canadian

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

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

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

January 1996 Vol. V Number 1

From the mailbag 2
A scandal in Ruritania by David Silver 3
Wonderful Copenhagen by Fred Gitelman 11
A grand squeeze by Ray Lee 16
Bridge anacrostic by “Griffin” 18
How to ruin a marriage by Roselyn Teukolsky 20
Locating lower honours by Prakash J. Paranjape 23
Coach of the year by Linda Lee 26
Beijing scrapbook 28
A fascinating hand by Ray Jotcham 31
When they double our 1NT by John Gowdy 33
The best-laid plans .... by Mike Cafferata 34
Win-win post-mortems by John Ross 36
Raptor 1NT overcalls by Eric Sutherland 37
Never give a declarer an even break by Barbara Seagram 40
Ask the Bridge Doctor by Karen Allison 43
Index to Canadian Master Point 1992-95 46
Reviews: Points Schmoints (Bergen) 53
Tales out of School (Silver) 53
Bridge Buff 3.0 (update), Bridge Baron, Perfect Partner Bridge 55

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

ED. BOARD: Ray & Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, John Gowdy, Ron Bishop
 From the mailbag...
The new look......
Congratulations on your new format. It’s
very attractive and easy to read. My only
quibble would be the suit symbols for the
hands: I much prefer those in the Symbol
font. I realize that the outline forms for
the hearts and diamonds are intended to
represent the red suits, but they suffer
somewhat in the translation to the printed
form. They are just too hard to read for
us old fogies who need glasses.
Otherwise, it is an impressive
achievement, particularly since you are
learning Quark at the same time.
Thanks for the many hours of good
reading you have provided our members.
Bruce Glassford
West End Duplicate Bridge Club
Toronto
Re “Bridge Player Live”
I thought it might be helpful to clarify
some of the points in your recent review
of Internet On-Line Bridge and BRIDGE
PLAYER LIVE (CMP October 1995)!
Free play to students was offered
almost from the outset subject to their
being under 26 and in full-time atten-
dance at an educational institution.
Surprisingly few have registered and for
the life of me I cannot understand why!
When we charge they complain of pov-
erty, and when we offer it free, they can’t
be bothered to register — what more can
we do to help the young bridge players
(who will probably tend to be those who
are more computer literate than the aver-
age)? Perhaps this letter will alert them
to the fact that we can provide them the
service — but if we don’t get more inter-
est then we shall discontinue it. As they
2 Canadian Master Point
say — you can take a horse to water, but
you can’t make it drink!
Since you reviewed the system we
have beefed up our server in its software
reliability and the Internet lines seem to
have been unclogged by the respective
transatlantic providers — no doubt after
much jumping from a great height! Our
Chat facilities are more subtle than you
may have understood, as certain rooms
are designated “quiet” rooms — that is,
once you are at a table, no-one but your
table-mates can chat to you. This allows
for fast concentrated bridge once you get
down to it! The public room is at the
moment an “open” room in this context
so that people who come and go can es-
tablish an opportunity for a game with
players at the table who may be leaving
at the end of the hand and so on — and I
agree with your reviewer that it does get
“noisy” in there sometimes (no names, no
pack drill!).
Our plans in coming releases will
address all your comments about player
statistics and scoring but of course, “until
software is there, there it isn’t” — and
that applies to us too! We released an
interim update at the Atlanta Nationals
that allows preplayed duplicate boards to
be played with the score for that hand
appearing after play so you get an im-
mediate comparison of your perfor-
mance. We initially made 20 such boards
available but the power of the system is
such that we can open many rooms, each
with a full session of preplayed boards,
which we think is an attractive competi-
tive opportunity without the burden of
time to the player who only wants to play
5 or 10 boards at a sitting.
Nick Justice
Managing Director
International On-Line Bridge Club
 A scandal in Ruritania
D avid
Professor Silver,
Wright Cardinal,
Bruce Gowdy, and
Eric Murray are rep-
resenting Canada in
the Ruritanian
Invitational Team
Championships. In
the first instalment, Silver was kidnapped
and held prisoner in Castle Zelda, and it
was only through a brilliant subterfuge
that his team is able to stay in the competi-
tion until his release could be secured.
Part II of “The Legend of Zelda” comes
from the pen of Silver’s long-suffering
chronicler, Wright Cardinal.
T o Professor Silver, she was always
the woman; I have seldom heard him
mention her under any other name. In his
eyes she eclipses and predominates the
whole of her sex. It was not that he felt
an emotion akin to love for Mercilla
Fortuna — all emotions, and that one
particularly, were abhorrent to his cold,
precise, but admirably balanced mind.
He never spoke of the softer passions,
save with a gibe and a sneer. They were
admirable things for kibitzers and ama-
teurs, but for the serious bridge player to
admit such intrusions into his own finely
adjusted temperament was to introduce a
distracting factor which might disturb his
concentration. And yet there was but one
woman to him, and that woman was the
late Mercilla Fortuna of dubious and
questionable memory.
One night — it was the evening be-
fore our playing the final match of the
Ruritanian Invitational Team
Championships — I looked up from my
January 1996
S ilver
favourite television show, Baywatch, to
see Professor Silver’s tall, spare, figure
pass twice in a dark silhouette before the
screen. He was pacing the room, swiftly,
eagerly, his head sunk upon his chest and
his hands clasped behind him. To me,
who knew his every mood and habit, his
attitude and manner told their own story:
he was working out a bridge problem.
“I’m sorry to disturb you, Cardinal,”
he remarked, “I know how much you
enjoy the intellectual repartee between
the characters on that program.”
“No matter, Professor,” I replied,
somewhat taken aback by his uncharac-
teristic sarcasm. “Since the dialogue is
dubbed into German, I wasn’t able to
follow the story anyway.”
“Quite so,” he answered throwing
himself down into an armchair. “Permit
me to switch this machine off; there is a
serious matter I must raise with you. You
may not have realized, Cardinal, the im-
portance of our winning this match to-
morrow, but without the cash prize that
accompanies the championship, we can’t
get home. The Canadian Bridge
Federation only provided the two of us
with one-way tickets, an oversight I’m
sure, but they have not responded to my
telegrams nor have they answered my
phone calls. And I fear that neither Bruce
nor Eric would lend us money even if
they were speaking to us.”
“But I don’t think we have any
cause for concern, Professor; Bruce and
Eric are playing extremely well. After all,
they’ve carried us through to the finals.
And while we’ve had our difficulties,
I’m sure we’ll regain our form tomorrow.
Besides, this isn’t exactly the final round
3
of the Spingold. The other finalists are
locals, Princess Flavia and her cousin,
er....?”
“Mercilla.”
“That’s right. And the other pair,
Count Alucard and that weird Renfrew
person, they’re not experts. We should
blitz them easily! The only thing that
concerns me is that the match begins at
sundown and continues until daybreak!
But you’re an old rubber bridge player so
the schedule shouldn’t bother you.”
“There’s many a slip twixt the cup
and the lip, Cardinal. You have obviously
not considered the fact that they have
beaten some very good teams on their
path to potential humiliation at our hands.
But you are correct in your assessment of
their abilities. The situation is .......”
“Peculiar?”
“Peculiar — that is the very word.
So peculiar that I have asked a member
of the Egyptian team, who were beaten
soundly by Princess Flavia’s team yester-
day, to visit us tonight. Perhaps, with his
help, we can gain some insight into our
opponents’ success. By the way, if you
should recognize him, please respect his
privacy. Open the door, that must be him
now.”
I opened the door and a man entered
who could hardly have gone unrecognized
in even the remotest part of the civilized
world. Millions of fans had thrilled to his
performances for more than thirty years.
I, of course, knew that he was a world-
class bridge player, but since he played
only in Europe, I had never met him.
“Professor Silver, it’s........”
“Mr. Ross, Cardinal, Mr. Ross ......
bringing us hands from his semi-final
match, I believe”
Indeed he was, and after accepting
Professor Silver’s assurances as to my
discretion the man who preferred to be
known as ‘Ross’ drew a sheaf of papers
from his pocket and spread them on the
table. As he gazed fixedly at the hand
records, for such they were, our visitor
January 1996
acquired haunted look, and he said noth-
ing until Professor Silver looked up im-
patiently.
“You can understand, gentlemen,”
began Ross, “that I am not accustomed to
blaming losses on anything other than
player error. Yet the circumstances of
this last match are so bizarre that I cannot
explain them! Our opponents seemed to
have been gifted with second sight, bid-
ding thin games when every finesse was
on, and being always content with part
scores when the cards were badly placed.
Of course, there are sessions when op-
ponents get what basketball players call
“hot hands”, but I have never before seen
a pair that exhibited perfect judgement on
every hand they bid or played.”
“Surely you exaggerate, my dear
Ross,” said Professor Silver, languidly
leaning back and closing his eyes. “The
race is not always to the swift. Every
bridge player in the world can provide
anecdotal evidence for Silver’s Second
Law of Bridge, ‘It’s better to be lucky
than smart’ — right, Cardinal?”
“It sounds as though you’ve just met
a team that played over their heads.
Professor Silver and I recently lost a
Regional under similar circumstances.
They just overbid their hands and made
everything. It happens sometimes when
a weaker team despairs of outplaying its
opponents and bids wildly.”
“No, you don’t understand. They
don’t just count on being lucky, they’ve
actually incorporated luck into their bid-
ding system.”
At this, Professor Silver reopened
his eyes and leaned forward.
“Please explain!” he demanded.
“The ladies, Princess Flavia and
Countess Fortuna, play their own bidding
system which they call the LOL System.
Upon inquiring, I was informed that the
acronym stands for “Lots Of Luck”.
That’s basically all they have on their
card, with the exception of those few
conventions that any duplicate player
5
might be familiar with. They even alert
bids that are made on the presumption
that the contract will be serendipitously
makeable!
“At first we smiled politely at their
naivete, but as we played hand after hand,
it became obvious that their system was
100 % accurate! We were blitzed, of
course, but I could find no grounds for
protest. What rational complaints could
I present to an appeals committee?
Permit me to cite an example.
“Early in the match Mercilla held:
1072 A6 AK52 AJ52
The bidding proceeded:
Khedive Flavia Ross Mercilla
1NT
2 3NT1 pass pass2
pass
1. “Fast” Lebensohl, no spade stopper
2. Alerted as an LOL pass
“Needless to say, the hand was unbeat-
able!”
Flavia
 J5
 K83
 Q8764
 KQ10
Khedive Ross
 A98642  KQ
 QJ97  10542
 —  J1093
 754  962
Mercilla
 1072
 A6
 AK52
 AJ52
6 Canadian Master Point
“You see, gentlemen, not only is the
spade suit hopelessly blocked, but there
are three diamonds, two hearts and four
clubs — nine tricks — to be cashed as
soon as I shift at trick three! Our partners
reached the eminently sensible contract
of 5, which failed by a trick because of
the 4-0 trump split. But there’s more: on
the very next deal, Mercilla held.....
A632 K54 KJ93 A6
“Flavia opened with 1 and the bidding
proceeded:
Khedive Flavia Ross Mercilla
1 pass 1
pass 2 pass 21
pass 2NT pass pass2
pass
1. Fourth suit, forcing to game
2. Alerted as an LOL pass
“A prescient pass! There are only eight
tricks available.”
Flavia
 85
 A7
 A6542
 KQ75
Khedive Ross
 Q10974  KJ
 QJ8  109632
 Q1087  —
 3  J109842
Mercilla
 A632
 K54
 KJ93
 A6
“Our partners, with 27 high card points,
all suits stopped and a known 5-4 dia-
mond fit, rashly bid 3NT, one down!
Don’t you agree, Professor, that there is
something going on here?”
“I’ve seen nothing so far that can’t
be attributed to blind chance. Permit me,
but I have often written that top-flight
pairs are distinguished from the herd by
the number of slams they bid and make.
Any reasonable pair can purchase a copy
of Bridge the Silver Way and quickly be-
come expert at low-level bidding and
play. Surely you are not suggesting that
the ladies’ crystal ball also directs them
to unbeatable slams?”
“Yes!” replied Ross, wringing his
hands. “Take Board 17; you are South,
playing in 6 after opening the bidding
2. The opponents were silent and the
opening lead is the Q; try and make
it.”
North
 K3
 65
 10953
 Q8532
South
 AQJ10962
 AK72
 AK
 —
“Elementary, my dear Ross. You see the
obvious trap, of course, Cardinal? An
ordinary player would win the opening
lead and play the K preparatory to ruff-
ing a heart in the dummy. Matchpoint
players might even anticipate ruffing
both heart losers for an overtrick. But
what happens if the K gets ruffed and
a trump is returned? You are going down
in a cold contract. The expert line is to
win the A and return a low heart im-
mediately. You win the return, ruff a
January 1996
low heart with the K and draw trumps.
Subsequently your carefully preserved
K will provide you with trick twelve.”
“Nicely played Professor. Lose 13
IMP’s.” said Ross sardonically. “My
teammate also made the safety play,
which was just as well since RHO held
all four spades and a singleton heart. But
Mercilla made all thirteen tricks and
what’s more, she and Flavia bid the grand
slam! Now what do you think?”
When Professor Silver regained
consciousness, Ross resumed his narra-
tive.
“The opening lead was the Q
which Mercilla won with her ace. Any
normal player would now cash the K
and attempt to ruff two hearts in dummy,
a line that obviously fails here. But not
this declarer! She played the A and
K, felling my partner’s doubleton QJ !
Then she crossed to the K, my partner
showing out, and played out the 10 and
9 discarding her two heart losers as I
helplessly followed suit. A small spade to
her hand enabled her to draw my trumps
and claim the contract.”
Flavia
 K3
 65
 10953
 Q8532
Khedive Ross
 —  8754
 QJ10983  4
 QJ  87642
 AKJ104  976
Mercilla
 AQJ10962
 AK72
 AK
 —
“How did they ever bid a grand
slam on those cards?” croaked Professor
Silver hoarsely.
7
 “They employ a convention called Ross was unable to continue and
the Eastwood Asking Bid — an unusual after a few minutes rest, took his leave of
jump in the trump suit which asks partner us.
how lucky she feels. Here is how the auc- “These are much deeper waters than
tion went...” I had thought, Cardinal,” muttered Silver,
in a voice so low I could hardly make out
Khedive Flavia Ross Mercilla
his words. In all the years that I have been
2
playing bridge, I have heard of only one
pass 2  pass 2 similar instance, the infamous Voodoo
pass 51 pass 62 Dummy Case that occurred at the 1934
pass 73 all pass
Haitian Championships. I was on the ap-
1. Eastwood (Well, partner, do you peals committee, but the matter was left
feel lucky?) unresolved after hand-carved dolls resem-
bling each of the committee members
2. Eastwood Corollary (No, but do were found on the beach. We must pre-
you?) pare ourselves for tomorrow night. There
is but one step from the grotesque to the
3. Yes! horrible. Tomorrow morning, go to the
local market and buy a sack of garlic,
three dozen stalks of wolfbane, and four
Professor Silver was not amused. He crucifixes. Speak to no-one of this matter,
motioned Ross to continue. especially neither Bruce nor Eric.”
“All my doubts vanished when late “Surely, Professor, you who will
in the match I made a lead-directing dou- not even condescend to watch The
ble. The bidding had gone: X-files, don’t believe that there is any-
thing other than blind luck involved here,
Khedive Flavia Ross Mercilla do you?”
“Cardinal, how often have I said to
1 pass 1 you that when you have eliminated the
pass 2 pass 41 impossible, whatever remains, however
pass 42 dbl 7 improbable, must be the truth? Well,
all pass there’s nothing to be done until tomorrow
morning. You get some sleep while I
1. Eastwood (Well, partner, do you think. This is definitely a three-pipe prob-
feel lucky?) lem. And by the way...”
“Yes, Professor?”
2. Positive response “When you go out tomorrow, do not
consort with any friendly young women
you might chance to encounter. The term
“necking” has a different connotation in
“I held : Ruritania than it does in Canada!”

