Dreams I’ll Never See

Molly Hatchet – Dreams I’ll Never See

(Click on the above link for musical accompaniment)

Larry Cohen wrote (TBW 12/99) “By this point in the match, there were perhaps 100 IMPs in swings to ######## that could have just as easily swung the other way with small modifications to history having nothing to do with the quality of the bridge.; it’s a shame that important matches are sometimes decided by factors other than skill.“

I can’t quarrel with Larry’s assessment of the random factors that determined the result of said match.  But I do quarrel with this: “it’s a shame that important matches are sometimes decided by factors other than skill.”

That is the perspective of a world-class expert; a rank and sentiment I for one – do not share.

I think it is wonderful that luck (if it is not skill – what would you call it?) plays a role. And when you think about it, the calibre of players who are Spingold finalists don’t want luck to be part of the equation. Why would they? Hamman. Zia, Martel, Meckwell, Rosenberg, Gitelman, Weinstein, Soloway (and the list goes on – forgive the numerous omissions) play at a superior level than 99% of the rest of us. Lady Luck they don’t need, but most of us do.

Bridge, like every other sport or competitive endeavour is a pyramid. At the top – there are precious few. The rest are not scattered but ranked in descending order. There are certainly many times more novices and modest players than there are world-class experts. And I don’t mean the ones that call themselves World Class online. I mean those with the pedigree, like Larry, TBW staff, and the elite of our game.

The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers need the Royals, Pirates, Reds and Nationals to have a little cannon fodder on their way to the podium. They can’t play themselves. And so it is with our game. I tell my non-bridge friends that in bridge the equivalent of Tiger, Vijay and Phil have to play through me before they can advance to play each other in the final pairing on Sunday. It is the only game in the world where amateurs and professionals compete head to head. And over the last twenty five or so years a new dynamic evolved, hiring bridge professionals to carry the mantle of the playing or non-playing sponsor. So the elite and the rest of the flock are forced, by the nature of the game to compete and intermingle. I don’t have an issue with that – I think it is one of the many things that make this game so great.

Larry – I have a confession.

In order for me to beat you and your formidable team of Berkowitz/Garner/Weinstein or Fred and Brad, or Bob and Zia, or Chip and Lew, I will be counting upon Brigidda the card Goddess to help me. I am not going to beat the superstar players because of my skill. Their skill is vastly superior. I need to be a wildcard, to insert the random factor into the match because head to head – mine will be handed to me on a silver platter.

Now you know and I know that weaker players by definition step out, take foolish chances, daring balances, and risky doubles and will not bid, declare nor defend as well as you and your peers. I know that too. You will often (and so would I were the ranks reversed) simply wait for our mistakes, capitalize, play down the middle and expect us to beat ourselves. Like golf (taking that up in your retirement?) it is not a matter of scoring a hole-in-one on the par threes. It is about staying out of the hazards, hitting the greens in regulation and no three-putts. In short – make mistakes and the golf course or the expert bridge player will exploit them.

So when you sit down facing me or my peers at round one (and only round one) of the Spingold, we both understand that I am but a rung in the ladder. That said – you need me. You don’t want a ladder with a couple rungs; you want a full extension fireman’s ladder where the talent level, drama, risks and rewards grow with every step. That is the nature of the ascension to success.

The trouble with this statement “By this point in the match, there were perhaps 100 IMPs in swings to Nickell that could have just as easily swung the other way with small modifications to history having nothing to do with the quality of the bridge…” is that Nickell (at that point in time) only happens to be the most successful team in the world. As Larry notes “Nickell had captured the Spingold trophy for the sixth time in seven years. Over that span, Dick Freeman, Bob Hamman, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, with either Paul Soloway of Bobby Wolff have won approximately 40 Spingold matches and lost just once, an amazing Spingold record. In addition to their immense talent, they’ve needed some good luck as well and that was clearly present in this year’s final.”

I submit, (and I know you would agree) that with the talent level of Nickell, they don’t “need” good luck and like all top players, sometimes make their own. If the companion team (Beatty, Onstott, Eisenberg, Hayden) had enjoyed the lion’s share of “factors other than skill“; then perhaps some might be celebrating versus bemoaning the fact. I know most of us need Lady Luck dancing at our side in order to have any hope against the game’s top performers.

My only personal claim to beating champions came 30 years ago at Cobo Hall in Detroit. We faced Barry Crane and Mike Smolen paired with Tom and Carol Saunders (see Barry & Me: http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=7 for details) in the final match for a shot at the overalls. I was young, green and not even an ACBL member. It was not our superior skill that prevailed; it was a paucity of skill and an abundance of luck. Perhaps that is why I can only claim one such David – Goliath such moment. Expertise typically prevails.

We all perceive life through our own shade of lens. The expert enjoys a lofty and well-earned status, but too often forgets from whence he came. We were all novices once. Our ascent and its pace varied, often according to how much talented help we received. Hell, I earned mine at the old school of hard knocks, as did most of my peers. I tell the novice students that bridge is like a library. You can walk and browse the first floor, and once satiated you might advance to the second. There, a whole new dynamic is revealed, and with experience, performance and sometimes luck, you rise again in rank and perspective. And so it goes. If I recall Paul Soloway helped some pre-teen to Life Master rank in less than a year. Heck – maybe a few of us might have matched that with such a mentor.

So should you perceive Brigidda at my side, acknowledge her and submit to her will. After all, she gives me hope and you get to travel back in time, and remember, once upon a time – she was your best hope too. You may not need nor want her, but I need her very much when I play my only Spingold match. How about you?

C

I did send this to Jeff Rubens at TBW but he dismissed my thesis noting even I didn’t want luck determining “important” matches. That is true I suppose. But my first round Spingold match or the last match of a Sunday Swiss with a shot at the overall is important – to me.

Larry was more empathetic.

Interesting — I understand your point.

Larry

Show Me the Way

Peter Frampton – Show Me The Way

Ode to Peter Frampton

Much has been written in this thread and it seems to have two diverse strands.

One – players must do whatever they can do to “protect themselves” against possible cheaters. This apparently includes a pre-match admonishment to the opponents as to what will and will not be tolerated.

The second is that there is a dearth of leadership, of responsibility, of willingness of our experts and sanctioning bodies to do what needs to be done to cleanse the game. That said there are an abundance of rules and let’s follow them. Maybe these two can be connected. Let’s see.

How dirty is the game? To what extent have cheaters corrupted the game? To hear Bobby talk about it (and he would know) it is a cancer eroding the fabric of the game, all too present, too often, too widespread. Interestingly, it seems a few experts are not just experts at bridge, but downright gifted at various means of telegraphing their secret messages. I suggest cheating is more complicated at the top (the so-so players just aren’t that good at it) and therefore it is incumbent upon the experts to lead the way.

When we allow members to take the law into their own hand, this too debases the game. Sontag’s “preamble” as described by Ray Lee is one such example.

Afterwards he {Sontag} told me that before play began, he told his opponents exactly what he expected of them in terms of deportment; in particular, he itemized a number of actions he would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.). He had no doubt that this preamble had produced a level card table for the session — hence the score.

We now know (thanks to Peter Gill) that the humbling score Sontag and company inflicted upon their opponents was not due to his preamble, it was due to an outstanding set from team mates Grant Baze and Rose Meltzer.

The main reason Sontag’s team won the 16 board session 65-2 imps is that Rose Meltzer and Grant Baze had a huge session at the other table. It’s all there on the Internet, for anyone to see, under Shanghai in 2007. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Jill Levin – Jill Meyers from the Women’s Final, they win the segment 68-9. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Helness – Helgemo from the Open Final, they win the set 71-10. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Wang Wenfei – Yi Qian Lu from the Women’s 3rd place playoff, they win the set 65-2. It is not as if Sontag at the other table to Rose Meltzer had a particularly good set after his comment.

So if Sontag had said nothing, in all likelihood his team would still have scored a resounding victory. Here the talent (and maybe a little bit from Lady Luck) shone through.

And I note Judy and Bobby, with their heartfelt conviction dodged the question about how they would feel about being subjected to same pre-game “preamble”. The truth is – they would never be subjected to it – so how could they know? Intimidation tends to exist between various ranks of players, Higher to lower. If we are of analogous rank – there is unlikely to be intimidation. Friendly cajoling amongst peers is fine, but you don’t tell you buddies how to place their cards on the table. Bridge is a game of ego.. Sometimes ego (like money) makes you do things you would not otherwise say or do.

Riki Tiki (cute name) wrote to me:

I am sure there is no love lost as Sontag (and Weischel) (sic) were involved in your much publicized petpeeve (The Norfolk Incident) which should have no bearing on the case at hand, but I am sure it is still gnawing at you, so I do not think you are totally impartial regarding Sontag.

I note Tiki didn’t say I was wrong – just that I might be biased. I can’t in all honesty dismiss that outright. Just to clarify, my story Collateral Damage about the stolen title of the men’s BAM title in 3/79 at Norfolk is not a “pet peeve”. Ask Zeke Jabbour, Mike Cappelletti, Gary Hann, Ron Feldman, David Sacks or David Hoffner (who lost the title to Cokin/Sion and their team mates Sontag/Weichsel and NPC Sternberg) if they see it as a “pet peeve” to lose a National title to (soon-to-be) convicted cheaters. They see it more lucidly, a betrayal of the League or as Feldman put it – a breach of their {ACBL’s} fiduciary trust to their members. Still, Tiki’s suggestion made me think. Am I biased against Sontag and Weichsel?

