September 11th, 2013 ~ linda ~
1 Comment 
I was reading a later from Rabbi Helman in Bridge World. Leonard Helman died recently. In the letter Rabbi Helman talked about how much he enjoyed playing with a bridge pro. He said it allowed him to play in wonderful events and mix with the elite of bridge. He loved playing against the stars and though it was well worth the money he paid to have this pleasure.
He often played with Mark Horton among others. Mark with Eric Kokish is writing a teaching book about his experience partnering Rabbi Helman. Leonard was a lovely man and he will be missed. Mark told me he asked to be buried with a deck of cards just in case.
I know years ago that I saw bridge primarily as a game of amateurs. It seemed unfair to me that some people PAID top players to play with them. They won events not because of their own skill but because they had enough money to fund a very good team. So some very wealthy clients who may be quite poor players ended up winning major titles.
It just seemed wrong to me. It seemed to somehow ruin the integrity of the game. I wasn’t against coaching. In fact, I would still like to see more coaching. Yes bridge teachers do their part. Mentors do too. But still there doesn’t seem to be enough coaches for many experts who want to build their skills. At least not many I know.
As time has past I realized that allowing people to make a living as a bridge expert required sponsorship. Some might make money writing or teaching but sponsorship brought a lot of money into the game. I guess the other option would be to have more events with big prizes if we could ever find a way to make that happen.
But it also allowed a lot of players like Rabbi Helman who were not fabulously wealthy to play with good players on good teams and have a good time. Most probably learn as they go along at least a little.
I find that I am still ambiguous about all the sponsorship of major teams. I see the good points but perhaps it is sad that there are so few top teams that are not “carrying a client”.
In a lot of ways I agree with Leonard – it is worth it to pay experts to play with you. What do you think?
September 8th, 2013 ~ linda ~
3 Comments
Here were a few situations I pondered yesterday. I admit that my choices turned out well but I was quite unsure when I made them. And even looking at my hand now I still wonder.
This was my hand.
West passed and my partner opened 1♣ . East doubled. What do you think is right?
Some purists might consider 1H. But my partner will always have a three card club suit or more and I thought it was more important to push on clubs. So my choice was 3♣, 4♣, 5♣. 2♣ never occurred to me. Now West who was a passed hand bid 4♠ over 3♣ and partner bid 5♣ . East bid 5♠ to me. Here is the whole auction
I decided to double. I thought I had a trick with the heart ace and my partner probably had a trick or two as well for his opening bid. Yes I know are clubs are not cashing. As it turned out doubling was a pretty good choice as partner may well have passed it out if I passed. Here is the whole deal:
We beat it three. We did get the diamond ruff but couldn’t time things to also get two hearts and a heart ruff.
Okay, it worked but how would I have done in the Master Solvers Club?
So then I held this hand at unfavorable vulnerability.
East passed and I opened 1♣ . West overcalled 1♥ and partner bid 1♠ . East bid 4♥ and it was up to me.
While we haven’t discussed it I thought partner was likely to have five spades for his 1♠ bid since he had a negative double available. He had at most one heart and therefore most likely a few clubs. So I liked my fit.
But still do I have enough for 4♠ ? That is the bid I want to make. After all at imps vulnerable games are the prize. I guess my only other choices are pass or double. I think double is mostly for penalty. What do you think?
And of course you know what I bid. 4♠ . This was passed out and partner had a great hand – enough to justify my bidding.
In fact 6♠ is a pretty decent contract and will make as the cards lay. Do you like my bids? Do you agree with my reasoning. Would you be there to defend me at some Master Solvers Club?
September 6th, 2013 ~ linda ~
2 Comments
I was reading the recent ACBL Bulletin and enjoyed Brent Manley’s editorial comparing his experiences as a running coach of newcomers with making newcomers welcome to our game of bridge.
As both a graduate of the C25K program (coach potato to 5K running program) and a bridge teacher and coach I really empathized with both the newcomer and coach point of view.
