WELCOME AND THANK YOU!
From the Editors
Welcome to the very first issue of
Canadian Master Point, a magazine for
Toronto area bridge players. Many
friends have asked us why we're doing
this -- apart, that is, from a general desire
for bridge notoriety, to leave our foot-
prints in the hands of time, as it were.
The simple answer is "because it's not
there!" We think that one of North
America's great bridge centres needs a
regular forum for its players, theorists,
humourists, and story-tellers; we hope
you'll agree that Canadian Master Point
fills that need.
Let us know what you think --
send us letters, articles, comments, adver-
tisements, whatever. Canadian Master
Point is a non-profit venture, entirely
supported by advertising, so if you can
persuade anyone to advertise, do it -- the
more advertising we have, the more pages
we can run, and the more copies we can
print.
A series of thank-you's are due to
those who have helped us get this venture
off the ground. Our first thanks go to
those whose commercial messages in
these pages have made this issue possible.
Special thanks go to Irving Litvack, Vince
Oddy, John Rayner, Barbara Seagram,
and Joe Seigel, for their support, their
encouragement, and their advertising,
and for generously providing us with our
distribution channel.
Thanks to all our contributors,
some of whose efforts will be seen in a
future issue -- contrary to our fears of
having trouble filling these pages, we had
the luxury of being able to select from a
wealth of great material. Thanks, too, to
Kibitzer editor John Armstrong, for
sending on to us several articles he was
unable to use -- their authors may be sur-
prised to see them show up here! And a
very special bow to Victoria Shannon, on
whose long-term friendship we imposed
unmercifully to obtain a professional
cover design.
And now back to that first ques-
tion -- why are we doing this? The real
reason, of course, is that we're having
fun! We hope that you'll have as much
fun reading this first issue as we did put-
ting it together. And we hope you'll con-
tinue to enjoy Canadian Master Point
five times a year from now on.
CANADIAN

MASTER 331 Douglas Avenue

POINT
Toronto, Ontario
M5M 1H2
Tel: (416) 781-0351
A magazine for bridge players Fax: (416) 781-1831

JANUARY 1992 Vol. I Number 1

The Silence of the Slambs (part 1) by Ed Bridson .................. 3

Yokohama 1991 by John Carruthers ......................................... 6
A Board for the Board by David Silver ..................................... 7
The Intra-finesse by David Lindop .......................................... 10
Willie Wonderful? by Ray Lee ................................................ 13
Charlotte Ingram Memorial Swiss ......................................... 14
Special Events compiled by Nancy Dressing .......................... 15
Thank You, Shareholders by Shelagh Paulsson .................... 16
Hug a Novice? by John Cunningham ..................................... 19
Hug a Novice! by Barbara Seagram ....................................... 20
Be a Better Bidder by Joe Seigel ........................................... 21
Shoe vs. Montreal by Michael Schoenborn ............................ 22
Twenty Years Ago by Ray Lee ................................................ 25
Computers and Bridge by Fred Gitelman .............................. 27
The Impact of Bridge & Whist on Playing Cards (part 1)
by Tom Dawson ............................................................... 30
Micro Bridge Companion reviewed by Linda Lee .................. 32

Canadian Master Point is published five times per year. It is available free of charge through a number of bridge
clubs and bridge supply houses in the Toronto area. Copyright © 1992 Canadian Master Point. All rights reserved;
reprinting of contents without the express written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Correspondence and
contributions should be sent to the above address with SAE if return or reply required.