Biased no. Disappointed yes. As world class champions, I think they owe the game more, and I invite Tiki and every reader to judge for themselves.

Bobby Wolff said this about Norfolk:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in anyone’s mind, that Steve Sion and Alan Cokin as a partnership, cheated in Norfolk during the 1979 Fall Nationals and especially during the Board-a-Match Teams which they won, playing on a team with Jim Sternberg, Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel. What else is new? Since the pair had been cheating for years before that and whatever their finish, whether it be in Nationals, Regionals, or Sectionals, (maybe even in club games), it totally distorted the final results.

Yet, when I asked Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel (and Cokin/Sternberg) to give up their ill-gotten gains what do I get? Anger, abuse, rage – I guess the story hit a nerve. For every abusive comment I got, there were 10 thanking me for putting they story out in the open. I look at the abusive stuff as a bonus – sort of a cherry on top.

So I ask anyone who would care to answer, if Alan Sontag is so worried about being cheated, why does he not share that same concern when others are cheated by his own team mates?

Bobby Wolff knows that Cokin/Sion cheated. Chip Martel, Paul Lewis, Kit Woolsey, Brenda Blumenthal, Mark Jacobus all helped break the code. They know. Apparently 16 witnesses testified at hearing for Cokin and Sion. Were these strangers plucked from the street? No, they were experts with firsthand knowledge of the unlawful code they used. They were caught at Norfolk. Only the ACBL put the matter on ice until they could build a more forceful case. Three months later – the League had done nothing and cheaters continued to play, unfettered, unwatched and racking up Regional wins while those who knew silently steamed.

Do Sontag and Weichsel know? You bet they know. My mother knows for cryin’ out loud and she can’t follow suit without a roadmap. As for whether or not they knew prior to their conviction (three months later at the GNTs in Atlanta) well, no one, least of all Sontag and Weichsel want to go there. It is the forbidden fruit because – if they knew – that would surely reflect poorly on their professional conduct.

Let’s say they didn’t. Sontag’s famous antennae didn’t quiver when top pro Sion takes up with a lesser light – Cokin but they bring back top flight results. They just got lucky, made a few inspired leads and killing defenses to knock off Hamman, Wolff, Kantar, Eisenberg, Kaplan, Kay, Root, Roth and just about everyone else. As I said in CD, if they didn’t know – they should have known.

That’s what floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. A little piece of shit bridge journalist (from Canada no less) pieces together a thirty year old cold case and there are not a lot of heroes in the story. The attitude of a few (any guesses?) was – what gives him the right to criticize players of the stature of Weichsel and Sontag?

The same thing that gives each of us the right to play top flight players, that’s what.  Our game is the only one where top flight professionals and amateurs compete head to head. I tell my non-bridge friends that in bridge, the likes of Tiger, Vijay and Phil have to get past me before they can reach the summit and collect the title. Our game enjoys a wonderful democracy that way, but many players (especially experts) see the masses as mere stepping stones up the ladder, cannon fodder, an unfortunate but necessary nuisance.

The League, directors, partners and expert players all came away tarnished in Collateral Damage.. There was no white knight though Woolsey and Martel et. al. came close. Somehow Sontag and Weichsel emerged relatively unscathed (after all, no one ever accused them of cheating) but 30 years later some muckraker disinters some old skeletons and now – the anger seeps through, and it seethes. (in fairness, to the best of my knowledge Peter Weichsel has never said anything except on one occasion he said to me – “go to the ACBL”. That is like me telling my son – cry to the tooth fairy because you didn’t get your reward under the pillow. A cop out – a platitude, an abdication of responsibility.

And when you dare to criticize – you better be ready to take the heat. Bring it on. And so it came. A friend or two of Rose Meltzer and Alan started a little campaign, which was couched in terms of “harassment”.

Ban him from the ACBL.

Cast him off BBO!

Toss him from the CBF. (The Canadian Bridge Federation – not sure if I am even a member, hope so.)

All because? Well – why?

He tells a story that casts two world class players in a less that favorable light?

He sits at a table and that constitutes harassment?

Where is the intimidation card now? I said before and I will say it again – if Rosenberg or Alder or Kantar had written this story – would they face what I faced?  Quit laughing.

Sontag writes in his book The Bridge Bum.

…..I was right at the top so far as unpopularity with my fellow players was concerned. …I jumped the gun and accused my left hand opponent of cheating. I still believe he was cheating, but I handled the situation all wrong. Instead of calling for the tournament director, I invited him outside to fight.

(He goes on to report the pulling of a slow double.)

In any case, I acted too hastily…..The great Dutch bridge player {Slavenberg} and banker was soon escalating the situation into an internationalal incident. ….

Slavenberg then threatens to haul Sontag up before and Conducts and Ethics committee but Sontag quickly apologizes. In his words…..

”The people who had been listening curled their lips and edged away from me. I felt like a carrier of typhus.”     (This was some 30+ years ago)

Note it was Slavenberg who “escalated the incident”. He wasn’t the one who accused someone of cheating. He was deservedly angry. Got a beef? Call the director. No – take the accused outside and pound him to a pulp. That will make him think twice about pulling a slow double. Sontag is blameless in all of this – yet he is the one who apologizes. Nice to have it both ways.

This is lifted from Collateral Damage VII. (Sontag’s words from The Bridge Bum.)

Sontag continues: “The May 1973 Bridge World contained an article I agree with. It said, in effect, that champion players know when they are being cheated, but the problem is the proof: a few too many inspired opening leads, some competitive decisions just too consistently lucky, and the tongues would start to wag. Also, there is a tell-tale rattle in the tempo of cheating players. Since they are in possession of different information from that available to a normal pair, their problems are different – their flickers of hesitation come at odd times. It is the business of top players to be extraordinarily sensitive to such things; their antennae come quivering to attention at the first false note, a sense of unease ripens into suspicion…It is all to the good that experts cannot cheat their peers without it becoming known.”

So Sontag has the nose of a bloodhound and can smell a cheater a mile away.

“It is the business of top players to be extraordinarily sensitive to such things…..It is all to the good that experts cannot cheat their peers without it becoming known.”

So which is it? Is it the above in his own words? Or is it possible that he and Weichsel knew at some point that their team mates were chronic cheaters? Well, it is certainly possible, by Sontag’s own words.

This too is from CD VII.

Alan Sontag in his engaging book The Bridge Bum, recounts how he waived a penalty (and suggested an alternative) against Forquet who had bid out of turn (at stake were 5 Italian Lanciasport cars) on the first board of the match! Instead all “agreed” to Sontag’s suggestion of a re-deal. This in turn won him Sportsman of the Year from the International Bridge Press Association. Sontag said in his book –

“I did not want to win on a technicality…taking advantage of a technicality would have proved nothing, especially to myself. My three team mates {Rubin/Granovetter/Weichsel} agreed.”

So Sontag didn’t want to win on a technicality. I applaud that. This in turn wins him IBPA sportsman of the year? Good for him. Congratulations. He is willing to forsake a legal sanction and insert his own (albeit reasonable) solution. Note that the Laws pursuant to a bid out of turn do not provide a re-deal as an option. So this home-cooked solution, as noble as it may have been, is not based upon the Laws, but rather the sentiments of fairness and sportsmanship. Would Edgar have been apoplectic?

How does winning a title with team mates cheating at the other table reconcile with “I did not want to win on a technicality” to say nothing of his sense of fairness and sportsmanship?

It doesn’t.

Is cheating at the other table “a technicality”? Or is it worse? If he wants to win fair and square (and he does), then stand up and prove it. Toss the Norfolk title back. After reading the whole story, perhaps one’s perspectives change. I ask Dr. James Sternberg, Peter Weichsel, Alan Sontag and Alan Cokin to do the “Spike Lee” {the right thing} and forfeit that tainted title. Actions speak louder than words. But let’s be honest – offering a re-deal after an opponent’s gaffe is magnanimous; retaining a title won with cheating team mates at the other table is …… pathetic.

No doubt Bobby Wolff, Judy Kay Wolff, Alan Sontag and countless others have endured this blight upon the game far too long. Maybe we are at a boiling point, where action will be mobilized and this issue will move out of the closet and into the limelight. Let’s hope so. The French might say “mieux vaut tard que jamais.” (better late than never)

I ask Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel to lead the way. Show your dedication to eradicating cheating from the game. Show the way. What might they do now? Today.

An announcement like this might speak to leadership and reconciliation. :

Through the unknown and unforeseen actions of our team mates, we won the Norfolk BAM 1979 title unlawfully. We appreciate that the second place team filed a timely appeal, and for reasons unknown, was never addressed. But for the unlawful actions of our team mates therein (board 16) which directly and negatively impacted the second place team, they would have won this event. We wish to distance ourselves from this unfortunate incident, move forward and ask the ACBL to accept our forfeiture of this title from our team and determine if it should be awarded to another.

It is one thing to be cheated. That hurts. it stings. It stinks.

It is another thing to be the cheaters.

Your team mates Sion and Cokin cheated to steal said title, and you too are collateral damage.

Care to start the healing?

Great – show me the way.

Show us all the way.

C

Sweet Dreams Are Made of This

Ode to Eurythmics

Eurythmics – Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This

(click on the above for music)

Note: Readers would be well served by reading prior entries from Ray Lee, Ron Lel, Bobby Wolff, Judy Kay-Wolff and others on this topic.

As Ray Lee reported:

Afterwards he {Sontag} told me that before play began, he told his opponents exactly what he expected of them in terms of deportment; in particular, he itemized a number of actions he would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.). He had no doubt that this preamble had produced a level card table for the session — hence the score.

