From the editors......

W e had the best time at the Toronto

Regional. We went through all our
jelly beans and almost every back issue
We have also now recorded our first
retirement from CMP: Canadian interna-
tional Shelagh Paulsson was one of our
of the magazine we had, which mostly founding editors, and her ideas and ef-
went to people from out of town. We got forts helped get CMP started; we're sorry
to meet so many of you, and it was very to lose her. We have been fortunate to
gratifying to hear how much you liked persuade another international player,
Canadian Master Point. In fact, when John Gowdy, to take over Shelagh's role
we asked what you liked best, the answer on the Editorial Board.
was often "everything". Many of you had
good ideas to improve CMP, and we'll be
trying to incorporate them into the maga-
zine over the next few issues.
Some readers wanted to make a fi-
nancial contribution and decided to do it
by purchasing a subscription -- thank
you; you are helping us increase our print
run so that we can reach an even wider
audience. We now have subscribers from
Vancouver to the West Indies!
We had a chance to meet with many
of our long-time advertisers whose sup-
port has been critical over the past year
and a half, and some new ones too. We
also met many aspiring authors, and if
there are any more out there we want to
hear from you. And we did establish
some potential new regular distribution John is one of Canada's leading
centres including Thunder Bay, Ottawa, players: winner of numerous Regional
Montreal, and Winnipeg -- we're getting titles, CNTC chamption in 1991, a mem-
closer to becoming a magazine for all of ber of Canada's Olympiad squad in
Canada, as our name implies. Salsomaggiore in 1992, and a member of
We would also like to express our the team that took the silver medal in the
thanks to the organizers of the Toronto Pan-American tournament in 1992.
Regional and especially to Steve Cooper Coincidentally, John is the author of our
who was very helpful. Steve took us new regular series on bidding innova-
under his wing, found us a table, and tions, The Toy Shoppe. We welcome John
showed us the ropes on the first day. to CMP and look forward to his ideas and
contributions.
 c a n a d i a n

Master Point
a m a g a z i n e f o r b r i d g e p l a y e r s
331 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Ont., M5M 1H2
Tel: (416) 781-0351 • Fax: (416) 781-1831 • E-mail: ray@masterpointpress.com
June 1993 Vol. II Number 3
From the mailbag ... 3
Managing Change by David Silver 4
Making Bridge Masters by Fred Gitelamn 9
Bridge Crossword by John Goold 12
Kansas City Roundup by Ray Lee 13
European Idea Comes to Whitby 17
A Tangled Web ... by John Cunningham 18
Canadian Calcutta by Dawn MacNeal 20
A framework for discussion (part 7) by Mary Paul 22
Swiss Teams Tactics ... by Ken Warren 25
Competing Over 1NT ... by Ed Burgan 30
Don't Lower the Bridge ... by Michael Schoenborn 31
When Partner Preempts by John Gowdy 32
The Case of the Vanishing Trick by Mike Cafferata 33
A 99er's View by Jay Linden 34
For Future Experts
Passed Hand Bidding (1) by Barbara Seagram 35
Timing is Everything by Brian Livingston 36
Matchpoint Tactics (1) by Joe Seigel 37
Book Reviews 38
Canadian Master Point is published five times per year. It is available free of charge through a number of bridge clubs
and bridge supply houses in Ontario and Quebec. Copyright © 1993 Canadian Master Point. All rights reserved; reprinting
of contents without the express written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Correspondence and articles should be sent
to the above address with SAE if return or reply required.