EDIT. BD. Ray Lee, Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, Shelagh Paulsson
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

The Silence of the Slambs

(part 1)
by Ed Bridson

Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 5: The Bridson The diamond king was onside doubleton:
team (Ed Bridson, David Lindop, Geoff 13 IMP's to Molson as teammates played
Hampson, John Gowdy, Mark Molson, five diamonds.
Boris Baran) defeats the Jacob team (Dan The next heartbreaker was Board
Jacob, Gord McOrmond, Ron Borg, 20; with both sides vulnerable:
Robert Connop, John Carruthers, Ted
Horning) in the 72-board CNTC playoff ♠ AJ85
by a score of 225-159. ♥ K
First, a flashback to the CNTC final ◆ AKQ108752
of 1985. The city of Montreal, and the ♣ KQ542
team of Ed Bridson, David Lindop, Doug
Fox, and Mark Arbour faces the team of
Mark Molson, Boris Baran, George ♠ Q3
Mittelman, Eric Kokish, Ghassan ♥ AJ93
Menachi, and Mark Stein. It is the au- ◆ 93
thor's opinion that the final result of that ♣ A10742
match was decided by the position of a
king in each of three slams.
The first of those slams was on the North South
second board of the match, early enough (Molson) (Baran)
to have warned us what was going to hap-
pen. Molson held, vulnerable against 1◆ 1♥
not, 2♠ 3♣
4◆ 4♥
♠ 10843
4♠ 4NT
♥ A102
5♣ 5NT
◆ A82
7◆
♣ 6
LHO dealt and opened one spade, double The spade king was onside, 13 IMP's to
from partner, three spades pre¬emptive Molson (we were in six).
on the right; what would you bid? Molson On the third hand, we thought we
bid four diamonds, LHO said four spades, would get into the act.
and partner raised to six diamonds hold-
ing ♠ Q75
♥ AJ8
♠ void ◆ QJ4
♥ KQJ8 ♣ AK106
◆ AQJ2
♣ KQ542
♠ AKJ98
♥ K9
◆ A109532
♣ void
JANUARY 1992

North South ♠ KQ6

(Bridson) (Lindop) ♥ AJ42
◆ KQ65
1NT 2 ◆1
♣ 96
2NT 3♣2
♠ J4 N ♠ 8732
3NT3 4◆
♥ 87653 W E ♥ KQ9
4♥ 4NT4
◆ 10872 S ◆ 93
5♠5 7◆ ♣ J4 ♣ 10532
♠ A1095
1. Forcing Stayman
♥ 10
2. Baron Corollary
3. 3-3-3-4 ◆ AJ4
4. Roman Key Card ♣ AKQ87
5. 2 KC and Q◆
Six diamonds felt like a good slam,
The diamond king was offside: 17 IMP's and it was the first match of a twenty-two
to Molson. team round robin. Little did we know
If these three kings had all been fa- that at Gowdy and Hampson's table the
vourable, we would have won 41 IMP's bidding had gone:
instead of losing 43. However, rather
than bemoaning the slings and arrows of North South
outrageous fortune, we decided to add
Molson and Baran to our team for 1NT 2♥1
Winnipeg.
2♠ 4NT2
In this hand, however, from the
round robin portion of the 1991 event, 5♠3 5NT4
Lindop and Bridson began to experience 6◆ 7NT
a sense of déja vu. Their auction was:
North South 1. Transfer to ♠ !
(Lindop) (Bridson) 2. Roman Keycard for ♠
3. 2 KC with Q♠
1NT 2 ◆1 4. For side kings
2♥ 2NT2 5. One side king
3◆ 4♣ With the jack of spades doubleton and the
4♥ 4NT3 KQ of hearts in the same hand as the four
5♠4 5NT5 clubs, this contract made on a simple
6◆ squeeze. This was not the kind of start we
needed.
Compound that result with the blow
1. Forcing Stayman dealt us by the fates on the fol¬lowing
2. Asks for 2nd suit hand and one might start to get a little
3. Roman Key Card worried:
4. Two KC with Q◆
5. Grand slam try
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT
♠ 104 of the round robin completed, we were
♥ Q86 14th out of 22 teams, and playing without
◆ KJ105 the proper intensity. Our NPC had aban-
♣ AQJ2 doned us before the event when he was
given the opportunity to win by joining
♠ 8732 N ♠ AKQ965
another team. Even though we were still
♥ 5 W E ♥ J10974 very confident of success, we seemed to
◆ 872 S ◆ void be playing without direction.
♣ K9874 ♣ 63 Luckily at this point we tuned in to
♠ J the hotel's pay-TV station and found our
♥ AK32 symbolic NPC: Hannibal Lecter. For any-
one who missed "The Silence of the
◆ AQ9643
Lambs", this character (played by
♣ 105 Anthony Hopkins) is a convicted serial
killer/cannibal, serving a life sentence in
East South West North a maximum security hospital for the in-
sane. Despite his personal eating habits,
(Hampson) (Gowdy)
he is a brilliant, intense man. After we
1♠ 2◆ 3♠ 4♣ watched this movie, the kitchen in our
pass 4♥ pass 5◆ room began producing rare hamburgers
for between-session meals; Lecter had
East South West North become our NPC, and we were sure that
1♠ 2◆ 3♠ 4♠ our luck at the six and seven level was
going to change. Yes, this was about to
pass 5◆ pass 6◆ ! become "The Silence of the Slambs".