To Bobby Wolff and Judy Kay-Wolff I am going to turn your argument around for a moment.

Imagine for a moment Alan Sontag had given you as his opponents his “preamble” before a critical match? How would you feel? Think about that for a moment.

Perhaps it is where one is looking from that shapes one’s perspective.

Bobby said:

I wish the reader would try to analyze the difference, and just as important, why, between Ron and Judy’s opinions concerning Alan Sontag’s behavior while playing against Lasut and Manoppo.

I think that’s a great idea and I am going to try to find a middle ground between Ron Lil’s surly “disgusting”  versus Judy’s laudatory (Medal of Honor? – I don’t think so) positions on Alan Sontag’s apparent behaviour.

Bobby continues:

If players, experienced or not in International Play, do not protect themselves, verily they will not be protected. Neither the WBF nor local TD’s are trained in what to look for in determining cheating.

Well, if that’s true and let’s say it is – what does that say to the members? Make up your own rules because we can’t help you? I take Bobby at his word but that statement frightens me. Where is the leadership? MIA. Why the dearth of direction, planning, investigation and results? That is the battle cry here from all of us.

He continues with:

It, like any specialized law enforcement, needs special grooming to understand the workings and final conclusions on how to crack the whip and secure a case which will stand up to people like yourself who want to champion the poor underdog and probably would rather let 50 guilty players off scot free than God forbid challenge, let alone convict, one questionable pair.

If I might – that’s over the top. I think I see his frustration showing through. Judy and Bobby have watched 50 years of injustice pass them by and they should be angry. Maybe some of the other swindled parties should step up and share the podium. It’s almost as if he is so nauseated at the state of justice – well, like the Lone Ranger he’ll ride into town and clean up the mess. All I can say is “good luck” but cleaning these stinking stables starts with the ACBL and sponsoring organizations. Then they invite the expert community to galvanize a serious effort to identify and prosecute cheaters. It must come from the top on down, a concerted effort with educating members, training directors and becoming a League mandate, not the personal agenda of any one individual.

Is having a monitor a right for all bridge players? It would seem so. And although Bobby’s antennae was clearly quivering against his far eastern opponents, he let them off lightly explaining it as this:

(Aces) were paired up against a well-known Far Eastern country where after the 2d board at my table, I stopped play and asked for the director. He arrived and I requested a monitor to be present for the rest of the match (I think 16 total boards, but it well could have been 20). As the director was considering my request, one of my opponents called me away from the table and in very broken English said, “Please, a monitor is not necessary and you’ll have no more trouble from us”. I asked if that was a promise” and he said “Yes”! From that point till now and although my International bridge career is about over, it has been 35 years since then and I have played against them and other members of their family (probably over 200 boards) and he has kept his promise.

Was his “promise” not to cheat against this team?  Did that apply to other matches? I think the Martel formula (see below) might have worked here, and then (theoretically) they would be caught and outed. Having him stand down from his telegraphing against one team hardly seems to do justice to his apparent crime.

Was it a “level playing field” or was it Sontag’s superior skill why he carved up the opposition like a Christmas turkey? At last peek Sontag ranked 16th on the all time list for Master points. It is no secret he is one hell of a player but he has got to be having some sugar-sweet dreams if he thinks that his pre-match “preamble” served to “level the card table”. (I interpret that mixed metaphor as “playing field”). I have a news flash. Cheaters cheat. Cokin confessed in writing (to Bobby Wolff) that he and Sion “cheated on basically every hand they ever played together.” Cheaters could be playing any of us and all they really care about is winning at any cost. One thing for sure – Sontag wouldn’t be laying any “ground rules” if he had zero suspicions about the players at his table. Why would he?

I would expect him to welcome his peers with war stories and warm greetings. What about those of us who aren’t his “peers”? Does Sontag bestow upon us his pre-game preface? Do we get to see a laundry list of what “he will and won’t allow” us to do?

Sontag can say that and get away with that because of his lofty rank. Most of us wouldn’t dream of saying it to anyone. I’ll wager neither Judy not Bobby has said such, even if in their hearts they might have wanted to. And I think we need to recognize the agony they have suffered and their frustration at a total lack of governance. My question is  – why aren’t more experts angry? When will they step up? Do Judy and Bobby have to carry the mantle for all? That said, there is a line and Sontag crossed it.

Would Zeke Jabbour say what Sontag said? Zia? Roth? Kaplan? How about Paul Soloway? Grant Baze?

I don’t think so.

Why not? The answer – because it’s not legal. And it is not right.

Turn the table. If I sit down at Sontag’s table and recount his same “ground rules” to him – what would he do? I would expect him to scream for the director and demand to have me thrown before and Conducts and Ethics committee as I implied some impropriety was going to happen before it did. A preemptive strike! And he would be right as such allegations could be hardly sustained before they had happened.

Judy laments the extent lesser teams will subvert the law to beat a superior team. I think we can all lament those who defile our laws regardless of rank. I look at good players cheating with the same disdain I hold for the experts. (OK, maybe a little more for the experts.) The rank is moot. I get the fact that everyone wants to win and beat up the better players. Such is the nature of any game. You can bet no baseball player wants to be the next out in a no-hitter and every single NFL team tried to stop New England’s and Miami’s run at perfection. We all love to beat the Yankees. The thrill of sport is dog versus favourite.

The annals of bridge history suggest that cheating has permeated every level of the game, including its highest ranks. That is one reason why we need expert vigilance. We need experts to police the experts. We the masses rarely get to play them except as cannon fodder on the opening round of a knock out.

Perhaps unknown or forgotten by the elite is that intimidation by expert players has long been rampant and for some old-timers part of the game. Sontag expected to drill these players anyway. Such remarks constitute intimidation, plain and simple. Judy and Bobby don’t face the same intimidation (if any) that us canon fodder does. It just doesn’t come their way. I will bet my bottle of Louis Roed Cristal 1.5 L Champagne that Sontag never dreams of giving that speech to Weinstein, Wolff, Kay-Wolff, Garner, Hamman, Rodwell, Katz, Zia, Martel, Standby, Meckstroth, Rosenberg, Robson, Rubin, Moss, Greco,  Weichsel, Helgemo, Helness, Balicki or Gawrys or countless others. No, he saves it for the precious few who deserve it, the convicted or do the merely suspected get this speech too?

If Sontag or anyone else suspects cheating, they should follow the protocol. Chip Martel did so (30 years ago) and helped nab and convict cheaters Cokin and Sion. What is the protocol?

1) Alert a few trustworthy expert players. (If Woolsey/Jacobus/Martel/Lewis/Blumenthal are available, consider them.)

2) Watch the perpetrators; look for mannerisms and clues to their means of unlawfully communicating. Compile hand records, evidence, break the code.

3) Get video, alert the authorities.

Sontag’s heart-warming “ground-rules” preamble served Sontag. It did not serve the game. In fact, it may have alerted their opponents that they were under a cloud of suspicion. What about the other teams who go on to play this team of apparent cheaters in the same or future events? If these players ran off several consecutive whippings against good teams – what then? What if they or other reinstated cheaters win? Who, if anyone launches an investigation? Where does it start? It starts with our experts doing the right thing.

So what if they were convicted – how long do we rub their noses in it? Judy’s pissed (and so is Bobby – I won’t speak for Sontag) because the lax laws allow for readmission of convicted cheaters. Are we supposed to smile nicely and pretend we don’t know? Yes and no. As pathetic as it is – and it is pathetic  – we are hamstrung by our own silly rules.  When Wolff goes on to state:

“If players, experienced or not in International Play, do not protect themselves, verily they will not be protected.”

If he is right – then no wonder people are angry. If a monitor is a right – great – use it should you feel the need. When we amend the laws to boot cheaters forever, well – we won’t face this horror show will we? That’s what we’re all angry at – but that does not entitle Alan Sontag or anyone else to stipulate:

“a number of actions he would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.).”

How about if anyone suspects cheating they just go to the authorities and say so?

Or is that too tough? Yes in this case because Sontag’s match hasn’t started yet so he explains his home-brewed “new rules”, unfamiliar I am sure to all but a select few. Intimidation, plain and simple. What would you call it? A courtesy?

Is intimidation cheating? No. Is it unethical? Well the rules state:

74.A.1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

74 A.2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment of another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Telling someone before the match about your expectations you have for them like an

“…itemized a number of actions {one} would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.)”

might be a source of annoyance or embarrassment. Certainly I would expect any player, guilty or innocent to have their God/ACBL given right to “enjoyment of the game” infringed upon getting that speech before the start of play. That violates the letter and spirit of the laws. So it should not be said. Period.

Paul wouldn’t say it. Grant wouldn’t say it. As for most of us, it would never cross our minds.

The truth is Bobby and Judy and probably Alan are sick and tired of being cheated. When do we tilt the card table back to the victims? How do we achieve that? When do we, as members say – enough is enough? Write your BOD member, not me. But let’s be clear, this has gone on far too long. Maybe sweet dreams of change can serve us all. For the record I applaud JKW and her beloved for thrusting this issue out into the open. If we can learn from our mistakes, and address this bastard child cheating, it will serve all of us. That is the goal here. Healing. Change. Enforcement. A level playing field (or card table) for all.

