January 2007

♠
♥
♦
♣

Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

Hawaii Four-0
And other true tales of the Honolulu Nationals — page 10

Also:

2 Viewpoint 23 Bridge Yesterday

Political Correctness It’s a kind of magic
in the world of bridge by Pietro Campanile

4 The Red Pencil 25 Building a Better Mousetrap

Time to stop ... The Support Reverse
bypassing 4-card majors
28 The Wizards of Aus
7 Bidding Coach: by Ron Klinger
Useful Cards
by Pamela Granovetter 30 Letters to the Editor
Bridge vs. Chess

NOTICE: Please share this issue of Bridge Today eMagazine with your partner. Better still, give him a
subscription of his own. You’ll be glad you did. He will thank you each month and he will become a better
player. Subscriptions are $33 per year for 12 monthly issues or packaged with a Bridgetoday.com $59.95
club membership. Thank you! — Matthew and Pamela Granovetter
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 2

Viewpoint

The contemporary use of the term “political correctness” is possibly derived

from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line. In America, today,
it’s used mainly to guard one’s language, so as not to offend someone with the
wrong word. The following excerpt from an address entitled, “The Origins of
Political Correctness,” by Bill Lind (www.academia.org) is quite critical of political
correctness:

“For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they
say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using
the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

“We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has
been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to
be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people
would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words
they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primar-
ily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Where
does it come from? What is it?

“We call it ‘Political Correctness.’ The name originated as something of a joke,

literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In
fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has
left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around
the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.”

What, you might ask, has this to do with bridge today? Well, political correct-
ness has seeped into our beloved game as well. For example, for at least a decade
or so, if you were not in favor of “zero tolerance” you were considered by many to
be against the promotion of bridge to novices, who are offended by bad behavior
at the table. On a more serious level, however, is the politically correct bidding of
the tournament player. For example, if you are not a believer in the Law of Total
Tricks, many would say that there is something wrong with your bridge game.
If you do not open the bidding with a balanced 12 points, you are deemed old-
fashioned and a poor bidder, someone who is not able to compete effectively in
today’s active modern bidding. If you don’t use the support double, but instead
double for penalty, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 3

These attitudes are real and they have ruined many average tournament players’
bidding, because if the convention is politically correct, and you don’t play it, you
are labeled as old-fashioned or uneducated, or plain stupid. Many players simply
fail to analyze the conventions and treatments they play — but instead adopt the
“accepted” systems of the “experts,” because the experts must know. Unfortunately,
there are very few real experts who will stand up to this political correctness. It has
gotten so bad that teachers of bridge also adopt the methods of the politically cor-
rect and then teach them in their bridge classes.

The strange thing is that many of the most successful tournament partnerships,
at the highest levels, do not play the politically correct methods. For example, the
Italian team, which has an unprecedented record over the last decade, use their
own systems, which are all extremely different from the politically correct 2-over-1
style played in America. The winners of the Blue Ribbon Pairs at the Hawaii Fall
Nationals this past November were Italians Fantoni and Nunes, who play … dare
I say it … sound opening bids, not to mention two bids that range from 10-to-13
points!

As readers know, Bridge Today has never been politically correct. For years, Alvin
Roth conducted a bidding contest and wrote about his so-called out-dated methods.
One of the main ideas he corrected was the idea that you had to match the bidding
at the other tables in order to be successful in a pairs event. Alvin won more pairs
events than anyone, perhaps, except Barry Crane, and he argued that it was better
to play different methods than the field if you want to have a chance to win. Crane
also played his own system, that almost nobody plays today, including opening
four-card heart suits with one heart. When I won the World Mixed Pairs in Verona
last June, I was playing a totally offbeat system, which has helped Karen McCallum
win many championships, most recently the Women’s Board-a-Match in Hawaii.
And over the course of the last year, my wife, Pamela (our anti-editor) won three
national team championships playing sound opening bids, going completely against
the politically correct field.

The bottom line for 2007: Don’t be a puppet. Think for yourself. Read bridge
books and study hands, and put together the styles and systems you enjoy. If some
of your bidding toys are a bit far from the mainstream, so what. You may win when
the right hands come up for your methods! But don’t be afraid when an “expert”
looks at you strangely and sneers, “How could you bid that way?” Just smile all the
way to the bank. — the editor
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 4

The Red Pencil

by Matthew Granovetter

Bypassing four-card major rebids

Ever since 1963 during a sectional Mixed long now, that to even suggest to players
Pairs game in New York, when a certain that they might rebid one of the major with
matchpoint maven bypassed his four-card a four-card major and 18-19 points, is risk-
major to grab the declaration in 1NT, it has ing that they will look at you like you are
become the practice of clever players to by- a dinosaur. Let’s go back to 1NT rebids for
pass four-card major-suit rebids. I’m speak- the time being.
ing of these auctions:
A couple of decades ago, some players
Opener Responder were rebidding 1NT so much with a four-
1♣ 1♦ card major that they decided to make up
1 NT a rule that had little merit except that it
gave them a good excuse to grab the 1NT’s
1♣ 1♥ and that was: The rebid of a major by a 1♣
1 NT opener promises four cards in clubs.

1♦ 1♥ Opener Responder
1 NT 1♣ 1♦
1 ♥ = promises four clubs
Even before 1963, brilliant bidders were
doing this on their way to 2NT: 1♣ 1♦
1 ♠ = promises four clubs
1♣ 1♦
2 NT 1♣ 1♥
1 ♠ = promises four clubs
1♣ 1♥
2 NT As you can see, this rule actually forces
you to become a “grabber” of 1NT — since
1♦ 1♠ you now must rebid 1NT with three clubs
2 NT and four in the major.

Over 2NT, conventional checkbacks This reminds me of the time Jimmy

began to emerge on the scene, usually 3♣. (Sparky) Rosenbloom rebid 2♥ with four
Today, the politically correct system is to spades and three hearts in a team match at
use 3♦ as checkback, saving 3♣ as a Wolff the Mayfair Club:
type of sign-off. This has been going on so
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 5

Sparky Partner today, but something that used to be fun to

♠J432 ♠96 use in the “old days.”
♥AKJ ♥ 10 9 8 7 5
♦A5 ♦87642 One drawback to rebidding the major,
♣ 10 9 7 2 ♣A some say, is that responder will preference
to 2♣ and find opener with three of them:
1♣ 1♥
2♥ pass ♠Axxx ♠Kx
♥Kxx ♥ 10 x x x x
Sparky’s partner made 110 while at the ♦Kxx ♦xx
other table, the opening bidder rebid 1♠ ♣Axx ♣QJxx
and his partner let him play it there, fearful
of another call. This was down three, for 9 1♣ 1♥
imps. 1♠ 2♣

Now perhaps you are saying to yourself
that 1NT would have worked better, since
responder could then continue to the two-
level safely. Or can he? Remember, the po-
litically correct system today is a combina-
tion 2♣/2♦ two-way checkback. Responder
would bid 2♣, which forces 2♦ (yes, it
absolutely forces 2♦, opener is not allowed
to preference responder’s major or rebid the
missing four-card major, because responder
may have responded 1♥ with four small
hearts and five or six diamonds!).
So these two hands today would most
likely be bid this way, by practically all of
the top U.S. partnerships:
Opener Responder
1♣ 1♥
1 NT 2♣
2♦ pass
OK, let’s not get too excited. Sparky’s
rebid of 2♥ was based on old-fashioned
judgment, something we don’t bother with
True, it would be sad to play in 2♣, but
perhaps opener should now scoot over to
hearts, where he knows responder has at
least a four-card suit. Let’s look at the politi-
cally correct rebid:
1♣ 1♥
1 NT ?
Note that responder cannot bid 2♣ now,
because he is playing two-way checkback.
He must guess whether to pass 1NT or
rebid 2♥ on an emaciated five-card suit. So
which method really works better? Natural
or “bypass”?
“There’s no need to rebid 1♠ over 1♥,” is
a commonly heard argument of the “bypass-
ers.” “Responder can always check back.”
“Always?” What if responder has an
ordinary 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors with less
than 10 points (I should say 11 points, since
the “bypassers” always need 11 to bid over
1NT rebids and commonly pass 1NT with
10 HCP, but I’m being kind). For example,
suppose you pick up one of these hands:
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 6

(a) ♠Axxx Facing the four example hands, in one

♥ K 10 x x notrump, declarer is (a) down two, (b) makes
♦xxxx one, (c) makes one and (d) makes one; in a
♣x spade contract, declarer makes (a) two, (b)
three, (c) three, and (d) four.
(b) ♠AQxx
♥ K 10 x x Now these were 4-3-3-3 hands. What if
♦xxxx we looked at hands that are 4-4-3-2 shaped,
♣x which are also being rebid 1NT?