ED. BOARD: Ray Lee, Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, Diane Bryan, John
Gowdy
 From the mailbag .....
Thank you for your positive review of
Better Bridge in your March 1993 issue;
we appreciate all comments and criti-
cisms in our efforts to make this the most
helpful publication of its kind for bridge
students at all levels.
I wanted to point out two slight mis-
representations in your article. The news-
letter is always at least 16 pages, not less
than 10 as you state. We would also ap-
preciate your listing the correct mailing
address for subscriptions: 11684 Ventura
Blvd., Suite 426, Studio City, CA 91604
(C$25.00).
KIRK FREDERICK
Production Manager,
Better Bridge Magazine
Our review copy of the first issue was 8
pages long. Ed.
In John Gowdy’s article on “Transfer
Lebensohl” in the March 1993 CMP he
comments that it is useful to play nega-
tive doubles after 1NT openings, when
you have no clear-cut bid.
Having played negative doubles
after weak notrump openings for several
years, I heartily agree. However, what he
does not seem to have considered is that
once you have decided to play negative
doubles, part of the system he recom-
mends earlier can be improved. One of
the big advantages is that the crude and
ugly “fast denies - slow promises”
method of handling stoppers can be dis-
pensed with, and a more effective system
used which handles more possibilities.
Once you have agreed that responder
with an interest in four-card majors will
start with a double, the auctions like 1NT
- 2❤ - 3❤, and 1NT - 2❤ - 3NT can
revert to their natural meanings: the cue-
bid asks for a stopper, and 3NT shows
one. There is no muddle about majors
because partner did not make a negative
Canadian Master Point
double. Of course, if opener has no stop-
per, he can bid a four-card major over the
cuebid, in case there is a playable 4-3
fit.
Obviously, whenever responder is
looking for a 4-4 major-suit fit, he will
start with a negative double. Opener’s
first priority in responding to the double
is to show a 4-card major, and failing that
to show a stopper by bidding 2NT, or
without either, to bid a minor.
Opener should never bid a 3-card
major, as responder may just be compet-
ing on a hand like
♠KQx ❤x ◆xxxx ♣Qxxxx
Now if responder cuebids over a minor-
suit response (1NT - 2❤ - dbl - pass - 3♣
- pass - 3❤) he must be asking for a half-
stopper (Qx or Jxx), while 3NT is for
play, promising a stopper. If responder
bids a minor over 2NT, that, too, is for
play (perhaps a weak 6-4).
The “slow” auctions (after an initial
2NT by responder) can now be put to
better use. 1NT - 2❤ - 2NT - pass - 3♣
- pass - 3NT can show a half-stopper,
since he didn’t ask opener for a full stop-
per, and he didn’t bid 3NT directly. The
slow cuebid (3❤ instead of 3NT in the
last sequence) is now available for other
hands -- I use it as a slam try with short-
age in the overcalled suit and 5-5 in the
minors. Opener can bid 3NT (at least
KJx as a stopper), 4 minor ( some wast-
age like Qxx in their suit), 5 minor (no
wastage), or cuebid 4❤ (the ace).
I don’t agree with John’s suggestion
that the opener should jump in response
to a negative double in order to invite;
that may inhibit responder from compet-
ing with about 6 hcp and the right shape.
Let responder invite if he wants to, after
opener has shown a suit.
CHUCK GALLOWAY
 Managing Change
D a v i d S
Readers are re-
ferred to “Paradise
Lost”, which ap-
peared in CMP in
January 1993, for
the preamble to
this tale, as well
as to “A Reason-
able Man” in our
March 1993 issue. Ed.
T he chairman began talking quietly,
while the group around the table fell
silent.
"The three most important factors in
a Total Quality Management system are
that top-flight people be in charge, that
the staff be trained in how to manage for
quality, and that quality be improved at a
revolutionary pace. You have all under-
gone intensive T.Q.M. training from a
leading expert, newly arrived from the
Postal Service, and you have had suffi-
cient time to apply the techniques in your
own areas. We’ll begin with a report
from the manager of Level 183. Moloch
-- how are things progressing?"
There was a hasty throat-clearing
sound from half-way down the table.
"Well, it must be admitted that there
was some initial opposition from middle
management. Their suggestions ranged
from “Can’t we just tighten the screws?”
to “Let's experiment with a few new tech-
niques but not go too far too quickly be-
cause what we have, works” and other
clearly negative comments. However, I
mentioned your remark that the old ways
are just not working and that we have to
rethink what we're doing and how we are
doing it. After that, there was total com-
mitment and the results are already ap-
parent.
"For example, a clever young devil
came up with a new way of delivering
i l v e r
Procedure #4321. You will recall that
male lechers are condemned to lie on a
bed of hot coals for eternity. Well, we
rigged up an audio visual system that
plays a 3-D version of the Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit Video; I am pleased
to report that suffering has increased
400%. He also devised a new twist on
Procedure #5698, you know, the old
Tantalus punishment where gluttons are
put on a treadmill and have tasty morsels
dangled in front of them, just out of
reach, of course. Upon examination, this
turned out to be inefficient, as the sinners
soon began to slack off and there were
not enough whippers to keep them up to
the optimum output.”
“A classic problem,” nodded the
chairman. “Production losses are the in-
evitable result of a recalcitrant work
force. T.Q.M. won't help you here since
the system is based upon the team ap-
proach to problems. What did you do, put
on another shift of whippers?"
"Actually, T.Q.M. did provide the
answer: we introduced a sinner incentive
program. The traditional bait of unreach-
able grapes and wine has been replaced
by an electronic menu of junk food, and
any sinner who maintains our target rate
of 55 paces per minute for fifty years gets
to select a morsel of his favourite
McTreat."
"But surely you are lessening the
punishment! Have you forgotten that the
objective of T.Q.M. is to improve quality,
not just to increase production?"
"Of course not. We're using real junk
food. Each morsel eaten increases the
sinner's body weight by 20%, making it
that much more difficult to keep up the
pace. If you win you lose; if you don't
try, you get whipped. It's almost as bad as
being a litigant on Earth."
June 1993
 "Brilliant! Let’s move on to
Beelzebub. How are things going on
Level 239 -- the Bridge Game in Hell? "
"Not so good,” was the reluctant re-
sponse. “Things have been going to
Heaven ever since Silver arrived."
“Who’s Silver? I don’t under-
stand.”
“Silver is a recent addition -- you
may recall that you yourself had a hand
in getting him assigned here... there was
a bridge game involved.”
"Aha, yes ... the imbecile who could
be in Paradise now if he’d remembered
to claim honours on that last hand. So
what’s he done?"
“He’s making everybody happy.”
"Happy? Sinners happy in Hell?
You’re telling us that your operation has
completely collapsed, and that it’s all due
to this Silver person?"
"I know it sounds bad,” Beelzebub
whined. “But we're dealing with a very
strange mind here. His play makes all his
opponents feel like Zia by comparison.
Players are exchanging Dave and Brad
stories all through the game and even the
guards are starting to join in. Brad
Bullock himself has become quite a hero;
there has even been a petition essentially
claiming that his punishment is too hor-
rible, even for the lower regions of Hell.
Silver, meanwhile, is completely oblivi-
ous to his own and everyone else's suffer-
ing.”
The voice trailed off. The chair-
man’s displeasure was obvious; claws left
deep grooves in the rock-hard tabletop as
it leaned forward.
"This incompetence is intolerable;
the damage must be contained and re-
paired before the rot spreads to other lev-
els. Moloch, get up there immediately
and take whatever measures appear nec-
essary. Take Beelzebub with you; maybe
he’ll learn something that’ll be useful on
his next assignment."
*************
Canadian Master Point
"What’s that huge screen on the
wall? It looks like a television."
Moloch was gazing around at the
surreal scene presented by thousands of
intent bridge players, all concentrating
hard in the dim red light, and ignoring the
acrid smell of sulfur in the air.
"That's called a VuGraph. The
guards installed it so they could watch
Dave and Brad from anywhere on the
level. There was so much fighting for
Section A assignments that it was the
only way to prevent a strike."
"But everyone has stopped playing
to watch the VuGraph! What's going
on?"
"This is a Pool game. Any time
Silver is about to play a hand, time is
called and everyone gets to predict how
many he will go down. The winners get
to punish their opponents (literally, of
course) for one round -- you’d be sur-
prised how imaginative they are. It pro-
vides variety in the punishments and
gives the guards a little break. Lets see,
now, Silver is South, and he’s declarer in
7♣ on the lead of the ◆K. What do you
think? My guess would be two down."
♠ K962
❤ K862
◆ A
♣ AJ62
♠ QJ873 ♠ 104
❤ 84 ❤ Q1073
◆ KQJ862 ◆ 109754
♣ --- ♣ 43
♠ A5
❤ AJ5
◆ 3
♣ KQ109875
"Two down?” Moloch was staggered.
“The hand’s cold! He has twelve top
tricks and no real alternative to the heart
finesse for a thirteenth. It’s not a great
contract, but how can he go down?"
"Trust me, you’ll see. OK, he's won
the opening lead and drawn trumps; now
he'll play ace, king and ruff a spade, and "How many got that right? Three, yes
cross to dummy with a trump to ruff the that’s about average. Now, Moloch, you
last spade. He can’t get a count on this would think that with fifty thousand plus
hand when all those diamonds are out ..I bridge players participating, there would
see, he’s playing off the trumps hoping be lots of winners, but somehow there
someone will mispitch.... aha, look! East never are.”
has discarded a small heart -- and now "I can see why. 6♣ makes easily on
the ten of hearts. What a brilliant play a dummy reversal, but they never even
-- he’s set up a two-way finesse for the bid the suit.”
❤ Q -- he’s given Silver a losing op- But Beelzebub was watching the
tion” VuGraph, fascinated, as the hand was
"Now watch -- there he goes, ❤A, played out.
and a low heart to the nine! Two down, “You know, I would have thought
just as I thought! And there’s the “Sorry, the 4-2 trump split would make 4♠ im-
Brad!” sign lighting up” possible, even for Brad Bullock. After he
Moloch started thoughtfully out ruffs the second heart and draws trumps,
over the vast hall, where at every table West will have the long spade left and
the latest Silver debacle was being dis- will be able to ruff in and cash some
cussed with much merriment. Suddenly, hearts. But look what he did: he threw
a trumpet blast rang out over the crowd. two low diamonds on the second and
“Good timing” said Beelzebub, “It's third round of hearts. West shifted to a
time to play Guess The Contract; I was diamond, so Brad won in hand, hooked
hoping you’d see this. Every 3000 deals, the ♠10, drew trumps and claimed. What
Dave's and Brad's hands are put on a player! Perhaps those petitioners were
VuGraph and everyone takes a guess right after all, maybe his punishment is
what the final contract will be. Anyone too severe....”"
who gets it right skips a thou¬sand tables “Beelzebub, old fiend, I’m begin-
towards Dave and Brad. It's very popu- ning to see your problem, especially if
lar." you’re starting to think like that. Let’s
♠ KQ93 give some serious thought to dealing with
❤ 5 this and calming the chairman down be-
fore you get assigned to something really
◆ A962
horrible....”
♣ AQ105
♠ 76 ♠ J542 *************
❤ 864 ❤ AKQJ109
The tip of the chairman’s tail was
◆ QJ10843 ◆ 5 vibrating slowly as it began to speak.
♣ 87 ♣ 43 Normally, this was good sign.
♠ A108 "I've read your report with great in-
❤ 732 terest, Moloch, and I accept your recom-
◆ K7 mendation to downsize Level 239. We'll
phase out the Bridge Tournament and
♣ KJ962 build a new Unbeatable Videogame facil-
“Final contract .... 4 ♠ ” came an an- ity. However, there are still both legal and
nouncement; muted groans could be public relations problems. You know that
heard throughout the room. we are required to maintain full staffing,
Brad East Dave West not to mention the damage this will do to
our public image. I can just hear
1◆ 2❤ Dbl. Pass Archangel Michael at the next Upper
2♠ Pass 4♠ All Pass Management meeting."
June 1993
 "Actually, Lucifer,” interposed
Moloch, “I’ve been having second
thoughts; perhaps we should maintain
both operations. After all, given the de-
mographics of Videogame players, it'll be
some time before we can fill the new fa-
cility to anything near capacity; on the
other hand the average age of the ACBL
membership is well over fifty. I think
that’s too big a market just to walk away
from, but I recognize that we’ve got to
get the bridge game back under control.
This may be just a crazy idea, but.... what
if we were to send Silver back?"
"What are you, a recent graduate?
We can’t redeem a sinner without the
will and high permission of all-ruling
Heaven. Don't they teach you guys any
theology these days?"
"I don't mean back to Heaven -- I
mean back to Earth. Think of it as a mar-
keting strategy. You know, these days,
with the liberalization of the Criminal
Code and the decline of morality, most
deeds that used to send someone straight
to Hell are just innocent amusements.
Hardly anyone is getting damned any-
more; they just show that their actions
conform to `community standards’ and
they end up upstairs with the competition.
However, a full-blooded lust to murder
will get even a saint sent straight to us. I
bet if we turned Silver loose to play in
bridge tournaments for a few more years,
business would be so good we'd have to
add more sections to the game....."
“Moloch,” breathed Lucifer, “That
idea comes close violating the Excessive
Temptation rules....I like it; I like it a
lot......”
Canadian Master Point
*************
The session had seemed longer than
usual, and Silver’s Law (your matchpoint
score is inversely proportional to the idi-
ocy of your opponents) had been operat-
ing overtime. I roused myself from a
short reverie and glanced at my partner;
Bruce seemed unusually testy today. It
appeared to be my bid.
"May I have a review?" I asked.
"Mr. Gowdy opened the bidding
with 2♣ and my partner passed. It's your
bid." replied LHO.
I glanced at my hand. I still held
♠98xx ❤xxx ◆xx ♣xxxx
Of course, I knew I should pass: long
experience has shown me that a big hand
opposite a yarborough always produces a
minus score. But Bruce was old-fash-
ioned, and probably expected me to keep
the bidding open, and he did seem really
excitable today. I didn’t want him to
have a heart attack or something. Perhaps,
just this once, it might be wise to accom-
modate him, even though it was the
wrong bid. What was the least encourag-
ing response I could make? Of course, a
simple raise of his suit.
"3♣" I bid loudly.
This brought a rebid of 3 ♠ from
Bruce. I thought about passing this, too,
but again decided in the interests of peace
and harmony to keep the bidding alive;
again, the weakest action was a simple
raise, so I bid 4 ♠ , and Bruce leapt to
6♠.
Now, experience has taught me that
hands can gain or lose value as the bid-
ding progresses. I had four spades in-
cluding the eight and nine, as well as a
four-card fit with what his first suit, while
partner was prepared to play a small slam
opposite a hand that so far had made only
minimum calls.. Clearly this hand was
now worth another bid, and I raised Bruce
to 7♠. RHO led the ❤Q and I tabled the
dummy.
 ♠ AKQ7 ruffed another diamond with the ♠8 as
❤ AK RHO discarded a second low club. The
diamonds were now good, so Bruce drew
◆ AK862 trumps and claimed while I tried to esti-
♣ AQ mate how many matchpoints we'd get for
♠ 643 ♠ J10 this result. Most pairs, I reasoned, would
❤ 8765 ❤ QJ109 find their four-four spade fit and bid slam,
but some would fail to get to the cold
◆ 75 ◆ QJ109 grand so we probably could expect to get
♣ K876 ♣ J109 at least an average plus. I heard Bruce
♠ 9852 address me.
❤ 432 "Finally, one of your stupidities
worked." he said pleasantly. "Whatever
◆ 43 possessed you to make a positive re-
♣ 5432 sponse with a yarborough?"
Bruce quickly won the heart lead, played "I don't know, Bruce,” I replied, for
the ◆A and ◆K, and then ruffed a dia- once biting back a snappy one-liner. “I
mond with the ♠9. He returned to his guess the Devil made me do it."
hand with a successful club finesse and