AKJ J109876 52 52 to be continued.....

“My poor partner found himself on lead,
with a spade void! Without a spade lead,
Mercilla was able to draw trumps, and
discard her spades on dummy’s clubs.
Seven diamonds bid and made!”

8 Canadian Master Point

 Wonderful Copenhagen
fred gitelman
C ould this hap-
pen in North
America? A major
newspaper sponsors
an invitational pairs
event; the newspa-
per provides several
pages of daily cov-
erage including photographs, standings,
reports of interesting hands, and biogra-
phies of all participants. Twelve of the
best pairs in the world are invited to par-
ticipate, and the field is rounded out by
four local pairs who have earned the right
to play through their performance over
the last year. Each of the sixteen pairs is
sponsored by a major corporation that
covers all of their expenses. Tens of
thousands of dollars in prize money is
given to the top seven finishers.
The tournament is held at one of our
finest hotels. Everything is first class —
the participants play in tuxedos. The
event is opened by the Minister of
Culture. Hundreds of local players come
out to kibitz and watch VuGraph.
January 1996
Television reporters and cameramen are
everywhere throughout the five-day tour-
nament. A closing banquet is held at
the fabulous home of a local bridge-play-
ing couple: hundreds of people enjoy a
wonderful multi-course meal, unlimited
wine and champagne, and a jazz band
that plays late into the night.
Before you answer “No, this could
not happen in North America”, you
should know that this just happened
somewhere else. The place was
Copenhagen, Denmark. The newspaper
was The Politiken, Copenhagen’s biggest
daily. The hotel was the Phoenix
Copenhagen, the best in the city. The
field consisted of sixteen very strong
tuxedo-wearing pairs (actually only fif-
teen wore tuxedos — Auken and von
Armin, the recently crowned Women’s
World Champions from Germany, were
allowed to wear dresses). Omar Sharif
played with Jose Damiani, the WBF
President. Not only did Omar more than
hold his own in this star-studded event,
his impact on the media, his magnetic
A scene from
Denmark: Omar
Sharif (left) in
play against
George
Mittelman (facing
camera) and the
author (back to
camera).
11
personality, his great sense of humour,
and his obvious love of the game all en-
hanced the experience for everyone in-
volved.
George Mittelman and I were very
fortunate to be invited to the inaugural
Politiken World Pairs which was held
from November 3rd to the 7th, 1995.
When I was first shown the list of com-
petitors (in September) my immediate
reaction was “I hope we don’t come in
last!” Our success in the Bermuda Bowl
(in October) improved my confidence to
the point that I knew we could play well
enough to finish in the money. Whether
we would actually play that well was an-
other question.
Each pair would play a ten-board
match against every other pair. In every
match there were eight tables in play, all
playing the same boards. For each board
the best and the worst scores were thrown
out and the remaining six results were
averaged into a datum. Then each pair’s
results were IMPed against this datum.
George and I found a nice defence
on the hand at the top of the next column.
Our opponents were Peter and Dorthe
Schaltz of Denmark, one of the best
mixed pairs in the world. As was typical
of our Danish hosts, the Schaltzes played
very well against us. All of the Danes
were a pleasure to play against and to get
to know; the friendliness and hospitality
of the local competitors really made the
foreign pairs feel welcome.
George’s 2NT showed both minors
and Peter’s 3 showed at least a limit
raise of spades. George led the K. I
overtook and cashed a second round.
George now made the key play of dis-
carding the 3 (upside-down attitude
asking for a club switch). Notice first of
all that an obvious-looking diamond shift
allows the contract to make easily (the
J will eventually provide a discard for
declarer’s club loser). George told me
which suit to play but I still had to figure
out which card. I returned the 9 (as
12 Canadian Master Point
Dorthe
 K975432
 J2
 AQ
 62
Fred George
 J  10
 AQ1098654  K
 104  K98732
 Q9  KJ1053
Peter
 AQ86
 73
 J65
 A874
Fred Dorthe George Peter
1 2NT 3
4 4 all pass
opposed to the Q). Can you see why
this is the right play?
Imagine that I return the Q.
Declarer can win the A and run the
trumps. George must come down to
three cards including two diamonds to the
K. His third card is a club. Declarer
can now exit a club endplaying George
into leading a diamond. It is true that on
the actual lie of the cards George can
throw all of his high clubs away and
allow me to win the club exit with my
nine. However, if declarer had held the
same hand with the J or 10 instead of
a small one, my defence would be neces-
sary.
Once I played the 9 it looked to
Dorthe as though the strip-squeeze would
not work, so she decided to give me an-
other chance to make a mistake by allow-
ing me to hold this trick. Dorthe had
effectively rectified the count for a pos-
sible simple squeeze against George. In
order to break this up it was now neces-
sary to continue clubs, but the whole
hand was pretty obvious at this point, and
I had little trouble finding the defence.
Dorthe’s only hope now was the diamond
finesse, and when that lost, as expected,
4 was down one.
Before the event was half over it
became pretty clear that Zia Mahmood-
Peter Weichsel (USA) were going to win.
Despite the fact that this was a first-time
partnership Zia and Peter were winning
just about every match by a large margin.
The only other pair who really asserted
themselves was Andrea Buratti and
Massimo Lanzarotti (Italy). Buratti-
Lanzarotti are reigning European Teams
Champions, and represented their country
in the Beijing Bermuda Bowl. Going
into the last day this pair pretty much had
second place locked up. The battle would
be for third place. Three pairs, Helgemo-
Helness (Norway), Muller-de Boer
(Holland), and George and myself had
traded third, fourth, and fifth places for
much of the tournament.
The bad news was that George and
I were in fifth place going into the last
match. The good news was that we were
about to play Helgemo and Helness who
were sitting third. George and I pride
ourselves on our ability to come from
behind in the last match or segment (we
are not so proud of our ability to blow
large leads in similar circumstances). For
whatever reason, we could do no wrong
in this match while the Norwegians mis-
judged on several deals.
On one hand George was dealt:
J 1053 AKJ108632 J
He was in second position at favourable
vulnerability. What would you open?
Most of the field opened 5. This is the
bid that I think George would normally
make (though he might open 1 on oc-
casion). George picked the right time to
be pessimistic and opened 3, which was
passed out. 3 was the limit of the hand
and we were one of the only pairs in our
direction to get a plus score. I don’t know
January 1996
if our position in the standings caused
George to take a “swinging action” on
this hand. If so, it is an instructional way
to swing. Most players when trying for a
swing become more aggressive in the
bidding and hope lots of tricks are avail-
able. It is a less well-known tactic to un-
derbid and hope that few tricks are
available. Full marks to George for find-
ing the right way to swing on this hand.
This deal (from the same match)
was also interesting from a tactical bid-
ding point of view:
Helness
 974
 K104
 KJ86
 Q82
Fred George
 J6  Q2
 QJ952  63
 A1053  Q974
 107  AJ943
Helgemo
 AK10853
 A87
 2
 K65
Helgemo Helness
1 2
3 3
Helgemo’s 3 was a “short suit game
try” showing a singleton or void in dia-
monds and asking partner to evaluate for
game purposes. Helness, with almost half
his hand opposite partner’s shortness,
signed off. This revealing auction made
it pretty easy for me to lead a low dia-
mond away from my A. Helgemo
made the normal play of the J from
dummy. George won his Q and accu-
rately switched to a heart (there was some
13
danger that I would eventually be
squeezed in hearts and diamonds). When
he later won his A, George played an-
other heart. Helgemo could still have
made an overtrick by cashing his club
trick and throwing me in with a heart. I
would have to lead another diamond or
concede a ruff and discard, either of
which would eliminate Helgemo’s sec-
ond club loser. Helgemo reasonably tried
to endplay George instead by exiting with
his third club. He was right in that
George was out of hearts. He was wrong
about the position of the A, however, as
George had a safe diamond exit.
Our nice defence was not enough to
defeat 3 but almost everyone else
played in 4 making five on the normal
lead of the Q. What does this have to
do with tactics? Well, I think that
Helgemo’s 3 bid was a poor tactical
choice. I have a lot of respect for
Helgemo; he is only 25 years old and
one of the finest bridge players in the
world. Moreover, I can understand his
reservations on this hand — it is far from
clear that you want to be in 4 on the
actual North-South cards. Despite this, I
strongly believe that Helgemo should just
bid 4 over 2.
Obviously 4 might have no play
and it is also possible that 3NT is a much
better contract than 4. I believe, how-
ever, that scientific game tries are very
overrated. For one thing, it is absurd to
think that even super fancy game tries are
accurate enough to allow your partner-
ship to judge consistently whether nine or
ten tricks are available. Even if your
methods and judgement are that accurate
the information you give away in the pro-
cess is often worth at least one trick to the
defence. George and I have adopted the
philosophy of almost never making game
tries — if you think game should be a
reasonably good proposition most of the
time, just bid it. We have found this ap-
proach to be very successful, mostly
through keeping the defence in the dark
about what declarer’s hand looks like.
14 Canadian Master Point
We ended up beating Helgemo and
Helness by 26 IMP’s and easily passing
them in the standings. Muller and de
Boer (who really impressed us both with
their bridge and their deportment) lost in
the last match to the Schaltzes (who were
the only local pair to win prize money,
finishing 7th). As a result we also passed
our Dutch friends to finish third.
Shivdasani and Ghose of India finished
the event by blitzing their last three
matches (including one against us) to
come from nowhere into fourth place.
1. Mahmood-Weichsel (USA) 944
2. Buratti-Lanzarotti (Italy) 901
3. Mittelman-Gitelman (Canada) 804
4. Shivdasani-Ghose (India) 788
5. Muller-de Boer (Holland) 777
6. Helgemo-Helness (Norway) 777
7. Schaltz-Schaltz (Denmark) 768
8. Auken-von Armin (Germany) 713
9. Sharif-Damiani (Egypt/France) 708
10. Koch-Palmund-Auken (Denmark) 704
11. Graversen-Stetkaer(Denmark) 699
12. Aagaard-Jepsen (Denmark) 693
13. Sowter-Kendrick (England) 690
14. Berkowitz-Cohen (USA) 681
15. Baldursson-Thorbjornsson
(Iceland) 674
16. Fallenius-Nilsland (Sweden) 667
All of the hard-working organizers and
officials from Denmark should be con-
gratulated as the Politiken World Pairs
was a huge success. Two similar events,
the Cap-Volmac in The Hague and the
Sunday Times in London, have enjoyed
similar success over the years. George
and I have been invited to these tourna-
ments in January — watch this space for
details. With luck the Politiken, too, will
become an annual affair. If so, it is cer-
tain to become known as one of the high
points on the international bridge calen-
dar. At the closing ceremonies WBF
President Damiani reflected on how won-
derful these events are for promoting
bridge and offered full WBF support for
the establishment and recognition of a
circuit of similar tournaments.
Could we run such a tournament in
Toronto? I don’t see why not.
 A grand squeeze
ray lee

