A Great Responsibility

November 10th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

We received an email today from someone who really cared about the original Love book, Bridge Squeezes Complete.  Once again it made me realize what a great responsibility it is to update this book.  I hope we have not lost Love’s special writing style and humor.  In many cases we have enhanced the analysis.  Love had a way of presenting a hand, throwing in a line or two about how you could make it on a complex squeeze and then moving on.  Sometimes, he didn’t see the best line or missed alternatives.  Most of the time this isn’t a problem but some times deals go back and forth between Ray, Julian and I as we discuss the merits of various lines. 

We have also added a fair bit of content.  For example we added the clash squeeze.  First there is the discussion about whether this particular squeeze is common enough or interesting enough to add.  Then we have to decide where to place it and how much to describe the mechanisms that allow you to spot it and operate it.  That was one of the things that made Love so special.  He described the how of things and sometimes the why of them.  So many squeeze books just show you a definition and an example of a squeeze type and move on.

A clash squeeze is related to a simple guard squeeze.  Simple guard squeezes are fairly uncommon.  One defender is squeezed in two suits but generally something is wrong so the squeeze will not work.  But the same defender has to help guard a third suit which creates a kind of triple squeeze.  The defender has to hold enough stuff in the suit to prevent declarer from finessing his partner in the “guard” suit.  The simple clash squeeze is very uncommon.  Again the defender is guarding two suits and again the simple squeeze won’t work.  Again declarer has a threat in a third suit which is partially guarded by the defender’s partner.  But this time the defender has to keep his high card to force declarer to play two potential winners on the same trick.  It prevents declarer from cashing the two winners separately.  A typical example, declarer has Ax  opposite the queen alone.  You hold the king.  If you discard the king declarer can cash both winner.  If not declarer will have to play the queen under the ace.   Now partner’s guard in the suit will prevent declarer from making the little one.

I did once see a clash squeeze, well not at the table.  I was at a Nationals and David Lindop came by quite excited about having just performed a clash squeeze.  So while it does happen,  it is not exactly a common occurrence.  It does have a great name but should it be in the book?  We decided to include it but keep the section on it short.  It seemed to us that it fit in with guard squeezes and by looking at a clash squeeze, along with the guard squeeze and also a third type of squeeze a mole squeeze that it enhanced the readers understanding of the concept of a 21/2 suit squeeze.  The 1/2 suit refers to the idea that the victim is partially protecting a suit.

I am so grateful that Julian Pottage is participating in the project too.  From my emails from Julian and his comments I can tell that all of us care about making this book as good, correct and complete as we can.  I only hope that we have done justice to the original.

Too Much Love?

November 8th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

I am just finishing up the work on Bridge Squeezes.  I have to review Chapter 6,7, and 8 one more time to check the changes made by Ray and Julian Pottage.  So far all my problems in Chapter 1-5 were not those changes but things I didn’t really quite understand the first time round.  I am also adding short chapter summaries.

Then I get to write Chapter 9.  Chapter 9 is going to have some more advanced squeeze types.  Ideas that  came after Love wrote his book.  I have some example squeeze, many of them provided by Julian but I still have to write the chapter.  Ray and I have been debating exactly what goes in.  As it is this book is longer than Ray wanted and we keep adding things.  I have found a few things to take out.  One thing that has going is some esoterica where Love showed you a squeeze at trick one.  Still there will be a lot of things that Julian or I want to put in that won’t make the cut.

Now I see squeezes everywhere of course.  It seems like I can’t watch or play one session of bridge without a squeeze popping up.  I had this one today for some uptricks.

I opened 1H and Sylvia bid 1S.  I bid 1NT and when Sylvia checked back I denied three spades so she decided to play 3NT.  The opening lead was a spade which ran to the SJ.  I continued spades and East won the SK and switched to the HQ.  At this point I have ten tricks.  I could duck the heart to rectify the count but if East now switches to a club she will ruin my communication for a squeeze.  No problem.  I can play for a strip squeeze.  I won the heart and ran all my winners.  West must hold a heart and two clubs.  I can throw her in on the heart for a club lead.  She did make the nice play of throwing the HK since her partner was known not to have that card and came down to the HJ (Which she shouldn’t have) the CK alone and a diamond.  I dropped it anyway.  East had kept the H72 and if the HK was a true card then she had no clubs left and West had the protected club king. 