June 1993
 Making Bridge Masters
F r e d G i
W hen Sheri
Winestock
and I originally
conceived our
Bridge Master
computer program,
we had two objec-
tives. First, we
wanted to make a product that would im-
prove the user's declarer play; second, we
wanted people to have fun using it.
It did not take us long to realize that
our second objective had been met.
Bridge Master was certainly fun, and vir-
tually everyone who tried the product
became quickly addicted. It is starting to
seem that we also succeeded in our first
objective; we have received hundreds of
letters and phone calls from around the
world in which players have told us how
good our product has been for their card
play. I also have some more direct evi-
dence: both Sheri and I have been having
more than our fair share of well-played
hands. Here are a couple of my recent
favourites:
♠ KQ
❤ 754
◆ 432
♣ A5432
♠ AJ109876
❤ AQ32
◆ AQ
♣ ---
This is a hand from the National Mixed
Pairs at the Spring Nationals in Kansas
City. The auction is too embarrassing to
print but I ended up in 6♠ after RHO had
Canadian Master Point
t e l m a n
shown 6-5 in the minors and LHO had
doubled a heart bid, presumably showing
long hearts including the king; the open-
ing lead was a club. How would you plan
the play?
If you are a Bridge Master user, that
❤ 7 is no doubt bothering you; every
other spot card in the hand is in perfect
order except the ❤7. Well, it turns out
the ❤7 is indeed the key to the solution.
You can make the hand if RHO has a
singleton ❤6 or ❤8 provided that you
play properly and read the position. Win
the ♣A discarding a heart, and finesse the
◆Q. Cross to dummy in spades and ruff
a club in hand. Cross again in spades
(RHO discards) and ruff another club
(LHO discards). Finish your trumps
making sure not to discard any hearts
from dummy.
♠ ---
❤ 754
◆ 43
♣ ---
♠ --- ♠ ---
❤ KJ? ❤ 8
◆ 65 ◆ KJ10
♣ --- ♣ ---
♠ A
❤ AQ3
◆ A
♣ ---
On the play of the ♠A, LHO must come
down to a singleton diamond (if he
pitches a heart, you can set up a heart
trick by playing ace and another). Now
the ◆ A strips LHO's last diamond (it
would have been fatal to cash the ◆A
earlier, as LHO could then have kept two
hearts and a winning diamond in the end-
game). LHO is now down to three hearts
-- but which three?
At the table, LHO had discarded the
❤ 6 and ❤ 9; I guessed correctly that
RHO began with a singleton ❤8 and that
LHO was now down to KJ10 in hearts, so
I exited with the ❤3 to endplay LHO.
Notice that if LHO instead had retained
the ❤6 to avoid this fate (coming down
to KJ6), I can succeed by exiting with the
❤Q: LHO wins the ❤Q as RHO's ❤8
is pinned, and at trick twelve, LHO is
endplayed into giving me my twelfth
trick with that vital ❤7!
One of the most important charac-
teristics of a good declarer is the ability
to recognize situations they have seen
before. The situation described above is
a variation of a position known in the
literature as a "one-suit squeeze". While
I had never executed a one-suit squeeze
before at the table, I was familiar with the
position because Bridge Master contains
a very similar problem. As soon as the
dummy came down I recognized the situ-
ation and knew what to do; the whole
hand took thirty seconds to play.
As we all know, inducing good op-
ponents to misdefend can be every bit as
satisfying as a great technical play. Sheri
executed a brilliant swindle on this deal
from the CNTC District Final:
♠ A2
❤ AJ9876
◆ 32
♣ 432
♠ K3
❤ 2
◆ AKJ109
♣ K8765
LHO North RHO South
Sheri
1♠ 2❤ 2♠ Dbl.1
3♠2 Pass Pass 3NT
All Pass
1. Responsive
2. Competitive
The opening lead was the ♠J (standard
leads). You can try planning the play
yourself on this hand, but I doubt you
will work it out. This deal is not as tech-
nically complex as the last one, but the
swindle is very hard to see.
Sheri won the opening lead with the
♠K in hand and continued with a heart to
the jack and king. This was a good play
for two reasons. First, the bidding made
it a distinct possibility that LHO had both
the ❤ K and ❤ Q; LHO would likely
play low from KQx expecting Sheri to
have a doubleton and to make the normal
misguess of playing the nine from
dummy. The second reason it was a good
idea to play a heart to the jack has to do
with the swindle: watch what hap-
pened.
RHO returned the ♠Q to dummy's
ace. As RHO had shown up with the ♠Q
and ❤K, there were only twelve points
left that LHO could hold; LHO must
therefore have the ❤Q for her opening
bid. Sheri stranded the ❤A in dummy,
cashed the ◆A and ◆K felling LHO's
doubleton ◆ Q, and then ran her dia-
monds. LHO (who had begun with 6322
distribution and the ❤Qxx) was under
the illusion that she was squeezed on the
last diamond:
(continued on next page)
June 1993
 ♠ --- Oh sure, RHO might have played
❤ A987 his four little diamonds from the top
down so that LHO would know to throw
◆ --- hearts. LHO might have also worked out
♣ 32 that discarding the ♣A on the last dia-
♠ 1098 mond could never be worse than discard-
❤ Qx ing a spade (except perhaps with respect
to overtricks). The fact is that few pairs
◆ --- make defensive carding agreements de-
♣ A signed to avert pseudo-squeezes. And of
♠ --- course, if Sheri had had a second heart
❤ --- and one less club, the “squeeze without
the count” would have been legitimate.
◆ 9 Certainly, Bridge Master contributed
♣ K7654 to giving Sheri a good understanding of
On the play of the ◆9 LHO, convinced advanced squeeze play; however, this
that Sheri had a second heart, discarded a hand goes beyond mere technique. Sheri
spade winner. Sheri carefully pitched a knew she had no legitimate play for her
heart from the dummy and played a club contract, but her opponents could not
to LHO's now singleton ace. LHO had know that, and she took full advantage of
only two spades to cash and had to give the fact. I know Sheri could not have
Sheri the last two tricks with the ❤A and played a hand this well six months ago;
♣K. Making 3NT on a pseudo-squeeze Sheri believes Bridge Master is largely
without the count! responsible.

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

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

Canadian Master Point

 Solution on pg. 33

Bridge Crossword
J oh n G oo l d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

11 12

13

14 15

16

17 18 19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26 27

28 29

Across Down
1. We hear him simply ask for aces (9) 1. If bridge does this, you may be unable to
2. Closes a hundred in the hole (5) pass (5)
3. Notes hands for later discussion (7) 2. I uncoat awkwardly before the play starts (7)
10. Obey your rabbi and find the king here (7) 3. Bold captain (4)
11. Erroneous lisp (4) 4. Kibitzer can look, right? (8)
12. Could make room in plan describing us 5. Floods of words mixed up; the point’s
(and them) (10) inside (7)
14. Digitally informed? (8) 6. Philosophical expert? (4,6)
15. Theosophy in the vast rally (6) 7. Inner space formerly without one - it turns
17. Dealer can be too (6) (7)
19. Normal procedure in the Midnight Swiss 8. Coup for bridge cruise (5,5)
(4,4) 13. Saint might get the French author for travel
22. Overturned moped’s horn rocks inside a book (5,5)
rock (10) 14. Deceive double-dealing comic (9)
23. Hangout for swinging players? (4) 16. Play for second trick in the wash? (4,4)
26. Student of UK system, we hear (7) 18. Iron dad could be a mechanical player (7)
27. Uptricks in the Seniors game? (7) 20. Quiet rocker (7)
28. Trick shuffle (well-known in the Wild West) 21. Cop stop (6)
(5) 24. Second-rate play could bring tears to the
29. Expert partner for 7 down? (3, 6) eyes (5)
25. Trade for a handout (4)
June 1993
 Kansas City Roundup
R a y L e e

Slam Dunk Your lead (by the way, a whole board

hangs on this card, as you probably fig-

T he defence of
second in the
NABC Mixed
ured out).
My informal poll of experts since
March has produced about a 90-10 split
Pairs at the Spring between club leaders and diamond advo-
Nationals got off cates. I, too, chose a club, which was
to an inauspicious wrong, since partner had two cashing
start for Linda and me on this hand, diamond winners which disappeared on
which set the tone for the first Qualifying dummy’s clubs. In retrospect, though,
session: the auction provides some clues: clearly
♠10964 ❤84 ◆104 ♣J7543 declarer didn’t want just to ask for aces,
which is why he started cue-bidding, so
As South, white against red, you hold there must be something about his hand
the above uninspiring collection, and the that just knowing the umber of aces
following auction takes place: wasn’t going to help with; on this logic,
East South West North a diamond lead becomes much more
interesting.
1❤ Pass 3♠1 Dbl. It was little consolation to discover
4♣ 4♠ Pass Pass after the game that Sean Ganness (some-
4NT Pass 5❤2 Pass times of Toronto or Ottawa) had not
6❤ Pass Pass Dbl. fared much better when at his table the
North player risked a lead-directing 4◆
All Pass call instead of doubling 3♠; Sean found
1. Splinter that +650 was worth very few match-
2. 2 keycards, no ❤Q points.