(c) ♠AQxx ♠Kxxx

♥ K 10 x x x ♥Ax
♦xxx ♦ A 10 x
♣x ♣Qxxx

OK, let’s include this one: Facing the four example hands, you
make 140 twice and game on the last two
(d) ♠AQxx hands, possibly 11 tricks on the last hand,
♥ K 10 x x x where most of the modern day experts are
♦Jxx languishing in 1NT or 2♥.
♣x
Maybe you are somewhat convinced, and
Every politically correct maven of 2006 if so, I will dare to venture forth to the 18-
would respond 1♥ and pass 1NT. A few 19 point hands, where we’ve been rebidding
will argue that they would rebid 2♥ on 2NT all our lives, happy in the comfortable
the latter two examples, an argument that notion that responder can always “check
doesn’t exactly make sense, does it? Have back.”
you never rebid 1NT over 1♥ with a single-
ton heart? ♠AQxx ♠Kxxx
♥Ax ♥xxxxx
♠Kxx No! The politically correct ♦AJx ♦xx
♥x don’t. They open 1♦ (!) or ♣KJxx ♣Qx
♦Qxxx rebid 2♣. — anti-editor
♣AKJxx 1♣ 1♥
2 NT ?
1♣ 1♥
? Perhaps you always bid again with the
responding hand: five points. But what if
Now suppose that opener has an ordi- opener has one less spade. Getting to 3NT is
nary 13-point hand with four spades, that surely stupid, no?
he has bypassed:
Gulp. Does this mean that we have been
♠Kxxx bidding wrong for 30, err, 40 years?!
♥Axx
♦ A 10 x See you next month.
♣Qxx
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 7

Bidding Coaching

Useful Cards

by Pamela Granovetter

Do you count your points, or judge where

your points are?

The standard method of judging whether Bd: 5 North

to bid or not to bid — not to mention what North dealer ♠A6532
to bid! — is the point-count method. With N-S vul ♥3
so-many points you bid such-and-such. ♦9
Point-counting, though, works well only ♣ A Q J 10 7 2
for balanced hands facing balanced hands.
Then, you generally need 26 points for South
game, 33 for slam, etc. (although you need a ♠987
little luck — if the cards aren’t fitting, your ♥KQ864
26-point, or even 27- or 28-point 3NT will ♦Q6
fail). Much of the time, however, you are ♣K43
not dealing with one balanced hand facing
another balanced hand, and in these cases North South
point-counting isn’t going to get the job 1♣ 1♥
done accurately, and you need to evaluate 1♠ 1 NT
your honors. 2♠ 3♠
4♠ pass
It’s more accurate to evaluate your hand
based on your “useful cards” holding rather I think South should pass 2♠ despite
than on your high-card points. Useful cards holding 10 high-card points. South has
are aces, kings that aren’t facing shortness, only one fitting card in partner’s two suits,
plus length in partner’s suit. Let’s look at and the king-queen of hearts is useful only
some hands from a bidding-practice session if North has two hearts (and South has no
on BBO. The auctions shown are how they reason to think this is the case). If all North
were bid by two experts. needs is three-card spade support and one
key card, North should open 1♠ and not
1♣ in order to find out if partner has three-
card support. For example, with:
♠ A K Q x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ A Q 10 x x, I think
you should open 1♠, because all you care
about in life is getting a spade raise).
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 8

Bd: 8 North North opened with a poor suit and a

West dealer ♠J75 minimum of highcards. Still, when South
None vul ♥AK95 showed slam interest in hearts and a splin-
♦A5 ter in spades, it was time for North to focus
♣9762 on his useful cards and forget about “I’ve
got only a 12-count.” I’d count four use-
South ful cards in the North hand: the ace-king
♠— fourth of trumps is huge so I count that as
♥QJ7643 two-and-a-half useful cards (Think! Partner
♦ K J 10 8 2 is making a slam try missing the ace-king of
♣AJ trumps, so partner must have a very strong
playing hand); the ace of diamonds is also
North South huge, and the ruffing value in diamonds
1♣ 1♥ counts for one-half of a useful card, too!
2♥ 3♠
4♥ pass

Bd: 9 North Despite holding 17 high-card points,

North dealer ♠K963 North doesn’t know if his king of hearts is a
E-W vul ♥K useful card. Indeed, it would have been had
♦A8654 South’s ♠4 been in with his hearts! As it
♣AK4 is, why not go slowly and find out? I would
rebid 2♣ with North’s hand to see what
South South can do. South doesn’t want to sign
♠ Q 10 4 off but isn’t strong enough to raise to 3♣, so
♥QJ he temporizes with a false-preference to 2♦.
♦732 Now North can rebid 2♠ and South signs
♣QJ763 off in 3♣, which North will correct to 3♦.
There they will rest, playing in a partscore
North South that rates to make, while the rest of the
1♦ 1 NT field is failing by two tricks in 3NT with
2 NT 3 NT their 25 high-card points!
pass
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 9

Thin Game Bidding

Thin-game bidding is lots of fun and lu- Example (1):

crative vis-à-vis matchpoints or imps. These
games often make when one partner has a Opener Responder
six-card minor that will run and you have 1♣ 1♦
three outside quick tricks. You can reach 2♣ 3♣
these games if you use the following useful
cards formula: 3♣ = courtesy raise with two useful cards,
any hand that might make game opposite a
Opener Responder nice opening bid like:
1m 1x ♠ A x ♥ x x x ♦ K x ♣ A K 10 x x x
2m ?
Responder might hold any of these:
2x = weak hand, to play
♠xxx ♥Qxx ♦Axxx ♣Qxx
new suit = natural or stopper here and ♠Kxx ♥xxxx ♦Axxx ♣Jx
fourth suit not stopped ♠xx ♥AKx ♦Jxxx ♣xxxx

2NT = normal game-forcing hand, or if

light, two-and-a-half useful cards

3m = two useful cards

Example (2): In Competition:

Opener Responder Without a strong holding in opener’s

1♣ 1♦ suit, the light 2NT rebid should include
2♣ 2 NT a double stopper in the opponent’s suit,
because we know they are going to lead it
2NT = if light in high-card points, then and knock-out our one stopper, and we will
2NT promises an honor in clubs, expect- have to run eight tricks in a row afterwards!
ing to make game opposite most minimums Otherwise, everything is the same, but exer-
with reasonable clubs, like: cise caution if opener’s 2m rebid may have
♠Ax ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣AJ98xx been made under duress (for example, after
a negative double or after a third-seat open-
Responder might hold: ing bid).

♠ Q x x ♥ A x ♦ J x x x x ♣ K 10 x
♠xxx ♥Ax♦Jxxxx ♣KQx A final thought: The initials for “useful
♠Kx ♥xxxx ♦Qxxx ♣KQx cards” are U. C., which appropriately come
♠Kx ♥Ax ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx out verbally to: “you see?”
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 10

Hawaii Four-0
by Matthew Granovetter

Between wind-surfing and watching the This hand was the first hand of the
whales, I was able to get in a few sessions of tournament for me. I was East. Marshall
bridge in Honolulu. Here I present some of Miles, North, opened with a catch-all 1♦,
my own exploits and some that I witnessed playing a strong club system. I think South
while drying off.... might have headed toward slam after hear-
ing 2♥ over his game forcing 2♦ bid. This
Fourth Suit Forcing 2♦ bid comes from the 2♣/2♦ convention
where 2♣ is always a game invitational bid,
North and 2♦ is always a game force, regardless of
♠ A Q 10 4 opener’s rebid. Many play these bids after a
♥J9 1NT rebid, but not after a 1♥ or 1♠ rebid.
♦72
♣AQ542 Suppose the auction goes more tradition-
West East ally:
♠32 ♠9875 North South
♥765 ♥K43 1♣ 1♥
♦QJ9654 ♦ 10 3 1♠ ?
♣K7 ♣J963
South Now responder might bid 2♦, fourth-suit
♠KJ6 forcing. Does opener bid 2♥ with honor-
♥ A Q 10 8 2 doubleton, as Miles did? Or does this prom-
♦AK8 ise three-card support? I think the former
♣ 10 8 is a better way to play, because it comes up
much more than three-card support (which
West North East South you can jump with anyway). Knowledge of
pass 1 ♦ (1) pass 1♥ a doubleton honor should help South envi-
pass 1♠ pass 2 ♦ (2) sion a slam in hearts.
pass 2♥ pass 2♠
pass 3♣ pass 3 NT To discuss with your partner:
(all pass) After fourth-suit forcing, does opener’s
rebid of responder’s major show honor
(1) distributional hand without a five-card major, doubleton or three-card support?
11-14
(2) game forcing, artificial