The club king, of course, was with the Stay tuned for the stunning conclusion of
preempt; sound familiar? the bridge thriller of the year in our next
So, after one day, and with one third issue. Ed.

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.
JANUARY 1992
Yokohama 1991
by John Carruthers
Japan. Land of the Rising Sun. Home of
the Bullet train, the Nippon Ham Fighters,
geishas, $8.00 cups of coffee and the
1991 NEC Bermuda Bowl and Venice
Cup. The format was brand new, the
same for both events, with four teams
from the exceptionally strong European
zone and three from North America com-
prising almost half the sixteen team
fields. The favourites in the Bermuda
Bowl were Brazil (defenders), Poland,
Great Britain, and Sweden, although no
team with Rodwell-Meckstroth (USA 1)
could be counted out. In the Venice Cup
was the strongest, most evenly balanced
field ever, with Austria, Germany,
Holland, Canada and the two USA teams
leading the way. Interestingly enough,
Brazil in the Bermuda Bowl, and Holland,
Canada, and Germany in the Venice Cup
would field exactly the same teams which
had done so well in Perth two years ear-
lier. In sharp contrast, only one of the
twenty-four USA players (Lynn Deas)
had been in Perth. As Non-Playing
Captain of our Venice Cup team, I was
optimistic about our chances.
With Vugraph commentators Bill
Eisenberg and Edgar Kaplan providing
the play-by-play and analysis, and bril-
liant NEC computer technology in a
plush theatre providing the graphics, the
World Bridge Federation's Championships
are truly fantastic for participants and
non-participants alike. And if anyone
misses any of the live action, the Daily
Bulletin provides an exhaustive render-
ing of each day's results and replays of
the heroics and gaffes committed on the
battlefield.
This tournament, as most do these
days, delivered its share of surprises.
First, Canada and Holland failed to qual-
ify for the quarterfinals in the Venice Cup
- although Japan, China, Taiwan, and
Great Britain did qualify. In the Bermuda
Bowl there were no surprises yet (they
would come later), with all four European
teams (the three previously mentioned
plus Iceland), both USA teams, Brazil,
and Argentina making the grade. In the
finals, USA 2 beat Austria for the Venice
Cup and Iceland (this was a surprise)
clobbered Poland to win the Bermuda
Bowl.
The Yokohama World Champion-
ships were notable for two events. First,
they marked China's emergence as a
bridge power, with a bronze medal in the
Venice Cup. Second, they continued the
trend, begun last year with Germany win-
ning the Rosenbloom Cup, of previously
unheralded teams earning a World Team
Championship. In this climate, and with
semifinal teams in each of 1988, 1989,
and 1990, Canada can win a World Team
Championship. Will it?
One of the biggest distractions in the
past for Canada's international teams
has been fund-raising. The C.B.F. is
perennially short of money in the
International Fund, and despite efforts
by various units, individuals, and clubs,
the teams have often been under-sup-
ported. As this goes to press, a promis-
ing sponsorship agreement with
Dynamic Mutual Funds is being negoti-
ated - more next time!