As a side note I should report that I sat as a kibitzer (on BBO) at Sonty’s table a few months ago. Before he had an opportunity to greet me I realized he was trying to figure out how to disconnect me! That puzzled me as I thought we were long time pals. I suspected he was double-booked and wanted me to pinch-hit for him at another table with one of his clients. I departed before seeing the completion of one hand and visited another regular. To show his appreciation Sonty air-freighted a bottle of Louis Roed Cristal 1.5 L Champagne and some Russian caviar to my winter home on Marcos Island with a kind note of thanks.

Now that’s a greeting we could all get used to. I think I’ll send him a copy of Bill Maher’s New Rules. Sometimes, we can all use a laugh.

C

Stealin’ (When I Should Have Been Buyin’)

                                                Ode to Uriah Heep

 

Judy Kay-Wolff expounded on the legacy of cheating (in particular by the Blue Team). The rhetoric and anger that this provoked has caused the dialogue to degenerate from civil to insulting. Let’s remember that JKW, once married to Norman Kay, had an insider’s perspective of the inner sanctum. She is not speaking from the bleachers, she had an umpire’s view right behind home plate.

Her words on her blog:

….   True, they featured three of the very best players in the world (Garozzo, Belladonna and Forquet) but I am getting sick and tired of the lionizing of a team that the world of bridge knows cheated for well over a decade, resulting in their fourteen consecutive dirty world championships. THERE IS NOT A TOP PLAYER (who has not self-deluded himself) IN THE WORLD ALIVE THEN OR NOW WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT.   Blame it on their culture, their ego or the fact that their captain Albert Perroux told them in no uncertain terms that if they did not ‘help’ their partner, there were others waiting in the wings to replace {them}. “

Personally, I would have preferred had she shared some hands, evidence or cited some sources instead of fanning the flames with  “THERE IS NOT A TOP PLAYER (who has not self-deluded himself) IN THE WORLD ALIVE THEN OR NOW WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT” and thus, those of us who didn’t “know” were either stupid, ignorant or so far from ground zero that we could not connect the dots. And why should we? Truth is, 95% of us are a long way from the inner circle. Accusations are a serious charge, and as such every governing body and certainly our own ACBL will punish unsubstantiated accusers with a vengeance. Some wish, perhaps forlornly that they had the same zeal for suspected cheats. Will she face sanctions? I doubt it. OK, no way.

Tobias Stone and John Crawford (amongst others) got suspended for alleging much the same – the Blue Team cheats. Accusing is one thing, proving is another. I plan to harvest from some published material to shed light upon this story.

When I was researching Collateral DamageI had the wonderful opportunity to liaise with some of the world’s foremost players. I communicated with (note, this does not mean I have them on speed dial or that we are close personal friends – hardly) the likes of Chip Martel, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Kit Woolsey, Mike Cappeletti, Zeke Jabbour, Ron Feldman, John Carruthers, Paul Soloway, Grant Baze, Fred Gitelman, Marty Bergen and many others. Most offered quick replies, but a couple provided “background” material – like the proverbial Deep Throat to Bob Woodward. It was then, while investigating the sordid events that I learned the sad truth.

Cheating, at the highest level of the game (and the Blue Team in particular) was well known in expert circles. And remember, this is long before bidding boxes let alone screens, so inflections, tempo, cigarettes (yes, cigarettes),  and subtle nuances were available to experienced partnerships.

A couple of older experts stepped up and bestowed upon me a history lesson. Basically the message was that the Blue Team (and other icons like Reese/Shapiro) had long since been convicted in the collective mind of the expert community. The fact that there were few hands, or many doubters was moot. The awkward finger placement by Reese/Shapiro, subsequent confessions and decoding evidence exposed by Truscott in The Buonos Airies Affair. The Blue Team’s covert codes were never fully deciphered and thus remain to many – a mere frivolous allegation.

One of the toughest things to prove is cheating at bridge. When you pee into a bottle, or they measure the horsepower of your race car; – these are measurable, and clearly defined. When you make an inspired lead from KX, hit partner’s ace, score your ruff, well done. When it becomes routine (even better to your partner’s Kx or Ax), tongues start to wag. As well they should.

Alan Truscott in his The New York Times Bridge Book sets out some of the historical arguments about some of the more famous cheaters. He butresses that with hands which he admits are not 100% conclusive but speak to a pattern of unauthorized partnership understandings.

How is this for a pattern?

Truscott details several cheating scandals including the famed Indonesian Manoppo brothers. In an analysis of 600 deals, 70 of which they were on lead and led from an ace or king. In each case they hit an ace or king in their partner’s hand. They were suspended for a long period and barred permanently from playing with one another.

In 1958 the American acting NPC John Gerber at the Bermuda Bowl received a mysterious letter. The author was purporting to explain in detail how the Italian team was cheating. Instead of following up, or relaying it to the proper authorities, Gerber discreetly passed the note along to the Italian NPC. Thereafter its contents remained secret and a valuable opportunity squandered.

As for Leandro Burgay he documented (on tape) Blue Team member Benito Bianchi detailing the secret code which involved “”the use of cigarettes and head positions. The cigarette could point up or down, left or right to indicate an honor card or suit.” Burgay, as the one who cat out of the bag was villified by the Italian authorites. He was blackballed with silly allegations (like allegedly trying to blackmail the Italian team captain to be on the team when the team had already been selected  – and the captain did not pick the team) and Burgay’s revelations earned him a six year suspension. Bianchi – who admitted the phone conversation but claimed the tapes were doctored got a whopping six month suspension. Both players appealed and Bianchi got of with a reprimand, Burgay (let’s shoot the messenger) got one year. The Italian audio expert Signor Bacicchi hired as part of the cursory Italian investigation confirmed the tape was authentic and had not been doctored.

Truscott writes: “examining the deals from played by Bianchi and Forquet in 1973 and 1974 World Championships, the last before screens were introduced…a quarter century later, analysis offers a wealth of evidence the the Italians were “helping each other”. They were almost 100% in choosing the bids and leads that fit partner’s hand.”

One interesting hand Truscott offers is below. (buy the book if you want more…)

The auction proceeds (at both tables)

LHO     Partner         RHO      Belladonna/Schenken

  1H          P              1NT            ?

Belladonna and Schenken held:  A5   9  K10976  K10732 (vul vs. nv)

The unusual notrump was just emerging as a convention and neither player chose it. Schenken bid a straightforward two diamonds, subsiding when the auction was at three hearts by the opposition by the time it came back to him.

Belladonna bid two clubs. Truscott calls this “a decidedly odd decision. Two diamonds allows for the possibility of introducing clubs later. Two clubs may have been a lucky guess, but it fitted West’s {his partner’s} hand. The Italians had a habit of making lucky guesses.” The West hand held J8643  A83  A  AQ64 and they duly bid to five clubs and made it while buying the contract for three hearts (off one) at Schenken’s table. (+11 imps to Italy)

Yes, Sheinwold predicted that with screens the Italians would lose to America when they were first deployed in 1975 at Burmuda. What does that tell you? That would have been true except for the horrible (13%) grand slam Belladonna and Garozzo reached with the trump suit being AQ opposite J98632 and the infamous K10 in the pocket. If the slam goes down the Americans win by 4 IMPs.

Sheinwold, not exactly tepid in front of a microphone or on paper, certainly had his suspicions. He explained it like this: “They did it to us again {1974} but next year we’ll have the screens. I’ve been saying for years that any good team can beat them on even terms. It will be interesting to see whether or not screens make a difference next year in Bermuda. I’ll be there to eat my words if the Blue Team can still play as if they can read each other’s minds.” If that doesn’t simmer with acrimony, well, give yourself a shake.

This is old hat to Judy Kay-Wolff, Bobby Wolff, Edgar Kaplan, Norman Kay and the bridge elite of that day. This is what Judy was talking about – a widespread suspicion (lacking for the most part in tangible proof prior to Burgay) that permeated the upper echelon of the day, especially in America. For those of us too young or too far removed from the inner sanctum it now starts to become clear.

And before we lambaste the Italian bridge authorities for whitewashing the Burgay tapes and protecting their own, our own ACBL has hardly acquitted itself with distinction when it comes to cheating. Italy was protecting decades of tainted titles. No way some loudmouth agent provacateur (Burgay) was going to compromise that. He was “thrown under the bus”, publicly discredited and note that even today the Burgay tapes remain tightly sealed, collecting dust in a closet if not already destroyed. Now that’s how you handle cheating – shoot the messenger and batten down the hatches.

Bobby Wolff had this to say:

“In each of the four tournaments, according to the Burgay tapes (released in 1976 and authenticated by the United States CIA), every Blue Team member was wired to the teeth  (emphasis added) (for more particulars please read The Lone Wolff and be sure to get the upcoming World Bridge History, authored by Jaime Ortiz-Patino to be released this October at the World Championship in Beijing). As an aftermath of the Burgay Tapes, Jimmy barred every member of the Italian Blue Team from ever appearing in another World Championship, although he relented for two particular Blue Team members in 1979 and again in 1983.  (this is from an essay called The Lone Wolff Howls posted on my blog at  www.bridgeblogging.com .)

Now some of you do not like Bobby Wollf or Judy kay-Wolff; or less likely – even me – but so what? But they both (unlike me) have been part of the inner sanctum going back some 50 years. it is possible that where there was smoke there is fire? You bet.

Alfred Sheinwold thought so.

John Gerber thought so.

Tobias Stone said so and was suspended.

John Crawford said so and was suspended.

Burgay said so and was suspended.  