Opening lead: ♦Q
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 11

Why me, Lord? ♠—

♥J
South dealer North ♦J
None vul ♠QJ ♣A9
♥J ♠— ♠—
♦ J 10 8 7 ♥ 10 8 7 N ♥K6
W E
♣AK9652 ♦Q S ♦—
West (Herman) East ♣— ♣Q8
♠ 10 ♠754 ♠—
♥ 10 8 7 5 4 ♥K632 ♥AQ9
♦KQ642 ♦953 ♦—
♣ 10 4 ♣Q83 ♣J
South (Robson)
♠AK98632 On the last spade, East had to throw
♥AQ9 a heart, to keep the clubs guarded. Next
♦A Robson led a club to the ace and Herman
♣J7 had to throw a heart to keep the diamonds
guarded! Finally, the ♥J to the queen pro-
South West North East duced tricks 11, 12 and 13. It was a beauti-
1♠ pass 2♣ pass ful “non-simultaneous” double squeeze, ex-
3♠ pass 4♠ pass ecuted by Robson, with a finesse sprinkled
4 NT pass 5 ♣ (one) pass in along the way.
5♦ pass 6 ♣ (♠Q/♣K) pass
7 NT (all pass) “Why oh why did I have to be dealt
both the king and queen of diamonds?!”
Opening lead: ♦K complained Herman. “If I had only held
one of the diamond honors, I’d have led a
Ira Herman, an occasional “unlucky heart and broken up the squeeze!”
expert” from New York, came running up
to me to tell me that he was fixed yet again! A note about the bidding: South could
His complaint was that he was dealt too have asked for the ♥K by bidding 6♦ or
strong a diamond holding on this hand 6♥. Do you know which in your partner-
from the Open Pairs. He led the ♦K against ship? And would North show the ♥K with
Andrew Robson’s grand slam. Robson led a singleton jack, figuring it’s worth a trick
a club to the king and ran seven rounds of or two in ruffs? Answers in box below are
spades, coming down to: provided by Eddie Kantar.

Kantar:
In the auction shown, North has denied
the ♥K (bypassing 5♥). The 5♥ bid could
also be made with the singleton heart,
if North felt he had enough trump for
the singleton to be worthwhile (remem-
ber, players do lead trumps against grand
slams). After 6♣, opener bids where he
needs a king. So 6♦ would ask for the ♦K
and 6♥ would ask for the ♥K if the ♥K
had not already been denied (so here it
asks for third round control of hearts).
To discuss with your partner:
Follow-ups to keycard blackwood
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 12

North Nine card suits are never easy to describe.

♠QJ This one, from the Board-a-Match Teams
♥J was the talk of the tournament:
♦ J 10 8 7
♣AK9652 West dealer North
West East Both vul ♠KQJ32
♠ 10 ♠754 ♥KJ8
♥ 10 8 7 5 4 ♥K632 ♦8
♦KQ642 ♦953 ♣9643
♣ 10 4 ♣Q83 West East
South (Rimstedt) ♠— ♠A97
♠AK98632 ♥75 ♥A632
♥AQ9 ♦ A K Q J 10 9 7 5 3 ♦642
♦A ♣75 ♣A82
♣J7 South
♠ 10 8 6 5 4
At the winners table in the Women’s ♥ Q 10 9 4
Life Master Pairs, two Swedish girls, Cecilia ♦—
Rimstedt and Sara Siveland, ages 17 and 24, ♣ K Q J 10
bid to 7NT as well.* There, however, de-
clarer made it in a different way. She won Here are a few interesting auctions.
the diamond lead, went to dummy in spades
and ran the ♥J. Later she had a simple West North East South
squeeze (played as a double) against East, 3 NT pass pass pass
who regretted not covering the ♥J with the
king! Perhaps East is supposed to bid 4NT to
say there are 10 tricks! East has three aces
and knows partner has at least seven tricks.
How do you play 3NT-4NT?

At two tables I know about, East-West

were successful.

West North East South

1♦ 1♠ double 4♠
5♦ pass pass 5♠
6♦ pass pass double
Sara Siveland and Cecilia Rimstedt
(all pass)

*This pair is one of several Swedish women’s pairs

being trained by Jill Mellstrom (wife of Swedish vet-
This pair got a top score for six diamonds
eran P. O. Sunderlin). They won the World Junior
doubled, but I can’t say they deserved it,
Pairs in Slovakia, earlier this year. In November
can you? West seems to have bid her head
they flew to Honolulu (half way around the world)
off and caught the perfect dummy!
from Eilat, Israel, where they had placed second in
the Eilat Open Pairs.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 13

West dealer North At this table Leo Bell was West and Mar-
Both vul ♠KQJ32 shall Miles East. Bell passed with his nine
♥KJ8 diamonds, figuring he could not describe
♦8 this hand and might learn something in the
♣9643 auction by passing. He probably was hop-
West (Bell) East (Miles) ing to get doubled later, too. Well, imagine
♠— ♠A97 Miles’ surprise to see partner bid 6NT over
♥75 ♥A632 his 12-14 one notrump! I can’t give this
♦ A K Q J 10 9 7 5 3 ♦642 auction a gold star either, can you?
♣75 ♣A82
South Perhaps Sam Stayman’s old convention
♠ 10 8 6 5 4 would have worked here. He liked to play
♥ Q 10 9 4 4NT openings as preemptive in one mi-
♦— nor, while the 5♣ or 5♦ opening showed
♣ K Q J 10 a strong five-of-a-minor bid. The auction
would then go 5♦, pass, 6♦ (or perhaps
West North East South 6NT at matchpoints).
pass pass 1 NT pass
6 NT (all pass) Readers, if you have any better ideas,
please send them to matt@bridgetoday.
Winners at the Fall Nationals com. In the meantime, try this declarer play
Nail Open Life Master Pairs hand:
Howard Weinstein - Steve Garner
South dealer North
Smith Life Master Women’s Pairs E-W vul ♠J
Sara Sivelind - Cecilia Rimstedt ♥K93
♦ A K J 10 8 5
Victor Mitchell Open BAM Teams ♣ J 10 3
George Jacobs - Ralph Katz; Michael Rosenberg ♠5
- Zia; Steve Weinstein - Robert Levin South (you)
♠A62
Women’s BAM Teams ♥ A Q 10 7 6 2
Lynn Baker - Karen McCallum; Kerri Sanborn ♦Q
- Irina Levitina; Lynn Deas - Beth Palmer ♣K52

Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs South West North East

Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes 1♥ pass 2♦ pass
2♥ pass 3♠ pass
Reisinger BAM Teams 4 NT pass 5♥ pass
Jacek Pszczola - Curtis Cheek; Joe Grue - Gary 6♥ (all pass)
Cohler
Opening lead: ♠5
Bill Keohane North American Swiss
Tony Kasday - Hjordis Eythorsdottir; Thorlakur East plays the ♠Q on the jack. What is
Jonsson - Sigurbjorn Haraldsson; Bjarni Einarsson your plan?
- Jon Baldursson
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 14