T he semi-final of
the Blue Ribbon
Pairs at the Atlanta
Fall Nationals was
just over, but David
Lindop didn’t seem
very interested in
the scores (although
he should have been — he was the only
resident Canadian to make the final cut,
since John Duquette and Eiji Kujirai
missed by a heart-breaking 0.9 match-
points). No, David was much more inter-
ested in showing me this hand from the
session, which he, along with many oth-
ers, had played in 7.
North
 AK7
 A86
 Q2
 KJ543
West East
 J94  Q1063
 KJ54  109732
 10  J85
 Q10982  7
South
 852
 Q
 AK97643
 A6
David got a trump lead. He won in
dummy with the Q and continued with
the A and K, pitching dummy’s small
spade while West shed two hearts.
Declarer has twelve top tricks, so if clubs
are 4-2 or better the hand is easy. He duly
played the ace and king of clubs, intend-
ing to ruff out the suit for trick thirteen,
and got the bad news about the 5-1 break.
There was a fallback, however: cash the
top spades, ruff a club back to hand, and
run all the diamonds, hoping to execute a
double squeeze. The end position as he
played the last diamond would be:
North
 —
 A8
 —
 J
West East
 —  Q
 KJ  109
 —  —
 Q  —
South
 8
 Q
 3
 —
On the last diamond, West must throw a
heart to keep the Q, and dummy pitches
the now superfluous J. East, who now
has to guard both spades and hearts, is
toast. This squeeze will always work
when East starts with any five spades (or
exactly QJ109, since South has the 8,
which West cannot beat). Unfortunately,
as we can see, neither of these distribu-
tions occurred in the actual layout. West,
defending well, threw away his hearts on
the run of the trumps to hold on to the J,
and East was able to keep hearts therefore.

16 Canadian Master Point

The actual ending thus arrived at was:
North
 —
 A8
 —
 J
West East
 J  —
 K  1097
 —  —
 Q  —
South
 8
 Q
 3
 —
On the last diamond, West could safely
let go the K, while East came under no
pressure at all.
So is 7 unmakeable (if we ignore
the mundane, 50%, club finesse)? Not at
all, as David’s partner Haig Tchamitch
was quick to point out when the hand was
over. It is, in fact, an example of an un-
usual compound squeeze called a “clash
squeeze”. The key to this is not to cash
the AK, but to run the diamonds first,
when West comes under impossible pres-
sure in three suits. The critical moment
is the following:
(see top of next column)
On the next diamond, West cannot throw
a club, as there are still lots of entries to
cross to dummy, ruff a club, and return to
cash the established J. A spade discard,
however, sets up the double squeeze posi-
tion shown earlier: South cashes the top
spades, ruffs a club back to hand, and
plays off the last diamond to execute it.
So West must perforce stiff his K while
dummy still can afford a heart pitch.
However on the next diamond, West
is out of options. A black suit discard still
January 1996
North
 AK
 A86
 —
 J5
West East
 J94  Q106
 KJ  10973
 —  —
 Q10  —
South
 852
 Q
 643
 —
has the same dire consequences as before,
but his last heart is the king. If West lets
that go, declarer ditches a club from
dummy, cashes the Q, and crosses on a
spade to enjoy the A and collect thir-
teen tricks.
A beautiful ending, and one that will
work any time West has the K, how-
ever many spades East started with — a
50% line, therefore, just like the mundane
club finesse! A priori, the double squeeze
is about 38% (a little more once you
know West has two more minor-suit
cards than East). So is it right to play for
the clash squeeze to have worked? It will
certainly get you a write-up in the daily
bulletin! Perhaps the best practical line
(especially if your auction did not reveal
declarer’s singleton heart) is to run the
first five rounds of diamonds, and see
whether West has the intestinal fortitude
to pitch down to his hypothetical single-
ton K in order to hold his J94. Then
play off the AK, and play for the double
squeeze either to have worked, or to be
working now after a slight misdefence.
After all, if West’s that good, he de-
serves all the matchpoints he’s going to
get on this board.
17
 Bridge Anacrostic by “Griffin”
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 quotation; the initial letters of the answers
taken in order will give you the source of the quote followed by its
author. Word list page 50; Quotation page 31.
1 A 2 E 3 N 4 Q 5 G 6 P 7 V 8 R 9 D 10 J 11 I 12 L 13 AA 14 V

15 I 16 E 17 U 18 M 19 T 20 X 21 W 22 A 23 H 24 Y 25 O 26 Z 27 K

28 U 29 S 30 F 31 C 32 B 33 D 34 N 35 M 36 F 37 T 38 AA 39 A 40 L 41 R

42 C 43 L 44 X 45 A 46 N 47 P 48 J 49 E 50 M 51 A 52 Y 53 D 54 B 55 O

56 X 57 B 58 B 59 D 60 K 61 O 62 R 63 Z 64 T 65 G 66 A 67 I 68 A 69 V

70 W 71 G 72 B 73 H 74 R 75 O 76 D 77 S 78 F 79 Y 80 T 81 W 82 F 83 A

84 D 85 P 86 J 87 D 88 Y 89 K 90 S 91 W 92 N 93 C 94 I 95 V 96 F

97 A 98 A 99 J 100 N 101 T 102 D 103 C 104 M 105 B 106 D 107 Q 108 D 109 V 110 F

111 K 112 G 113 H 114 Y 115 E 116 X 117 Z 118 AA 119 V 120 A 121 P 122 T 123 AA 124 C

125 M 126 X 127 S 128 B 129 Z 130 N 131 V 132 O 133 N 134 Y 135 P 136 N 137 P 138 Y 139 N

140 Z 141 Y 142 U 143 U 144 B 145 X 146 S 147 V 148 T 149 Z 150 H 151 C 152 A 153 U 154 I

155 D 156 S 157 E 158 F 159 N 160 M 161 J 162 D 163 Y 164 X 165 G 166 D 167 E

168 AA 169 Y 170 Z 171 A 172 X 173 N 174 N 175 E 176 H 177 K 178 X 179 M 180 F 181 O 182 D

183 U 184 X 185 F 186 T 187 H 188 K 189 Z 190 O 191 Q 192 A 193 O 194 O 195 U

196 G 197 K 198 R 199 K 200 R 201 J 202 N 203 R 204 AA 205 I 206 P 207 L 208 P 209 K 210 R

211 O 212 N 213 D 214 J 215 M 216 A 217 I 218 D 219 E 220 C 221 C 222 O 223 D 224 W

225 V 226 P 227 Q 228 X 229 Q 230 E 231 W 232 O 233 J 234 G 235 N 236 I 237 G 238 H

239 D 240 J 241 B 242 L 243 P 244 U 245 A 246 N 247 AA 248 H 249 D 250 O 251 I 252 E

253 S 254 A 255 M 256 C 257 T 258 W 259 M 260 U

A. Non-standard _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _

leads (4 wds.) 1 192 83 254 216 45 66 245 68 51 98 120 171 22 97 152 39

B. First after- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   _

thought? (2 wds.) 54 58 72 241 32 128 144 57 105

18 Canadian Master Point

C. Monkees con- _ _   _   _     _ _ _ _ _
vention maybe? (2 wds) 221 124 256 103 42 220 151 31 93
D. Promote this _  _   _ _ _  _   _ _ _  _ _  _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _
card (3 wds.) 108 33 102 249 76 59 162 213 182 106 218 87 223 9 166 84 155 53 239
E. Sounds like _ _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _ _
3-3-3-3! (2 wds) 49 230 16 157 175 252 2 219 115 167
F. Not singing from the _   _   _    _ _   _ _ _ _
same songsheet? (3 wds.) 110 180 36 82 158 185 78 96 30
G. Jettison plays _  _  _ _ _  _   _ _
5 196 165 112 65 237 234 71
H. All the matchpoints (2 wds.) _ _ _ _ _  _ _  _
248 187 150 176 238 73 23 113
I. Where bridge will _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _
soon be played 67 251 236 15 205 154 217 11
J. Expose one of your assets (3 wds.) _ _ _ _ _ _  _  _ _
99 201 233 48 10 161 214 240 86
K. Highest strain in Quebec (2 wds.) _  _ _  _ _   _ _ _  _
89 209 27 199 60 188 177 111 197
L. Unforeseen snag _  _  _ _ _
43 207 12 242 40
M. Made by those _ _  _ _    _   _   _   _   _   _
in the overall (2 wds.) 18 215 50 104 35 259 179 160 255 125
N. A second-round _ _ _  _  _ _ _  _  _  _   _ _  _ _  _ _ _
duck 136 202 235 34 94 174 246 159 46 173 133 92 130 100 139 212 3
O. Roman, Tartan, _  _  _ _  _ _  _ _   _   _ _ _ _ _
Benjamin, etc. 132 193 222 55 190 61 181 211 224 194 250 232 25 75
P. Gold-card holder _ _ _  _   _ _  _  _ _  _
47 226 137 85 6 121 208 243 206 135
Q. Discard, or where to throw it? _  _  _ _  _
4 229 191 227 107
R. Forensic bridge experts? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
41 210 62 203 8 74 200 198
S. Where to see the Spingold final, e.g. _ _  _ _ _ _ _
146 127 156 77 90 253 29
T. A probable conclusion _  _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _
64 186 19 37 148 257 122 101 80
U. Gives an account of _  _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _
28 244 143 17 142 195 183 260 153
V. Signal heard after the “Anvil Chorus”? _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _
(2 wds.) 119 7 95 131 69 147 109 225 14
W. Damage caused by infraction _ _  _ _  _  _
70 258 81 231 21 91
X. The way to handle strength, _  _ _  _    _  _  _ _ _   _  _
according to Hoyle (2 wds.) 145 56 172 116 126 44 178 20 184 164 228
Y. Used to prepare for a squeeze (2 wds.) _ _  _ _  _  _ _ _ _  _
52 169 138 88 163 24 79 141 114 134
Z. These players get more exercise (2 wds.) _  _  _ _  - _   _   _   _
117 26 140 170 189 129 149 63
AA. Do Californians use this to check for aces? _   _   _   _   _   _   _
118 204 123 168 13 247 38