When I started to run my daughter was my coach and when I was finding a program difficult I would think about how pleased she would be when I told her that I had made it! I have found that runners of all levels welcome newcomers to their ranks. We need to make sure that bridge players are that welcoming and we need to think about how to bring a C25MP (coach potato to 5 master points) program to a lot of people. We need to make it available, approachable and ideally free.
Ray is busy editing some update Mike Lawrence books and we were discussing a deal. It reminded me of a deal I played with a student yesterday.
Norm was sitting North and he held
.
He passed and I opened 1♦ in third chair. Norm bid 1♥ and I leaped to the heart game.
The ♦Q was led and this is what he saw. (I have inverted the deal for convenience.)
The opening lead was the ♦ Q. It was won by East and the ♦ 6 was return and ruffed. East returned the ♣ 2 which you win in dummy with the ♣ A.
You have lost two tricks and you still have two spade losers in your hand. One approach is to draw two rounds of trump and assuming that they break 3-2 or you could ruff a spade (or two) in dummy. That would lead to 10 or 11 tricks. Even if trump break 4-1 as long as the long hand just got the diamond ruff you would still be in excellent shape.
So you start by cashing the ♠ A and leading a heart to the ♥ Q in hand. Alas, West shows out throwing a small spade.
How do you proceed?
You have lost two tricks and you still have two spade losers in your hand. One approach is to draw two rounds of trump and assuming that they break 3-2 or you could ruff a spade (or two) in dummy. Even if trump break 4-1 as long as the long hand just got the diamond ruff you would still be in excellent shape.
So you start by cashing the ♠A and leading a heart to the ♥ Q in hand. Alas, West shows out throwing a small spade.
How do you proceed? If you haven’t counted WINNERS this is a good time to start. Most of us have no trouble counting losers but forget to count winners. By this point you have three tricks and need seven more. If you draw trump fully you can cash four another three club tricks and you still have three trump tricks to take. You still need one more and you can obtain that by ruffing a spade in hand with a top trump. Then you can play three more rounds of trump by crossing to dummy overtaking the ♥ 10.
So following this approach you ruff a spade with the trump ace. Cash the HJ and overtaking the ♥ 10 with the ♥ J and draw the opponents last trump with the ♥ 9. (love those heart spots). Then you play the ♣ K, overtake the ♣ J with the ♣ Q and cash the ♣ 10 for your tenth trick (love that club spot).
Now in fact Norm was actually sitting North and I didn’t invert the deal for convenience but to show it to you from Norm’s point of view. We usually find it easier to declare hands when the master hand is OUR hand. On deals like this you have to shift your viewpoint a bit. And that was Mike’s point in his book. Mike does show you the deal both ways to illustrate his point. By the way Mike Lawrence is no doubt one of the very finest bridge writers and teachers of all time. Every book he has written provides unique and valuable insights.
August 22nd, 2013 ~ linda ~
No Comments
I was discussing winning, losing and competing with a student. She had some poor results in a practice session and was talking about giving up the game.
Do you compete to win or just to play and have fun? I can’t really imagine playing bridge only to have fun. I always want to win. Sometimes it is more important than others but competition brings that out in me. And I am not happy when things go badly. And I don’t like it when my opponents do well by fluke.
Here is an example of doing bad things and getting a good result. I held:
There was no opposition bidding
Partner opened 1♠.
I bid a forcing notrump since we were playing 2/1 and showed limit raises by supporting the major on the second bid. Partner now jump shifted into hearts,a game force.
At this point I bid 3♠ showing values since with a weaker hand I would just jump to game. When partner bid 4♠ I passed.
Looking at the North-South hands alone 6♠ is a great contract. We missed it because my student and I were not on the same wavelength during the auction. But if you look again you will see that a spade slam is defeated on a heart ruff although you can make slam in either notrump or hearts.