Hawaii Four-0 the ♥A at trick two. Suddenly declarer was

down — she could no longer recover! Af-
This was the most fascinating hand of ter finessing the ♥9 and cashing the king,
the tournament, and all because West had declarer cannot return to hand except in
four trump. the one suit she doesn’t want to: diamonds!
The best declarer could do was play four
South dealer North rounds of diamonds, pitching her clubs.
E-W vul ♠J West ruffed and led a spade for down one (a
♥K93 club or heart return would give the contract
♦ A K J 10 8 5 but a spade was easy).
♣ J 10 3
West East The right line of play after a spade lead
♠ K 10 5 ♠Q98743 can be found if you ask yourself the key
♥J854 ♥— question: What can go wrong? The answer
♦763 ♦942 is: West has four trump. To guard against
♣Q74 ♣A986 this, strange as it seems, you ruff a spade
South at trick two and then cash the ♥K at trick
♠A62 three. When East shows out, you are happy
♥ A Q 10 7 6 2 about your “safety” play. You now lead a
♦Q diamond to the queen, ruff your last spade
♣K52 and cash three diamonds, pitching your
clubs. West ruffs the fourth round and you
South West North East claim.
1♥ pass 2♦ pass
2♥ pass 3♠ pass At my table (I was West as well), I led
4NT pass 5♥ pass a club, a more prosaic lead, yet the one to
6♥ (all pass) beat the contract if my partner could find
the winning defense. Do you see it?
Opening lead: ♠5
East can defeat the slam by returning a
The hand, from the Board-a-Match diamond at trick two. This allows declarer
teams, was like a par contest hand for South only three diamond tricks, and he needs
players who landed in 6♥ and received the four to make the slam. After a club return
aggressive, but excellent, spade lead from at trick two, declarer simply cashed the ♥A,
West. The spade lead was excellent because finessed through me, and returned to hand
West is looking at the four hearts to the jack in spades to draw trump before leading the
and wants to attack dummy’s short suit to ♦Q to dummy.
prevent a finesse through the ♥J.
Tip for declarer: When dummy comes
At my wife’s table (she was West), de- down and things seem easy, think about
clarer won the ♠A at trick one and cashed what could go wrong.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 15

The Blue Ribbon Pairs switch the North and East hands, Fantoni
might score up his contract (West leads a
This event lasts three days with two club to his partner’s ace and now a low
days of qualifying. I played in the Blues in spade must be returned to defeat 3NT.) As
Honolulu for two days, missing qualifica- it was, after the club lead, Fantoni scored
tion for the final by less than a matchpoint. 660 for a top. He took two spades, four
I guess my partner and I could have picked hearts, two diamonds and three clubs.
up a point somewhere along the line....
In the final session, this board appeared:
The winners of the event were the new-
est Italian champs, Claude Nunes and South dealer North (Nunes)
Fulvio Fantoni. They won by a full board N-S vul ♠ K J 10 4 3 2
over Drew Casen and Jim Krekorian, with ♥ A J 10
Meckwell coming up the rear in third. Here ♦3
are a few of the winners’ success stories ♣A53
with a common matchpoint theme: 3NT. West East
♠A6 ♠7
From the fifth session, this board showed ♥Q862 ♥974
how easily a preempt can backfire. ♦972 ♦ K Q 10 8 6 4
♣QJ92 ♣K87
West dealer North (Nunes) South (Fantoni)
N-S vul ♠KQ52 ♠Q985
♥ 10 9 8 7 3 ♥K53
♦32 ♦AJ5
♣A8 ♣ 10 6 4
West East
♠ A 10 4 ♠98763 South West North East
♥Q6 ♥K pass pass 1♠ 3♦
♦8 ♦ K J 10 9 7 4 3 NT (all pass)
♣Q976432 ♣ 10
South (Fantoni) Fantoni once again closed his eyes and
♠J bid 3NT, and when he opened them he
♥AJ542 saw good news. West had led a diamond
♦AQ65 and dummy had a lot of goodies to work
♣KJ5 with. He won the queen with the ace and
knocked out the ♠A. West, not sure which
West North East South king his partner might hold on the side
3♣ pass pass 3 NT (the ♥K or ♣K), decided to continue dia-
(all pass) monds in the hope it was the ♥K for an
entry. This set up declarer’s tenth trick and
Left to their own devises, North-South he eventually guessed hearts for 11 tricks
would roll into their 10-card heart fit, scor- when a slew of spades tempted his opps into
ing 650. But after the preempt by West, making some revealing discards (i.e., East
Fantoni balanced with 3NT. Granted, he pitched hearts). Even 630 would have been
caught a nice dummy, but even if you a good score, but the result was 660.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 16

On the very next round, this hand ap- after winning the first club lead.
peared:
Matchpoints is a tough game — this
South dealer North (Nunes) hand would be thrown in at 4♠, making
Both vul ♠642 four, five or six, in any rubber bridge or
♥ J 10 3 2 IMP game.
♦A62
♣AJ9 I thought it would be interesting for
West East readers to get a peek at these Italians’ con-
♠A73 ♠5 vention card. Check out their opening bids:
♥865 ♥974
♦K7543 ♦J98 1NT = 12-14 (any balanced)
♣Q6 ♣ K 10 8 5 3 2 1♥ and 1♠ show sound opening bids (14+
South (Fantoni) or a good 12-13) with a five-card suit.
♠ K Q J 10 9 8 1♦ shows the same but could be 4441
♥AKQ shape.
♦ Q 10 1♣ is the same but could also be a bal-
♣74 anced 15+ type of hand. All strong balanced
hands, except the 20-21 range, start with
South West North East 1♣.
1♠ pass 2 ♣ (1) pass
2 NT (2) pass 3 NT (all pass) When it says 12-13 it means 12-13 with
some good spot cards and shape. These one-
(1) 10+ natural or any balanced hand bids are all forcing! (In general, one-level
(2) 17+ usually 5332 responses are 0-9 and two-level 10+ game-
forcing.)
Nunes (North), upon hearing about his
partner’s balanced shape, went with the Opening two bids (in first and second
flow, bidding 3NT over 2NT (as who would seats) in any suit show 10-13 points (some-
not!). Well, West started a low diamond, of times a good 9) with 5+ cards in the suit
course. Fantoni drove out the ♠A and took bid and an unbalanced hand. Bridge Today
12 tricks for plus 690. This was their best readers might label these “McCallum/
score of the three 3NT’s, scoring 36.5 out Trents”!
of 38 matchpoints. The field played mostly
in 4♠, and who could blame them? The In any case, these guys are very nice fel-
South hand had no stopper in clubs and lows and play a system all their own. They
a half stopper in diamonds. Most auctions do not care what anyone has to say about
went: 1♠-2♠-4♠. Though, perhaps a better their system either. (See the editorial on
Standard American auction at matchpoints page 2 to see what I mean.)
would be 1♠-1NT (forcing), 3♠-3NT. In
that case, however, East would lead a club.
Declarer could still make 11 tricks if he
ducked the first trick, won the second and
led spades. He might choose to play East for
the ♠A, however, and he’d be down two Fantoni and Nunes
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 17

The Big Team Game South dealer • None vul

The Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams
was the premier event of the week. A top- West (you)
notch field was reduced to 20 teams for the ♠J2
semifinals and 10 teams for the finals. Here ♥9842
are some of the most exciting hands from ♦ 10 8
the last session. First try this quiz and then ♣K8754
continue with the article. Mark down your
answers and you’ll get your scores in the South West North East
text that follows. 2 NT pass 3 ♥ (transfer) pass
3♠ pass 4 ♠* pass
The Stansby Collection 4 NT pass 5♣ pass
We start off with three opening lead 5♦ pass 5 NT pass
problems. See if you can do as well as Lew 6♠ (all pass)
Stansby. Remember, this is board-a-match
scoring so every trick may count! *slam try

1, East dealer • Both vul Five clubs showed one keycard, and five
diamonds asked for the queen of trump.
West (you) North showed it with 5NT but denied a
♠86 side king.
♥ Q 10 9 8 6 5 2
♦62 What is your lead and why?
♣J8
3. West dealer • N-S vul
West North East South
— — pass 2 NT West (you)
pass 3 ♥ (1) pass 3♠ ♠953
pass 4♦ pass 4 ♥ (2) ♥2
pass 4 NT pass 5 ♣ (3 keycards) ♦ K J 10 9 8 7
pass 6♠ pass 6 NT ♣KQ8
(all pass)
West North East South
(1) transfer pass pass 1 NT (1) 2 ♦ (2)
(2) artificial slam try for spades 3 ♣ (3) double (4) pass pass
redble (5) 3 ♦ (6) double 3♥
What is your opening lead and why? Be pass pass double (all pass)
specific.
(1) 11+-14
2. OK, here is your second chance for an (2) Multi, one long major
opening lead. Once again you are West, this (3) transfer to diamonds
time against 6♠: (4) asks partner to show his major
(5) retransfer to diamonds
(6) insists that partner bid his major already!