Canadian Master Point

 However, just to prove that you Linda ruffed the first trick, and, noting
can’t be wrong all the time, try this one, my diamond spot, returned the requested
which comes from the last round of one club. Declarer saw a thin chance to bring
of the Regional Swiss games. We (Linda home the slam, and gave it a good try by
and I, Jim Howie, and Andy Stark of winning the ♣A, playing the ♠Q to the
Yellowknife) won this match to clinch a ace, and attempting to shed a club on the
Canadian one-two behind Jonathan ♠K (actually, an immediate heart finesse
Steinberg and Hans Jacobs, who were is a better line, but doesn’t help as the
playing with three US experts. cards lie). I ruffed the spade, cashed the
You (South) are to lead against 6❤ ♣K, and partner still scored the ❤K for
from this hand: a three-trick set. This hand was the dif-
♠10 ❤64 ◆J75432 ♣K1063 ference in the match, as twelve tricks in
notrumps are easy from the East hand,
The auction has gone: while 6❤ is an easy make on any other
West East lead.
Note partner’s restraint in deciding
2♣ 3♣1 not to make a Lightner double, in case
3♠2 4❤3 6NT was a makeable retreat. It turns out
4NT4 5◆5 that on this auction they will play it from
6❤ the wrong side, and go down on the
natural club lead, but she was not to
know that -- if I held the ◆K instead of
1) ♣A, no other aces. the ♣K, 6NT would make from either
2) Natural side.
3) Natural
4) Asking for kings Mirror images
5) 1 or 4 kings
Here is a pretty pair of hands on the
Well, did you lead your stiff spade, same theme from two Canadian defend-
or did you try something else? I rea- ers. First Fred Gitelman on defence
soned that they weren’t off any aces on against 3 ◆ on this layout from the
this auction, so trying for a spade ruff National Open Pairs, in which he fin-
was a very long shot, and a club didn’t ished seventh.
look right with the ace known to be on
my right. So I tried the ◆2, with dra- ♠ J108742
matic results. The whole hand was: ❤ A
◆ J952
♠ 987642
♣ K6
❤ K82
♠ K5 ♠ A63
◆ ---
♣ 9752 ❤ Q1064 ❤ K97
♠ AKJ53 ♠ Q ◆ 74 ◆ Q103
♣ J10953 ♣ AQ42
❤ AQJ ❤ 109753
♠ Q9
◆ A98 ◆ KQ106
❤ J8532
♣ QJ ♣ A84
◆ AK86
♠ 10
♣ 87
❤ 64
◆ J75432
♣ K1063
June 1993
South West North East
Silver Fred
1♣
1❤ 2♣ Dbl. Pass
2◆ 3♣ Pass Pass
3◆ All Pass
Joey Silver of Montreal found a trump
lead (thanks pard!), dummy played low,
and Fred quickly played -- the queen!
The ♠Q was taken by the king, and the
defence cashed the ♣A, the ♣Q, and the
♠A, and led a third spade. Declarer’s
illusion was complete, and not unreason-
ably he ruffed this trick with the king,
and played a diamond to the nine, to
score down one.
Now, also in an IMP game, you are
declarer in 6♠ on the following hand:
♠ J985
❤ A8643
◆ KQJ5
♣ ---
♠ AK42
❤ Q
◆ A109632
♣ J7
The low club lead is ruffed in
dummy, and a spade led towards hand,
on which East (Ian Crowe of Halifax)
plays the queen. If declarer stops to
think about the position, he will realise
that he should ruff a club in dummy
now, and cash the ♠J, after which the
contract is assured whatever the spade
position However, the name of the game
for the defence is to present declarer
with a chance to go wrong, and this one
certainly fell into the trap.
At trick three he played a spade to
the nine -- a perfect example of what
Allan Falk calles a “Nullo” (see Bridge
Toolkit), a play that can never gain but
only lose: even if East shows out, he all
declarer has done is trade a trump loser
Canadian Master Point
for a club loser. But East did not show
out; in a most unfriendly fashion he won
his doubleton ♠10, and gave his partner
a diamond ruff to set a cold slam!
Nil Desperandum!
Before the final session of the
NAOP Flight B event, Toronto’s Paul
Janicki and Rob Sewell overheard one
of the Flight C pairs talking to one an-
other in Polish. Paul struck up a conver-
sation and found that they were in eighth
place in their event, and had given up
hope of a really good finish. He encour-
aged them, pointing out that he and Rob
were in tenth in the Flight B, but that
since no-one had a really high score,
they didn’t consider themsleves out of
it.
The Flight C pair, thus fortified for
the evening session, picked up their
game and finished second overall.
Taking their own advice, however, Paul
and Rob turned on the afterburners to
score 86% over the last eight boards,
and win the Flight B event!
The two following hands made
major contributions to the Toronto pair’s
success; as it happens, Paul was declarer
both times:
♠ Q932
❤ A94
◆ 4
♣ AKQJ4
♠ A764 ♠ J105
❤ K862 ❤ 107
◆ KQ972 ◆ J108
♣ --- ♣ 97532
♠ K8
❤ QJ53
◆ A653
♣ 1086
Paul Janicki Rob Sewell
West North East South ♠ J96 ♠ K1032
Rob Paul ❤ 8754 ❤ KQJ
Pass Pass ◆ Q10 ◆ 85
1◆ Dbl. 2◆ 2❤ ♣ K986 ♣ AJ102
Pass 3♣ Pass 3NT ♠ A854
Pass 4❤ All Pass ❤ 3
Rob showed great judgment to pull 3NT ◆ AK9764
to 4❤, since even if South guesses the ♣ 54
heart position, he can only come to nine
tricks. However, now Paul had to make North East South West
the hand! Winning the opening diamond Rob Paul
lead, he ran the ❤Q, and led out the ♠K.
Pass 1♣ 1◆ 1❤
West won and returned a spade to the
dummy, and now Paul tried to cash the 2◆ Pass Pass 3♣
♣10 as West ruffed in. The spade con- Pass Pass 3♠ Pass
tinuation was ruffed in hand, East play- 4◆ All Pass
ing the jack, and now the hand was over. Again, Rob’s good bidding judgment
Paul cashed the ❤A, threw a diamond had left Paul with a challenge on play!
on the ♠9, and played clubs; West could The defence started with three rounds of
take his ❤K anytime, but that was the clubs, declarer ruffing in on the third
end of the defence. round. Now came a spade to the queen
The spade spots were critical, too, and ace, and East returned a trump to
on this hand: prevent a cross-ruff. Paul won the ◆A,
cashed the ♠A, and ruffed a spade in
♠ Q7 dummy, watching West contribute the
❤ A10962 ♠9 and ♠J to these tricks. Placing the
heart honours with East for the auction,
◆ J32
Paul now ran off his trumps, squeezing
♣ Q73 East between the ♠8 and the ❤A10 for
his tenth trick.

June 1993
 European Idea Comes to
Whitby
W hile cash tournaments have long
been common on the Continent,
they are just beginning to catch on in
North America (except for Calcutta’s
which have been around for a long time).
Last year the ACBL sanctioned its first
cash event in Las Vegas (where else?)
and this Fall a Marathon Tournament for
cash prizes will be held in Whitby (see ad
in this issue of CMP).
This event will offer local players a
chance to compete both for master points
(its a sectionally-rated silver point event)
and for a total of $3000.00 in cash prizes
(assuming 50 tables in play). There will
be a $750.00 first prize in each of two
sections: unlimited, and 0-1000 MP’s.
“What’s a marathon tournament?”
we asked organizer Peter Mott. He told
Canadian Master Point
us that the event will consist of four ses-
sions of IMP pairs, played straight
through; play will commence at 10.30 am
and is intended to end about twelve hours
and one hundred hands later. (Entries will
close at 10.00 am.)
It’s certainly an intriguing idea. We
can see potential for problems in late ses-
sions when some pairs will be in the hunt
and others nowhere, and all will be tired
and testy! We’re also not sure why the
organizers felt it necessary to secure an
ACBL sanction, since doing so resulted
in certain restrictions being applied to the
event regarding the prize fund. However,
we applaud their initiative, and it will
certainly be interesting to see how suc-
cessful this event is.
 A Tangled Web...
J oh n C u n
F rom time to time in the course of bid-
ding or play an old familiar concept
will present itself: comfortably, you think
"Aha, this is what I should do." And of
course, that is the very time you should
stop and reconsider.
The following hand surfaced during
an IMP Pairs game at the last year’s
Summer Nationals. Vulnerable against
not, I am in second chair, holding:
♠K872 ❤AQ109754 ◆6 ♣4
At IMP Pairs there are no team-mates to
placate, and, perhaps because there is an
element of randomness to it, after RHO
passes I decide to ignore the honoured
“Rule of 2 and 3” and open 4❤.
Fortunately, perhaps, LHO rescues
with 4 NT, but relief is short-lived as
partner chirps in with 5❤ . However,
RHO now bids a surprising 5♠.
What now? I suspect partner has
limited defensive prospects; I certainly
doubt that we can make twelve tricks in
hearts. RHO passed originally, so, unless
he is sandbagging, he will have good
minor suit support for his partner; per-
haps 5♠ was intended as lead-directing.
Do I have to double? Will partner
persevere in hearts if I pass? There seems
no clear indication that it is our hand, so
if partner bids again, he should have the
required controls. I pass, and, whatever
the arguments, 5♠ is passed out.
My trump holding suggests there is
no urgency to the lead. However, if the
❤A does not live, I shall need to find
partner with an ace. The ❤A does stand
up; dummy turns out to be:
♠Q2 ❤K8 ◆AKQ73 ♣KJ109
Well, what now? It looks like nothing
much can hurt, provided partner has
n i n gh a m
something good in spades, or the ace of
clubs. Now here's that little bell ringing
in my head. What if I lead a club and
partner ducks for some reason and the
club goes away? After all, partner does
not know I have a trump trick. Maybe
this is one of those hands where we force
partner to play us for a singleton rather
than a doubleton by not leading the suit
right away. In any case, what can be the
harm in leading a diamond? When I get
in on the king of trumps, I can lead a
club. Partner will then have no reason to
duck, so he will take the setting trick and
give me my club ruff for two down.
Does this logic sound good to you?
I switch to a diamond. Disaster!
Declarer wins the diamond, sheds a club
on the ❤ K and leads the ♠ Q off the
dummy. This effectively smothers part-
ner’s ♠ J and the ♠ K is our last trick.
Declarer’s hand was:
♠A109xx ❤x ◆Jxxxxx ♣x
It was hard to visualize declarer with a
6-5-1-1 hand, but my attempts to assist
partner in solving a non-existent problem
have given declarer the contract and a lot
of IMP’s. A club switch, which everyone
else would have made routinely, succeeds
admirably.
Ah well, One less old concept to
follow blindly.
Obviously at IMP scoring partner
should not duck the club ace since doing
so assumes you to have trump trick to
defeat the hand, and therefore the club
ace is the setting trick; there is no need to
play you for a doubleton club. However,
we’ve all got ourselves tangled up in the
logic of the situation from time to time...
Ed.
June 1993
Linda Lewis and Eric Rodwell