This mistake turned out to be a plus position for our side. This was the first board we played. Believe it or not we didn’t get a minus score or lose imps in the remaining ten boards. True the hands did run our way but that was not the major reason that we won so many imps. As things started to go our way we have the momentum and after a while our opponents EXPECTED to fail.
This got me to thinking about competing. Competing at anything is so full of hopes, desires, fears, emotions. When I played at the world championships I couldn’t eat.. I had trouble sleeping. It didn’t even matter if I was doing well. I was afraid of failure.
Now that I play tennis I am afraid to play the first game or two with new people. I am nervous that I will ruin their game. I afraid I will keep double faulting (quite likely). But my expectations are low. And when something good happens then it makes up for all the double faults. We are generous to each other. Novice bridge can often be like that too but as people get stronger the support goes down.
Running at my level is a purer enterprise. I am a novice runner. When I run I am only competing with myself. I set goals and I try to achieve them. If I don’t I work to improve. I am not afraid. I have trained and I believe I can do what I set out to do.
Quite likely world class runners who go out to win races have the same anxiety that expert bridge players have.
When we are learning we need to give ourselves the freedom to make mistakes, even stupid ones. If we become serious competitors we need to learn how to handle our anxieties because they will be there. It is hard to let your partner down or your team down even as a novice but it will be impossible to reach your potential if you don’t allow yourself to mess up, even badly.
August 15th, 2013 ~ linda ~
5 Comments
As I have been mentoring more online I have noticed that at the beginner table it seems that everyone says well done partner (WDP) or well done opponents (WDO) something like that on almost every hand. The more advanced the players the less they say it. I was thinking about what that means.
What I try to do is save the virtual high 5’s for when partner has really done something good within their skill limits. When I teach brand new players opening 1NT on a balanced 15-17 (which they learn at about lesson 2 or 3) is worth a “WDP”. But as players advance I save the WDP for tougher things.
I have also noticed that the total number of well dones decreases as the players skill levels increase until at expert level you are lucky if the opponents don’t scoff (probably thinking “Why do I get fixed by those pooches?”) and partner tries to look neutral. Are we just so competitive as experts that we can’t spare a few nice words?
Of course in the offline world we say much less than in the online world. This is a little strange because it takes longer to type than talk. Online I have a ritual of always saying “Good luck partner (GLP).” when I put the dummy down and then “Thank you partner (TYP)” when I am declarer. I think I am mostly thanking partner for letting me play the hand.
I do say thank you when I play in person too although not good luck and I try to remember to always say it so that the opponents won’t know how I feel about dummy (and I am pretty good at using a neutral inflexion).
So can someone please tell me why beginners are supernice? Does playing bridge destroy your manners over time? Is this the same reason we give beginners all those trophies? Is it to hook them in with niceness?
When I play with students I save the well dones for those times when somebody really does something that is excellent keeping in mind their skill level.
August 13th, 2013 ~ linda ~
2 Comments
I met Les Amoils at the elevator in the Marriot at the beginning of this year’s Summer Nationals in Atlanta. I have known Les for eons and I knew that he has recently gathered some terrific teams for high level play. So I also knew that he had come to the NABC meaning business – “winning bridge championships” business. I was in Atlanta for the American Bridge Teachers Association (ABTA) convention. Master Point Press has a joint website with them called ABTAhome.com or Teachbridge.com. (Both are the same website). I was giving a talk about the website and I was also presenting the Master Point Press ABTA Bridge teacher of the year award. (More about that in another blog).
Les asked me what events I was playing in. I confessed I wasn’t planning to play at all. He looked at me incredulously. “Not playing?” He was playing in everything! He was excited! I don’t think at that moment either of us understood the other.
But then when I was watching Les’ team make it to the finals of the Spingold and lose in an exciting playoff after playing to a draw in regulation time, I realized that it would be wonderful to be in his shoes. It would be amazing to be playing in the final of the Spingold. Wow!