A Board for the Board
by David Silver
"David," said President Oldham,
"Perhaps you could explain to our guests
how duplicate bridge differs from rubber
bridge?"
The scene was the first sectional
tournament ever held at Mohican College.
I had suggested the ACBL event as a rev-
enue- (and publicity-) generating event,
to be held in our new gymnasium.
Reluctantly, our Board of Governors
had approved, after I had assured them
that duplicate bridge players were invari-
ably polite, neat, and abhorrers of sub-
stance abuse.
The guests to whom he referred,
three representatives from the Board of
Governors were, to me, indistinguishable
from one another. They looked like three
chartered accountants; two were male,
and one female, or so I had been told.
Middle class to the tips of their white
collars, they had been glancing uneasily
at the people sitting down and shuffling
cards all around them.
"Of course, Bill" I replied, and pro-
ceeded to expound at length on the supe-
riority of comparison scoring to all other
methods, and to describe the reciprocal
movements of players and boards. They
seemed to grasp the travelling bridge
hand concept immediately, but the com-
paring of disparate, or even similar,
scores was beyond my powers of expla-
nation.
"Why don't we watch a few rounds?"
I suggested. "The game is just beginning
and we can take our chairs with us as we
follow the hand down the line."
President Oldham's scowling face
reminded me of the luncheon arrange-
ments that had been made, but my com-
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
panions were already watching the action
at table #1.
♠ 8
♥ 643
◆ QJ10
♣ AQ10973
♠ 9532 N ♠ AQ19764
♥ KJ105 W E ♥ A98
◆ 9653 S ◆ 2
♣ 4 ♣ 865
♠ KJ
♥ Q72
◆ AK874
♣ KJ2
North passed, East passed, South
bid one notrump, and North raised to
three. The opening lead was a low dia-
mond, and declarer (clearly a novice)
emitted a squeal of delight as she scooped
in five diamond tricks and six club tricks
to make five notrump. The score (+660)
was entered and I drew my kibitzers aside
to enlighten them with my analysis of the
hand.
"You can see that although everyone
plays the same hand, the decisions made
at the table direct the outcome." This
seemed to puzzle them so I continued.
"For example, if South had opened with
one diamond instead of one notrump,
clearly they would have played in a minor
suit part score. Neither East nor West
have enough points to enter the bidding,
so the North-South score will largely de-
pend on South's choice of an opening bid.
However, I wouldn't expect much varia-
tion on this hand -- it'll be what duplicate
players call a flat board"
JANUARY 1992
We sat down beside the next table,
and my diagnosis was confirmed. South
opened one diamond, North (who had
originally passed) bid two clubs, which
was raised to three by South. Everyone
now passed and North routinely lost three
heart tricks and the ace of spades -- mak-
ing three clubs exactly. Even an educator
is easily persuaded that +660 compares
favourably to +110. I pointed out that
having North as declarer gave East the