It just didn’t seem likely to me that she would throw all her clubs and keep all her hearts.  Beside if that were true there was no squeeze anyway and that would be no fun.

Thanks Clyde. 

Now I guess I better start to work on a book on bidding. 

When is it right to make a penalty double?

November 6th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I was watching Isabelle Smith and Sondra Blank play against Glen Ashton and Jeff Smith.  This deal got me thinking.  First let’s look at Isabelle’s hand.

She was sitting North and was non vulnerable against vulnerable opponents.  This was the first few rounds of the auction.

What do you think a double by Isabelle should mean?  I know this is a matter of partnership understanding and I am sure that Isabelle and Sondra have this worked out.  I have seen that they quite like to use the axe and penalty double is one of their weapons.  So I suppose that they like to use that double for penalty.  I prefer to use it as lead directing and given that I overcalled hearts I think it should suggest that partner find another lead.  I can see arguments for other meaning as well. 

Now let’s assume that double by you is penalty (I could be wrong but I think that is what they play.)  What are the pro’s and con’s of doubling.  Since it is not lead directing there are two possible purposes, you hope to get your opponents out of 3NT or you think that you will score a decent penalty here and ideally in the contract that they end up in. 

In the context of this hand, if they leave 3NT they are headed to 4D or 5D.  Is that better than 3NT?  It certainly isn’t clear you are beating 3NT but the odds seem in your favor.   Diamonds isn’t quite so clear.  What is the risk/reward ratio of a double here?   The benefit will come if your opponents pull out and 3NT is the right spot.  A small number is a possibility too.  I know that this bid does create some pressure on your opponents though.  It forces them to make a decision.

Now let’s consider Jeff’s hand

Jeff has the advantage of knowing Isabelle very well.  He could probably take a pretty good guess at what she had.  He knew that 3NT was a gamble even when he made the bid.  He pulled to 4D.  He might have bid 4C to help Glen decide between 4D and 5D.  That’s close.

As it turned out 3NT can make.   Here was the whole hand

On a heart lead declarer and North must both duck.  Now Sondra would shift to a spade which would go to the SK and SA.  Glen would have to concede a diamond and the hand can not be defeated whether Glen guesses spades or not.

So on this deal the double got the best possible result.  It pulled the opponents out of a making game into a partscore.  It put pressure on the opponents and they quite reasonably guessed wrong.  That is what I like about this pair.  They are going to create action.  Some times a bid like this will go wrong.  That is the nature of this style but quite often good things will happen.  They will be tough opponents.

Its a part of Isabelle’s game I always liked when I played with her.  Sondra and Isabelle together are even better at it. 

Halloween Bridge

November 1st, 2009  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

spooky ……

I watched and commented on a Swedish IMP PairTrials match today.  I saw a fascinating hand which featured  a very interesting defense.  Here is the deal.  The defenders were Peter Fredin, Björn Fallenuis pictured below.

You are playing 3NT from the North hand. West passed in first chair and there was no opposition bidding. You showed a 2NT type hand and you partner checked for a spade fit. The opening lead was the H6 which was covered by the H7 and HJ and your HA.  You look like you might scramble nine tricks but it is not clear where they will come from.  Anyway you decide to play a club to the C10 which seemed reasonable. 

Now you are West.  You win the CA and have to decide what to do.  It is not clear what the H6 is from.  Does East have a doubleton heart or a tripleton?  Systemically you would not lead the 6 from any tripleton holding.  You really prefer to get the heart play from partner’s side so you decide to lead a diamond.  You find the rather spectacular play of the D4.  Perhaps you are being tricky.  Perhaps you want to save your diamond honor. 