I remember thinking quite a while ago that it would be great to be part of a terrific team and play in something challenging. Now I prefer teaching, writing, promoting bridge in any way I can and of course learning to play tennis, running, doing very long hard walks and that sort of thing. I remember running into Sheila Forbes, a very fine bridge player, at a bridge club one time. She told me she would rather be golfing. I didn’t understand then. Now I do.
So there I was watching late at night when the word had come through that the Spingold was tied about 64 boards and there would be an eight board playoff and I imagined I was Les sitting at the computer and watching.
One team in this final was Bridge 24, the 39th seed mind you, a group of the wonder kids from Poland: Jacek Kalita 33, Michal Nowosadzki 30, Rafal Jagniewski, 40 and Wojciech Gawel, 29, If you want to read more about them check out Bridge 24. They are professional bridge players with a mission: to make bridge more popular and to train the best young players.
Jacek Kalita
Seeded much higher but still not seeded for the final was the number 9 seed Grue. This team will be much more familiar to most North Americans.
Joe Grue, Las Vegas NV; Leslie Amoils, Toronto ON; Brad Moss, Denver CO; Thomas Bessis, Paris France; Peter Bertheau, Taby Sweden; Jacob Morgan, Madison WI
So now these two unlikely finalists met in a playoff for the title. The playoff was essentially decided on Board 6. Coming into board 6 Bridge24 held an apparent (unofficial) one imp lead. This was the deal
East-West was vulnerable and East was the dealer. In the Open Room West, In the Open Room the Polish East-West played in 4♦ in a competitive auction where Grue-Moss bid to 3♥ . The defence made no errors and Nowosadzki ended up 2 down -200 which looked like a decent score to Grue. But in the open room this was the auction
Wet’s double of 2♥ showed values. Do you agree with Bessis’ double of 3♥ ? This was not a penalty double but what we used to call a responsible double – I double and partner you are responsible! (Please do the right thing.) Having double it was up to him to find the right lead. Looking just at his hand what would you lead into this auction?
You could make an argument for a trump, passive but unlikely to give up much. And then again you could lead any suit with spades being the most passive. The double of 2♥ does suggest some spade length, I think. When you look at all the hands you can see that a spade or a diamond will beat it. Your side must set up a second spade trick before declarer can establish a club winner for a spade pitch. Bessis led a trump. I think it is reasonable.
So how do you assign the blame? Was it a system problem. If Bertheau had opened a natural diamond, as they did at the other table then the end result would have been different. Bessis could have passed out 3♥ . Yes Bertheau had a good hand but where were they going? Still nobody wants the other side to “steal the hand.” Should Bertheau have pulled? He knows partner doesn’t have hearts nor all that many points.
If they simply sold out to 3♥ doubled then they would have won a couple of imps on Board 6 and then maybe, just maybe they would have pushed the next board because I do believe in momentum and after Board 6 it had shifted to the Eastern Europe.
Either way it was a great match with two teams that have a big future. And special congratulations to Les Amoils who was so right when he knew that playing bridge was going to be great.
August 10th, 2013 ~ linda ~
3 Comments
When I used to play bridge a lot more (and a lot better) than I do now I used to think about the choices that I was making. I would have a decision to make and I could go one way or the other. On a good day I went the right way most of the time.
This is a deal from the Spingold Semifinal match Grue versus Schwartz. North is vulnerable against not and West passes in first chair.
What do you do?
One could come up with an argument for 1♠ , 2♠ or 3♠ or even pass. Of course partnership agreements affect your decision. I remember losing a board when an opponent opened 2♠ on a hand like this and stayed low when the field got too high. Her argument was that 7-2-2-2’s should be downgraded. The diamond QJ doesn’t look particularly attractive either.
Have you picked your poison?
In the Open Room Bessis opened 3♠ which I personally like. The spades have good texture and while the ♣ A is a surprise, partner would expect a hand as good as this, in playing strength, at this vulnerability.