What is your lead?

Bridge Today • January 2007 page 18

Win a Few Lew’s choice of a heart was based on his

Lew Stansby, whose team placed second, length there. The opponents were missing
losing by a half-a-board, told me a few of an ace if their bidding was accurate, and
his personal favorites. Stansby was playing South had corrected the 6♠ bid to 6NT,
with his regular partner, Chip Martel. On no doubt with K-x in hearts or clubs. It
boards 7, 8 and 9, the third round of the was more likely, from Lew’s long hearts, to
evening, these opening lead problems were be in hearts. But here is a more interesting
dealt. The boards were played against Ital- thought: Lew did not want to lead the 10
ian champions, Lorenzo Lauria and Alfredo because he did not want his partner to duck
Versace. the trick if dummy had a singleton and his
partner held the king! To guard against this,
The Dangerous 10 he led a low one, which would force partner
to put up any honor he held.
East dealer North (Lauria)
Both vul ♠ A Q 10 9 2 The heart lead held the contract to six
♥4 for a tie board. After a different suit lead,
♦ K 10 8 4 declarer would make seven by running his
♣Q95 spades and diamonds, squeezing East in
West (Stansby) East (Martel) hearts and clubs.
♠86 ♠753
♥ Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 ♥AJ7 Having said this, I would be omiss if I
♦62 ♦753 didn’t point out the opening lead to defeat
♣J8 ♣ 10 7 6 2 6NT: the ♣J. If you led this card, you luck
South (Versace) out when declarer wins and probably fi-
♠KJ4 nesses you for the 10 of clubs!
♥K3
♦AQJ9 Scores: If you led a heart, halve the
♣AK43 board. If you led the ♣J, take a win! Any-
thing else is a zero.
West North East South
— — pass 2 NT The story of board 8 was at Stansby’s
pass 3♥ pass 3♠ teammates’ table. Stansby and Martel had
pass 4♦ pass 4 ♥* defended 4♠ at their table, but their team-
pass 4 NT pass 5♣ mates reached 6♠....
pass 6♠ pass 6 NT
(all pass)

*The Italians play this bid as a slam try for spades,

allowing them to stop in 4♠ if North is light.

Opening lead: ♥5

Boards are sometimes rotated Lew Stansby

to make South declarer
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 19

South dealer North The third board of this set was yet an-
None vul ♠KQ9543 other opening lead problem, but was solved
♥Q753 for Stansby in the auction:
♦5
♣Q2 Board 9
West East West dealer North (Lauria)
♠J2 ♠ 10 8 6 N-S vul ♠AJ72
♥9842 ♥KJ ♥QJ3
♦ 10 8 ♦A762 ♦642
♣K8754 ♣ J 10 9 3 ♣ J 10 3
South West (Stansby) East (Martel)
♠A7 ♠953 ♠KQ86
♥ A 10 6 ♥2 ♥A54
♦KQJ943 ♦ K J 10 9 8 7 ♦A53
♣A6 ♣KQ8 ♣742
South (Versace)
South West North East ♠ 10 4
Moss Fantoni Gitelman Nunes ♥ K 10 9 8 7 6
2 NT pass 3♥ pass ♦Q
3♠ pass 4♠ pass ♣A965
4 NT pass 5♣ pass
5♦ pass 5 NT pass West North East South
6♠ (all pass) pass pass 1 NT 2♦
3♣ double pass pass
Opening lead: ♠J redouble 3♦ double 3♥
pass pass double (all pass)
Fantoni (West) decided to lead what he
thought was a safe ♠J against 6♠. It was Playing Flannery, Stansby passed in first
safe but didn’t do much. Declarer, Brad seat with the West hand. Martel opened
Moss, drew trump and led diamonds, to with a weak notrump in third seat and
make 12 tricks. A heart lead defeats the Versace overcalled 2♦, multi, showing a
slam, but a club lead doesn’t. I would lead one-suited hand in either major. Stansby
a club, I admit. But then my partner might bid 3♣, a transfer to diamonds, showing
make the “slam spade” double for the high- some values as well, and Lauria doubled to
est ranking unbid suit: hearts. Even not ask partner to bid his major. The 2♦ multi
playing this special lead-directing double, convention had backfired when Martel got
East might have doubled for the first suit to pass the double and later double 3♦.
bid in dummy, hearts, taking a chance that
the queen is in dummy. (Perhaps this is Versace passed the double of 3♣, perhaps
more of an imp double than a matchpoint not in sync with partner. He would have
double, but with nine HCP, East might done better by bidding 3♥, perhaps. Well,
figure that his teammates at the other table he couldn’t have done worse. Stansby, who
are probably not in slam.) Had East doubled preferred his partner to declare diamonds,
or West led a heart, the Italians would have redoubled and Lauria now bid 3♦ to insist
won the board. Score one point for a heart that partner bid his major. This allowed
lead, otherwise zero.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 20

Martel to double, as it happened, for the 3♦ by West. Moss balanced with 3♥. West
lead! doubled (but what was he going to lead?)
and his partner pulled to 4♦, making five,
West dealer North (Lauria) when the two black aces were onside. Score
N-S vul ♠AJ72 one point for any lead but a club, but score
♥QJ3 zero if you led the ♣K.
♦642
♣ J 10 3 Lose a Few
West (Stansby) East (Martel) Here are the fatal three boards for
♠953 ♠KQ86 Stansby, which his team lost to the winners.
♥2 ♥A54 They are boards 13, 14 and 15. But first try
♦ K J 10 9 8 7 ♦A53 them yourself and see how you would do.
♣KQ8 ♣742 These are competitive bidding problems,
South (Versace) and again, keep in mind that the game is
♠ 10 4 board-a-match teams:
♥ K 10 9 8 7 6
♦Q Board 13. North dealer • Both vul
♣A965
South (you)
West North East South ♠ A 10 5
pass pass 1 NT 2♦ ♥A53
3♣ double pass pass ♦QJ84
redouble 3♦ double 3♥ ♣KJ6
pass pass double (all pass)
South West North East
Versace finally bid his hearts, but it was — — 1♠ 2♦
too late. When Martel doubled this (to pro- ?
tect his 3♦ partscore, not wanting to collect
only 100 points if it was set), Stansby led a Board 14. Your second bidding problem:
diamond instead of the more natural club East dealer • None vul
lead. The Italians’ delay in reaching 3♥
backfired and the contract was set one trick. West (you)
♠J9
West North East South ♥AKJ95
Fantoni Gitelman Nunes Moss ♦A
pass pass 1 NT pass ♣ A K 10 9 7
2 NT pass 3♣ pass
3♦ pass pass 3♥ West North East South
double pass 4♦ (all pass) — — pass 1♠
2 ♠ (1) pass 3 ♣ (2) 3♦
At the other table, Fantoni and Nunes 3♠ pass 4♣ pass
also could not open 2♦ (they play it shows ?
10-13) and his partner also opened 1NT.
Moss, South, passed. Now it went 2NT by (1) hearts and a minor
West, showing diamonds, 3♣ by East and (2) pass or correct to 3♦ with diamonds
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 21

Board 15. Last chance to win a board. Trap Pass backfires

South dealer • N-S vul The first board is the story of a trap pass
that backfired when partner did not reopen.
East (you) Stansby’s opponents were Gary Cohler
♠J64 (West) and Jacek Pszczola, otherwise nick-
♥J64 named “Pepsi.”
♦9
♣KJ7654 Board 13
North dealer North (Stansby)
South West North East Both vul ♠KJ7642
1♥ pass 1 NT pass ♥Q4
2 NT pass 4 ♣* ? ♦A65
♣Q7
*delayed splinter for hearts West (Cohler) East (Pepsi)
♠983 ♠Q
Do you or don’t you double? ♥ 10 9 8 6 2 ♥KJ7
♦— ♦ K 10 9 7 3 2
Two for the Price of One ♣ 10 8 5 4 3 ♣A92
When the top teams meet at board- South (Martel)
a-match, there are actually two boards ♠ A 10 5
“swung” with every board played. This can ♥A53
be understood better if you list the possible ♦QJ84
results of a board: ♣KJ6