January 1996 19
 How to ruin a marriage
roselyn
P laying bridge
with your hus-
band will not neces-
sarily ruin your
marriage. It may tar-
nish it a bit here and
there, but marriage
is a resilient institu-
tion that survives worse traumas than the
occasional misdefence. Unless the mis-
defence occurs on the last board of an
event. An event that you might have won
with a good last round.
Imagine a full-blown disaster on the
last board. Before the smoke has cleared,
you have to drive home in the same car
as the perpetrator of the disaster. This is
more lethal than faulty brakes. Then you
have to enter the same house, a place full
of blunt instruments. Then a consoling
snack in the kitchen, with its sharp
pointed objects. Then up to the same bed-
room with its pillows and lamps and le-
thal decor. You get the idea. Everything
in the conjugal nest becomes a potential
murder weapon if the disaster occurred
on the last hand.
The disaster that brought these mur-
derous thoughts to mind occurred last
week in an Open Pairs event. I held
 1097  Q5  Q964  K1052
At unfavourable vulnerability, my part-
ner opened 1 in first seat. My right
hand opponent overcalled 2, and I
passed smoothly. My heart started beat-
ing faster. What if my partner made a
reopening double, which was very likely
since he rated to be short in diamonds?
Should I sit for it? Am I strong enough?
Sure enough, my left hand opponent
passed and my partner doubled. I had
20 Canadian Master Point
teukolsky
hardly begun to contemplate my limited
options when my right hand opponent
surprised everyone and bid three dia-
monds. Thank you very much. I’m not
one to look a gift horse in the mouth, not
even a Trojan horse. I was playing to win
the event, wasn’t I? I doubled confi-
dently and placed the Q on the table.
The bidding:
West North East South
1 2 pass
pass dbl 3 dbl
pass pass pass
When dummy appeared, I thought that
our prospects looked reasonable.
West
 AQ64
 10932
 10
 Q983
South
 1097
 Q5
 Q964
 K1052
We play upside down attitude and partner
encouraged the  Q lead with the 6,
while East followed with the 4.
Dutifully, I continued with a heart, de-
clarer called for dummy’s nine, partner
covered with the jack and East ruffed.
Now came a low diamond towards dum-
my’s ten. How should I plan to defend?
 It seemed to me to be quite attrac-
tive to have East stuck on the board, so I
ducked the diamond. The 10 won the
trick, as partner followed with the 3.
The rest of the hand happened very
fast. Declarer returned to his hand with
the K, drew two more rounds of dia-
monds, cashed the J, and went to
dummy with the Q. Everyone followed
suit to three rounds of spades, my partner
banging his on the table just in case I
wasn’t aware of his unhappiness. On the
fourth round of spades declarer pitched a
club and that was the end of the hand.
Making four. Doubled.
Here were the hands:
North
 532
 AKJ876
 3
 AJ6
West East
 AQ64  KJ8
 10932  4
 10  AKJ8752
 Q983  74
South
 1097
 Q5
 Q964
 K1052
“Some double!” was his opening salvo in
the war that followed. As usual, he was
yelling at me for the wrong reason. My
instant-analysis man. The double was
fine, the defence was poor (okay, my de-
fence). In fact, when I looked at all the
hands I realized that the defence had to
be perfect, or else declarer could always
scramble home.
My first mistake was the duck of the
diamond. In order to have a prayer of
setting this contract I had to guarantee
two trump tricks, and therefore had to be
more aggressive in assuring them. So I
January 1996
should have hopped up with the Q and
made some attempt to reach partner’s
hand for him to play a heart through. This
would have promoted my 9. But what
should I have played, a spade or a club?
Oh sure, looking at all four hands it’s
easy to see that a club is called for. But
how should I have known this at the
table? After all, if partner has the KJ
and declarer the Ax, a club play hands
him the contract.
It turns out that I should have
known. Remember partner’s J, which
declarer ruffed? Well, my partner had a
choice of playing the jack, king, or ace,
so the jack had to be a suit-preference
signal! It’s as simple as that. A club to
North’s ace would have set the contract,
because on partner’s high heart, if de-
clarer had pitched a losing club, another
heart would have come through, promot-
ing my nine of trumps. One down, dou-
bled, and another evening of conjugal
peace.
It never fails to amaze me how easy
this game seems in the cold hard light of
hindsight. Surely it should have been
easy to grab my Q and play a club to
my partner’s A? Well, it wasn’t. At
the time I remember agonizing before
ducking the trump. And, had I won the
queen, I know that it would have been
excruciatingly unattractive to lead away
from my K. I may well have played a
spade.
Of course, I see now that partner’s
J had to be a suit-preference signal. (He
did let the entire room know afterwards.)
Yet, at the time he played that jack, it
seemed like the normal card for him to
play from his holding of AKJ. The key
to the hand was recognizing it as a mes-
sage.
But that’s beside the point. The key
to maintaining a successful relationship
with my bridge partner was something
completely different. Simply stated, per-
haps I should not have made such a
skinny double on the last hand of the
event!
21
 Locating lower honours
prakash
D avid j . S paranjape
ilver

L ocating aces and

kings is rela-
tively easy, espe-
You are rich in trumps yet poor in
overall strength — a diet full of fats lack-
ing in vitamins, so to speak. A guess in
cially in a each minor suit is needed to bring home
competitive auction. the contract. Let us think about clubs
The missing jacks first. West made an invitational bid well
and the tens, how- aware that he was sitting behind a strong
ever, present more hand. He must have quick tricks — ace
problems for the declarer when there is a values — for that.
choice of plays. You need something You therefore begin with a small
akin to a microscope for better resolution. club to the king which holds, and play
Statistics can be useful if one prepares back a club: West wins with the ace and
properly. Take for example the following exits with a trump. Winning in hand with
hand adapted from the final elimination the J while everyone follows, you ruff a
round of the Tolani Grand Prix Pairs club with the A (East follows) and play
tournament recently held in Bombay. a small spade to ten. Another club ruff
eliminates the suit, leaving you in
North dummy. At this point, you are at the
 AKQ32 crossroads!
 83 North
 K542  Q
 KJ  —
 K542
 —
South
 J10976
 5 South
 Q108  97
 10843  —
 Q108
Playing Precision, North opens 1 prom-
ising 16+. East overcalls 2, South  —
passes and West bids 3 inviting a game
(!) in hearts. North passes and East de- Who has the J? If East holds it, you
clines the invitation, bidding 3. South can simply finesse against it. If West
now bids 3, raised rather optimistically holds the J, your only chance to nail
to game by North. West leads the Q him is a diamond to the queen, hoping
and continues a heart. How would you East started with 9x. Which option do
continue? you choose?

January 1996 23
 Well, the bidding can hardly pro-
vide any clue in this situation. The play
might provide some sort of clue, but a
weak one at that. (Without the J, East
could have overtaken Q and returned a
diamond at trick two. You might give
weight to that, for example). Elementary
statistics might be more useful here.
Who followed to the fourth club and
the second spade? I didn’t tell you that.
West certainly had one of them else East
would have claimed his diamond ruff by
now. Suppose West followed to two
trumps and East had four clubs. West
must have started with a 2-4-4-3 distribu-
tion then. Odds are two to one that West
has the J and the correct play is a small
diamond to the queen. If West followed
to the fourth club, he probably started
with a 2-4-3-4 distribution and the J is
equally likely to be in either of the con-
cealed hands. A simple finesse is the bet-
ter option. This was the full hand.
North
 AKQ32
 83
 K542
 KJ
West East
 54  8
 QJ96  AK10742
 AJ73  96
 A92  Q765
South
 J10976
 5
 Q108
 10843
Another example is the hand at the top of
the next column. After a Stayman se-
quence North-South reached 3NT. West
led the 10; East won with Q and
24 Canadian Master Point
played back the 2 to declarer’s jack.
East’s 2 clearly indicated a 4-4 spade
split. With eight certain tricks and four
top losers (three spades and the A), de-
clarer’s problem was locating the J.
North
 K74
 KQJ7
 1053
 Q109
West East
 10965  AQ32
 932  10865
 Q8  J764
 AJ82  3
South
 J8
 A4
 AK92
 K7654
If the declarer cashes his four heart
winners, West would follow to only three
hearts whereas East would follow to all
four. West would thus have six unknown
cards as against five for East. At this
point, the chance that West has the J
would be about 54.5% based on the va-
cant spaces in defenders’ hands. That is a
good deal better than an even chance. If
the hearts broke 5-2 or worse, you would
get still better chances for the club guess
although you won’t be able to cash all the
hearts before working on clubs. In the
actual deal, West did have the J and
good technique would have been re-
warded.
 Coach of the year
linda
O ne could make
a very good
case that Canada’s
greatest bridge asset
is not our Bermuda
Bowl silver medal-
list Open Team, nor
our fine set of junior
players. No, our secret weapon is Eric
Kokish of Montreal, surely the world’s
best bridge coach. Eric, who is also a top
player, bridge writer, and theorist,
coached five of the teams that made it to
the 1995 Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup
playoffs. In fact, virtually all of the teams
that he has ever coached have done ex-
ceptionally well in world competition.
Eric’s coaching career began in the
middle 80’s. He had always been inter-
ested in bridge theory, and as a result had
collected a lot of training material includ-
ing questionnaires and hands. As a long-
time international player, he had also met
and played against most of the world’s
top players. So perhaps it was inevitable
that in 1985, when Brazil was hosting the
Bermuda Bowl, Eric should be invited to
coach the Brazilian national team. The
request surprised him, since at the time
Brazil had some of the world’s best play-
ers including Chagas and Branco. But
Chagas was ineligible to play, and the
team was apparently having “communi-
cation problems”. Eric took on the chal-
lenge; his efforts resulted in a surprise
round robin win by the Brazilians, fol-
lowed by a 9-IMP loss in the semi-finals
to the eventual winners, USA. Kokish’s
coaching career had begun.
Can a coach make that much differ-
ence? And what exactly does a coach do?
26 Canadian Master Point
lee
According to Eric, the psychological fac-
tors are very important. First and fore-
most the players must start
communicating — you must get people
calmed down and establish the right at-
mosphere; only then can you start work-
ing to improve. An outside person is very
important to this process, since they have
no preconceived ideas and can often see
the things that are going on much faster
than the players. With the outsider
around to defuse things, the players also
tend to be less defensive in discussions.
Coaching the Canadian Open team
this year was a different kind of challenge,
because Eric was himself a team member.
The system work was relatively easy,
though, partly because the players had
already done a lot of preparation on their
own. Eric attempted to point out gaps in
their systems by using examples which
brought out what he perceived as the de-
ficiencies. The players could then make
their own decisions about system changes.
Eric uses a variety of techniques to
help improve a partnership. The goal, he
says, is to make the players feel comfort-
able with each other and with their sys-
tem. He uses partnership questionnaires
and practice matches where they “com-
pletely” analyze all the hands. Part of his
process is to ask probing questions about
the bidding. For example, he might ask
the partner of the opening weak two-bid-
der if he agrees with his partner’s weak
two-bid, or ask a player how he would
have bid the hand if it had been slightly
different. He reviews the system notes,
he spends at least one session with each
pair going over their system and making
suggestions, and he gets each pair to bid
a lot of practice hands. All of this is de-
signed to get the players thinking about
their methods. He also has three sets of
wicked defensive hands which probe the
effectiveness of the pair’s signalling and
defensive methods.
The training process typically goes
on over a period of time, with regular
sessions led by Eric, and much practice
in between. The method has worked best
in countries where there was a strong
local individual to take charge and keep
the process going when Eric wasn’t there.
This occurred both in Holland and in
Indonesia. In Holland the players all had
full-time jobs, so Eric would fly in for
long weekends over a period of several
months. Eric would cover a set of topics,
leave the material, and then someone else
would make sure that it was followed up
and that the players were ready for Eric’s
next visit.
Coaching in China this past year
was a very different experience for Eric.
As host country for the Bermuda Bowl
and Venice Cup, China wanted to do well
in the competition, so they hired Eric to
work with both their Open and Women’s
teams. The players were released from
their jobs during the training period, so
Eric was able to provide three consecu-
tive intensive weeks of coaching. But he
had to do all of it through an interpreter!
Are there obvious differences be-
tween coaching men and women? Eric
says there are, but he does think the dif-
ferences are cultural rather then inbred: it
is much harder to get the women focused
than the men. This was not as big a prob-
lem in China where all outside responsi-
bilities were removed from the players
during the training period.
Eric helps a team prepare for the
specific event they are targeting. For
example, for the 1995 World
Championships he profiled each oppos-
ing team — each player and partnership;
he reviewed their systems and provided
defences. He documented all the quirky
January 1996
Eric Kokish
little things about each opponent, such as
when they would bid too much, or when
they would hold back. In addition, he
prepares his teams psychologically for
the event. Some of his advice includes to
stop studying, working, and making sys-
tem changes for two weeks before the
event (bidding practice hands, however,
is great). During the event, you should
get lots of rest and not watch VuGraph or
do other things that waste your bridge
energy when you’re not playing.
According to Eric, you don’t have to
be a great player to benefit from coaching
— if you are prepared to work at it there
are lots of things that you can do to help
yourself. Of course, if you can afford it
Eric will provide private coaching: for a
$4500 US price tag you get five days of
intensive work, well worth the price for
your bridge group if you want to move up
into top class competition. For the rest of
us, Eric offers this advice: find yourself a
partner, try not to play with too many
players, adopt an analytical approach,
and discuss both your good boards and
bad ones. And always play against the
best players possible: forget master
points — play up, and avoid rookie and
Flight B events.
27
The Open Team joins enthusiastically in singing “O Canada!” at the medal ceremony.
Left to right: Irving Litvack (npc), George Mittelman, Eric Kokish, Joey Silver, Mark
Molson, Boris Baran, Fred Gitelman.