Lindqvist, East passed and so did Betheau, South. Now it was up to Brogeland. He held:
Would you bid now? Partner isn’t going to expect too much because you are a passed hand and he knows you are protecting. This choice seems easy to me, probably because a) I am not at the table and b) I am looking at all the hands. I would pass. It might be wrong some day, I do have that stiff spade but it might be right to pass in several ways.
When you bid at imps you aren’t really fighting for the partscore as you might at matchpoints. Your concern is more that your side is missing game and if your partner has the right hand (say a decent opening bid with good hearts) he would already have bid.
But I know Brogeland. He is a very thoughtful player and I am not really trying to second-guess his thought process. He made his choice and doubled and I know he had good reasons for it.
Lindquvist, facing a passed partner, had nothing sensible to do but pass.
.
Now the third big decision on the deal. What do you lead? Hands up anybody who lead a heart. I don’t think even David Bird’s magic lead program would find a heart lead. Anything else lets it make. If you lead a spade honor you will hold it tight and any other lead allows an overtrick.
The whole hand was:
In the Closed Room Graves chose to open 2♠ and Moss with the West hand doubled. Is it more obvious or more “right” to double over 2♠ ? I think the double of 3♠ is more likely to be left-in (although as a passed hand it is clearly protecting partner). Anyway Grue, East, wasn’t tempted to sit and he bid his four card suit, 3♦ . I think all of us would have made this choice.
3♦ drifted off one but 3♠ doubled making an overtrick was worth 930 and a big 13 imps.
July 23rd, 2013 ~ linda ~
4 Comments
First I would like to thank all those who sent me birthday greetings on Facebook and in other ways. I am leaving now on holiday in a beautiful Northern Ontario resort with a great tennis facility and a beautiful wonderful with all sorts of things to do. I plan to plan tennis, run, boat and generally enjoy the beauty of the land. What a great birthday present.
Second, I have to send special congratulations to Jenny Wolpert who will be on one of the US Womens Teams. That means that Jenny joins her husband Gavin and his brother Darren and their mother Hazel all of whom will be participating in Bali. I think they have run out of bridge playing Wolperts! Good luck to all of you and to all of the North American teams.
What a triumph for the Wolpert family and especially for Hazel who started it all and must be very proud.
Fortunately I will NOT have a computer with me on holiday so no posting for a while. But I should have lots to say when I get back.
July 18th, 2013 ~ linda ~
4 Comments
I spend a lot of time with advanced students talking about bidding systems. Sometimes we talk about whether or not 2/1 is better than standard or forcing club is the best. We talk about conventions. What do you like to compete over strong notrump or weak notrump? And so on.
But what I occurs to me is that success is so often not about system but about judgment. About putting together all the information you have and making a good decision. Today so many auctions are competitive and yet so much focus is on refining our constructive bidding system.
Here is an example or two from a session with Norm, my mentee.
Not vulnerable against vulnerable I was in second chair. East passed and I opened 1♥ . West passed and Norm bid 1♠.
What should I rebid? The two choices are 1♥ or 1NT. To me this is not a matter of system but of judgment. With all these cards in the side suits and all this tenaces I just liked 1NT better. West bid 2♦ and Norm had a fielder’s choice. He could double or bid 3NT. He chose 3NT and there we were.
As you can see 3NT is a much better contract than 4♥ . And look at West’s hand. I don’t mind a 2♦ overcall even vulnerable over 1♥ but why not do it right away. It is much more dangerous when he bid it. And at this vulnerability Norm could easily have opted for defending. I am very likely to have something good in diamonds. We have at least seven tricks against 2♦ doubled. As it turned out bidding 3NT instead of the heart game was worth more than 9 imps at imp pairs.
Here is a typical competitive situation..mostly judgment but maybe you have a system.