Team A Team B West North East South

0 1
half half
1 0
These are the three possible results.
Notice that the two extreme results are:
Team A wins one point and Team B wins
one point. If Team A wins the point, Team
A is one point ahead. But if Team B wins,
Team B is one point ahead. The difference
between –1 and plus 1 is 2. You will see this
even more clearly at the conclusion of the
article.
Reisinger champs: Cohler, Grue, Cheek and “Pepsi”
— 1♠ 2♦ pass
pass pass
Martel (South) passed 2♦, hoping to hear
a reopening double. But West (Cohler) was
void in diamonds and North (Stansby) had
three of them — one too many. If he had
held a doubleton diamond, he would have
reopened, he said after the event, but with
three of them it didn’t look like his partner
was sitting there with a stack in diamonds.
The contract drifted down four, for +400
to N-S. But at the other table South bid
over 2♦ and reached 4♠ to win the board.
Cohler was lucky he was void in partner’s
suit, since he avoided the double. Or was
he? Perhaps he would have rescued his
partner to 2♥ if North had produced a re-
opening double on a different layout. Score
zero if you passed, otherwise one half.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 22

Partscore Restraint South dealer North

Board 14 N-S vul ♠ A Q 10 3
East dealer North ♥ 10 7 2
None vul ♠82 ♦K8642
♥Q8743 ♣8
♦QJ2 West East
♣Q42 ♠K987 ♠J64
West East ♥Q9 ♥J64
♠J9 ♠7543 ♦J753 ♦9
♥AKJ95 ♥6 ♣ 10 9 2 ♣KJ7654
♦A ♦8543 South
♣ A K 10 9 7 ♣J853 ♠52
South ♥AK853
♠ A K Q 10 6 ♦ A Q 10
♥ 10 2 ♣AQ3
♦ K 10 9 7 6
♣6 South West North East
Martel Cohler Stansby Pepsi
West North East South 1♥ pass 1 NT pass
Cohler Stansby Pepsi Martel 2 NT pass 4♣ pass
— — pass 1♠ 4♦ pass 4♥ (all pass)
2♠ pass 3♣ 3♦
3♠ pass 4♣ (all pass) As East, you win the board if you pass
4♣ but lose it if you double. Here’s why.
I think Cohler used remarkable restraint Stansby responded a forcing 1NT, planning
here when he let the contract go in 4♣. No- to jump in hearts. The 2NT raise showed
tice that if the clubs had divided, declarer 18-19, and the 4♣ bid was a delayed splin-
would still be one down in 5♣ when North ter. At this point Pepsi, East, might have
held the ♣Q, because the defense began doubled. But he demonstrated fine judg-
with three rounds of spades. ment by passing. Had he doubled, it would
have made life easy for Martel both in the
At the other table Moss-Gitelman played auction and the play. After the pass, Martel
in 3♥ by West, down one. Score a win if cuebid 4♦ and Stansby, with weak trumps,
you passed 4♣, but a half if you bid. bid 4♥.

Double Restraint! At the other table, South opened 1♣,

On the last of the fatal three boards for
Stansby, board 15, his side rested in game
when the other team bid slam:
Husband/Wife Win Double
While husband Curtis Cheek was
winning the Reisinger, Disa was
winning the North American Swiss
with friends from Iceland.
strong, and North responded 2♦. North-
South reached six diamonds, making. If
Pepsi had doubled 4♣, I think Martel
would have redoubled, Stansby would have
bid 4♦ on the way to 4♥ and slam would
have been reached in hearts for a two-board
swing to Stansby’s team. In other words,
instead of Cohler’s team winning by a half
a board, Stansby’s team would have won by
one-and-a-half boards!
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 23

Bridge Yesterday

by Pietro Campanile

It’s a kind of magic...

Belladonna Chemla

A couple of weeks ago while playing in
a local club I was approached by a distin-
guished gentleman who mentioned that
he enjoyed very much my articles (he was
obviously a man of exquisite taste!) but…
“isn’t it time to dedicate a column to the
truly greatest hands ever played?” A timely
suggestion which I am happy to accept. So
here is the first installment of a new series
aptly called “It’s a kind of magic..” , borrow-
ing the title of one of Queens’ most famous
hits, because the protagonists of this column
often take up a magician’s cloak and, like
Harry Houdini, manage to escape certain
defeat thanks to some astonishing coups.
The first hand I shall present to you was
played in the 1975 Bermuda Bowl by one
of the most famous players of all time, the
Italian Giorgio Belladonna.

South dealer North suit. At this point a quick assessment of

E-W vul ♠942 declarer’s chances will show a loser in
♥KQ spades, two trump losers, and a loser in each
♦AK83 of the minors for an apparently inevitable
♣A986 two down.
West East
♠ Q 10 ♠KJ8753 Let the Italian magic show begin!
♥ J 10 7 4 3 ♥—
♦94 ♦ Q 10 7 2 Belladonna continued with a small club
♣KQ32 ♣J74 from dummy, won by East with the ♣J (had
South he ducked, the Italian would then have
♠A6 ruffed out the ♣J, setting up a club winner
♥A98652 in dummy). East played back a spade and
♦J65 declarer rose with the ♠A, went to dummy
♣ 10 5 with the ♥Q and played a third club, dis-
carding the losing spade from hand.
Against 4♥x, West led the ♣K to dum-
my’s ace. The ♥K was played next which This is the position we have reached:
revealed the unlucky 5-0 split in the trump
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 24

♠94 in each hand, Belladonna played the ♠9

♥— from dummy and ruffed it with the ♥9.
♦AK83 West overruffed with the ♥10 — under-
♣6 ruffing would obviously serve no purpose
♠Q ♠KJ8 — and was forced to return a heart into
N
♥ J 10 7 W E ♥— declarer’s ♥A-8. Four hearts doubled, bid
S
♦94 ♦ Q 10 7 2 and made…Bravo, Maestro!
♣3 ♣—
♠— For our second hand of the month we
♥A986 travel across the Alps to witness an early
♦J65 effort of Paul Chemla. In his first outing as
♣— an Internationalist, representing France in
the 1972 European Open Championship
East-West have so far taken only two in Athens, he already showed some of that
tricks in clubs and when West played back wizardry which was soon to turn him into
the ♠Q, declarer ruffed, cashed ♦A-K and one of the most accomplished declarers of
discarded his last diamond on the ♣6. Com- his time. Here we see him in action against
pleting his masterpiece, with three cards left the Italian Blue Team.

South declarer ♠J5 third heart ruff). Then he cashed his three
None vul ♥9742 top clubs reaching this position:
♦K9732
♣Q2 ♠J5
♠ K 10 8 6 ♠32 ♥—
♥KQ53 N ♥ A J 10 8 ♦97
W E
♦64 S ♦ A J 10 8 ♣—
♣854 ♣J96 ♠ K 10 8 6 ♠32
♠AQ974 ♥— N ♥—
W E
♥6 ♦— S ♦ J 10
♦Q5 ♣— ♣—
♣ A K 10 7 3 ♠AQ
♥—
Chemla’s youthful exuberance got his ♦—
side to overstretch to a seemingly unmake- ♣ 10 7
able 4♠ contract. Declarer rates to lose a
heart, a diamond and two spades just to Having already gathered seven tricks,
start off; after D’Alelio’s ♥K lead and heart Chemla played the ♣10. West was forced
continuation there is also the danger of to ruff low and was overruffed by dummy.
losing control, given the unfriendly trump The French champion now played a dia-
layout. The “enfant terrible” of French mond, pitching the last club, and D’Alelio
bridge soon showed the way. He ruffed the was forced to ruff and return trumps from
second heart, played the ♦Q to East’s ace, his ♠K-10 into declarer’s A-Q, letting de-
ruffed the heart return, got to dummy with clarer score his unlikely contract. Isn’t it a
the ♦K and ruffed dummy’s last heart (his kind of magic?
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 25