Beijing
Snapshots

Mark Molson (above) and George

Mittelman (left) enjoy the closing ban-
quet and medal ceremony

28 Canadian Master Point

Sheri Winestock congratulates Fred
Gitelman after the medal ceremony
(above).

Gloria Silverman, Mike Roche, and

Mary Paul found time for some sight-
seeing (right).

The Canadian Women’s team. (Left to right) Mike Roche (npc), Barbara Clinton, Mary
Paul, Joan Eaton, Gloria Silverman, Katie Thorpe, Roisin O’Hara.
Pictures courtesy of Joan Eaton, Paul O’Hara, and Sheri Winestock

January 1996 29
 A fascinating hand
ray jotcham

I t had been a mun-

dane kind of eve-
ning at the club the
other night, but all
that was about to
change. All unsus-
pecting, I picked up
the following hand
as West:
75 J93 83 KQ9765
What would you lead after partner’s
opening 1 bid is overcalled with 4?
Please do not read on until you have
made your decision.
On a diamond lead, the defence can cash
North
 4
 AQ10642
 J7
 A1082
West East
 75  J32
 J93  K85
 83  AKQ105
 KQ9765  J3
South
 AKQ10986
 7
 9642
 4
two diamonds and score a ruff for three
tricks. Now what? If West plays the K,
declarer can win the A, ruff a club, and
then run all his trumps. On the last trump
East is squeezed into either unguarding
the K or throwing the master diamond.
Obviously, the K is no good.
What about leading a heart through
at trick five? Declarer can counter this
by winning the ace and returning the Q.
East covers, South ruffs, but now West is
guarding hearts — the menace has been
transferred. So now on the run of the
trumps there is a double squeeze, with
West holding hearts, East holding dia-
monds, and nether being able to retain
two clubs. No, a heart switch won’t
work.
Maybe the problem is that we recti-
fied the count for a squeeze; let’s try
leading the K at trick one. Declarer can
win the ace, ruff a club, and then run his
trumps. East has to come down to five
cards, Kx and AKQ. South simply
now exits with a diamond, and East has
to lead a heart away from the king.
Aha! The answer is now clear! The
only lead that will set the contract is a
low heart — now partner can’t be end-
played or squeezed. Did you find the
heart lead?
Really?
Bridge Anacrostic (page 18)
Solution
The dummy was too much for Brad,
and he insisted that Charles give an
explanation of his pass. Bruce joined
in, saying in effect that he could under-
stand a student of Professor Silver’s
passing a forcing bid with a
Yarborough, but not with points.
“Stable peasants,” said Charles, which
I quickly corrected to “table presence”.
Tales out of School, David Silver.

January 1996 31
The Toy Shoppe
john
When
they
double
our 1NT
S uppose the auction starts out with a
weak notrump opened by our side,
and they double for penalties. Some sort
of rescue system is a must. For years
Toronto “standard” was Guoba rescues,
named after its inventor, Toronto expert
John Guoba.
The method goes as follows:
West North East South
1NT dbl ?
and now
2 =  + 
2 =  + 
2 =  + 
PASS by responder forces opener to re-
double; responder can then pass to play
there, or bid
2 =  + 
2 =  + 
With a one-suited hand, responder
redoubles immediately, which forces
opener to bid 2. Responder passes or
bids his suit naturally.
This system allows your side to
January 1996
G owdy
show all the two-suiters, although clubs
and spades is an awkward combination.
It also puts pressure back on the doubler,
as with a skinny double he may run rather
than risk defending a redoubled contract.
It’s monster downside, however, is that
you are committed to run; oftentimes
your best spot is one notrump doubled,
which playing Guoba is not a possible
landing place. After all, not vulnerable at
matchpoints, -100 may be a reasonable
score. You can be sure that down one
redoubled, for -200, will not be.
The kinder, gentler runout is
“DONT”, the same system you can use
over their notrump. That is, pass is to
play. Redouble asks opener to bid 2
and shows a one-suiter (responder will
pass with a club suit or bid his own suit
for play). A direct 2 by responder
shows clubs and a higher suit, 2 shows
diamonds plus a major, and 2 shows
both majors. Admittedly, your ability to
get to your suits is not as precise asit is
when playing Guoba, but you now have
the possibility of playing one notrump
doubled, which I believe is a marked im-
provement.
If your notrump is strong, then often
LHO’s double is not “penalty”, but
shows a one-suiter. redouble, then,
should express a desire to punish them,
showing at least 8 hcp, and being forcing
to at least your own partscore. I like to
play that all suits at the two level are
transfers, but that if 2 is followed by
2, it was Stayman.
The key here is that your opponents
are going to after you, and your partner-
ship must be prepared.
33
 The best-laid plans....
mike cafferata

U nsuspecting of
the excitement
about to unfold, I
reader, should be able to guess partner’s
hand. 1) We are missing a key card
(partner did not bid 5NT). 2) Partner bid
am playing IMP’s Blackwood, so he must have at least
with no-one vulner- second-round control of every suit (an
able when I pick up old Blackwood rule). 3) I have AK in
this beauty: both minors so he must have two single-
tons (not a void as he couldn’t use
Blackwood at all). 4) He’s probably 7-4-
 Jx A10 AKx AKQJxx
1-1 because he could have bid 4 over
After I open 2, should I rebid 2NT or 2NT with a good five-card suit.
3? This the first thought that is running Oh well, I guess I’ll bid 6NT in case
through my head when partner unexpect- spades are 4 - 0.
edly opens 1. Wow! Should I just bid Partner’s hand was
7NT now to impress everyone or try to be
KQxxxxx KQxx x  x
more scientific?
If only I could set spades as trumps and with spades not 4 - 0 and clubs not 5
I could use Key Card Blackwood and - 1 we have about 17 tricks after losing
find out about the K and Q as well as the A.
the A. While many would bid a pedes- See — the “expert” bid works
trian 2 or 3 ( if you happen still to again.
play the latter as a strong jump shift ), I
shall therefore try an “expert” bid of
Jacoby 2NT (a forcing raise in spades).
I patiently wait for my partner to
select the best response to describe his
hand, as we can show a singleton, a void,
a 6-card suit, and so on. What is taking so
long? Come on, just bid something so I
can bid 4NT and continue with my mas-
ter plan. Whoops — partner bids 4NT!
Wow! Should I just bid 7NT now to
impress everyone or try to be more scien-
tific? For the sake of partnership har-
mony I just bid 5 (0 or 3 key cards) and
wait for the courtesy 5NT bid to confirm
that we have all the key cards. Whoops,
partner bids 6!
Wow! Should I just bid 7NT now to
impress everyone or try to be more scien-
tific?
Let’s stop and analyse. You, the

34 Canadian Master Point

 Win-win post-mortems
john
O ur management
consulting firm
defines a “True
Team” as follows:
a number of in-
dividuals:
• with individ-
ual strengths and complementary skills
• with a common vision and common
goals
• dedicated to each other’s success
• who hold each other’s opinions as
valuable
How closely do your bridge teams
approximate this description? Let’s start
by defining what most people want from
a bridge team experience. Two things are
common goals. First, people want to play
well and they want their partners and
team-mates to play well; this gives the
team its best chance of winning or at least
of placing high in the standings. Second,
people want to enjoy themselves — they
want to have fun in the process. These
two goals are true for all of us, from the
expert to the occasional player.
The most frequent and important
bridge team activity is the score com-
parison. It takes place at the end of each
competitive session and sets the tone for
the team. Frequently, score comparisons
are a prelude to team post-mortems.
Let’s look at these, and put some True
Team expectations round them. Are they
always consistent with the True Team
definition and with the goals of playing
well and having fun?
Everyone is curious, and many a
post-mortem has been fuelled by ques-
tions based on curiosity. Are all ques-
36 Canadian Master Point
ross
tions acceptable? Do all questions
contribute to becoming a True Team?
My rule of thumb is that any question
asked with the object of learning is ac-
ceptable, while questions that have the
intent of teaching are not. Learning is
directed inward (me); teaching is directed
outward (you).
Some acceptable questions are,
therefore, “does game always make?” or
“how did they reach the slam?”. The
questioner is curious, and believes they
may learn something useful. On the
other hand, if your team-mates have bid
to a poor slam and gone down, then “how
did your bidding go?” is inappropriate,
since the intent can only be to revisit mis-
takes and teach them to be better players.
Teaching team-mates who have not asked
for your opinion is a win/lose activity and
is hardly likely to result in success.
Few bridge mistakes are team mis-
takes. Some are partnership mistakes and
most are individual mistakes. Post-
mortems dealing with mistakes should
include only those involved with the mis-
take. Where a mistake involves partner-
ship learning, the post-mortem should be
limited to the partnership. Where the
mistake involves individual learning, the
post-mortem should be limited to the in-
dividual. Good team-mates have faith
that these processes will occur without
their participation, and they allow space
for them to occur.
In summary, win/win post-mortems
support True Team principles. They are
dedicated to the future success of all team
members and most of all, they hold the
opinion of each person on the team to be
valuable.
 Raptor 1NT overcalls
eric sutherland