Declarer has to figure out what is happening on this defense.  From the opening lead it seems unlikely that East has five clubs and it appears the he holds at least three or four clubs including the queen.  Four seems most likely for the duck but certainly not sure.  It looks like he has two hearts and based on the diamond play perhaps three diamonds.  Anyway, you can see it is impossible to work much out.  Rising on the DA is best but who can figure that out.  North put in the DQ.  A diamond came back West playing the DJ.  It is still completely unclear what is going on.   Playing West for the diamond length North ducked. 

I think it is the wrong play.  But who can blame you.  Declarer is not at all sure where the ninth trick is coming from and he doesn’t know  that the C9 and the SJ are coming down, but if some good things don’t happen he is never making this hand.  East is going to get the lead on the CQ and if he ducks the diamond, a heart may come back.  

Now it was up to West, Fallenius, to find the switch to the HQ.   And he did.  I would hate to play against defenders like these.  Somehow their carding tells the wrong story and they figure out the right thing to do anyway.  Fortunately I rarely have to.

Perhaps this was good defense or perhaps you think that declarer should have done better.  But the bridge was fascinating to watch.

…………….

I have eaten my fill of Halloween candy and I have my strength up to watch some more bridge tomorrow.  I have done a first pass at all of Love, Bridge Squeeze Complete.  We may end up dropping the problems at the end of the book (we added some new ones too).  It is getting too long.  Maybe I will post them as a free download instead. 

So now its just some revision and some decisions.  Sylvia and I are going to practice tomorrow.  There is a post-Love life.

Baby Pictures

October 31st, 2009  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Here are some pictures of Roy and his family.  The baby in the first picture is a day old and in the second 1 week old.

Roy tells me….

He is Evan Michio Hughes, born Oct 18 weighing 6 lb 9 oz.

….

and Clyde E. Love … so what is your favorite squeeze.  We have decided to add some but we are still debating exactly which ones.  I vetoed the Jettison squeeze today.  This is why… it is a subclass of blocked squeezes and it will never ever come up.  It occurs when you have a suit blocked and have to throw away a high card to unblock it.  This creates a loser which goes away in the squeeze.  You jettison the blocking card on the squeeze card.  If you ever have actually had one and email me I will send you a copy of the new Clyde E. Love Bridge Squeezes Complete.  I will blog about you and do what I can to immortalize your hand.

I do admit that Julian sent Ray a decent example of one and Ray did write it up.  I is currently sitting on the cutting room floor.

So we talk about winkles and clash squeezes and entry shifting squeezes and so on.  The winkle reminds me of when I used to play with David Bryce when I was in my twenties.  David would say that if you completed a winkle you got to stand up and yell “WINKLE”.  I have done that a time or two.

Playing just a few hands

October 30th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I decided to play a few deals in between writing up the final squeeze problems at the end of Love.  This is much easier work then working through the chapters so I am less bridge brain dead than usual and besides a pickup game doesn’t need all that much concentration.  I go this rather amusing hand to play (and bid).  I was South and held:

I was in fourth red versus white and remarkably it was passed to me.  I decided it was too good for 2NT and I wasn’t going to fool around with hearts anyway so I open 2C.  West on my left bid 2H which was passed back to me.  What do you do?  I doubled.  I didn’t really know how partner would take it but I suspected that since he was going to be short in hearts he wasn’t going to sit for it.  He bid 3D.  Now I bid 3NT.  He made a peculiar bid.  He though a long time and passed.  I got a diamond lead and this is what I saw.  Yes, really.

Maybe he was just happy we weren’t doubled.  Anyway the diamond went to the DK and my ace.  I tried the DQ but the DJ did not appear.  So now I have to play clubs.  I played the CA and saw the C3 and the C4.  What do you play for?

I thought that West who had overcalled had the CK.  He probably didn’t have the KQ10 of hearts or he would have led one and he didn’t have the DK.  So not much else was left.  If he had six hearts he probably would have opened a weak 2 bid.  So I put him with five hearts, two diamonds.  That left five black cards.  I decided that with a four card black suit he would have been more likely to lead that then what looked to me liked a doubleton diamond.  So I played the CQ and caught the stiff CJ on my right.