Building a Better Mousetrap

by Matthew Granovetter

The “Support Reverse” Opener Responder

1♣ 1 ♥ or 1 ♠
One of the most important building 2♦
blocks for a bidding system, or in this case,
a new convention, argued the late inventor Here 2♦ is a touching reverse, one suit
of Precision, C. C. Wei, is the frequency of up from clubs.
the bid. Precision works well for so many It shows 3-card support for partner and
types of players, from relative beginners to 16+ values.
experts, because of this factor.
Opener Responder
In Standard American, there are many 1♦ 1♠
sequences that cater to a small percentage of 2♥
hands. These sequences could be used for
something covering more hands (in some Here 2♥ is a touching reverse, one suit
cases, many more hands). I’d like to pro- up from diamonds. It shows 3-card support
pose such an idea that I first mentioned in for spades and 16+ values.
Bridge Today a few years ago, but am finally
playing myself: the support reverse. Opener Responder
1♦ 1♥
To understand this convention, first let’s 2♠
disencumber ourselves of the old meaning
of a reverse: natural and 16+ points. Here 2♠ is a jump shift. Because there is
no suit in between diamonds and hearts, we
The new meaning of a reverse will be: 3- use this jump shift for the same meaning.
card support for partner and 16+ values. It shows 3-card support for hearts and 16+
values.
We’ll start with the “touching reverse.”
This is a reverse one suit up from the suit So we are dealing here with four se-
you opened. quences. All begin with one of a minor and
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 26

a major-suit response. Then the lowest pos- ♠xx ♠QJx ♠x

sible reverse shows 3-card support and 16+ ♥Kxxxx ♥Kxxx ♥Kxxxx
values. What does responder do next? ♦AKxxx ♦AQJ ♦Kxxx
♣x ♣ 10 x x ♣Axx
1) He signs off in his suit or your suit
with a weak hand. 3♦ 3 NT 3♠
2) He bids 2NT or a new suit at the two
level to hear more about your hand.
3) He jumps to three of his major to force Let’s match them up and see....
to game in the major.
4) He bids a natural new suit at the three Opener Responder
level to describe his hand. ♠AKx ♠Jxx
5) He jumps to a game as a quantitative ♥Axx ♥Kxxx
bid. ♦x ♦Qxxx
6) He jumps in a suit to show a splinter. ♣KQxxxx ♣xx

Let’s look at some examples. But before 1♣ 1♥

we do, you probably have this question on 2♦ 2♥
your mind: What does opener do with the pass
old reverse? The answer is that opener finds
another bid. Opener may decide to rebid Responder rebids 2♥ and plays a cozy 2♥
2NT on many of these hands as a natural contract, not getting too high.
18-19 point hand. One of the merits of this
new convention is that strong rebids other
than the Support Reverse usually deny 3- Opener Responder
card support. This will help all your other ♠AKx ♠xxx
bidding enormously. ♥Axx ♥KQxx
♦x ♦Axx
Opener Responder ♣KQxxxx ♣Axx
♠AKx
♥Axx 1♣ 1♥
♦x 2♦ 2♠
♣KQxxxx 3♣

1♣ 1♥ On this hand, responder bids 2♠, a forc-

2♦ ? ing bid to hear more about opener’s hand;
responder chooses 2♠, rather than 2NT, to
Suppose responder has one of these: hear more, because he has no spade stopper
and does not want to grab the notrump dec-
♠Jxx ♠xxx ♠xxx laration from his side. Opener now rebids
♥Kxxx ♥KQxx ♥ K Q 10 x x his club suit and responder can picture a
♦Qxxx ♦Axx ♦xxx slam in clubs. He might bid 3♦ followed
♣xx ♣Axx ♣Ax by 4♣ or he might raise clubs directly or
he might jump to 4♦ as KCB in clubs. All
2♥ 2♠ 3♥ roads will lead to a slam.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 27

Opener Responder Opener Responder

♠AKx ♠xxx ♠AKx ♠QJx
♥Axx ♥ K Q 10 x x ♥Axx ♥Kxxx
♦x ♦xxx ♦x ♦AQJ
♣KQxxxx ♣Ax ♣ K Q x x x x ♣ 10 x x

1♣ 1♥ 1♣ 1♥
2♦ 3♥ 2♦ 3 NT
3♠ 4♣ ?
4 NT etc.
Opener has a close decision over the 3NT
Here responder jumps to 3♥ to agree on quantitative bid (showing only four hearts
hearts and opener cuebids 3♠. Responder but good stoppers in spades and diamonds
cuebids 4♣ and opener is off to the races and 12-13 points). Opener knows he is fac-
with Keycard Blackwood. ing diamond wastage, so he might give up.

Opener Responder Opener Responder

♠AKx ♠xx ♠AKx ♠x
♥Axx ♥Kxxxx ♥Axx ♥Kxxxx
♦x ♦AKxxx ♦x ♦Kxxx
♣KQxxxx ♣x ♣KQxxxx ♣Axx

1♣ 1♥ 1♣ 1♥
2♦ 3♦ 2♦ 3♠
3♠ 4♦
4♥ pass Finally, responder makes a splinter jump
bid. Opener has both good and bad news
Responder’s 3♦ was descriptive. Opener facing the splinter: a nice hand with con-
cuebids 3♠ and responder cuebids 4♦. trols, but the wasted ♠K. Opener would
Opener knows the ♣A is missing and if probably bid 4♣, since he can still stop in
responder holds ♥K-Q and ♦A-K, he will 4♥. Whether the partnership reaches slam
move on himself over 4♥. With only A-x-x or not is a tough call. Six clubs is 50%, need-
of trumps, he bids 4♥. ing the ♦A onside. The main point here is
that the partnership is in the ballpark, with
the tools to investigate the best possible
game or slam. Using the 2♦ rebid to show
three-card heart support has made light-
years headway in the realm of scientific bid-
ding, allowing each partner to express his
values and distribution below game level.

Obviously, I could write a book on this

convention. There are probably lots of areas
of follow-up bidding to develop and the
world is yours….
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 28

The Wizards of Aus

by Ron Klinger

Alan Taylor of New Zealand was the edi- expert North thought South must have the
tor of NOT NEWS, the Daily Bulletin for minors. He therefore bid a non-forcing 3♠,
the Summer Festival of Bridge. At the New pass-or-correct. The plan was that when
Zealand National Congress an “Even Homer South bid 4♣, North would bid 4NT and if
Nods” award is presented to the expert who South showed one keycard, that figured to
does the dumbest thing and Taylor institut- be the ♣A and North would then bid 7♠.
ed the same idea for our Summer Nationals. North eagerly awaited South’s correction to
clubs. He is still waiting.
Here are two Homer nominees, and
remember these are perpetrated by players This comes from Round 2 of the South-
who have won national championships or West Pacific Teams:
played for Australia.
West dealer North
This arose in the Australian Swiss Pairs: N-S vul ♠AK4
♥AK
South dealer North ♦AQ65
Both vul ♠AKQJ942 ♣KQ76
♥— West East
♦AK85 ♠9 ♠J862
♣K5 ♥QJ8 ♥ 10 9 7 5
West East ♦KJ2 ♦ 10 8 4 3
♠— ♠7 ♣ A J 10 5 3 2 ♣4
♥ Q 10 5 3 ♥J42 South
♦ 10 7 6 4 ♦QJ932 ♠ Q 10 7 5 3
♣AQJ74 ♣ 10 9 6 2 ♥6432
South ♦97
♠ 10 8 6 5 3 ♣98
♥AK9876
♦— West North East South
♣83 1♣ pass pass pass

South West North East Expert North (“It was only 25 points,
2NT* pass 3♠ (all pass) partner”) decided South figured to have
next to nothing and so unlikely to have an
*Majors or minors, weak entry. He therefore opted to defend. As it
happens, North-South have an easy time in
Because of his seven-card spade suit, 4♠ or 3NT.
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 29

The first two hands were errors of enor- support. The heart holding might be useful
mous proportions. Usually the errors of top- and you have only seven losers. That is too
class players are more subtle. On this deal much for a pass when vulnerable at teams.
from Round 5 of the 2005 World Champi- If not prepared to do that, you need to
onships, the Australian West was a wee bit double 3♣ when that comes back to you.
timid in the Open match against Italy, who
won the match 23-7. Four spades was bid and made 16 times
in the Open, 10 in the Women’s and 14 in
East dealer North the Seniors.
E-W vul ♠96
♥Q95 East dealer North
♦ K 10 9 6 2 Both vul ♠5
♣Q64 ♥QJ753
West East ♦4
♠ A J 10 7 2 ♠Q83 ♣ K J 10 8 3 2
♥AJ ♥ K 10 8 7 4 2 West East
♦4 ♦AJ73 ♠AKQ6 ♠ 10 4 3 2
♣98532 ♣— ♥ K 10 ♥8642
South ♦J98732 ♦AQ
♠K54 ♣9 ♣765
♥63 South
♦Q85 ♠J987
♣ A K J 10 7 ♥A9
♦ K 10 6 5
West North East South ♣AQ4
Thomson Bocchi Marston Duboin
— — 1 ♦* 2♣ West North East South
pass ? 3♣ (all pass) Thomson Bocchi Marston Duboin
— — pass 1♣
*4+ hearts, 10-14 points, can be canapé 1♦ double* pass 1♠
pass 2♣ pass 2 NT
Declarer was three down for –150, but pass 3♣ (all pass)
that was still worth 11 imps, as 4♠ made 11
tricks for +650 at the other table. *hearts

In the Seniors Australia vs Denmark Declarer made ten tricks for +130. At the
both sides reached 4♠. At both tables East other table:
opened 1♥, South overcalled 2♣, West
bid 2♠ and after 3♣ by North, East raised
spades.