1992 Richmond Trophy winner

Cliff Campbell of Thunder Bay

Mike Passell and Billy Cohen

Canadian Master Point

 Canadian Calcutta
D a w n
A k i b i t z e r ’s
dream, the
C a n a d i a n
Invitational Pairs
Calcutta attracts
the rich and fa-
mous from all cor-
ners of the bridge
world. This year’s lineup for the March
weekend event included such well-
known names as Eisenberg, Casen,
Soloway, Passell, Meckstroth, Rodwell,
Wold, Levin, and Kasle (the latter pair
fresh from winning the prestigious
Sunday Times event in London), as well
as the eventual winners -- Eric Murray,
a hometown favourite, and Brian Glubok
of Michigan. Profits from the Calcutta
were to go to support the 1993 Canadian
Maccabi bridge team, and about $10,000
was raised for the cause.
With $150,000 at stake on 32 pairs,
the tension was high long before the first
John Gowdy and Eric Murray chat before the auction
M a c N e a l
hand was played; Murray’s participa-
tion was in doubt for some time, as he
had hurt his back earlier in the week on
the tennis court, and wasn’t sure that he
could actually sit for several hours at a
stretch. But he survived in vintage fash-
ion, as did an apocryphal parrot (“No, I
didn’t order room service, I ordered
roast parrot” was the saying of the week-
end), although he could be heard mutter-
ing “I’m too old for this stuff, I can’t
take this any more,” at frequent inter-
vals.
And when you’re hot, you’re hot.
The kibitzers watched stunned as Eric,
passed in a cuebid, brought home 4♥ on
a 4-2 fit, when 3NT and 5→ were both
normal and cold. Brian turned out to be
the perfect foil for Eric’s dry humour,
and he especially enjoyed this hand:
♠Jxx ❤KJ109xxx ◆Kx ♣x
June 1993
The auction was as follows: The auction:
West North East South West North East South
Eric Brian Eric Brian
Pass 1C 3H Pass 1◆ Pass 1❤ Dbl.
4H All Pass 2❤ Pass Pass Dbl.
LHO made a facedown lead, and Eric 3◆ Pass Pass Dbl.
tabled the dummy, remarking “I bid this
to make, partner.”
3❤ Pass Pass Dbl.
Pass 4♣ 4◆ Dbl.
♠Qx ❤Axx ◆AJ10 ♣xxxxx
Pass ?
Brian was thinking about the heart posi- Eric bid 5 ♣ , no-one doubled, and he
tion: “Opener is unlikely to have a heart wrapped it! Brian’s hand for his (consis-
void, since he failed to compete again tent) bidding?
over 4 ❤, so play the hearts the other ♠QJxxx ❤AKxx ◆--- ♣AJxx
way, and if RHO does have Qxx, fall
back on the diamond finesse ... an inter- Another great tournament, thanks to or-
esting hand on a club lead ....” LHO ganizer Irving litvack and auctioneer
turned over the card: a diamond. Ho Mike Moss. But Eric Murray, of course,
hum .... thank you, partner .... claim! had the last word: “Now,” he said, “I
The most memorable hand for the can retire.”
winners was the following, on which
Eric held:
♠xx ❤xx ◆xxx ♣K1098xx

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

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

Canadian Master Point

 A framework for discussion
(part 7)
M a r y P a u l

W e are continuing to deal with auctions that begin with an

opening bid of one of a major. Remember that the as-
sumed structure involves 5-card majors, a forcing 1 Notrump
response, limit raises, and Jacoby 2 Notrumps as your forcing
raise. This month’s article starts the discussion of sequences
after an opening bid of one of a major when opponents enter the
auction.

(INDIRECT INTERFERENCE BY OPPONENTS)

Opponents make a takeout double

1maj - dbl What does redouble mean?

Min hcp for rdbl?
Max. holding in partner's suit?
What is new suit bid?
Forcing or not? Y N
Can it be a 4-card suit (especially if
followed by raising opener's suit?) Y N
What is a pass followed by a raise on the next round?
What is a single raise?
How weak can it be?
What is double raise?
How many trumps?
How many points?
What is 1NT?
What is 2NT?
Fit? Y N
Limit raise? Y N
Better than limit raise? Y N
What is a jump in a minor?
Weak?
Fit jump (at least 5-4)? Y N
How good are the suits?
How many points?
After a 1❤ opening, what is 2♠?
Weak? Y N
What is double jump in a new suit?
Splinter with support? Y N
Limit raise values? Y N
June 1993
1❤ - pass - 1♠ - dbl redbl Does this show a good hand? Y N
Minimum hcp? Y N
Does it show a spade fit? Y N
Could it be 3-card support? Y N
2♣ or 2◆ Natural? Y N
Cuebid in support of spades? Y N
2❤ Does this promise a 6-card suit? Y N
2♠ Does this show 3-card support? Y N
Could it be three small? Y N
Does this show extra values? Y N
1NT Balanced hand? Y N
Weak or strong?
Point range?
3❤ Invitational? Y N
3♠ Invitational? Y N
Does it guarantee four trumps? Y N
2NT Balanced hand? Y N
Point range? Y N
3NT Solid hearts with minors stopped? Y N

1maj - pass - 1♠ - 2min redbl Shows a maximum? Y N

Point range?
Is it SOS? Y N
2 suit Minimum, 2-suiter? Y N
2 maj Promises 6-card suit? Y N
3 maj Good suit, invitational? Y N
3 min Jump shift, strong? Y N
Very distributional hand? Y N

Opponents make an overcall

1maj - pass - 1♠ - 2min dbl 3-card support for spades? Y N

Penalties? Y N
Good hand with fourth suit? Y N
Max. balanced hand? Y N
2◆, 2❤ Does this show additional values? Y N
or 2♠ Can 2♠ be bid on three small? Y N
Cuebid Jump shift, strong? Y N
Very distributional hand? Y N
3NT Balanced hand? Y N
Point range? Y N
Solid suit with stopper? Y N

1❤ - pass - 1NT - 2min dbl Penalties? Y N

Takeout for the other two suits? Y N
2❤ Does this promise a 6-card suit? Y N
2◆(/2♣) Is this at least a 4-card suit now? Y N

Canadian Master Point

 2♠ Is this a reverse? Y N
Is it forcing for 1 round? Y N
2NT Point range?
Can responder now bid as though
there had been no overcall? Y N
3❤ Invitational, good suit? Y N
J. Shift Jump shift, strong? Y N
Very distributional hand? Y N
3NT Balanced hand? Y N
Point range? Y N
Solid suit with stopper? Y N
Cuebid Asking for a stopper? Y N
Strong hand? Y N

1♠ - pass - 1♠ - 2min dbl Penalties? Y N

Takeout for the other two suits? Y N
2♠ Does this promise a 6-card suit? Y N
Can it be a minimum? Y N
2◆/(2♣) Is this at least a 4-card suit now? Y N
2❤ Can this be a 4-card suit? Y N
Can it be a minimum? Y N
3 suit Invitational, good suit? Y N
2NT Point range?
Can responder now bid as though
there had been no overcall? Y N
J. Shift Jump shift, strong? Y N
Very distributional hand? Y N
3NT Balanced hand? Y N
Point range? Y N
Solid suit with stopper? Y N
Cuebid Asking for a stopper? Y N
Strong hand? Y N