opportunity to lead out his aces in search
of encouragement from West. I suggested
that we watch the hand one last time be-
fore lunch.
I knew the South player at Table #3
(apparently boards move to the next
higher numbered table at Mohican
College! Ed.). Bold and fearless, Redd
Teecher epitomized the aggressive, suc-
cessful tournament player; today he was
partnered by his spouse, a reliable and
steady player. The bidding proceeded
pass, pass, one diamond, pass, two clubs,
two spades (by East), THREE
NOTRUMPS!, pass, pass, double,
REDOUBLE, all pass. West dutifully led
a spade, East played the ace and contin-
ued the suit, and South made six notrumps
doubled and redoubled for a score of plus
2200. I congratulated Redd on his bid-
ding and attempted to herd my kibitzers
towards the Faculty Dining Room. But
by now they were fascinated. Ignoring
my pleas and President Oldham's direc-
tives, they were awaiting developments
at table number four.
They weren't disappointed. The bid-
ding proceeded pass, pass, one diamond,
pass, two clubs, two spades, THREE
NOTRUMPS, pass, pass, DOUBLE,
REDOUBLE, pass, pass, pass. West led
the mandatory spade and East pondered
the dummy before winning his ace. This
was no ordinary East. I whispered to my
kibitzers that they were watching the fa-
mous Wright Cardinal, a noted expert --
not that it mattered to the defense of this
hand.
But it did matter. Wright won his
ace of spades, twirled his mustache, and
laid down the nine of hearts! Declarer
thought and thought, but there was no
escape -- down one for -400! The kibitz-
ers were so astounded at this deviation
from the norm that the director came over
to quiet them. President Oldham had tried
to have the group expelled but the direc-
tor left us awaiting developments at table
*5. With a sinking feeling in the pit of
my stomach I recognized two more
friends: Willie sitting East and Florene
sitting West. "No one," I observed, "can
anticipate the result of any hand when
these two are at the table."
Afterwards, I had great difficulty in
persuading my three companions that
what they had seen had really happened.
North passed, Willie opened one spade,
South bid one notrump, and Florene leapt
to four spades! North doubled, Willie
passed, and South started counting on his
fingers. After cashing the ace of dia-
monds and then switching to a club,
South had to watch helplessly as West
ruffed his two club losers in the dummy,
guessed the queen of hearts and brought
in his doubled game after conceding the
king of trumps to South.
Willie commiserated with the dou-
bler. "Average plus; all the Easts will be
doubled and one or two might misguess
the queen of hearts." South was not obvi-
ously cheered by this evaluation and my
entourage was visibly shaken. So far,
scores had varied by 2600 points, the
final contract had been different at each
table, and games had been made by both
South and East!
"Why is it called Duplicate Bridge,"
I was asked, "when something completely
different happens at each table?"
Questions cascaded down on me from
three directions at once and I could feel