Now I was thinking overtricks!  West held

I suppose it was mostly a lucky guess.  But it felt good to make the contract and then get back to work.   Bridge can always be fascinating even when you just play a few hands of pickup bridge.

I wondered if I have a clear agreement with partner about what the double of 2H by the opening 2C bidder is meant to be.  Generally I play that responder doubles if they want to defend opposite a balanced strong hand and bids a suit with a positive if they can.  Playing double for takeout by opener doesn’t seem all that worthwhile.  What do you think?  2H doubled probably nets +500 or so, not quite as good as the miracle +600.  5 of a either minor will make.  The field was generally in notrump going down or in a partscore.

I Miss Sydney but Love well…

October 29th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Friends and family will be happy to know that I have just finished my first pass at Chapter 8.  Chapter 8 is on trump squeezes and it happens to be the last chapter in Bridge Squeezes Complete.  We decided to add some extra squeezes to the book so I had to learn what a backwash squeeze and a knockout squeeze actually were.  I had never even heard of a knockout squeeze before.  I did once fondle a copy of Adventures in Card Play but once they got on that boat I just couldn’t stay awake.  I did look Geza Ottlik up on Wikipedia.  He sounds like an interesting fellow:

I still have to work through a final section which is about 20 or so general practice problems and of course work with Ray on corrections.  But hey I am mostly finished.  I will be able to do other things like carve a pumpkin and maybe I will be able to watch and play bridge a bit more. 

Actually I think the compound squeeze chapter was the most complex.  Many trump squeezes are pretty straightforward and even the backwash squeeze (with or without the count) isn’t too hard to follow.  I still don’t know if I would find it at the table.  Maybe if they played postal bridge where I could take a day or two for my next play.

I got to do commentary on the Sydney Spring tournament.  It makes me sad to think that it has now been a whole year since I was there, attending that tournament myself.  Ray and I had such a great time.  Today I watched the Seniors.  It was interesting to see that bold preempting can both give and take away.

Klinger and Hoffman were seating North-South at my table and the “takest away” happened on this auction.

Klinger held: S 63 H KJ109653 D 9 C A64.

With everyone Vulnerable partner passed and RHO opened 1D.  Klinger bid 4H and this went for –1100 about 530 too much.  The junior who was the BBO operator said that he would have bid 2H.  I might have bid 3H myself.  But 4H does seem a bit rich.

Later Hoffman held

S 2 H 74 D QJ10752 C K1063

Everyone was vulnerable, once again and he heard his RHO opened 1H in first chair.  He bid 3D.  Now East-West had 14 top tricks and couldn’t get to slam.  In the other room with no interference they got to 6H.  Here are the two hands.  Could you have bid your way to slam after 3D.

Maybe but its not easy and at my table they didn’t find it.

Other good things are happening too.  We have had some serious illness in our extended family but all seems to be much better now.  All of which means that I should have more time for blogging.

And thank me for sparing you my descriptions of esoteric squeezes.  I will be posting about Love again in a while.  I want to let you know what we decided to change and how we updated it.  It was like working on a historic building.  We needed to modernize it but we still wanted it to be Love.

Canadian Master Point … Very First One

October 27th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

This month we are providing the very first edition of Canadian Master Point magazine for free download.   It will be available some time on Tuesday October 27th.  Eric worked extra hard to bring this one to you.  He decided it was special so he got hold of all of the pictures and he and Sally scanned them in.  He even worked on keeping the ads wherever possible too.

The magazine started as an idea that Ray and I discussed in late 1991.  We had only just come back to bridge after about a 15 year absence while we raised our children.  We were astounded at how much had changed in those 15 years although all the same people seemed to be there, just a bit older.  We also thought that Canada had a lot of bridge talent (we still do) and that we should have a showcase for bridge ideas that was focused on Canadian players.  In prior years Ray and I had worked on the Kibbitzer, the Ontario Unit magazine so we had some idea about what was involved although the technology had changed a lot.  In the Kibbitzer days Ray and I had typed the contents on an IBM Selectric typewriter which allowed proportional spacing.  Ray would lay out the magazine by cutting and pasting the contents in columns onto the master pages which would go to the printers.