June 1993
 Swiss Teams Tactics
K e n W
W hen consid-
ering Swiss
Teams tactics, it is
necessary always
to keep in mind
the basic differ-
ences in scoring
between match-
points and IMP's. At matchpoints, every
board is weighted equally and therefore
a neatly defended or played partscore
can score just as much as a delicately
bid and played grand slam. At IMP's, of
course, the partscore result will soon be
forgotten but the slam hand could be
remembered for weeks or months. The
other major difference in scoring is the
relative importance of the margin of vic-
tory or loss on each board. At match-
points, the difference between +460 and
+430 can be just as important as the dif-
ference between +1100 and +430, but at
IMP's, the first pair of results is nor-
mally inconsequential while the second
set will usually have a tremendous im-
pact on the outcome of a match.
The key idea from this concept is
the need to concentrate particularly hard
and be extra careful to avoid mistakes
on play and bidding decisions at the
game and slam level. This is not to say
that partscores are not important, be-
cause they are (a double partscore swing
is roughly equivalent to missing a non-
vulnerable game) but in the long run
many more matches are decided by
game and slam swings than on
partscores.
One of the doctrines that is com-
monly preached with regard to Swiss
Teams is the importance of not doubling
partscores (or at least those that you fail
to beat). The tenet behind this concept
Canadian Master Point
a r r e n
is that when you compare your potential
gain to what you are risking, a close
double will not pay off in the long run.
Let's say you double 3❤ and beat it one
for +100. Your double has gained 2
IMP's. If they make it, you score -530
instead of -140 for a loss of 9 IMP's.
Therefore you have to defeat the con-
tract more than 9/11 of the time to come
out ahead in this situation.
I believe that this idea has been
taken too literally by many players who
are missing out on some very juicy pen-
alty doubles. I believe you should dou-
ble a partscore when you are anticipating
more than a one-trick set; this gives you
some leeway for a poor lead, poor bid-
ding judgment, or an undisclosed distri-
butional freak. It also means that when
you are right, your gain will be more
significant. In the situation described
previously, a two-trick set means you
gain 5 IMP's and a three-trick set means
you gain 8 IMP's. Here are some clues
as to when you should double: your side
does not have a fit; you have a trump
holding that is going to be an unpleasant
surprise to declarer; you know what to
lead and can visualize the defense (e.g.
a cross ruff). Never double strictly on
the basis of high-card points. If the op-
ponents are bidding aggressively with a
known paucity of high cards, it probably
means that your side has a giant fit and
would be better off playing the hand.
Some contracts that can be doubled
with very little risk and huge potential
profits are 1NT, 2♣, and 2◆, since they
do not generate a game bonus if they
make. Conversely, if you are doubled in
one of these contracts and think you
have any kind of shot at making it, you
should consider redoubling. This strat-
egy has two ways of winning: you may
play it there and make it, scoring up a
game contract out of thin air, or you may
talk the opponents out of a penalty they
were about to collect. In any case, their
opportunity for a low-risk double no
longer exists. In general, doubling
partscores, when you know what you are
doing and have a sympathetic partner
and teammates, can be very rewarding
and profitable. Never double for a one-
trick set as you might do quite frequently
at matchpoints when you are trying to
score +200 instead of +100. This is fre-
quently a huge gain in matchpoints but
is not that significant at IMP's and cer-
tainly not worth the risk and aggrava-
tion.
If you don't feel confident trying to
estimate how many tricks the opponents
might go down, try a little practice at no
cost. When you have a hand that you
think is a borderline double, pass and
make a note of the result. After nine or
ten of these situations, take a look at
what your results would have been if
you had doubled every time compared
to passing every time. If you would
have done significantly better by dou-
bling, then you should start doubling
more often and then try the same process
again, using a different threshold for
what constitutes a close double.
Eventually you will find yourself judg-
ing these close situations much better
and what you once considered a difficult
situation or a guess will eventually be-
come a much more routine decision.
One thing to remember is that you
must be prepared to be wrong on occa-
sion. If nobody is ever making doubled
contracts against you then you are cer-
tainly not doubling enough. The fear of
having a doubled partscore make is
much greater than it need be when you
consider that it is not any more harmful
than any other game swing that can be
caused by an unfortunate opening lead,
a defensive slip, or poor bidding judg-
ment. This type of swing happens all
the time but people tend not to get as
agitated about it as they do when the
unthinkable happens, and a doubled
partscore makes.
Another common philosophy that
one often hears with regard to IMP's is
that one should always stretch to bid
vulnerable games even when they don't
rate to make. This logic is based on the
following argument: if you bid and
make a vulnerable game and the oppo-
nents stop in a partscore you will win 10
IMP's (+620 versus +170); however if
you bid a game and you are wrong you
will lose only 6 IMP's (-100 versus
+140). Thus you are risking 6 IMP's to
win 10 when you bid a close vulnerable
game and therefore you will come out
slightly ahead in the long run by consis-
tently bidding 40% games in this situa-
tion.
In the real world things are not al-
ways this cut and dried. This analysis
fails to take into account that when you
bid an aggressive game and the cards are
not sitting well for you, you will fre-
quently go down more than one and you
are very likely to get doubled. This
means that the -100 you were counting
on if things went wrong can sometimes
be -200 or -500 or even -800. It is dif-
ficult to factor this consideration into the
analysis realistically, as it is very depen-
dent on who your opponents are at the
time, but it is important to keep it in
mind.
Something else to keep in mind at
Swiss Teams is the relative strength of
your team as compared to your oppo-
nents. If you are playing against a team
that is significantly stronger than yours,
your best chance of winning will come
from trying to take actions that will
probably not be duplicated by your op-
ponents, but which nonetheless still have
some reasonable chance to be success-
ful. For example, if you need five tricks
from
June 1993
 AJx
K1098x
the normal play is to cash the ace and
finesse towards the king. The advantage
of finessing this way is that it enables
you to pick up queen fourth onside as
well as dropping a singleton queen off-
side. You may be able to pick up a big
swing by finessing the other way, al-
though you will have to give up on pick-
ing up queen fourth or the singleton
queen this way.
Some other small variations that
may produce a swing in your favour are
opening a weak two bid on a 5-card suit;
preempting one level higher than you
expect your opponents will; not pre-
empting at all on an obvious pre-empt;
making a strength-showing redouble
when you have a weak hand and a fit
with partner; and confidently bidding a
vulnerable game that probably has no
play when the opponents have found a
fit, in the hope of inducing a phantom
save. Once you have been fortunate
enough to score a significant swing in
your favour in this manner, you should
go back to playing your usual solid
steady game and not continue to hope
for more unlikely favourable results.
It is also useful to know as much as
possible about your teammate’s style
and system. This will enable you to
gauge what the results on some of the
boards are likely to be at the other table.
You should be very careful, however,
with how you use this information. I
believe that when you have one bad re-
sult you should not look for unusual ac-
tions to try to gain the one board back.
This strategy is often a total disaster and
loses a match that your teammates were
winning comfortably, to say nothing of
creating a need to find new teammates
for your next team game. However, if
you have two bad boards and no com-
pensating good results it might be right
to bid an aggressive slam, a questionable
grand slam, or make a risky penalty
double near the end of the match. It is a
lot to expect your partners to have
Canadian Master Point
enough good scores to make up for two
bad results in a seven-board match. In a
long knockout match that is still rela-
tively close, or an event such as the
CNTC where each IMP = 1 Victory
Point, it is definitely wrong to try this
strategy, and it can do a lot to damage
team morale and harmony even when it
works.
A lot of IMP's can be won by the
ability to uncover and bid minor suit
slams. This aspect of bridge can be very
difficult because people tend to play
matchpoints much more often than
IMP's where 3NT is often the highest
scoring contract. Therefore most bid-
ding systems, especially when combined
with people’s natural matchpoint tenden-
cies, tend to steer you towards 3NT
when you don't have a major suit fit.
The best solutions to this problem are
not very practical unless you and your
partner are really serious about spending
a lot time on your system or want to
concentrate primarily on IMP's. For ex-
ample, you could develop two types of
bidding system - one for matchpoints
and one for IMP's. Most of us change
our style to some extent when we switch
from one form of the game to another
but we don't have the formal changes in
our system structure which are probably
necessary to succeed in each area.
Another option is to design your system
strictly for IMP's and minimize the
amount of matchpoints you play.
It is important at IMP's to defend
aggressively; always trying to set the
opponents contract. Overtricks, while
crucial at matchpoints, mean very little
at IMP's. You should always try to
imagine what partner might possibly
hold to enable you to defeat the contract
and play him for those cards. Only
when you can count declarer’s top tricks,
and are 100% sure that he knows that
these tricks are available, should you
concern yourself with overtricks.
Sometimes you may know that declarer
can make a contract with a certain line
of play, but it may not be obvious to
him, and you may be able to convince
him to adopt a losing line of play.
Suppose your side cashes the first three
tricks in a suit against 3NT and you are
in a position to cash the 13th card in that
suit, but you also hold a potentially crit-
ical queen in another suit. If you don't
cash the trick but switch to some other
suit, the declarer may very well place
that 13th card in your partner's hand and
finesse him for the crucial queen allow-
ing you to set a contract that might have
otherwise made. You should freely duck
tricks with aces and kings or with four
trumps to the ace or king, and smoothly
play your highest honour from K10x or
Q10x in situations where declarer might
be finessing for the 10.
You should also be more inclined
to make lead-directing doubles at IMP's
if you feel that a particular lead is
needed to defeat the contract and that it
is not likely to be forthcoming without
your double. The philosophy is again
that what you stand to gain is a lot
greater than what you are risking. For
example, if the auction goes 1NT - 3NT
and you hold a 5-card suit headed by
AKQJx you would double at any form
of scoring. Let's say you held KQJ10x
and an outside ace, you should double at
IMP's even though declarer may have
nine easy tricks, because the lead of your
suit is the only real hope of defeating
this contract and it probably won't hap-
pen without the double. Even a double
with KQJ10x and a side king is probably
a good gamble at IMP's.
Another example of how your
thinking should be different at IMP's is
the following situation. Your partner
leads a suit against 3NT and you hold
KQx and the dummy has Ax. Declarer
ducks the first trick and you win your
queen. You have an outside Ace and
don't expect partner to have an entry. At
matchpoints you have to consider
whether to return a low card and set up
your king or to return the king and hope
partner has J10xx or Jxxxx. At IMP's
you should always return the king, as
this gives you your best chance to defeat
the contract and is probably only risking
an overtrick.
Conversely, when you are declaring
a hand you should play super safely to
guarantee your contract. Lets say you
are playing the following hand in 3NT:
♠ xx
❤ xxxx
◆ AKQxxx
♣ x
♠ AKx
❤ AK
◆ xx
♣ AJxxxx
After a spade lead you should play
a low diamond from both hands at trick
two. This will guarantee you ten tricks
if diamonds are not divided 5-0. If you
cash the ◆AK and they break 4-1, you
will find yourself with only eight tricks
and going down in an cold contract un-
less an opponent has the ♣KQ double-
ton. At matchpoints this line of play
would be considered inferior because of
the importance of taking the eleven
tricks which are probably available.
Another example that I have seen
misplayed several times is a trump suit
of
AQ10xx
xxxx
where you need only to limit yourself to
one loser to ensure your contract. It can
never cost to cash the ace and then lead
towards your Q10xx: you will drop any
singleton honour and never be in a posi-
tion of having to guess anything. If you
take and lose a first round finesse of ei-
ther the queen or the ten, you are going
to be in a very uncomfortable situation
when you lead the suit for a second time:
to finesse or not to finesse? At match-
points this is a completely different
proposition: you must consider how
popular this contract will be at other ta-
bles and determine the importance of
June 1993
losing no tricks in this suit if possible, in To summarize, the best advice that
which case a first-round finesse of the I can give you for Swiss Teams is always
queen is the best play. to remember that you are playing IMP's
A last example of a safety play at and to keep firmly entrenched in your
IMP's that you probably wouldn't take at mind how the scoring differs from
matchpoints is the following trump matchpoints. All of the best strategies
suit: are simply extensions of this one basic
AJx concept.
K9xxx
where you can afford to lose one trump
trick but not two. You should cash the
ace and then lead towards the Jx: this
will enable you to pick up Q10xx in ei-
ther hand and also pick up a singleton
queen opposite 108xx for only one loser.
A first-round finesse of the jack will lose
two tricks when you lose to a singleton
queen, while cashing the AK will lose
two tricks to Q10xx in either hand.

Canadian Master Point

 Competing Over 1NT
E d B u r g a n

A couple of
years ago at
t h e To r o n t o
Obviously one can compete more ag-
gressively with a system that allows
partner to pick from two suits at the two-
Regional, I over- level, rather than one that forces a poten-
heard at an adja- tial preference at the three-level.
cent table: “Sure, There are sixteen possibilities of
we’ve been play- contract after the overcall -- two each
ing Cappelletti for the six two-suiters, and four single-
against notrumps for about six months; suiters. I won’t bore you with charts
we really like it.” Not having heard of showing which of these contracts are at
Cappelletti, my interest was immediately the three-level and which at the two-
sparked. That night I dragged out my level; interested readers can easily make
somewhat outdated editions of “Kearse” up the table themselves. The results
and “The Encyclopedia of Bridge”, but show that using Brozel, twelve out of
to no avail; the convention was not listed the sixteen contracts can be played at the
in either publication. However, one of two-level (75%), while Cappelletti stays
the local club players had a write-up, at the two-level only nine times (56%).
which he was kind enough to supply. You can apply the same analysis to
After some careful study, I con- other popular conventions used to com-
cluded that Cappelletti was an effective pete over a 1NT opening bid; variations
tool against notrumps; but was it any of these conventions exist, so it is neces-
improvement over Brozel (in large part sary to make some assumptions, but the
the same as Pinpoint Astro), which I general results are as follows:
have been playing for several decades?
How do you make a meaningful com- Brozel 12/16 75%
parison of two conventions? For those Cappelletti 9/16 56%
not familiar with one or both, the fol- Pinpoint Astro 12/16 75%
lowing chart lists the basic meanings of Sahara 12/16 75%
the various bids over a 1NT opening: Roth-Stone Astro 8/16 50%
Vroom 11/16 69%
Bid Cappelletti Brozel
Astro 9/16 57%
Crash 7/16 44%
2C 1-suiter C+H
Uniclub (!) 16/16 100%
2D H+S D+H
2H H + min H+S Contracts available at the two-level
2S S + min S + min
In all fairness to Cappelletti, I should
2NT minors minors
point out that many experts agree that
dbl. penalties 1-suiter the penalty double is a necessary tool in
Again, how do we compare? One defence to weak notrump openings. If
important aspect is which is the more you agree with this, you may want to
competitive, i.e. which one allows you consider using Brozel over strong
to play the most contracts at a low level? notrumps, and Cappelletti over weak.