It is not hard to bid 2♠ if it is not forc-

ing, but even 2♠ forcing is acceptable. As
partner is likely to be short in clubs, there
is a good chance partner will have spade
Bridge Today • January 2007 page 30

East dealer North Seniors: The Danish North-South had a

Both vul ♠5 serious misunderstanding here (I was East):
♥QJ753
♦4 Neill Klinger
♣ K J 10 8 3 2 West North East South
West East — — pass 1 NT
♠AKQ6 ♠ 10 4 3 2 double* 2♦ pass pass
♥ K 10 ♥8642 pass
♦J98732 ♦AQ
♣9 ♣765 *Some 4-major, 5+ minor hand
South
♠J987 Clearly North intended 2♦ as a transfer,
♥A9 South took it as natural. All partnerships
♦ K 10 6 5 need to have this position clarified when
♣AQ4 the double is not for penalties. A sensible
agreement is to play “system on” here. De-
West North East South clarer went three down for –300.
Versace Markey Lauria Horton
— — pass 1 NT Smolanko Lilley
2 NT (1) 3♥ double (2) 4♥ West North East South
double (3) pass 4♠ double — — pass 1♦
pass 5♥ double (all pass) 1♠ double 3♠ pass
pass 4♣ pass 5♣
(1) four spades and a long minor (all pass)
(2) asking partner to bid his minor
(3) diamonds Opening lead: ♠3

If the double of 4♠ was for penalties,
North had no business removing it. If the
double suggested competing further, South
should be passing. Four spades doubled is a
likely –500, while 5♥ doubled went –500.
[Editor’s note: Perhaps all the blame should
not be placed on North. I think the 4♥
bid led North astray, deceiving him about
South’s heart length.]
West won and switched to a diamond.
East took the ace and returned the ♦Q.
Had the ♥K been onside, declarer might
have come home. As it was, he went one
down for –100, but 5 imps to Australia, who
won the match 16-14.
Bridge Today • January 2007
Letters to the Editor
From Hervé Guilbert, Puteaux, France
Dear Pam and Matt,
I just wanted to fuel the discussion after
the article of Mr. Campanile in the last
issue of Bridge Today (December 06). I
have been playing Chess for 20 years now
and have had an international rating for
10 years. Although I’m not an active chess
player any more, I wanted to react to some
parts of Mr. Campanile’s article.
Mr. Campanile explains that the result of
a chess game mainly depends of the abil-
ity of calculation. According to my experi-
ence, this assumption is too basic and hides
completely the strategic part of Chess. To
win a Chess game, you need first to define
a global strategic plan (creating weaknesses,
building a direct attack, isolating a piece on
one wing) and calculation is only a tool to
achieve your targets. If you have the oppor-
tunity to have a closer look at Chess top-
player games, you can see that the fight is
more around imposing their strategic plans
than just a question of who will be able to
calculate more deeply and accurately the
tactic variations.
I completely disagree with Mr. Campa-
nile when he says that there is no “table
presence” dimension in Chess. I had the
great chance to play against Mr. Kasparov
(not face to face but in simultaneous play)
and I can only say that his body language
was very clear about who is going to win
the game). I kibitzed numerous top tourna-
ments and it’s clear that “table presence”
is an essential part of the top player skill
(like in Bridge). You can easily find a lot of
anecdotes concerning Tal (World Champion
1960-1961) which describes the way he
page 31
put some pressure on his opponents by his
behavior, so-called “table presence.”
On this aspect, it’s very interesting that
Mr. Campanile uses for his example a
characteristic chess player, Lasker. Lasker
is noted for his “psychological” method of
play in which he considered the subjective
qualities of his opponent in addition to the
objective requirements of his position on
the board. Richard Réti (another Grand
Master) even speculated that Lasker would
sometimes knowingly choose inferior moves
if he knew they would make his opponent
uncomfortable, although Lasker himself de-
nied this. But, for example, in one famous
game against Capablanca (St. Petersburg
1914), which he needed to win at all costs,
Lasker chose an opening that is considered
to be relatively harmless — but only if the
opponent is prepared to mix things up in
his own turn. Capablanca, inclined by the
tournament situation to play it safe, failed
to take active measures and so justified
Lasker’s strategy. Lasker won the game.
The game was a microcosm of Lasker’s
style; he invested little study in the open-
ing, was tremendously resourceful in the
middlegame and he played the endgame at
the highest level. Indeed, even when Lasker
was in his late 60’s, Capablanca considered
him the most dangerous player around in
any single game.
I’m not quite sure that Lasker was the
link between the two generations of players
mentioned. Lasker was defeated by Ca-
pablanca (Cuban) in 1921 and Botvinnik
(Russia then France) became World Cham-
pion only in 1948. During this period,
Capablanca and Alekhine were the two top
Bridge Today • January 2007
players. Most of the commentators consider
that Capablanca was the last hero of the
“old” School and Alekhine, the first of the
so called Hypermodern School. It’s interest-
ing to mention that Anatoly Karpov (World
Champion 1975-1985) still thinks that Ca-
pablanca was the greatest player of all time
whereas Kasparov considers Alekhine as the
greatest!
I really want to thank Mr. Campanile
for the deal he gave from London, 1932. I
simply didn’t know that Lasker was such a
strong bridge player.
To conclude this letter, I’m finally very
surprised that Mr. Campanile didn’t men-
tion what is, according to my experience,
the most important difference between
these two games: Chess is basically an indi-
vidual game whereas at Bridge, you have to
deal with your partner! As a former Chess
player and a “new” bridge player, I consider
this as the trickiest point to master....
Best regards, Hervé Guilbert
Reply from Pietro Campanile
First of all I would like to thank Mr.
Guilbert for his kind words and for tak-
ing the time to reply in such detail to my
article. I quite agree with most of his points
but so, perhaps, does he with mine, albeit
unknowingly perhaps. Strategic chess plan-
ning, developing weaknesses and so on, are
IMHO all part of “calculation.” Such an all-
encompassing term was meant as the act of
extracting the most from any given position,
whether towards a slow positional build-up
or a lightning fast attack.
The “table presence” factor in chess is a
misnomer. In bridge, it is used to describe
an extraordinary ability to guess layouts
and plays well outside what can be inferred
page 32
by simple deductive work. In chess, there
is no need and therefore no equivalent for
such ability, since the same total informa-
tion on the position is available to both
players. However, because of the “mano a
mano” character of the game, one extraordi-
nary personality can sometime inhibit or in
some way curtail the analytical potential of
his opponent, but such an event can hardly
be defined with the same term. In bridge,
table presence is essentially a “positive” fac-
tor, in chess, what Mr. Guilbert would like
to define as such would anyway be com-
pletely the opposite.
As for historical perspective on who is
the best link between the romantic and
the hypermodern schools, one could argue
till kingdom come. It is a fact that, apart
from being World Champion exactly in
the “bridging” period, Lasker’s playing style
was a exemplary blend of the old, with his
relatively narrow opening knowledge and
ensuing heavy reliance on the middlegame
to gain the upper hand, and the new, with
his characteristic “fighting” and “psycho-
logical” approach to chess (condensed in the
title of his one major chess text book: “The
struggle”), which would mark the style of
the coming decades.
Finally, I would like to share how much
I enjoyed delving in the subject and that
actually I would have very much liked
to analyze it more extensively, including
the partnership side, which I, perhaps too
reductively, mentioned only as the “social
skills” required in bridge.
Happy 2007 to everyone!
May all your finesses win,
unless you are playing for
a drop or a squeeze.