hesitation which
suggested that partner had doubts about
3NT as the final contract. This hand will
be monitored carefully by the director
and the score or contract probably ad-
justed.
upset when opponents call the director
after a hesitation, and may even feel that
they are being accused of cheating.
(Incidentally, the word "cheating" is not
allowed by ACBL to be used at the bridge
table, under any circumstances.)
However, any time that a break in tempo
in the bidding occurs, the director must
be summoned in order to protect the
rights of everyone at the table. It is es-
sential always to call the director when-
ever there is a problem, however minor it
may be. No player is allowed to "police"
a situation at the table or to give a lecture
to their opponents.

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

Our main site, with information about our books and software,
reviews and more.

www.masteringbridge.com

Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support mate-
rial for our books, helpful articles, forums and more.

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

Canadian Master Point

 Software Review
Positronic
Bridge.
(Positronic
Software Inc.)
IBM PC or com-
patibles.
Reviewed by Ray
Lee.
T his is the bridge program that is billed
as being capable of playing “as well
as you do” -- a feature that many of us
may feel is of dubious merit! PB comes
in two flavours: Competitor, and Expert,
retailing for $100 and $200 respectively.
The first is much like any other bridge
software package; the Expert version is
the one that al¬lows you to “teach” the
software to bid the way you want it to.
As a bridge-playing package, PB
has its good and bad points, and on bal-
ance is probably about the same standard
as any of its competitors. It boasts an
easy and attractive user interface, espe-
cially for mouse users, and, while not a
speed demon on my 386, was playable.
Its worst feature is the long-outmoded
“disklock” copy protection technique --
for me this would be enough to decide
against purchasing it. After all, if my
original disk dies and these guys aren’t
around any more, I’m now out $200 (and
a lot of time, as will be seen!).
As a bridge partner or opponent, it
is no worse than the competition (which
isn’t saying much) -- in other words it
plays at an intelligent novice level. It de-
fends mechanically, and does not play the
hand very well, although according to the
manual, the learning routines should en-
able it to improve in both these areas over
a period of time. Since it does this by
watching the human player, though, that’s
not going to help less-than-expert players
very much.
In the Expert version, you can enter
“teaching” mode, and begin to bid hands.
In this mode, you can see all four hands,
and either approve or change each play-
er’s bid. If you have “corrected” any bid,
at the end of the auction you can update
the memory traces and then go on to bid
another hand.
Ian McKinnon volunteered to do
some of the testing, and decided to con-
centrate on teaching it 1NT opening bids.
He set up the program to deal 15-17 point
flat hands to South, and corrected every
misstep to 1NT without worrying about
subsequent auctions too much. After four
or five hours of work, PB was opening
1NT most of the time, but still not on
every hand. I used a more broadly-based
approach, trying to teach it a general sys-
tem, recognizing that this would be
slower to produce results.
After seven or eight hours, the pro-
gram was opening the bidding correctly
at the 1-level about 75% of the time and
usually finding the right first response.
Thereafter the auction was still mostly
unknown.
Time did not permit much further
testing. Suffice it to say that PB does
learn, but it does it painfully slowly, and
if you’re going to invest $200 in this
package with the idea of creating the per-
fect partner, you better be prepared to
invest a lot of time, too.
I don’t want to end this review on a
negative note, because in many ways PB
is a remarkable achievement, and there
are those who will want to spend time
seeing what it can do. I am looking for-
ward to version 2 however: I see that as
including several skeleton systems, in
order to short-circuit the first several
dozen painful hours. It goes without say-
ing that the disklock security has to go,
the level of play and defence has to im-
prove, and some improvements should be
made to the scoring methods available.
November 1993
 Reading the hand....
(from page 17)
1. Flawless technique concede a spade for the contract. A rare
form of Morton’s Fork
♠ AK6
❤ A8543 ♠ 73
◆ K3 ❤ A103
♣ A83 ◆ A82
♠ J97 ♠ 10 ♣ AJ1092
❤ 102 ❤ QJ97 ♠ 42 ♠ K1085
◆ Q97654 ◆ J1082 ❤ J97542 ❤ KQ86
♣ Q2 ♣ KJ97 ◆ 10963 ◆ 4
♠ Q85432 ♣ 3 ♣ K864
❤ K6 ♠ AQJ96
◆ A ❤ ---
♣ 10654 ◆ KQJ75
West has to establish the fifth heart for a ♣ Q75
club discard. If hearts are 5-1 there is no Hand Reading in Bridge (Danny Roth)
play; the danger is that hearts are 4-2 and
that West can overruff the third round. 3. Early concession
The winning line is to win the ♠Q, cash
the ◆A and the ❤K, and cross to the ♠A. ♠ K
Now South pitches a heart on the ◆K, ❤ 75
ruffs a heart, draws the last trump with ◆ AKJ10654
the ♠K, and cashes the ❤A. If necessary
he can ruff one more heart and return to ♣ 643
the ♣A for the long heart. ♠ J9752 ♠ 864
Improve Your Dummy Play (Eric Milnes ❤ AJ84 ❤ 1093
and Paul Lukacs) ◆ 2 ◆ Q73
2. Enter with care ♣ A82 ♣ K1075
♠ AQ103
Obviously both black finesses work, but ❤ KQ62
there could be entry problems. You have ◆ 98
to win the ♣A to avoid a ruff; if you now
hook a spade and draw trumps, East will ♣ QJ9
let your ♣Q hold, and you are an entry It is fairly clear what is happening. South
short. If you play a low club towards has ample guards in all the suits, and feels
dummy, East will win and return one, he can give up a diamond for safety while
blocking the suit. the other suits are under control. The
To avert this, unblock the ♣ Q at best defence on such occasions is to cut
trick one, take two rounds of trumps end- declarer adrift by returning the long suit.
ing in dummy, and finesse a spade. Draw The discards from the South hand will
trumps, and play a club to the nine. If become increasingly embarrassing.
East wins, you are home; if he ducks, you Posie Defence (Terence Reese and Julian
pitch a club on the ❤A and eventually Pottage)

Canadian Master Point