June 1993
 Don't Lower the Bridge...
M i c h a e l
S c ho e n bo r n

N ever was the

issue of de-
structive bidding
American rules forbidding the use of
certain systems is that they destroy the
constructive intellectual aspects of
systems so clearly bridge. It appears we can destroy the
defined for me as game either by allowing destructive bid-
when we received ding methods, or by disallowing strate-
the two-kilogram gies that have proven effective and are
package six weeks well within the rules.
before the 1987 Bermuda Bowl: it con- The answer is so deceptively sim-
tained the conventions and treatments of ple that you will be inclined to take it
a mere seven teams of opponents. Fully too lightly: change the scoring system
half of them played "ferts" -- "fertilizer" for undoubled non-vulnerable down-
bids that were basically intended just to tricks by charging 100 points for each
distrupt the opponents' auction. one after the second. This changes vir-
The rationale of such systems is tually nothing at matchpoints, but look
that the odds favour them, especially at the effect on the IMP scale: once re-
non-vulnerable; those odds are consider- ally silly bids that go five or six down
ably improved against players who have undoubled no longer have a large payoff,
no experience defending against these the rationale for destructive bids van-
methods. The reasoning behind North ishes.
Under Score IMP's vs. IMP's vs. New IMP's vs. IMP's vs.
nv. game vul. game score nv game vul. game
1 50 +8 +11 50 +8 +11
2 100 +7 +11 100 +7 +11
3 150 +6 +10 200 +5 +9
4 200 +5 +9 300 +3 +7
5 250 +4 +8 400 0 +5
6 300 +3 +7 500 -3 +3
What I find most interesting in the whole nerable scoring for undoubled under-
debate is that everyone wants to regulate tricks is urgently needed, to limit the
systems, when a scoring change would excess of coarse bluff bid."
work at least as well. I regret, however, What writer and what book was so
that I can't take credit for the idea, as I attuned to the bridge scourge of the 90's?
found it in the following passage: Why, Ely Cubertson, who wrote the
"There are many situations in which Contract Bridge Blue Book in 1932! He
the pass is the best and only defence. goes on to conclude that "otherwise, we
Unfortunately ... the pass loses most of shall witness an epidemic of such bids,
its sting when the player is not vulner- which though insane from the viewpoint
able. The most powerful defence against of logic, are justified on the basis of
coarse bluff bids, such as fake bids of score."
suits in which a singleton only is held, is Bingo.
a pass. A revision upward of non-vul-

Canadian Master Point

 J o h n G o w d y ' s T o y
S h o p p e
When Partner Preempts
J oh n G ow d y

I n modern bidding
methods, preempts
cover a wide range
shortness -- bid 4NT with diamond short-
ness, or 5♣ with extra goodies and no
shortness)
of hands, and this is- 4❤ or 4♠ (natural, but opposite a
sue’s toy is aimed at super maximum, interested in slam. Three
helping your part- trumps, shortness, and AK or AQ of clubs
nership cope with would qualify.
constructive bidding
after an opening If you bid 3NT directly over 3♣, you are
3♣. not asking opener his opinion of the con-
tract; you may have it in your own hand,
After your partner’s opening 3♣: or perhaps you have ♣AKxx.

3❤ and 3♠ are forcing -- you respond 4♣ over 3♣ is Keycard Blackwood : 4◆

by bidding 3NT with a singleton in the
suit bid. A new suit is shortness, with at
least two trumps and a simple raise shows
no shortness anywhere.
This leaves 3◆ -- an artificial bid
that forces opener to bid 3❤, so that re-
sponder can make one of the following
calls:
Pass (if opener had a great hand for
hearts, he could have bid 3♠)
3♠ -- invitational
3NT -- with a message: “I need you
to have a good preempt (2 of the top 3
honours minimum)”
4♣ (forcing, asking for shortness)
4◆ (natural and forcing, asking for
= 0, 4❤ =1, 4♠ = 2 with no ♣Q, 4NT =
2 with the ♣Q.
4◆ shows both majors -- opener should
pick one to play.
4❤ and 4♠ are natural and to play --
opener has no right to bid on.
The advantages are many: it’s easy to
remember and if the right hand comes up
you have a huge edge. Admittedly it’s
rare, but if you and your partner are seri-
ous, it is in this kind of situation where
hard work and good methods pay off.

Canadian Master Point Subscription Form

Although Canadian Master Point is available free of charge at certain bridge clubs and bridge supply houses in South Ontario, I
would like to have it mailed to me on publication. I enclose $15.00 for five issues.

June 1993
 The Case of the
Vanishing Trick
M i k e C a ff e r a t a

M y partner and I hold the following

two hands and cleverly arrive at
5 rather than 3NT (let’s say we were
♣
low heart switch. Oh goody, she must
have thought that the high spade was suit
preference, so I’ll just pull trumps and
trying for slam). wrap this hand up. Whoops again -- RHO
shows out on the first club.
♠ QJ9 Why didn’t LHO continue spades?
❤ KJ9 Why did she shift to a low heart? She
must have a stiff ♠A and maybe three or
◆ AK9x
four hearts. I can discard a low spade
♣ 109x from each hand but that will still leave
me with a spade and club loser. Do I have
♠ xxx a chance of LHO has four hearts? I cash
❤ AQxx four rounds of hearts and she has to fol-
low: that means she is 1-4-3-5, so I play
◆ x ◆A, ◆K, ruff a diamond, and lead my
♣ AKQxx losing spade. Yes, she has to ruff and lead
The ♠Α is led and East encourages away from her ♣J for my 11th trick.
(uh,oh, spade ruff and one down right Sorry partners: lose an IMP.
away when 4NT was cold...). Whoops --

Crossword Solution (See pg. 12)

Across Down
1. Blackwood 1. Burns
6. Loses 2. Auction
9. Records 3. Kirk
10. Offside 4. Observer
11. Slip 5. Drowns
12. Pronominal 6. Life master
14. Fingered 7. Spinner
15. Astral 8. Swell play
17. Leader 13. Peter Mayle
19. Late play 14. Falsecard
22. Endomorphs 16. Bath coup
23. Club 18. Android
26. Acolyte 20. Lullaby
27. Overage 21. Arrest
28. Dodge 24. Blear
29. Top player 25. Deal

Canadian Master Point

 A 99er's View
J a y L i n d e n

W ell, actually, I’m still only a 49er.

Remember when you couldn’t yet
see the double squeeze developing, and
I thought partner’s double should show at
least an opening bid, so since I didn’t
want to play four of a major on a 4-3 fit
had your plate full remembering to play with the long hand getting punched and
the honours in your hand before the long the suit unlikely to break, and 4♣ was
cards on the board? unappealing, I decided to try for 3NT.
Still, things can be interesting down The ◆J was led (presumably a sin-
here. My partner and I are working on gleton), and I was quite surprised when
our bidding system, reading fanatically, dummy came down and I found myself
almost desperately. Recently we tried a playing 3NT with only 20 points between
modified Multi- 2◆, and used an opening the two hands. I covered the diamond,
bid of two of a major as intermediate; we East won the ace and continued the suit,
haven’t decided yet how useful that is, and I won in hand. At least I now had a
but it was great fun! The novices looked second stopper.
at us in awe, while the more experienced I immediately played a heart up, and
opponents smiled and said “Gee, I gave West hopped with the queen, crashing his
that up years ago.” partner’s ace! If East switches to a low
The following hand came up early club now, I am still going South, but,
in a 99er game at the recent Regional at obviously rattled, he played another dia-
the Royal York: mond. After this I was able to make five
spade tricks, two diamonds, a heart, and
E-W Vul. the ♣A.
OK, it was a strange auction, and
♠ K8732 even stranger defence; but the field was
❤ J9872 in various spade contracts, against which
the bad guys take the first six tricks on a
◆ Q8
cross-ruff! Despite getting all the match-
♣ A points on this hand, we had to settle for
♠ J94 ♠ 106 second place and a chunk of a red point.
❤ KQ103 ❤ A Which brings me to my last point. I
like master points as much as the next
◆ J ◆ A976432 guy, but I deeply resent that all games in
♣ Q19653 ♣ K87 Regional tournaments are now for red
♠ AQ5 points. I treasure the reds I’ve earned -- a
❤ 654 third place in tough open side game, 0.84
◆ K105 in the COPC qualifying round, etc., and I
feel that a newcomer should have to do
♣ J942 more than win a section top in a 0-5 or
East South West North 0-20 game to earn more reds than I have
3D Pass Pass Dbl. collected lifetime. I want to know, should
I ever make Life Master, that I had to be
Pass 3NT All Pass good enough to win the pigments against
real opposition.