Judy Kay-Wolff’s outburst isn’t just a rant from nowhere. it is a release of anger, frustration and disgust coming out of watching from the sidelines and powerless to address a gaping wound that will never heal. How would you feel if you or your spouse knew in your heart and soul that decades of cheating had deprived you of titles you might have won? I know I’d be pretty pissed, but then again that’s only me, and the likelihood of me sharing the podium, accepting a world title trophy with my partner Zia is shall we say – unlikely. I’d be more like Ira Corn in the early days of the Aces. (He was a ball and chain, and eventually with some cajoling from Wolff and others, stepped aside for a real expert.)

There is much more written on the subject. The Italians aren’t the only ones. But their record was so staggering (pre-screens which arrived in 1975) it defies credence. We have scores of others, too numerous to list. Cheating is a cancer upon our game. Whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday, we ought to push it into the limelight and show its hurricane-wrecking damage upon the fabric and spirit of our game.

I recall the Terrence Reese/Boris Shapiro scandal, reading both books (one for the prosecution by Truscott, the other for the defense by Reese) and trying to imagine that Reese was a cheater. It simply boggled the mind. His book Master Play is still considered a classic. I recall reading Martin Hoffman (who wrote in the Reese style of Play These Handss With Me) citing a chapter called “Hold It!” It pertained to retaining key cards and not relinquishing them prematurely. Hoffman called it an eye-opener or the like, and I felt the same way discovering that ducking one’s QX offside, when the layout was critical to defeat the hand.

                                                           KJ109xx

                                              Axx                           Qx

                                                               xx

Reese represented the elite to me. The mere thought of him cheating, and his vigorous rebuttal left me with precious few doubts, the biggest of which was – why? Where is his motivation? He doesn’t need an edge, and the Americans are playing the “cheating card” and crying sour grapes. Boy, was I wrong. I will blame it on the impetuousness of youth, a fleeting condition long since passed.

Well, fast forward forty years and Reese is dead and has apparently confided in a friend and bridge partner (David Rex-Taylor) that indeed, they were cheating as accused. This is from Alvin Levy.

In the most famous cheating scandal, in 1965 Terence Reese and Boris Shapiro were alleged to have used finger signals to tell each other the number of hearts in their hand.  While most were convinced that they were passing signals, proof that they were using the information to best advantage was not overly convincing.  This June, 40 years after the cheating incident, David Rex-Taylor revealed that Reese had confided in him the details of his actions and asked that David wait 40 years to tell the world.  Reese’s explanation was that they did pass information on the length of their heart suit but that they didn’t use the information.  Their “cheating” was to be revealed in a book that Reese was going to write.  His purpose was to show that cheating could be practiced undetected.   I’m sure every bridge magazine will have an article and view on this newly revealed “confession.”  I want to believe the explanation as Reese’s books made bridge exciting for me when I took up the game in the 60s.  I await an explanation on how Reese expected to convincingly prove that they had actually passed information as no third party monitor has been mentioned.

Shapiro allegedly confessed to (England’s) NPC Ralph Swimer claiming “the evil man {Reese} made me do it.” And David Rex-Taylor comes out of nowhere to verify the code as deciphered by Dorothy Hayden, B.J. Becker and the American contingent.

One seasoned Canadian internationalist told me cheating was widespread for decades at the top levels. It might have been subtle (tone, tempo) and it might (and was) more flagrant. He also (like Judy Kay-Wolff) thought “everybody knew it”, but then again, that is their circle and such information hardly trickled down to us grunts in the trenches.

I believe that the aforementioned Gerber/Stone/Sheinwold/Crawford and many more – were all 100% convinced of Blue Team cheating. What a legacy for Reese via Rex-Taylor to leave! A confession, albeit bolstered by a dubious alibi, but nevertheless – setting the record straight. Wouldn’t it be nice if some surviving Blue Team member would step up and tell their story? I hope to see that while they remain alive, not delivered by a third party as part of a eulogy. The English, ever interested in “fair play” cheat and come clean after death. Will a Blue Team member shed light upon this darkness? I wouldn’t bet the farm.

Judy Kay-Wolff vented from a 50 year old wound. I hope this essay has shed some light on her plight and cheating in general. Now, if we can get the silly rule (alas even the oft-swindled Bobby Wolff likes it) that “vacates titles” where cheating has been proven (so no one else can advance in rank)  – maybe we can start to restore justice.

I am waiting with bated breath.

 

CF/Toronto 10/09

Ode to Peter Frampton

“I want you to show me the way. Every day.

I want you to show me the way.

I want you – every day.”

On-line bridge is like rubber bridge (to me) insofar as you want to keep it simple.

I thought my partner (Otherguy) on this hand was sensational.

 

You hold:

Q10

A

AJ82

J109865

Your turn. Imps. Strong game. You are non-vul, and the opps are vul. Do you open?

Well your high cards suffice, but your long suit is threadbare, and you will probably have to rebid it over a major suit response. My partner, looking ahead thought this was a dubious opener but a great passed hand so he passed.

The next player passed and your partner bids 1spade.

Pass back to you.

 

You    LHO    Pard     RHO

P           P        1S         P

?

Now I have a Canadian convention on my card (Drury) but we had not agreed to play it. So keeping liife simple he bid an unglamorous 1NT. The next player passed and he heard a 3S rebid by me. Now what?

You    LHO    Pard     RHO

P           P        1S         P

1NT       P       3S         P

?

This is where expert bridge operates on a different level. Inferences can be drawn that are not apparent to rote players. He bid 4D, which was intended (and received as) a cue-bid in support of spades. Your LHO doubles, partner passes, and you get to call again.

You    LHO    Pard     RHO

P           P        1S         P

1NT      P        3S        P

4D       Dble     P          P

?

Continuing on his mission he bid 4H. This verified that 4D was a cue bid and that spades was the agreed suit. Needing no further encouragement I jumped to 6S and that contract was laydown. Here are our combined hands.

Q10               AKJ9643

A                    K63

AJ82               4

J109865          AQ

The auction in full:

You    LHO    Pard     RHO

P           P        1S         P

1NT      P         3S        P

4D       Dble     P          P

4H        P         6S       All pass

Note, no Drury. Note, no redouble of 4D (which might conceivably have led to disaster), no crappy opening bid and a passed hand makes 2 cue-bids by only inferentially agreeing trumps. I liked all of his bids, especially 4D. He liked my pass of 4D, allowing him the space to bid 4H.

Sometimes simple is great. Nice bidding Otherguy. Hope we connect again soon. Thanks for showing me the way.

The Oracle

♠                      ♥                            ♦                        ♣

 

 

               The Oracle   

       

                    

                                                                     (Ode to Kreskin)   

 

 

This time you are at a regional tournament, sitting in second place in Swiss Teams awaiting the penultimate match and versus the leaders. You are playing with an expert player you know and trust. You South to bid and hold:

 

                   ♠ KJx                

                   ♥ A97xx

                   ♦ xx

                   ♣ Kxx

 

 

Do you or don’t you?  I consider it close enough that if my hearts were a minor, I would pass. However, they are not and soon my partner made clear his lofty intentions.

 

South      West       North      East 

 

1H                     P                   2D*          P

2NT           P            3H #        P

4H*            P           4NT+       P

5C%           P            5H        All Pass

 

·        2/1= game force

·        3H = slammish

·        4H = not interested

·        4NT = RKCB anway

·        5C = 1430 (one Key card)

·        5H = stop

 

I awaited the dummy with bated breath.

 

This is what appeared:

 

                   ♠ Axx                

                   ♥ J8x

                   ♦ AQJx

                   ♣ ATx 

 

 

                   ♠ KJx                

                   ♥ A97xx

                   ♦ xx

                   ♣ Kxx

 

Yikes! This a great game, but the five level is precipitously high. Why has my partner bid so much? Of course he wonders why I open these hands……. Still, he made overtures, and failed to hear the rejection notice.

 

Mercifully, West on your left leads the Queen of Clubs. Assuming it is from QJ9x then one of your losers has vanished.

 

How do we play the trump suit? I gave this some thought. After all, that is what this hand is about. Nothing else really matters if you don’t hold the trump losers to one.

 

I am hardly a technician and had to imagine what I wanted or more accurately – needed the layout to be. That is the key. You imagine what will enable success and play accordingly. All you need to know is what works for you.

 

I needed KQ alone or KT/QT in the West hand and to guess it right. Is that too much to ask for? Mathematically, yes. Without a computer analysis to determine the odds, I make it 9.5% that a priori, this suit will be played for one loser. (I invite anyone, preferably a simulator freak/geek  to provide statistical evidence which supports or refutes my guess.)

 

 After a contemplative delay, realizing what I needed,  I led low from hand.

 

LHO climbed up with the king of hearts without much thought.

 

 

My heart raced. He has what I want him to have. I can feel it.

 

He switched to a diamond. I finessed, it lost. A diamond came back and now I was on the table. The trump suit (which is all that matters) being:

 

                    J8

 

?                                  ?

 

                   A9xx

 

 

 

 Here is what could work for me from this point.

 

LHO           RHO                             I must play

 (started with)

 

KQ               10xx                             Low to the Ace.

K10               Qxx                             Jack from Dummy

 

How about?

 

K10x*               Qx                            Low to the Ace.

     

*A new Grosvenor! More on that later.

 

I assumed that with three trumps, West (especially at this level) would play low and thus the defense would always come to two tricks. Therefore, when he smoothly played the King, in order for me to take advantage of that I needed him to have either:

 

KQ  or

K10

 

Does restricted choice apply here? Yes. He has to play an honour from both KQ and K10 but with KQ alone, he would (in theory) play the queen half the time whereas with K10 he is compelled to play the King.

 

Hoping for a miracle, I led the Jack imagining (OK, praying) this to be the present layout.