When we started Canadian Master Point we thought we would begin locally and then expand out.  I think even at the very beginning it was our hope to distribute the magazines across Canada.   To keep costs to a minimum we decided to distribute via bridge clubs.  But we started by distributing the magazine only in Southern Ontario.  So we could at first, just deliver bunches of magazines by car ourselves.  As we expanded we sent them to drop off points, often a volunteer, who would deliver them to the bridge clubs.

All of the work was done by volunteers, all of the contributors were volunteers and the advertising money paid for the printer.  Many advertisers like Joe Seigel, Barbara Seagram and Irving Litvack were there to help us out and stayed with us the whole time.

The CMP Editorial Board: Ray, Linda, Maureen, Shelagh

We formed an editorial board which changed from time to time, Maureen Culp was a constant along with Ray and I.  Shelagh Paulsson was one of the founding board members. Shelagh and I later played on a Women’s Team together in the World Championships in Istanbul.

Fred Gitelman was a wonderful supporter.  He wrote an article for every issue for free even though he was trying to make a career as a bridge professional.  There were many other wonderful supporters and a lot of them are featured in that firstt issue, including John Carruthers, David Lindop, Michael Shoenborn and Tom Dawson, the District bridge historian.   John and David need no introduction but in case you aren’t familiar with “The Shoe”, he is a lovely man and a most talented bridge player who most recently represented Canada in Sao Paolo on our Senior Team.

Ed Bridson started a  two part story called The Silence Of The Slambs about his team’s victory in the Canadian Team trials held that year in Winnipeg.  One thing he discusses is something I have had on my mind in recent years which is how much fate can determine the results of a match, especially a very important one and as you may guess slams have a very important role to play in the result and Hannibal Lecter did have a role as well.

John Carruthers, NPC of the Canadian Venice Cup team talks about the 1991 Yokohama World Championships, a very expensive affair with geishas and $8.00 coffee (1991 – $8.00 wow)

One of my very favorite David Silver stories appears in this article called a Board For The Board.  I produced the deal for David.  I was told that he needed a hand which could be played in many different contracts and have many different results.  David’s story is very funny.  (Now by the way I have been replaced by the talented Tim Bourke, as supplier of hands for David).

David Lindop wrote an article for the magazine on the Intra-Finesse and by way of true confessions in 1991 I have never heard of this play before reading his article.  He gives a lot of interesting hands from his own play.

Ray has a story of Willie Karwaser.  Willie was a popular local player, quite under rated.  Unfortunately some years later Willie died at a very young age after spending most of his last years taking care of his ailing mother and playing bridge of course.

Ray writes an interesting story called Twenty Years Ago about some bridge columns he wrote as the bridge columnist for the Toronto Star magazine.  When he was doing this I remember that some days Ray would turn to me and say ”I need a hand” desperate for some material.  I always had one, of course.

Fred Gitelman’s article is about Computers and Bridge.  He predicts how in the next few years (by 1997) bridge playing programs will progress.  Will they ever be able to beat humans?  See what Fred says.  Fred had started a little company with Sheri Weinstock called Bridge Base Inc. which was selling Base III, advertised as a hand generator, hand editor, hand movies, double dummy solver, end position  solver and suit combination solver.

That and more in the free download.  Full of nostalgia for us.  You will be able to download the magazine for free at www.ebooksbridge.com

Roy Had A Boy

October 22nd, 2009  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I know I haven’t been posting lately.  Don’t blame me, you have to blame bridge squeezes and Ray who is a complete slave driver.  But I just had to post this news:

Roy Hughes…friend, bridge player, author and now father sent me this email…

Erika and I just got home from the hospital with our baby son Evan Michio H, born Sunday 6 lb 9 oz and doing well.  Erika is recovering and I’m thrilled.