H ow often have you found yourself

looking at something like:
2m = 8-12 points: “bid your
major”. This promises
another bid.
 J  K1052  K43  AQ1042
2om = to play
when your right hand opponent opens 2 = pass with hearts, bid 2
1? You want to do something, but noth- with spades. A weak
ing seems ideal. Making a takeout dou- hand for hearts.
ble with only one spade and no extra 2 = pass with spades, bid
values is right out; overcalling 2 will 2NT with a maximum,
likely lose your heart suit altogether; or 3om with a minimum
passing may allow the opponents to steal 2NT = forcing to game, “ bid
the contract. What can you do? ‘your major”.
The concept with Raptor is to use a Responses are:
1NT overcall to show this hand type: one 3 = max. with hearts
unbid four-card major, with a longer 3 = max. with spades
unbid minor, and enough values to enter 3 = min. with hearts
the auction, but not enough to make a 3 = min. with spades
double and rebid. It deals specifically 3om = limit raise in your minor
with hands where it would be inappropri- 3m = forcing raise in your
ate to double, i.e. with shortness in the minor
third suit. When the 1NT bid is made, 3M = pre-emptive jump
note that one of your suits is always
known while one suit is unknown. Over a major opening
In response to a Raptor 1NT bid, the
priority is, of course, to find a fit. The Here it is a little more tricky, as you are
structure is split, depending on whether running out of room. Here, the symbols
the opening bid is a major or a minor are M= major, oM = other major, m =
(and hence whether the the unknown suit minor.
is a minor or a major).
1M-1NT-pass-?
Over a minor opening
pass = to play.
You have more room over a minor open- 2 = pass with clubs, bid 2
ing bid to explore at the two-level. This with diamonds
allows a little more flexibility. Here 2 = pass with diamonds, bid
m=minor that was opened, om = the other 2oM with clubs
minor suit, and M= major. 2M = “bid your minor”, at
least invitational
1m-1NT-pass-? 2oM = to play
2NT = forcing to game, “bid
pass = to play your minor”. (Likely

January 1996 37
 to be followed by cue-
bid-ding)
3m = pre-emptive jump
3M = forcing raise in your that would be an asset to the system.
major
3oM = limit raise in your major
Note that Raptor should only be on as a
direct overcall, as the balancing 1NT is a
useful bid, and should be maintained.
This convention is allowable on the
ACBL General Convention Chart, so you
can play it in any event where the master-
point limit is more than 20 MPs.
However, it is a good idea to have a sug-
gested defence, as not many opponents
will have run across it before.
Specifically, a suggested defence is to
play a double of 1NT as showing the
equivalent of a redouble (10+), while
cuebidding the known suit is a limit raise.
All other bids are natural.
If the opponents do interfere, then
you can play that a double by the re-
sponder to Raptor is asking partner to
show the unknown suit, and all other bids
are as above, where possible. Jumping to
game in any suit is always to play.
The system of responses described
here is by no means optimal, as it doesn’t
make use of some of the in-between steps
that are available. But it does provide a
simple framework within which the sys-
tem will be effective.
Evaluation
Why even use Raptor? Is it really that
much better than a natural 1NT overcall?
And how do you bid when you have a
natural notrump overcall if you are play-
ing Raptor?
The reason why Raptor was devel-
oped was a tendency in my partnerships
towards stronger and stronger ranges for
the 1NT overcall. We found that over-
calling with
 Kxxx  Qxx  KQxx  AJ
after a 1 opening was just sick, and yet
38 Canadian Master Point
you see people do it all the time. We
wanted an alternative that came up more
frequently than these notrump hands, and
Raptor allows you to discover those
elusive major suit fits when the oppo-
nents open the bidding. You lose little
(the 1NT overcall), and you gain much.
Check out this hand:
 J  A1092  3  AK76532
After your opponent opens with 1, it’s
up to you to find a bid with this hand.
Playing Raptor, you can overcall 1NT,
and see how the hand develops. When
partner bids 2, you bid 2 (knowing
partner will bid again). When partner
raises you to 3, you have no trouble
proceeding to game.
Partner’s hand is:
 Q652  K543  J1065  2
Four hearts is a good contract that would
be missed at many tables after a 2 over-
call.
If you have a natural 1NT overcall,
then you can do one of two things. One
option is to pass with the minimum end
of the range. This can be very effective in
the play of the hand when you surprise
declarer by emerging with a dispropor-
tionate amount of the outstanding points.
The other option is to double, and rebid
notrumps, just as you would with a 19-
point hand now.
Part of the goal of Raptor when my
dad and I dreamed it up was to have a
little more fun with bridge. I know that
this resembles some other conventions
out there; heck, it might even be the
same, but I’m not going to read the
Encyclopedia of Bridge from cover to
cover to find out.
Raptor has already caught on in
some bridge communities in Canada, and
may be spreading. It’s a nifty little gad-
get that’s fun to use.
 f o r f u t u r e
Never give a Declarer an Even Break
barbara
M ost players
start by learn-
ing the fundamen-
tals of the offensive
game: memorizing
point count, a struc-
ture for bidding, and
some techniques for
play of the hand. Defence typically
comes along much later in a player’s evo-
lution. Why? Because, simply put, de-
fence is hard.
Being a good defender requires
learning a new set of techniques plus
shifting mental gears. You must be logi-
cal and imaginative at the same time.
You must remain constantly alert, watch-
ing for signals and nuances, even while
holding the world’s worst cards. You
need to adopt a new philosophy: optimis-
tic realism.
The optimistic realist thinks some-
thing like this: “Gee, what awful cards.
But if partner has the Q and the A,
we can set them. Besides, all the other
South’s will have to defend the best they
can with these same @#$ cards.” And
above all else, a good defender must trust
their partner — for nowhere is the part-
nership aspect of the game more apparent
than on defence, where the defenders do
not see each other’s cards, have fewer
assets to work with than declarer, and yet
are expected to defeat the contract every
time out.
Evolving from “follower-of-suit” to
defender involves mastering fundamental
techniques such as knowing when and
how to signal, what suit to lead and what
card from that suit, understanding (“read-
ing”) the auction, deciding what declarer
is up to, playing as second and third
40 Canadian Master Point
e x p e r t s
seagram
hand, and bidding defensively. And of
course, you need to have some knowl-
edge of strategy — such as when to at-
tack (take your tricks as quickly as
possible) and when to be passive (wait
for your tricks).
The killing opening lead
A good defence begins with finding the
killing opening lead. Once you have de-
cided what suit to lead, the card will usu-
ally be the same against either notrumps
or a suit contract. Here are three excep-
tions, however:
AK765 Lead the A vs. a suit,
the 6 against NT
KQ763 Lead the K vs. a suit,
the 6 vs. NT
A763 If you have to lead
this suit against a suit
contract, lead the A,
but lead the 3
against NT
No suit exists in a vacuum. This is not
because most vacuums are messy and
dusty, but because we often need to recall
that each suit is part of the entire hand.
Likewise, each hand should be consid-
ered in relationship to the other three.
This is hard when you are declarer, but
even harder when you are defending. It
is harder still as opening leader, when
you have not yet seen the dummy. All
you have to go on is your thirteen cards,
the bidding (including what partner had
bid), and what your partner hasn’t bid.
Ask yourself these questions when
selecting an opening lead:
1) Has partner bid? If so, leading
that suit is probably a good idea!
 2) Does it sound from the auction
as though dummy has a long, strong suit
on which declarer can pitch losers?
Then you must get active — find the suit
in which you and partner are most likely
to have tricks.
3) Do either you or your partner
hold four trumps? Then try always to
lead the longest suit in the combined
hands. The idea is not to go after ruffs,
but to make declarer lose control of the
hand by making them ruff.
4) Should you be leading trumps?
Don’t lead trumps “when in doubt” but
when you know exactly why you are
doing so. If it sounds as though declarer
is going to play the hand on a cross-ruff,
then a trump lead is called for. If declarer
has bid two suits and you are strong in
the one that did not become trumps, then
lead trumps to protect your winners
against being ruffed in dummy.
5) Do you hold a trump control
— either the ace or king with two small
trumps? The little known theory of
“extra greed” says ‘I want every trick I
can get’. So look carefully at holdings
such as Axx or Kxx in trumps, which
suggest a singleton or doubleton lead.
Remember, though:
• The better your hand, the less
chance there is of hurting declarer with a
singleton lead. Try to think of an alterna-
tive.
• The worse your hand, the ros-
ier the prospect of a ruff.
Warning:
• Do not look for ruffs with a
natural trump trick (one that cannot be
taken away, like QJ10). If you ruff in
with this type of holding, you merely
break even. With Axx or Kxx, your ruff
with a small trump is a real extra trick.
Next time we’ll look at another key
defensive technique — the art of signal-
ling. Until then, remember, never give a
declarer an even break.

Master Point Press on the Internet

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

January 1996 41
 f o r f u t u re e x per t s
Ask the Bridge Doctor
karen allison

T his is an edited
version of an on-
line teaching session
suit and about an opening bid.
about this hand after 1:
How

conducted on the  xx  AJxx  Kxx  AQxx

Compuserve Bridge
Forum. Jeff and
Ken are students in
attendance.
Bridge Dr. Continuing our discussions
on overcalls, here are some examples;
your opponent has opened the bidding
1, what do you do with each hand in
turn?
 xxx  AKJxx  xx  xxx
Jeff 1
Bridge Dr. Right. You have a good
suit you want partner to lead but not
enough of them to make a pre-emptive
jump overcall.
Ken Does it make a difference if it
is rho or lho that makes the opening
bid?
Bridge Dr. Yes; here it was your rho
who opened the bidding. Balancing
(which means bidding after the last bid is
followed by two passes as in 1 - p - p
- ?) is a very important topic and one that
I will cover in a separate lesson. Let’s
look at another hand after 1:
 AJxx  Kxx  AQxx  xx
What do you do?
Ken Double
Bridge Dr. Right again! You don’t
need four cards in both majors; it’s
enough to have support for each unbid
Jeff Pass
Bridge Dr. Excellent! I recommend
‘pass’ with not enough for a 1NT overcall
and no support for spades. Here’s an-
other, also after 1:
 Axx  AKJxx  AKQ  xx
Ken Double
Bridge Dr. Right: too much simply to
overcall 1. You plan to double, then
cue-bid or jump in hearts to show an ex-
cellent hand too good for an overcall.
And this one after a 1 opening:
 Axx  AKJx  xx  AQxx
Jeff 1NT
Bridge Dr. You’re ready for the big
time, guys, you’ve got the idea. Here’s
yet another:
 xx  AKJxxx  xxxx  x
Jeff 1
Ken 2
Bridge Dr. Here’s the first disparity.
Jeff, this is kind of like a weak two bid.
You’ve got a six-card suit with no values
outside of it. I recommend the pre-
emptive jump overcall even with this
good a suit. Your partner will be better
able to judge whether to compete and
how high, knowing that you’ve got that
six-card suit.