Both vulnerable I held
East passed and I opened 1♥ . West overcalled 1♠ and Norm bid 2♥ . East bid 2♠ . For good or evil I liked the offensive values of this hand and made a somewhat aggressive 4♠ bid.
West continued with 4♠ which was passed to me. Now with some partners I play that this pass is forcing. I have to double or bid on. And in fact the pass tends to suggest that partner has something extra. But Norm and I do not play forcing passes. So far all Norm has done is bid 2♥ . Should I pass, double or bid 5♥ ? What does your judgment tell you to do?
Double works best. But if you bid 5♥ you will be okay if don’t lead a diamond. Pass is really the worst choice. Here is the whole hand.
I am not all that crazy about West’s 4♠ bid but it does put pressure on the opponents (and go for a number!) Many of you might think that double is obvious on my hand, but is it?
My point is that bidding has really always been at least as much about making good choices as it is about system. There seems to me to be too many conventions and agreements and (even arguments) and too little work on building a better thought process about what makes a good offensive hand. And of course a lot more thought about handling competitive auctions. My opponents never seem to pass these days.
July 11th, 2013 ~ linda ~
3 Comments
Master Point Press has often sponsored Canadian bridge teams. This year the Canadian Open Team was a clear choice for our sponsorship and we discussed it with them early on before their playoff with Mexico. They rightly said – wait until after the playoff. However, we never thought it would be such a close thing. As we understand it the Open Team won by a single IMP! I sympathize with the valiant Mexicans but hey – go Canada.
The Canadian Open Team includes Judy Gartaganis and Nicholas Gartaganis, Paul Thurston and Jeff Smith, Darren Wolpert and Daniel Korbel with Hazel Wolpert (NPC),
There are several notable things about this relatively young and dynamic team. First Paul Thurston is a Master Point Press author and the bridge columnist for a Canadian newspaper, the National Post. Paul wrote 25 Steps to Learning 2/1. This is an outstanding book (an ABTA Book of the Year) for the many people who play a standard system and want to learn 2/1. We are still waiting for Paul’s next book on Advanced 2/1. Paul has been working on it we understand and we hope Bali does not get in the way of completion because we continually get requests for that book. Paul has also written Bridge at the Breakfast Table, a collection of his National Post columns. Both books are available in ebook form at popular online booksellers and at www.ebooksbridge.com. Paul and his partner Jeff Smith practice often on BBO and I have had the pleasure of being their opponent from time to time. They are tough opponents, so watch out world!
Also amazing when you look at the teams going to Bali is the Wolpert effect. Hazel Wolpert is captain of the Open Team. Hazel is a well-known bridge teacher and owner of a very successful Toronto bridge club. I have played on a women’s team with Hazel that had a surprise win in the CWTC some years ago and then went to the World Championships in Istanbul. My son Colin used to play with her sons Gavin and Darren. Now both of her sons are playing in Bali. Gavin is on one of the US Open Teams and Darren is on the Canadian team. Wow – what an achievement for the Wolpert family. Hazel, you must be just bursting with pride.
Judy Gartaganis and Nicholas Gartaganis have been stars of Canadian bridge for years. Nick was the playing captain of the Canadian team that had a terrific win at the bridge IOC event in Salt Lake City in 2000 – beating Poland, Italy and the USA to take the gold medal. Judy couldn’t play because it was men only (not an Open event) and there is a funny picture of her with the team wearing a moustache. (She did get to play on our women’s team in Salt Lake, and I ended up as NPC, but that’s another story.)
Daniel Korbel is a young bridge professional. Daniel was recently featured in this article in a local Waterloo Ontario newspaper The Record.com, Bridge pro unveils his secrets as a hired gun. There is a spiffy picture of Daniel in the article, don’t miss it.
It is great that Canada has such a terrific mix of young players and experienced older players taking on the world.
All the staff of Master Point Press wishes all of you the best of luck in Bali. We will be cheering for you.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related