June 1993
f o r f u t u r e e x p e r t s
Passed hand bidding (1)
b a r b a r a s e a g r a m

A new suit re-

sponse to an
opening bid is 100%
Bid 2♠, showing 11 or 12 and a five-card
suit. It is a matter of partnership agree-
ment whether this is forcing for one
forcing on the open- round or just highly invitational.
ing bidder -- except ♠Kxx ❤xx ◆Axxx ♣KJxx
when responder has
p a s s e d i n i t i a l l y. Responder Opener
This has enormous Pass 1❤
implications for the
?
rest of the auction,
and changes all the normal rules for re- This hand should bid 2NT -- not showing
sponder. 13-15 hcp any more, but 11 or 12, a max-
Since partner is not forced to bid imum passed hand.
again, responder must be prepared to play ♠KJx ❤xx ◆KJx ♣K10xxx
the hand in any suit he bids. He must
also remember that the opening bidder in Responder Opener
third seat may have opened light with a Pass 1❤
sub-minimum hand, in order to direct the
?
lead or to try to steal a part score; re-
sponder must therefore not get carried Again, bid 2NT, and not 2♣. Notrumps
away, a process that is commonly referred is the higher scoring contract, and partner
to as “hanging your partner”. might pass 2♣.
♠xxx ❤KJx ◆AQxxx ♣xx
Passed Hand Responding
Responder Opener
Responder’s first choice should be to Pass 1❤
raise partner’s major rather than bid a
?
new suit, since auctions such as 1❤ - 2◆
can stop very suddenly when opener If you normally play forcing raises (i.e.
passes! If at all possible, responder will 3❤ would usually show 13-15 points),
try to show a maximum pass when he has bid 3❤ now, showing 11 or 12 including
one, for example by making a jump shift. distribution. Remember you are a passed
This bid can no longer promise 18 or 19 hand, so you cannot have 13 points! Do
points, and is used to describe 11 or 12 not bid 2◆, as partner might pass and
points (including distribution) and a five- you would miss your eight-card heart
card suit. fit.
Let’s see how this works: If you play limit raises, nothing has
♠AQxxx ❤xx ◆Axx ♣Jxxx changed, and you can make your normal
bid of 3❤.
Responder Opener
Pass 1❤
?

Canadian Master Point

f o r f u t u r e e x p e r t s
Timing is Everything
B r i a n L i v i n gs t o n

P laying rubber bridge, at favourable

vulnerability and holding
♠xxx ❤KQJ109x ◆--- ♣AQxx
South opened 4❤. West doubled
and this became the final contract.
♠ KQJx
❤ Ax
◆ xxxx
♣ Jxx
♠ A109x ♠ xx
❤ x ❤ xxxx
◆ AKJx ◆ Qxxxx
♣ K109x ♣ xx
♠ xxx
❤ KQJ109x
◆ ---
♣ AQxx
North was no doubt hoping to hear 4♠
but was nevertheless content with this
contract, while South was pleasantly sur-
prised to see the dummy.
The opening lead was a high dia-
mond which declarer ruffed. How would
you continue? At first glance, it appears
that with a bad trump split, declarer may
lose control of the hand if the defence
continues with a forcing game. If trumps
break 5-0 there is no hope, so let’s sup-
pose trumps break 4-1. Declarer has
seven top tricks and needs to develop
three more in the black suits. If declarer
takes the club finesse and it loses, then
declarer has no time to set up spades. But
South can withstand a 4-1 trump split
even with the ♣K offside by timing the
hand properly.
The key is to recognize that there
are two finessing positions on the hand,
in clubs and in spades, and that one must
take the correct one first. After winning
the first trick, declarer draws trumps in
four rounds discarding diamonds from
the dummy and then plays a spade to the
king; assuming the ♠A is with West, the
hand is now cold. When South leads a
spade up, West must duck or South has an
easy ten tricks. South now crosses back
to hand with the ♣A and leads another
spade, and West must duck again. South
can now force out the ♣K for his tenth
trick.
The key factor here is timing; if de-
clarer finesses the club first, the defence
will force him to use up his last trump
while the ♠A is still out. However, since
West has the ♠A, he must allow South to
make two spade tricks without having to
give up the lead. By the time West gets
in on the club king to force out North’s
last trump, declarer has ten winners.
This type of position occurs more
frequently at notrump after the defence
has knocked out one of two stoppers on
opening lead. The positional threat to
win an extra trick allows declarer to
switch suits, cashing a trick first in one
suit and then another, while the defence
cannot afford to allow either suit to be
established.
Declarer went through his toolkit for
something to deflect the attack on the
trump suit. In this case he found some-
thing usually reserved for no trump
hands, but which served the same pur-
pose in a related situation.

June 1993
f o r f u t u r e
Matchpoint Tactics (1)
J o e S
C ompetitive bid-
ding occurs
when both sides are
involved in the auc-
tion. It is these types
of situations which
to a great extent
make or break your
score, that is, deter-
mine whether you
win or lose at duplicate bridge. It is rela-
tively easy to bid "mama-papa" style
when the opponents are silent. However,
much more difficult decisions have to be
made in competitive auctions, especially
at the three-level -- should we bid on,
should we pass, or should we double
them?
These decisions involve tactics that
are integrally related to the scoring at
matchpoints. The ins and outs of the scor-
ing must be understood by any player
who wants to succeed at duplicate. You
have no idea of the large number of peo-
ple who always want to sit East-West
because they do not know how to score!
Do your opponents go down every
time they are doubled? If so, then you are
probably not doubling frequently enough!
Assuming that your partnership defence
is sound, even if the opponents can in fact
make one out of six doubled contracts,
you will still come out ahead! Let's see
how the scoring system makes this hap-
pen:
In a selected session, six hands come
up where the opponents outbid you to the
three-level. Assume that 12 is top on a
board, 6 is average, and 0 is the bottom
score.
Canadian Master Point
e x p e r t s
e i g e l
Scenario 1
We let them play all six hands with-
out doubling them, since these are very
close doubles. Some hands go down a
trick, others two tricks, while one actu-
ally makes; on all these hands our side
could make a partscore as well. The
matchpoint scores for our side will be
less than average for the six hands --
some will be bottoms, some average-
minus, one maybe average. Let's be
generous and award ourselves a mathe-
matical average of 3 for each hand, giv-
ing us a total of 18 matchpoints.
Scenario 2
We double them on all six hands.
They make one, and we score an absolute
zero. On the other five hands, however,
they go down one or two tricks. Some
could be tops for us, some could be aver-
age, others could be average-plus. Let's
be very pessimistic and award slightly
better than average: 7 matchpoints only.
Our total for these hands is 35 match-
points -- almost double that in Scenario 1
even with a cold bottom on the sixth hand
of the set.
As this series continues we shall dis-
cuss other factors involved in matchpoint
tactics and competitive decisions.
Remember, do unto others ...
 Book Reviews...
The Squeeze at Bridge by Chien-Hwa
Wang. Cadogan Bridge. $18.95
Reviewed by Linda Lee.
T his book is an excellent treatise on all
forms of bridge squeezes; it is not
light entertainment, however, but is aimed
at the serious student of the game.
Although it does start right at the begin-
ning with basic definitions, the book
moves very quickly, and in most cases
the author gives only one or two exam-
ples for each subtype of squeeze. Often
that is enough since there really is not
that much difference between minor vari-
ants, but in some cases, such as the criss-
cross squeeze, more examples would be
welcome.
This is not a how-to book, but rather
a categorization of squeeze positions,
many of them very complex, some of
which were discovered by the author, a
Taiwan expert who is a regular contribu-
tor to Bridge magazine in the UK. This is
not escapist fare for summer vacation
reading, but if you have ever lain awake
at night worrying about the connection
between the guard clash squeeze and the
reverse jettison squeeze, this is the book
for you.
Hand Reading in Bridge by Danny
Roth. Victor Gollancz. $29.95
Reviewed by Linda Lee.
H and reading in Bridge is a terrific
book, although very pricey. It pro-
vides a series of play and defence prob-
lems which are never trivial and always
satisfying to solve.
In each scenario, you are playing
teams and you are shown two hands: your
own and dummy's. All bidding is care-
fully explained, so British systemic dif-
ferences are not a problem. Perhaps the
neatest feature is that the author does not
give away the key decision point -- you,
the way most books start something like
"Partner leads two rounds of clubs against
four spades, and shifts to a heart -- plan
the defence", and the next trick is the
critical one. If Roth gives you this kind of
problem, you may well find that the key
play was unblocking your queen on the
first two rounds of clubs!
Solving most of the problems in-
volves putting yourself in the shoes of the
other player, and one of my favourite
hands involved the following position.
You hold the HQ9x of trump over dum-
my's HAJ10x., and declarer has five to
the king. Partner is cashing a high club,
you are void, but the other two hands
must follow. If you can get partner to
cash the thirteenth club you are guaran-
teed a trump trick whatever card dummy
plays. But how do you send this mes-
sage?
Dummy has
♠K ❤AJ10x ◆KJ10xx ♣x
You hold
♠Jxxx ❤QJ9 ◆Qxxx ♣---
Of course, you jettison the DQ. I got
it right but boy, I hope my partner gets it
right too because I certainly don't want to
see a diamond hitting the track. (Not a
play to try on a spouse!)
Topics in Bridge (16-30) by Michael
Lawrence. Available from the author
(131 Alvarado Rd., Berkeley, CA 94705)
at US$5.00 each, or US$40.00 for set
(+$3 shipping).
Reviewed by Ray Lee.
M ike Lawrence is arguably the clear-
est bridge writer in North America
today, and his second set of fifteen
"Topics in Bridge" is well up to his usual
standard.
June 1993
 While fundamentally aimed at inter- three trumps, and my favourite, Mistakes
mediate players, this series contains ideas you should stop making (two books!).
that will give even advanced players food If you are ordering these books di-
for thought. While many of the topics rectly from the address given above,
have been discussed in greater depth in make sure your cheque is drawn on a US
Lawrence's books (overcalls, balancing, bank.
and so on) these are easily accessible,
bite-sized booklets, which at 24 pages
should appea even to those who say "I
never read bridge books".
As always, Lawrence uses good ex-
amples, and the books are well organized.
He gives you simple rules to remember,
and the quizzes are always thought-pro-
voking, rather than just testing recall of a
previously-explained situation.
While some may argue with the
pricing, there is no doubting the value of
the contents. This set of topics includes
When can you overcall a four-card suit?,
When should you make a penalty dou-
ble?, Raising a one-level response with

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

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

Canadian Master Point