January 1996 43
Jeff They call these ‘weak jump
overcalls’?
Bridge Dr. Yes, it’s a weak jump
overcall or a pre-emptive jump overcall.
And it puts a lot of pressure on your op-
ponents. They have to figure out how
high to bid and which suit to make
trumps. And if your partner has a fit with
you and raises the bidding even further,
it becomes even tougher for the oppo-
nents. When your side has a good suit
fit of nine cards, you’re generally safe
bidding to the three level. That doesn’t
mean you’re guaranteed to make your
contract, but if you can’t, then your op-
ponents are likely to have some contract
they can make. When your partner jump
overcalls and you’ve got three cards in
his suit, I recommend you raise the level
of the auction to three. Similarly with
four, I recommend a bid of four of his
suit.
Jeff It’s the sixth card of your suit
that dictates the jump overcall?
Bridge Dr. Precisely: the sixth card of
your suit in a weak hand. With a normal
opening bid, you simply overcall at the
lowest level. And with seven cards, you
can jump to three of your suit, showing a
weak hand and that extra length in your
trump suit. With only a five-card suit,
you simply overcall to show the good
suit; jump only with the extra length.
Jeff Does your vulnerability have
any bearing on this?
Bridge Dr. Some, Jeff, I don’t expect
you to lose your minds! However, with
this hand:
 AKJxxx  xxx  xxx  x
I would (and, believe me I do) bid 2
over 1 at any vulnerability. With
QJ10xxx  xxx  xx  xx
I would bid 2 over 1 when non-vul-
nerable only. So in bridge as in life,
discretion is still the better part of valour!
In a recent match (in the Vanderbilt Open
44 Canadian Master Point
Teams in Phoenix) I jumped to 2 vul-
nerable against not with this hand:
 K10xxxx  x  xx  K10xx
after a 1 opening bid. (No guts no
glory!) And this time, the result was won-
derful: I made 2 doubled. However, I
certainly knew that my bid could lead to
a bad result. Anytime you pre-empt,
you’re rolling the dice to some degree.
You can experiment with these bids, but
you’ll definitely find that if you’ve got
distribution, good suits, and an under-
standing partner, you can get fine results
by making these pre-emptive jumps.
However, there are no pre-emptive
jumps once an opponent has opened with
a pre-empt himself! This is an impor-
tant principle: don’t pre-empt the pre-
empter. You need a good hand to enter
the auction directly over a pre-empt. A
jump overcall after a pre-empt shows a
good hand and a good suit. A notrump
overcall shows a strong (16-19) notrump
or better. And even a simple overcall
shows at least a good opening bid; with
only a good suit, you don’t overcall your
opponent’s pre-empt, as that could trick
your partner into thinking you’ve got a
good hand as well.
Jeff If you have a hand which you
would open 3, would you be reluctant
to overcall 3 over a 3 preempt?
Bridge Dr. Definitely! I would wait
and see what partner did, or what the
partner of the pre-empter did. If the part-
ner of the preempter raised, then I would
later bid 4, to show a good suit, but not
a good hand. And if the partner of the
pre-empter passed and my partner did
something, I could now bid spades at the
appropriate level. Bidding directly guar-
antees a good hand as well as a good suit.
Discipline is hard — I really hate passing
3 with
 AQJxxxx  xxx  xx  x
but in the long run it works out best.
 Index to CMP 1992-1995
I, 1 (January 1992) to IV, 4 (October 1995)
Notes to the Index:
Canadian Master Point consisted of 5 issues per volume in its first two years of
publication, but went to a quarterly schedule beginning in 1994 (Volume III). In the
January 1995 issue (Vol IV no.1), the magazine tested a dual format (Eastern and
Western Canada editions); both editions contained the same editorial copy, but ad-
vertising content varied.

Bidding Book and Magazine Reviews

Bergen, Marty Bergen Raises II, 2 At the Table — My Life and Times
Double trouble IV, 2 Hamman, Bob IV, 1
Bishop, Ron Jump Shifts after a Better Bridge magazine
forcing NT I, 2 Grant, Audrey II, 2
Braithwaite, Ken Sharples-Marx over 1NT Bridge My Way
(part 1) IV, 3 Mahmood, Zia I, 3
(part 2) IV, 4 Bridge Team Murders, The
Burgan, Ed Competing over 1NT II, 3 Granovetter, Matthew II, 1
Competing over strong Bridge with the Blue Team
1 Club openings III, 1 Forquet, Pietro II, 1
The San Francisco con- Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1994
vention revisited III, 4 Ashlar House III, 1
Chan, Lapt H. Transfers over a Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1995
2NT rebid III, 4 Ashlar House III, 4
Cunningham, John Musings.... III, 2 Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1996
Slam Judgment I, 3 Ashlar House IV, 4
Falk, Allan Directing the Lead IV, 1 Death Takes a Hand
Gitelman, Fred Expert Errors II, 1 Moody, Susan III, 3
Improving 2/1 Auctions II, 5 Diamond Major, The
Improving 2/1 Auction Oakley, Peter III, 3
— the sequel III, 1 Editors’ Choice — favourite books
Improving 2/1 Auctions Lee, Linda (editor/selector) I, 5
— part 3 III, 3 Famous Hands from Famous Matches
Gowdy, John Asking for aces III, 1 Reese, Terence and Bird, David I, 2
Competing over 1NT IV, 4 Following the LAW
Drury IV, 3 Cohen, Larry IV, 1
Serious 3NT II, 4 Hand Reading in Bridge
Suit lead II, 5 Roth, Danny II, 3
Transfer Lebensohl II, 2 How to play card combinations
When Partner Preempts II, 3 Lawrence, Mike IV, 3
Jotcham, Ray Swiss Jacoby 2NT I, 2 Kosher Bridge 2
Messinger, Chuck 2-way Stayman — strengths Bird, David III, 3
and weaknesses III, 2 Official Encyclopedia of Bridge(5th ed.)
Hand evaluation II, 1 ACBL III, 4
Refining the Law of Partnership Bidding
Total Tricks III, 4 Paul, Mary IV, 1
Paul, Mary Framework for Disc- Shadow in the Bridge World
ussion, A (series) I,2/IV,2 Wiss, Mike Dorn II, 4
Redvers, Paul Baby keycard IV, 3 Squeeze at Bridge,The
Reus, Tony Who was that fish? II, 4 Wang, Chien-Hwa II, 3
Teukolsky, R. Gadgets, gizmos, and Team Trial
magic bullets IV, 3 Falk, Allan I, 4

46 Canadian Master Point

Test Your Bridge Judgement Cunningham, J. Tangled Web, A II, 3
Rigal, Barry III, 1 Goold, John The Whale I, 4
There must be a way Gitelman, Fred Star is born, A I, 3
Diosy, Dr. Andrew IV, 2 Gordanier, T. M. Full disclosure IV, 1
Thinking about IMP’s Gowdy, B. & Lee, R.“Shorty” remembered II, 5
Boeder, John IV, 3 Lee, Linda You have the right to
Tiger Bridge Revisited remain silent.... I, 4
Flint, Jeremy and North, Freddie I, 2 Lee, Ray Catch a rising star II, 1
To Bid or Not to Bid What’s the point? II, 4
Cohen, Larry II, 1 Willie Wonderful I, 1
Topics in Bridge Mackay, Steve New partnership in
Lawrence, Michael II, 3 action, A.... II, 4
Milgram, Bill & Leah Bridge in the Holy
Computer Bridge & Software Reviews Land I, 3
Ong, Gim C. Is this a record? IV, 2
Bridge Buff I, 3 Schoenborn, M. Don’t lower the bridge.. II, 3
Bridge Buff 2.0 III, 3 Seagram, Barbara Finesse: a new definition IV, 2
Bridge Buff 3.0 IV, 4 Hug a novice! I, 1
Bridge Master I, 5 Steinberg, J. Psyches in club games I, 2
BridgeMate 2.0 IV, 4 Tench, Stan Look back from the edge I, 5
Bridge Olympiad III, 4 White, Marilyn Active ethics — his rules
Bridge Tutor III, 4 or hers? IV, 3
Deal386: a computer program IV, 2 Why do we do it? Bridge
Grand Slam Bridge II II, 2 and the principle of var-
Meadowlark Bridge III, 1 iable-ratio reinforce-
Meadowlark Bridge 1.09 IV, 4 ment IV, 2
Micro Bridge Companion I, 1 Wiss, Mike Dorn Ethical musings IV, 1
Positronic Bridge II, 5 Guru lucks out, The IV, 3
Flak, Carmen Bridge on Compuserve IV, 2 Warren, Ken Swiss Team tactics II, 3
Gitelman, Fred Computers and bridge I, 1
Ludwig, Rodney Computer bridge III, 1 History of Bridge
Lever, David Computer bridge —
a new approach II, 4 Dawson, Tom Five-suit bridge revisited III, 1
Glimpse into history, A II, 2
General Interest The Canadian Nationals
— 100 years IV, 2
Bishop, Ron Dr Gordon Shorting IV, 4 The Impact of bridge &
Bryan, Diane Help, no negative whist on playing cards
doubles I, 3 (Part 1) I, 1
Cafferata, Mike Colbert’s Rules I, 2 (Part 2) I, 2
Colbert’s Rules (part 2) II, 1 The World Bridge Champ-
Colbert’s rules — a corollary ionships III, 4
IV, 3 World Bridge Olympic I, 3
Never give up! IV, 2 Gordanier, T. M. History of conventions, A
The Case of the Vanishing (part 1) IV, 3
Trick II, 3 (part 2) IV, 4
Carruthers, John Sponsorship — a new era? I, 2 Jotcham, Ray Hand from the past, A I, 3
CMP staff Bridge his way....a con- Lee, Ray 20 Years Ago (5/71) I, 1
versation with Zia I, 5 20 Years Ago (5/72) I, 2
Cliff’s Notes — a tale from 20 Years Ago (10/75) I, 3
the tournament trail III, 3 20 Years Ago (11/72) I, 4
Committee Action I, 4 Sabino, John 20Years Ago (1970) I, 5
Colker, R. & Lee, R. The hesitation
dilemma III, 2 Humour
Cunningham, J. And the meek shall inherit....
II, 4 Bishop, Ron Guessing the trumps II, 4
Epson without tears III, 4 Cafferata, Mike He went thataway.... IV, 1
Hug a Novice? I, 1 CMP staff Anecdotes I, 2
Is this being recorded? III, 1 Cooper, Stephen Harmonizing II, 2
Musings.... III, 2 Diosy, Dr. A. Following the map IV, 1
More musings IV, 1 Playing by the book IV, 3
Slam Judgment I, 3 Dunsiger, Mark Sniffwood IV, 3

January 1996 47
Gitelman, Fred Bridge in the Village I, 5 Roy-Chowdhury, S. Who’s the boss? III, 3
Gowdy, John Guess for the pro, A I, 2 Seagram, B. Alert! III, 1
No beer for me I, 3 Balancing II, 2
Lee, Ray Bridge in Wonderland II, 2 Bid them up the line! I, 4
Livingston, Brian Excerpts from the Bidding over preempts III, 2
Rutherford Files III, 3 Conventional wisdom IV, 3
McIntyre, Bruce Bridge on the bridge IV,1 Cue bids for beginners III, 4
Schoenborn, M. 3 minutes to winning Cue bids for beginners IV, 1
bridge III, 2 Defence wins champ-
Encounters with the 7 II, 1 ionships I, 2
Mexican hat trick I, 2 Get the boys off the street I, 3
Rabbit bridge I, 5 He who hesitates II, 5
Shoe vs. Montreal, 1967 I, 1 Negative doubles for novices
Silver, David Board for the board, A I, 1 (part 1) I, 5
Bridge 101 II, 4 (part 2) II, 1
Bridge canticle, A IV, 2 Passed hand bidding
Broom at the top I, 3 (part 1) II, 3
Doppelganger II, 5 (part 2) II, 4
Grey-headed league, The III, 2 The strip and throw-in III, 3
Hearts of darkness IV, 1 Seigel, Joe Be a better bidder I, 1
Hunting the Great Be a better bidder I, 2
White Whale III, 4 Be a better bidder III, 1
Managing change II, 3 Competitive bidding
Nights of old I, 5 (part 1) II, 1
Occurrence at the (part 2) II, 2
Spingold, An IV, 3 (part 3) II, 4
Paradise lost II, 1 (part 4) II, 5
Post-mortems of the Be a better competitor I, 3
3rd kind I, 4 Be a better declarer
Prisoner of Zelda, The IV, 4 (part 1) I, 4
Reasonable man, A II, 2 (part 2) I, 5
Silver for the defence III, 3 Be a better partner III, 4
Study in silver, A III, 1 Be an ethical player III, 2
“The Cleric” The Club has a visitor.... II, 1 Be an ethical player III, 3
“Trent Valley” Dear Editor.... III, 4 Matchpoint tactics II, 3
Deeds of shame IV, 2 Smith, Forrest The elementary squeeze IV, 4
Hold the anchovies I, 4
Mood swings IV, 4 Play and Defence
Slam decision I, 5
There is no justice! III, 3 Armstrong, J. A simple hand? I, 2
Teukolsky, R. All the world’s a Bishop, Ron Spot the clue I, 4
bridge article IV, 4 Spot the defence I, 3
Bridge in a Chin- Chan, Richard Grand larceny I, 3
ese restaurant IV, 1 CMP staff Declarer 5, Trumps 0 II, 4
Ethical, misguided, or Cunningham, J. The road not taken II, 2
just plain stupid? IV, 2 Diosy, Dr. A. Playing with the odds IV, 2
Join the club III, 3 Falk, Allan Newtonian leads; a
The significant-other corollary to the Law
dilemma II, 5 of Total Tricks II, 5
The truly explosive vs. Galloway, C. On “Playing the Odds” II, 2
the merely unpleasant III, 2 Restricted choice —
Which opponent should pshaw! not again! III, 3
you squeeze? III, 4 Gitelman, Fred Hands from here
and there IV, 4
Making bridge masters II, 3
Novice (including “For Future Experts”) My left hand(ed) opponent
II, 2
Allison, Karen Ask the Bridge Doctor IV, 4 Problem of avoidance, A IV, 1
Cafferata, Mike Always have a plan II, 4 Would you rather be lucky or
Linden, Jay 99er’s view, A II, 3 good? II, 4
Livingston, Brian Life in thefast lane II, 2 Gordanier, T. M. The Greek gift III, 3
Timing is everything II, 3 Gyimesi, Miklos Find the lady I, 3