 

                    J8

 

10                                 Qx

 

                   A9xx

 

Right hand opponent played low (a good sign) and I let it run. To my relief it pinned the 10 and now just to draw the last trump, finesse the ten of clubs and claim.

 

No luck here!

 

This was the complete hand.

 

 

                                               Dlr: South

                      ♠ Axx               Vul: All

                      ♥ J8x

                      ♦ AQJx                   

♠ Qxx            ♣ A10x         ♠ 10xxx

♥ K10                                 ♥ Qxx

♦ xxx                                  ♦ Kxxx

♣ QJ98x        ♠ KJx            ♣ xx

                      ♥ A97xx

                      ♦ xx

                      ♣ Kxx

 

 

At home I checked under suit combinations in The Official Encyclopedias of Bridge and the answer was “run the nine”.  Best defense assumes that a defender with Kx or QX will play low, but with K10 or Q10 will rise in front of the jack.

 

As for the note about the Grosvenor, I will leave that with you. Suffice it to say it is one of the greatest psychological coups in the game. Google it and you will see. The Grosvenor is to the psycholgy of bridge what Blackwood is to ace asking. Dare I say the “Grove” (as we call it) is a lot more fun and imaginative.

 

IF for example, if (a very poor or very sinister) West rose from K10X, that would be silly or  a Grosvenor.  However, (given the latter, K10X) if the unsuspecting declarer played as I did to the next trick, the jack would be covered by the now bare queen, and the 10 would be promoted into a trick. Sometimes it pays to play against good opponents. You can count on them to do the right thing. But in this case, it clearly pays to have luck. I saw it as an omen. The Oracle was smiling upon us, well, me at least.

 

My team mates art the other table led a diamond (best), and declarer did not play the trump suit to maximum advantage. In my (insert adjective here, brilliant/ twisted/delusional/other) mind, that was a sign. We were destined to win the event. What else could it mean?   

 

 I haven’t seen that many horseshoes since Belmont. It had to be an omen.

 

Alas, there are only so many four leaf clovers to spread around and in our final match they ran counterclockwise; aka  – the other way.

 

Some omen.

 

 

Some Oracle.

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

♠                      ♥                            ♦                        ♣

 

 *Just kidding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lunatic Fringe

(Ode to Tom Cochrane)

 

 

Well cowboys, welcome back to the Wild, Wild West also know as – on-line bridge. You find yourself in an allegedly an all-expert game, IMPs, none vulnerable and you South (a bona-fide on-line expert – now there is an oxymoron) to bid after a weak two spade bid on your right.

 

                   ♠ K                 

                   ♥ AK54

                   ♦ Q76

                   ♣ JT864

 

 

East         South      West       North

2♠              ?

 

Now I could send this into MSC Problem Director Mike Becker at The Bridge World, but he would laugh with Al Roth derision and say – “what’s the problem?” Moreover, he would be right.

 

Roth would never even open this rat bag let alone dream of venturing in at the three level. However, South was made of sterner stuff as they say and contemplated her options briefly.

 

With a gun to my head, I would consider double at MPs, but not at IMPs. Three clubs? You are kidding – right?

 

Well this player was not going to be pushed around and dipped her toes in the water. I want you to look at that hand one more time. If you are skinny dipping, (and you are), what options are there?

 

1)  Double.

2)  Double.

3)  Well….. you figure it out.

 

 

                   ♠ K                 

                   ♥ AK54

                   ♦ Q76

                   ♣ JT864

 

You bid? Well, it’s a trick question because you bid pass. But the player holding these cards felt a 3C bid was appropriate. Tom Cochrane was right.

              

 

You switch chairs to sit North. You hold and it is your turn to bid:

 

                      ♠AQT65            

                      ♥ 3

                      ♦ AK4                    

                      ♣ AK92      

 

  

    East         South      West       North

    2♠            3♣          Pass         ?   

 

A weak player will bid Blackwood and then 6C or 6NT and be happy to rest in slam, and probably score a plus.  A more seasoned player, being inherently greedy will be thinking grand slam. They might even stop to invite partner’s cooperation, pretending that they wanted it. The bona fide expert (and he is marked as World Class, even though he has not attained the right) is only playing here with a customer. Therefore, he is all too aware of the customer’s propensities. Of course, strictly for positional reasons the pro wants to play the hand.

 

For better or for worse, North cue-bid three spades. 

South rebid 3NT.

Wow!

 

 

East         South      West       North

2♠            3♣          Pass        3♠  

Pass          3NT        Pass        ?

 

 

North probably imagined something like  Kx  AQx  Qx  QJTxxx  in which case 7NT was lay down, but as the spade bidder was not on lead, clubs would play better if partner had (perish the thought) only five clubs.

 

North jumped to seven clubs and that became the final contract.

 

 

The auction:

 

East         South      West       North

2♠            3♣          Pass        3♠  

Pass         3NT        Pass        7♣

 All Pass 

 

 

I suppose if one bids like South, their play of the hand would demonstrate a likeness in talent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                  Dlr: East

                      ♠ AQT65            Vul: None

                      ♥ 3

                      ♦ AK4                    

                      ♣ AK92         

                         

                      ♠ K                 

                      ♥ AK54

                      ♦ Q76

                      ♣ JT864

 

 

East         South      West       North

2♠            3♣          Pass        3♠  

Pass         3NT        Pass        7♣

 All Pass 

 

Opening lead: 3♠

 

You win the King in hand, cross to the Ace of clubs, all follow.

You come back to hand with the ace of hearts and lead the jack of clubs.

 

After a low card from your LHO, do you finesse or play for the drop?

 

Well of course, it’s a silly question because you never would have bid three clubs and so, might not find yourself in a like predicament. Still, we all find ourselves playing these combinations, so it helps to get them right. South finessed, and who can blame her? The two-spade bid served its purpose.

 

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

                                                 Dlr: East

                      ♠ AQT65            Vul: None

                      ♥ 3

                      ♦ AK4                    

♠ 3               ♣ AK92         ♠ J98742

♥ QT9872                           ♥ J6

♦ 8532                                 ♦ JT9

♣ 73           ♠ K                  ♣ Q5

                   ♥ AK54

                   ♦ Q76

                   ♣ JT864

 

Poor Al. He is probably saying something like “it looks like a women’s party where the scotch has been flowing too freely.” And he would be right. I was North. I confess I was seduced by the fact that I imagined my partner had six clubs, after all is QT8xxx too much to ask for?

 

And I would be wrong. Ten lashes with a wet noodle to all, even the innocent West. After all, he could have at least held QX in clubs.

 

 

♠                      ♥                            ♦                        ♣

 

 

 

 

 

The Eleven Commandments

Vince Remey wrote this some time ago. If you have followed this blog then you will know of Grant Baze’s story of Barry Crane and my own. Here is another featuring the same superstar. It does not have the humour of Grant’s story nor the drama of mine, but it is insightful and offers a unique perspective of the rules he lived by. A must for every matchpoint player. Enjoy.

By Vince Remey

Michigan Bridge Association “Table Talk”, June 1986

One of the after session talks at Portland was by Mike Jones and was about Barry Crane. Mike became one of Barry’s favorite partners after first kibitzing him for some years. In fact, their first game arose when Mike watched Barry put together games of 132 and 136 (proving that such things did happen) and he then asked Mike to play the next day. He, of course, jumped at the chance and thus started a successful partnership of many years.

It was a very interesting talk and if Mike should give it at another National I would urge you to attend. Mike realized, as did all Barry’s partners, that you did everything his way and could expect to be harshly criticized if you deviated in any way from his system. And since you had to open all eleven point hands, even if part of the eleven points was a singleton honor, it was with some trepidation that you would open one diamond with Kxxx,Qxx,Kxxxx,K. Mike tells about one hand he opened one spade on AQxxx,KQxxx,Qxx and when Barry raised to two he thought his hand warranted another call and ventured three hearts which worked out fine as Barry had bid two spades on Jx,Axxxxx,Jxxx,J.

Barry had many nicknames on the coast but two of the best known were His Holiness (you don’t argue with the Pope, do you?) and the Hideous Hog. This led to the jest that Barry was a well known member of the Four H club.

Mike said he had to play Barry’s Eleven Commandments which were as follows:

1. Never pull partner’s penalty doubles.
2. Always take a sure profit.
3. Watch out for the three level.
4. The more you bid, the more you got.
5. Sevens are singletons.
6. Don’t bid grand slams in Swiss Teams.
7. Don’t put cards in partner’s hand.
8. Jesus saves.
9. Don’t eat between sessions.
10. Never ask “How’s your game.”
11. Never gloat.

The first one was easy enough to follow as if the opponents made the doubled contract there would ensue no criticism from partner. And, Mike added, it was surprising how rarely many matchpoints were lost when the contract was made.

The second commandment was also not hard to abide by but required some will power particularly in situations where the opponents sacrifice at 4 spades non-vulnerable against your vulnerable and you were pretty sure 5 hearts was cold. But with Barry you quietly took your plus and worried not about that lost 650.

The bit about “watching out for the three level” was just Barry’s way of saying anything goes when you compete at the two level but at the three level they are more likely to say double.

The fourth commandment was really old fashioned and was simply Barry’s way of emphasizing that each bid promised extra values.

The fifth commandment was as much a hunch as anything but Barry always felt that the lead of seven was more likely to be a singleton than, say, of a five or a six. Mike said that in many cases it was true but, of course, they had no statistical proof.