He didn’t send a picture but I still am hoping one will arrive and I will post it.

All of us send our love and our congratulations.  Roy has helped us a bit with Clyde Love but of course now he will be especially busy.  Still he had a few words to say in the same email.  Mainly… don’t change any of the nomenclature.

Well, Roy we have added a few things but other than that we have simply used the names he already used but more consistently.  For example. it really confused me when love called the threat solely held by one opponent randomly, the basic threat or the right (or left) threat or sometimes the right (basic) threat.

We made one change and if anyone feels strongly let me know.  If you recall the threats in double squeezes are called Left, Right and Both.  That refers to a threat against the hand left of the single threat hand, right of the single threat hand and one guarded by both opponents.  We changed Both to Common.  It just didn’t sound right to talk about the Both Threat.  I had also heard the shared suit referred to as the Central Suit.  Somehow Common seemed to cover both things. 

Enough Bridge.   Welcome to the world. Erika Hughes.

Some Insights from Howard Bigot-Johnson’s Bizarre World of Bridge

October 13th, 2009  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

I was reading Howard Bigot John’s “Can Women Play Bridge” blog.  It was written a few weeks ago but I  am behind in everything.  My life is consumed by CLYDE E. LOVE and my head is full of COMPOUND SQUEEZES.  But this is a topic I can’t resist.

Obviously some women can play bridge, Howard.  A very few are in the ranks of top experts.  But there are very few.  So lets think about your ideas about why this is:

I think the argument that men won’t play with women is overdone, Howard.  In some ways some women have an advantage there.  A man may chose to play with a women because he likes her legs.  That is far less likely to happen in the other direction.   Junior girls in particular are few in number and very sought after as partners by their counterparts.

But lets go back to this statement: “there are almost no women juniors?” Why?  You didn’t really answer this question in your BLOG.  I think that young males like to play card games more than young females.  In general young males are more competitive in all things, as you do suggest.  I think this is partly to do with hormones and partly to do with societal norms.  I find it interesting that even as very young children girls favor dolls and boys favor cars and trucks.  Men are different.  I agree with you that they have difference in the brain.

But, women clearly have the ability to be good at logical reasoning.  These days a lot more women are mathematicians, engineers, doctors and scientists.  Almost all of the students in Canadian Veterinarian School are women.  So much so that if the percentages were reversed there would be shock and horror.  In fact, I would have to say that in the last fifty years” “You Have Come A Long Way Baby”.

But  my experience is that women are more intuitive and less aggressive and that does show up at the bridge table.

I contend that most women learn to play bridge too late in life.  Bridge is a learned skill.  As I work on Bridge Squeezes Complete I find that the only sensible way to become good at squeezes is to learn how they work.  You cannot possible figure it out at the table most of the time.  You need to learn and practice by yourself.  You need to do what I did when I was eighteen.  You need to lay the cards out (today you can do that on the computer) and think what things work and what things don’t and study it and so on.  As you say:

“Women’s Priorities : Most women quite rightly get their priorities right : looking after the family, and the family home, will always take precedence over bridge.”  Many women don’t really start to work on bridge until their forties.

I think some things are just easier to learn earlier.  The brain obviously changes over time.  But maybe there is a way that we could teach people to play good bridge in their forties.  They would have to be willing to put a lot of effort in.

I suppose another related problem is that there are very few coaches and teachers who are available to help people to transition from “BBO experts” to really good bridge players.  Juniors do that together.

Your comment about the “The Social Dimension” also described by Cyndi Lauper as “Girls Just Want To Have Fun” is true to some extent.  Maybe more in a prior generation but I do know a fair number of women that are quite happy to play social bridge but then I know quite a few men who feel that way too.

Much of what you suggest is true but I still think the problem is attracting more women to the game at a much younger age.  If you fill the bridge schools with 18 year old women, they will have no problem attracting partner and eventually some of them will become stars.