January 1996 49
Jotcham, Ray Play along with me II, 2 Gitelman, Fred Icelandair Open 1995 IV, 2
Ray’s random thoughts IV, 2 Wild and crazy hands.... III, 2
Lee, Linda Try this on your spouse....II, 4 Jotcham, Ray In the zone.... IV, 3
Lee, Ray Playing the odds I, 5 Kenny, M. et al. CNTC 93 II, 4
Lindop, David The intra-finesse I, 1 Kokish, Eric CNTC Finals, Ottawa 92 I, 4
McIntyre, Bruce Conditions of contest IV, 2 Tale of two tables I, 5
Paranjape, P. J. Defending in the dark IV, 2 Lee, Linda Close, but we’ll take it I, 3
The source of good deals IV, 4 Calcutta 92 I, 2
Shaw, George Restricted choice — fact Lee, Ray Bourbon St. bridge IV, 4
or fiction? (the case Cincinnati Quiz, The III, 3
against) III, 2 Haig’s Blue Ribbon II, 1
Silverman, Gloria Reading the cards I, 3 Kansas City roundup II, 3
Sutherland, Eric More restricted choices III, 4 Sleepless in Seattle III, 1
Restricted choice — fact Toronto 4; Montreal 0 II, 5
or fiction? II, 5 World bridge camp 1 IV, 4
Szerementa, J. Third hand high III, 2 MacNeal, Dawn Canadian Calcutta II, 3

Puzzles and Quizzes Paul, Mary Fun in the sun I, 5
Paulsson, S. Thank you to my
CMP staff Bridge Bats I, 4 shareholders I, 1
Hearts....a logic puzzle I, 5
Reading the hand II, 5 Sutherland, Eric Bali high IV, 4
Goold, John Bridge crossword I, 3 Turner, David 1994 World Open Pairs IV, 2
Bridge crossword I, 4 Winestock, Sheri Giving something back IV, 4
Bridge crossword II, 1
Bridge crossword II, 3
“Griffin” Bridge anacrostic I, 5
Bridge Anacrostic (page 18)
Bridge anacrostic II, 5
“Pipeg” Bridge puzzle III, 4 Word list

A. Third and fifth best
Tournament Reports B. Appendix A
C. Last Train (to Clarksville)
Bridson, Ed The silence of the slams D. Establish this winner
(part 1) I, 1
(part 2) I, 2
E. Square hand
(part 3) I, 3 F. Out of tune
Carruthers, John Yokohama 1991 I, 1 G. Unblocks
Bali quiz IV, 4 H. Top board
CMP staff Capital Nationals, A II, 4
Charity auction at Kate’s III, 2
I. Olympics
Charlotte Ingram Memorial J. Face a card
Swiss I, 1 K. Sans atout
Duck soup in the Magic L. Catch
Kingdom! II, 1
European idea comes to
M. High scores
Whitby II, 3 N. Obligatory finesse
Expert charity auction O. Opening two bids
at Kate’s II, 2 P. Life master
Kate’s auctions the
experts I, 2
Q. Ditch
Nationals pot-pourri I, 4 R. Analysts
Pole-axed again! III, 2 S. VuGraph
Revenge is sweet I, 5 T. Inference
Snapshots from Pasadena I, 3
Colbert, David First class in Albu-
U. Describes
querque IV, 1 V. Smith echo
Gitelman, Fred Close but no cigar ... I, 2 W. Injury
Close again .... I, 4 X. Lead through
CNTC 94 III, 4
Deja vu again...and
Y. Vienna Coup
again... IV, 3 Z. East-West
AA. Redwood

50 Canadian Master Point

 Reviews
P o i n t s
Schmoints (Marty
Bergen). Magnus
Books. 210 pp.
$29.95 (HC).
Reviewed by Ron
Bishop.
The first new
title we’ve seen from Marty Bergen in
quite some time is a collection of bridge
pointers and humorous anecdotes (many
gleaned from years of successful teach-
ing) that should be well-received by in-
termediate and developing players.
Marty’s previous efforts (a two-volume
set on competitive bidding) were more
technical and highlighted the bidding
ideas that helped make him one of the
most successful tournament players
throughout the 70’s and 80’s. While
keeping to his light-hearted writing style,
Marty has changed the focus in this title
towards the developing player, with
many short and to-the-point tips ranging
from pre-empts and competitive bidding
all the way to play and defence. My only
substantive complaint would be the price;
at $29.95 (Can.) I find it a mite steep (as
will some of its intended audience). For
that outlay, we could receive both of
Marty’s earlier technical volumes.
Generally, the overall information
and format is a good one for students,
especially those who are not complete
beginners. The instructional chapters of
the book each deal with an individual
topic on bidding, play, or defence. Many
of Marty’s personal favourites come to
the fore (showing a weak two bid on five
to the eight with an ace, king on the side
to developing players may not seem a
good idea to many teachers, but it is done
in a humorous spotlight). As we would
have expected, the section on Competitive
Bidding is very good, including a useful
January 1996
overview on Balancing. Marty’s keying
on the distributional, textural, and posi-
tional aspects of bidding, as opposed to
the traditional point-count approach, is
applauded. Many of the KEY points and
important concepts are offset from the
text, in boldface type or in box-outs,
making them easy to follow and find
again for review.
An old university professor of mine
taught that building engineers often de-
signed structures with multiple purposes
in mind, but that the final creation usually
could accomplish only one (or perhaps
two) of them very well. A book that at-
tempts to be an intermediate text, a hu-
morous anthology, a system critique, and
a collection of bridge and sports maxims,
as well as a short history of the author’s
play/teaching record is surely biting off
more than a single small volume can
handle. At times this one accomplishes
each of its goals well; but at other times
something seems to be lacking. Some of
the anecdotal hands could have been dis-
pensed with since these (together with the
interjection of an occasional tale that we
might have expected to see in a humour
anthology) just seem to interfere with the
flow of the material and may sidetrack
readers who are attempting to improve
the overall level of their bridge knowl-
edge. Nevertheless, an instructive and
good effort worth exploring.
Tales out of
School (David
Silver). Master
Point Press. 128 pp.
$12.95. Reviewed
by Joe Varnell.
Regular readers of Canadian Master
Point will already be familiar with the
bridge-playing exploits of “Professor”
David Silver, but the uninitiated have a
53
wonderful treat in store for them in Tales
out of School.
This book is a collection of stories
chronicling the bridge antics of Professor
Silver and his colleagues at the fictional
“Mohican College”. The scenarios range
from mere bridge problems to the fate of
Silver’s soul: political correctness takes
its lumps, Satan wins the bridge game
(and then wishes he hadn’t), while the
smartest of computers proves to be as
human as the next guy when it comes to
bridge partners. But every situation,
serious or not, is tackled with tongue
firmly planted in cheek.
No-one is safe from the author’s
jibes, least of all himself. And while the
hands and analyses are always techni-
cally interesting, this is first and foremost
a book of humour, not of bridge. Silver
shows a delicate touch for the sardonic,
and his villainously gentle humour is dis-
played in flowing, lucid prose. He could
easily be nominated “Wicked Wit of the
North”.
Each story in Tales out of School
goes down like a fine gulp of well-aged
wine. You hold and savour each taste
while quickly reaching for your glass
again. This book would make a delight-
ful addition to any bridge player’s li-
brary; after all, where else can you buy
eleven ounces of Silver that are worth
their weight in gold?
Bridge Baron (Great Game Products).
DOS, Windows,
Mac. US$59.95.
Perfect Partner
Bridge (Positronic
S o f t w a r e ) .
W i n d o w s .
US$59.95. Bridge
B u f f 3 . 0
(BridgeWare). Windows or DOS.
C$129.95
Reviewed by Ray Lee.
Let’s start by recognizing that every
bridge software package today still
January 1996
makes errors in bidding and play that no
average club player would dream of per-
petrating on his or her worst night.
Bridge software now has reached about
the stage chess programs were at in the
mid eighties — they are showing signs of
intelligence, and there are enough of
them around that competitive pressures
and sheer numbers are going to allow
them to develop rapidly. The top micro-
computer chess programs today can chal-
lenge master-class players. Since bridge
is not a complete information game, it is
(I am told) a tougher programming prob-
lem. But I suspect that we aren’t more
than about five years away from bridge
software that plays pretty well.
But back to the present day and real
life. An earlier incarnation of Bridge
Baron (which was marketed for a while
as “Micro Bridge Companion”) was one
of the first software packages we re-
viewed in CMP, and it is still one of the
best. Bridge Baron claims to have im-
proved its play and bidding, and proba-
bly has, but the differences are subtle. It
still (like all its competitors) has trouble
in balancing sequences, and competitive
doubles give it fits. The most noticeable
improvement is, of course, the now de
rigeur Windows interface (and Bridge
Baron is still one of the very few pack-
ages available for the Macintosh, al-
though the Mac version has slightly less
functionality).
The number of conventions and
treatments available to the user has been
expanded to include different NT ranges,
limit raises, 2-over-1, and a number of
other standard and necessary options;
earlier versions were limited to a very
simple convention card. The Deal
Generator has also been substantially up-
graded; it allows you to specify suit
lengths and point count, and also to pro-
duce sets of hands that satisfy specific
bidding sequences or conventions.
Promised very soon, but not seen by us,
is the capacity to play sets of hands from
55
ACBL tournaments, and matchpoint
them against a field, as well as remote
modem play. The feature which Bridge
Baron still implements the best, in my
view, is its ability to let you play short
matches, score them against the computer
(IMP’s, BAM, or total points), and save
them for replay by others.
Perfect Partner Bridge is the direct
descendant of Positronic Bridge, re-
viewed in CMP in November, 1993. The
good news is that the new package is
much cheaper, has a much better inter-
face, and has dispensed with the aggra-
vating “disklock” copy protection
mechanism. The bad news is that it still
doesn’t play very well. The engine here
is a sophisticated AI, which the user can
toggle between a standard rules-based
mode and a neural net, which (at least in
theory) will learn as it plays against you.
This (again, in theory) will allow you to
“teach” it your bidding methods, and
have it become the “perfect partner”. We
don’t actually know whether this is even-
tually possible; we do know that our staff
was unable to devote the hundreds of
hours that were clearly necessary to get it
to this stage. The built-in rules-based
bidding engine is an average performer at
best.
Much time and effort has been spent
on trying to improve the play and defence
algorithms (an area where a “learning”
mode is not offered), and British expert
Tony Forrester has been involved here.
Again, unfortunately, Perfect Partner
finds itself at best in the middle of the
pack in terms of playing strength.
Just to show that some authors take
our reviews seriously, Doug Bennion let
us know that he has addressed our major
criticism of his excellent Bridge Buff 3.0
software: it is no longer necessary to
click the mouse each time you want a
computer player to play a card. We
should be able to complete our survey of
new and updated bridge software in the
April 1996 issue, with the promised new
version of EK bridge; at this stage, we
would rate Bridge Baron and Bridge
Buff 3.0 as the current market leaders.

Master Point Press on the Internet

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

56 Canadian Master Point