The caution about not bidding grand slams in Swiss Teams made a lot of sense particularly if your opponents are not all that skillful as nothing is more demoralizing than to go down one at seven while the other team only reached game. In fact, I remember the original Four Aces of forty or more years ago had a rule that if you bid seven once and went down you would be forgiven but if you did it the second time you were off the team.

The seventh commandment was Barry’s pet peeve. Nothing irritated him more than when partner made an unsuccessful bid and then said: “But if you had had such and such it would have worked.” His answer always was, “I never do so don’t plan on it.”

The “Jesus Saves” was, of course, Barry’s way of warning partner not to make sacrifice bids.

The ninth commandment was the one that Mike found the hardest to follow. He would come back to the table half-starving and the only comment he would get from Barry was, “Don’t complain. Everybody plays better when they are hungry.”

The last two commandments were, of course, personal foibles of Barry as he never liked anyone to ask about his game and he would never ask anyone else. He also did not like anyone who gloated.

Incidentally, as one who watched Barry play quite often I think most of the rules his partners had to follow were not the same ones he himself followed. His bids were often baffling and undisciplined and he was fun to watch for that reason. Also, he held his cards so you could see them, bid fast and played even faster. He was not very talkative but one time he got to an uncontested and hopeless six clubs, down two, and turned to me and said, “I think I could have bid that a little better.” Actually, that was at the same tournament where I played in the one session Senior Citizens Pair and some one in the elevator asked me how I did. I replied facetiously that I had played in the Senior Citizens Pair and what a coincidence that the first time I was eligible to play in it I won it. “Hell,” Barry said loudly from the rear of the elevator, “You were eligible 20 years ago.” That’s the trouble, when you have known somebody 35 years nothing is sacred.

Everybody who came to the talk was given a copy of Barry’s Convention Card which was surprising as it violated Remey’s Theorem, to wit: The better the player the more illegible and complicated the convention card. Barry’s was neat and uncomplicated and without boring you with a list of what he played, though it would not be a lengthy list, it is probably more interesting to emphasize where he differed from most of the other experts.

1. His opening one spade bid promised five but one heart promised only four in any seat. He did occasionally open a 3 card club suit but the one diamond opening always promised four. He did not play 1NT forcing and a jump to 3H or 3S was game forcing and 2NT was natural.
2. His opening preempts were sound and 3C or 3D guaranteed AKQ, AKJ, or AQJ.
3. His opening no trumps were 15-17, 21-22, and 25-26.
4. He did not use Michaels and the cue bid of a minor or a major was a strong takeout.
5. Under Defensive Card Play all that was listed was 4th best, top of three, and Q from KQ10.
6. His overcalls were often very light and the convention card under “Simple Overcall” showed 1 +. However, I suspect this was done merely to voice his irritation at this unnecessary feature of the card. I have seen other experts put in figures like 2 to 22 to express their feelings.
7. Finally, and most surprising, his opening 2D, 2H, and 2S bids were all strong in the first and second seats and weak (5-11) in 3rd and 4th. I asked him about this one time and he said he did it because he had so little discipline that prior to switching to the strong two he would open just about any hand with a weak two, often with bad results. Of course, he might have been spoofing me with that answer but it is what he said.

I remember only a year or so back asking Barry if he planned on writing a book on his philosophy and his system. He replied: “Are you kidding, do you realize how much you make with a bridge book?” Sure, as a top television producer and director he made lots of money and who could blame him for not wanting to spare the time. But wouldn’t it have been nice if he had.

 

The Lone Wolff Howls

Bobby Wolff was thoughtful enough to respond to my observation that he found it “too painful” to look back and revisit the history books with regards to the cheating detailed in Collateral Damage.  Many readers might not have seen this as it was published as a comment to one of the CD chapters.

I think it deserves to stand alone. You be the judge.

 Comments invited.  

CF 02/2009

  ____________________________________________________________________________________________

BOBBY WOLFF August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER ….

My response is intended to shed more light on Cam French’s quest, as he has sometimes called it — “To right a wrong” and, while doing it, if possible, to eliminate the deceit, betrayal and perfidy which accompanies it.

He has referred to my contribution to the subject as (among several things) welcoming more scrutiny to my views, but calling it just “too painful” for me to lift tall buildings to get it done. Let me explain: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in anyone’s mind, that Steve Sion and Alan Cokin as a partnership, cheated in Norfolk during the 1979 Fall Nationals and especially during the Board-a-Match Teams which they won, playing on a team with Jim Sternberg, Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel. What else is new? Since the pair had been cheating for years before that and whatever their finish, whether it be in Nationals, Regionals, or Sectionals, (maybe even in club games), it totally distorted the final results.

Next, a few years after that and while a member of the WBF Executive Council, I proposed a law which, at the time, was unanimously passed and resulted in the following: Once a partnership is found guilty of the most heinous crime which bridge can produce (illicitly exchanging surreptitious signals) with intent to defraud their opponents and the event (thus — bridge in general), said finish would not only be denied in that specific event, but it would apply retroactively to all events in which they participated as a partnership and the disqualification would apply not only to them — but to every other individual on those teams as well. Furthermore, any and all additional attendant advantages therein would be forever thrown out!

My simple motive for proposing and having this motion passed was to dissuade all honest players from partnering or teaming up with possible cheats for fear of this humiliating reprisal. Before I leave the subject, let it be noted that I further proposed (as part of the motion) that after said titles were vacated — no other team or pair would move up into finishing position in the standings which the cheating “team” or “pair” were justifiably forced to abdicate. As far as I know, this caveat is still part of WBF rules, even though, at least up until now, it has not been called to use.

I vividly recall with mixed emotion two parallel incidents which followed the posting of the finishers in high-profile Pairs Games. One occurred in 1970 in Stockholm and the other in 1974 in Monte Carlo. It was quite a humorous sight – as the fourth place pairs were receiving facetious congratulations from their sympathetic comrades who were, as they say — in-the-know! Funny, but true.

For those who may be curious as to what I meant by “too painful” — it is so highly subjective (not to mention impossible) to judge exactly what would have happened if the “cheaters” had not been playing. In a KO tournament, what about all the victims the rogue team beat on their way to the finals; and in Pairs, B-A-M or Swiss Teams — how about the skewed nature of results when the cheating caused a difference even to the extent (believe-it-or-not) that sometimes a cheating pair will lose a board because of their cheating rather than win it by not cheating?

In essence, what I was trying to accomplish was to deputize the whole high-level world bridge community to rise up and unify to swat down these diabolical attempts to destroy the honor of our game.

Alas, it has fallen far short of my lofty expectations. To understand why – one merely needs to refer to The Lone Wolff and arrive at his or her own conclusions. Sadly, the sanctity of bridge has changed profusely. One of the reasons for it is Professionalism. The intrigue and lure of bridge has been transformed from “the romance derived from the sheer beauty of the great game we play” to a more practical concern –”I need to win to maintain my livelihood”.

Could that be a reason why the other members of the ill-fated Norfolk team didn’t abdicate their victory since, by so doing, they each would have to strike one National Championship from their resume. Painful? Yes!!! And — in retrospect — I think I have understated it.

Let me discuss the ACBL role in this issue. The current ACBL, in my opinion, is made up of a dynamic CEO, Jay Baum, and some veterans along with many employees who do not even know how to play the game. It is fitting to cite a perfect example of lethargy involving our administration: There was a time, perhaps 15 to 20 years ago, where the “hallowed” trophies like the Reisinger, Vanderbilt, Morehead (GNTs) and Spingold were not even engraved with the current winners (besides being eight years behind).

Perhaps Shakespeare was ahead of his time and in a context apart, but I am reminded that our ACBL Board of Directors should be made of sterner stuff wherein this above sacrilege could never happen. Can anyone possibly believe that such an apathetic group of leaders, without tradition or genuine love for the game, can possibly treat bridge with the passion which Cameron French, Zeke Jabbour and, of course, some other notable exceptions do?

Before I conclude, I think it might be appropriate to mention the following historical episode. After winning my first two World Championships in 1970 and 1971, the Blue Team came out of retirement to contest and win the next four: One World Team Olympiad and three Bermuda Bowls in 1972-1975.

In all four of those championships my team competed representing both the USA and on one occasion the WBF as a defending Bermuda Bowl Champion (1973). All four of the teams that I played on were composed, except for my partner Bob Hamman, of different teammates. On all four occasions my team finished second to the Blue Team (losing by close margins twice, a medium margin once, and being blown out once).

It may be interesting to those who are familiar with the gambling world that in 1973, in Guaruja, Brazil, after our team edged out the Blue Team during the Round Robin for the No. 1 Seed in the finals, that the British bookmakers put our final match up on the board – with the Italians being favored by 21 to 1. In other words, if one wanted to bet on the Italians, they would have had to risk $2,100 to win $100. I mention this only to educate the public as to what the legal betting establishments around the world were privy to – yet the great unwashed American bridge community (and many others) were in denial!

In each of the four tournaments, according to the Burgay tapes (released in 1976 and authenticated by the United States CIA), every Blue Team member was wired to the teeth (for more particulars please read The Lone Wolff and be sure to get the upcoming World Bridge History, authored by Jaime Ortiz-Patino to be released this October at the World Championship in Beijing). As an aftermath of the Burgay Tapes, Jimmy barred every member of the Italian Blue Team from ever appearing in another World Championship, although he relented for two particular Blue Team members in 1979 and again in 1983. I must confess I fell from grace as well as I succumbed in 2004, as Permanent Chairman of the WBF Credentials Committee, in Estoril, by allowing the two surviving members of the Blue Team to participate in the Senior Teams – representing Italy.

Having said the above, I strongly believe that my teams, as well as some of the great USA teams of the late 1950’s and 1960’s, should have not been moved up and declared winners of events which they had failed to win — for whatever the reason!!!

Perhaps now others will understand what I meant when I referred to looking back as “too painful”.

Bobby Wolff

Rashoman Redux

  

                                                   An Ode to Frank Vine

 

 

 

 

 

 

  A personal perspective into the ego-driven wild-west that is on-line bridge.

 

 

South;

 

I find myself on-line with a random partner against and a couple of wanna-be experts sitting E/W. Now I have played these guys before, not sure if they were a partnership…but I have my both marked on my enemies list. The notation for LHO is “likes to bid with crap”.  RHO saw his name in print and now he imagines himself as Terrence. He plays OK. I just don’t like his attitude. I call him, “Mr. New York Times”. I don’t think so. I want to drill these guys. Pard is a no-name. Let’s hope he pays attention. I am sure I am the only real expert at this table.

 

So I pick up;

 

AJ8X

AQ

JXX

KXXX

 

All Vul, IMPs and first to call. I open 1NT, (15-17) as who would not?  Hamman would concur.

 

The clown on my left takes at least two seconds and overcalls 2D. They play natural! Perforce no alert – they must be dinosaurs. Hope partner whacks him. That guy just loves to hear the sound of his own voice if I say so myself.

 

 

West:

 

Well, I have played against the bozo on my right a couple of times. Have him marked on enemies’list as “likes to bid on air”. My “expert” partner prefers natural vs. NT, must be some kind of old geezer though he likes Lebensohl for some reason. I never did understand Leb that well. LHO never seen before. Convention card unrevealing. Everyone here overstates their level of ability. I am probably the only expert in this alleged all-expert game.

 

I hold:

 

7xxx                                                          

–                                                                  

AKxxx                                                      

Qjxx

 

Well you don’t win these games by going quietly into the night. My pard wants to play natural, versus no trump. Can you believe that? I have a natural bid. I bid 2D, as who would not? Nice to have natural available as with most of my usual partners want to play Capp or DON’T or some other obstructionist convention. I have a surprise or two and besides, I want to direct the lead. Oh, I will probably be on lead. Still, just in case. I learned from Barry Crane to be active. I like stirring the pot. Vulnerability is for children. Bergen and Cohen would applaud at my bid. Imps, shrimps!

 

North:

 

Have my partner and LHO marked on my enemies’ list. Why did I sit? According to my notes my pard “hogs every hand and bids erratically” and LHO thinks he is the cat’s meow because TBW published his drivel a couple of times. He is always lecturing; he disdains conventions, save Lebensohl but always drills me. Drives me crazy! I am positive I am the best player at this table. Why did I sit? Will leave soon… probably after this hand.

 

The auction is

 

P            RHO       Me

1NT        2D*          ? 

 

*Natural  (LOL)

 

I hold:

 

KQXX

X

Q9X

AT8XX

 

Who in the hell plays natural versus NT anymore? I should whack him, but we probably have an easy game. I would like to use Lebensohl, but my “expert” partner doesn’t play it. Oddly my LHO loves it, and extols its virtues on his stats. So I bid a straightforward 3NT. Everyone who can follow suit knows Hamman’s rule. So I apply it. Will redouble to show faith.

 

East:

 

Have LHO marked on my enemies list with this notation: “likes to skate on thin ice”. Personally I like that. And if you are Gretzky or Crosby (I am a Canadian after all) well more power to you. RHO I have marked as “play against”, I guess he is an easy mark. Don’t recall. These guys are more like Tie Domi and Sean Avery. Talks the talk, but can’t walk the walk. I love drilling these kinds of players. Would rather have a familiar partner, but on-line bridge is so hit and miss, never know what you might get. I like to make it easy for partner. That’s why I disdain conventions beyond the obvious, leads to problems. As far as I am concerned if they don’t play Leb – they are not an expert. I love it when they play Capp and DONT against me. Such conventions just give poor players a lousy reason to open their mouths; a temptation that they succumb to with predictable consistency.  

 

I hold:

 

X

KJT9876XXX

TX

– 

 

And the auction is to me:

 

LHO     Pard        RHO     Me

 

1NT       2D*         3NT       ?  

 

A ten card suit! With allegedly a couple of balanced hands. Either LHO or RHO probably has clubs like rice. I paid my entry fee, well actually it’s free, but that is moot. I came to bid. I will make it if part has as little as xxxx  –  AQJxxx xxx; and really, can he have less? I bid a normal 4H, only to see a quick double (not unexpected) on my left. Ten card suits are meant to be played, Best 4 HCP had I have held in my life! Al Roth would concur after talking about a “scotch-drinking game” or a like insult. Points, smoints!

 

South;

 

Mr. NYT on my right just bid 4H vulnerable! Christmas has come early. I will wager he thought it was Capp or Brozel or some other silly toy. I don’t care what my partner has; I have him in my own hand. I taste blood. The time has come to cut him down a notch. I am the best player at the table.

 

The auction is to me:

 

Me       LHO     Pard       RHO      

1NT      2D*      3NT        4H!!!

?

 

*(natural!) 

 

I hold:

 

AJ8X

AQ

JXX

KXXX

 

I have to stop my pard from bidding more and punish these guys. I smell a toll-free (800) number.

 

West;

 

My partner is a lunatic. Marking him on enemies list as we speak – notation –  Mr. No Convention when he remembers! Let him go for the number. I heard he thought he was a hot shot as he was published a couple of times…whoopee! I refuse to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. I had my bid. Let’s see how far short his falls. Nice to cut him down to size. Will leave after this carnage. Have him marked on enemies list, regardless of result and how can it be less than -800? Got to wait and see how harsh the punishment will be. This will be brutal. I am hoping for and frankly – expecting two sticks and two wheels, aggravation from a partner? I want to play against these wild men, not with them. I am the best player at the table.

 

North;

 

Well, it looks good. Certainly I have my call. The bad trump break and off-side to boot bodes well for us. I predict toll-free but who knows? Sometimes these authors suffer from New York Times Syndrome and the ensuing slaughter is off the scale. This confirms (I mean partner could not even pass, clearly forcing) that I am the best player at the table.

 

East

 

Perhaps I should redouble. I will lose two trumps and a spade. Is it too much to ask that a vulnerable partner has the diamonds covered? Will they run? Not likely but possible. Would I care to defend a black suit? No, but my guess the ego which oozes at this table will preclude that. Will my partner run? Not worth the risk. Somewhere I read that the real expert will only redouble when he prefers that the opponents run. An interesting gambit, what shall we call it? The Beaver Tale? In any case, can’t risk a run out, better to play as declarer. I pass, albeit reluctantly.  

 

The deal in full.

                                         KQXX

                                         X

                                         Q9X

                                         AT8XX

 

7xxx                                                           X

–                                                                   KJT9876XXX

AKxxx                                                        Tx

Qjxx                                                            –

 

                                         AJ8X

                                         AQ

                                         JXX

                                         KXXX

 

 

S             W           N           E      

 

1NT        2D*        3NT       4H

Dble     All Pass

 

After chalking up the obvious 10 tricks for 790……and 15.9 Imps.

 

 

South;

 

Lucky SOB! Ten card suit. I had my bids. Partner should have pulled. 4HCP!! It’s clear; I am the only expert here.

 

West;

 

Lucky SOB! Ten card suit! LOL. Opps are seething. I can’t believe it. Glad I had my values. He only had 4HCP! Coming in vulnerable at the four level, must be out of his mind. Still, I can’t believe he made it. Does he have horseshoes? It’s obvious; I am the only expert at this table.  

 

North;

 

Lucky bastard! What did I do to deserve this fate? My partner has to double in front of me. As if I didn’t hear him bid 1NT? Still the lucky SOB had a 10 card suit and a 4 count! Where do people learn to bid like this? Wish I knew. Still, I would rather he play with me than against. Nonetheless – he is a jerk, although no gloating yet, except from his groveling partner who justifies his wonderful “natural” 2D call. I am more positive than ever that I am the only expert here.

 

East;

 

He overcalls 2D vulnerable on that pail! Wow. Still, as pathetic as it was, it sufficed. Maybe I can make this a story for TBW? Jeff’s readers might love this kind of stuff. But certainly – he doesn’t. He sees the bridge world inhabited solely by experts. He should try the internet, like a club game with all of S.J. Simon’s characters. The truth is, the MSC excepted, the bridge playing public, like golf or any sport has many participants and precious few of us are of expert calibre.

 

Maybe he will recognize my expertise herein. You never know. Somewhere somehow Frank Vine is smiling. And if you don’t know why, ask Jeff, not me. Then order some back issues from www.bridgeworld.com.  If you are lucky, might get some Frank Vine material. You can also check out www.masterpointpress.com  and see a book of Frank Vine’s writings, fresh off the press. They are guaranteed to make you smile.

 

On-line bridge is like Vegas, a crap game, and I mean that in every sense of the word.

 

It is easy to play, tough to beat the house and only a pleasure if you can suffer through the occasional (partner and self-inflicted) carnage. And as one of Frank’s characters referred to a hasty conclusion, or in this case, (a poor result) “hasty conclusion like poisoned mushroom, easy to swallow, hard to digest.”

 

C

 

And by the way, I did give Jeff first crack. He declined. But he was kind enough to pass along insight that will allow me to target his audience with accuracy. Thanks Jeff.