the burning eyes of President Oldham on
me as he gestured from the doorway. The
consensus of opinion was that there
would be thirteen different contracts
played during the session.
I pointed out that all the bidding
variations possible on the hand had been
exhausted and certainly, at the next table,
we would see a minor suit part score. I
had spotted the young couple sitting
North South at the next table. Nicknamed
the "Droid", the man was a computer pro-
grammer by training and a brilliant, ana-
lytical expert. His partner (and girl
friend), was an intelligent amateur who
always bid and played conservatively. We
were unlikely to see a wild swing at their
table.
But Droid was there "to wage by
force or guile eternal war" against his
opponents. His system, which he had
endlessly modelled and tested on his IBM
mainframe, also included a negative point
count evaluation. Therefore, he was com-
pelled, as West, to enter the auction. For
the first time in my life, I wished I could
retract something I had said aloud. The
auction progressed in a manner diametri-
cally opposite to my prediction!
South bid one diamond and West
bid one heart (confusing to the opponents
and lead-directing to partner). North bid
two clubs and East dutifully raised Droid
to three hearts. South, with the defense
against three notrumps mapped out for
the opponents, opted for a "matchpoint
double" and all passed.
North led the queen of diamonds,
and noting dummy's singleton, switched
to his own singleton spade. Droid won
the ace, and exited with another spade to
South's king, on which North threw a
high club. South played the king of clubs,
and another club, but after declarer ruffed
this, the defence was helpless. Droid
ruffed a diamond in dummy with the
eight of hearts, cashed the ace, and drew
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
trumps, finessing South for the queen.
Now an avalanche of spades followed.
Losing a diamond at the end, Droid made
three hearts doubled with a vulnerable
overtrick. He duly wrote down the score
(+930) and impassively picked up the
next hand.
At this point I was roughly accosted
by President Oldham. The luncheon had
long been over and the afternoon confer-
ence had begun. One of the three kibitz-
ers was the keynote speaker and the
conference could not continue without
her. President Oldham was very red in the
face, his voice was trembling and his tone
was very strident. I concluded that he was
upset and I attempted to return the three
board members to their rightful place in
society.
They would not budge. All three
were draped around John Gowdy's neck,
breathlessly watching yet another varia-
tion of bidding and play of this "typically
flat board". As the President and I
watched in horror, they formed an alli-
ance with a fourth kibitzer and arranged
to play in the evening side game.
Gowdy's partner, however was congratu-
lating him on a brilliant, tactical bid while
West sat sullenly, biting back tears and
rage. Filled with curiosity I moved to-
wards the table. I never made it.
"David," said President Oldham,
pressing a copy of "Career Prospects for
Seniors" into my reluctant hand, "let's go
to my office and discuss an application of
the College's new early retirement
plan."
He pulled me back towards the main
entrance. As I was being impelled to-
wards enforced leisure I looked back,
straining to see the scoring slip lying on
the table. Alas, my eyesight is not what
it used to be, and I couldn't make out the
details of what was clearly a four-digit
number. I never did find out what hap-
pened.
JANUARY 1992
The Intra-finesse
by David Lindop
Early in our bridge playing days, the im-
portance of playing in an 8-card or longer
trump suit, especially when the suit is
divided 4-4 between the two hands, is
something we all come across. Sooner
or later, we end up playing in a trump suit
that looks something like this:
Dummy
A743
Declarer
Q652
If we can only afford to lose one trick in
the suit, we apply the basic principle of
the finesse: lead toward the card which
we hope will win a trick -- to¬ward the
queen in this example. Usu¬ally, the ace
is played first, in case there is a single¬ton
king lurking about, but we are hop¬ing
that RHO has the king three times or
doubleton. We can also duck the sec¬ond
round if RHO plays low, hoping LHO has
king doubleton. How are we to know
that this is the case? Usually, the bidding
gives an indication and, perhaps, the way
the opponents play their cards.
In the above layout, it does us no
good to lead the queen on the first round
of the suit, since we are missing the Jack,
ten, nine, and eight. And however good
we are at guessing, we have no hope of
losing only one trick if the
layout is:
Dummy
A743
LHO RHO
KJ9 108
Declarer
Q652
If we give ourselves the eight and
nine, however, the situation becomes
more interesting:
Dummy
A843
LHO RHO
KJ9 106
Declarer
Q952
It still does no good to lead the ace and
then low toward the queen. Our LHO
will win two tricks with the king and
jack. Nor does it help to lead the queen,
since LHO will cover with the king and
we will eventually lose a trick to the ten
and one to the jack.
Suppose, however, we lead a low
card from dummy toward our hand, be-
fore taking the ace; RHO contributes the
six and we play the nine from our hand.
LHO wins the first trick with the jack and
the layout now looks like this:
Dummy
A84
LHO RHO
K7 10
Declarer
Q52
When we regain the lead, we are now in
a position to lead the queen from our
hand. If LHO does not cover, the queen
will win the trick and we will take all
three remaining tricks. If the queen is
covered with the king, we win dummy's
ace, pinning the ten and establishing the
all-important eight.
It would be of no avail for RHO to
rise with the ten on the first round of the
suit, as we would cover with the queen to
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

force LHO to win with the king. The ♠ 2

remaining cards would now look like ♥ A954
this:
◆ KQJ2
Dummy
♣ AK104
A84
LHO RHO ♠ KQ5
J7 6 ♥ Q862
Declarer
952 ◆ 98763
♣ 7
When we regain the lead, we can lead As usual, I had bid too much but partner
toward the dummy, planning to take a certainly had her values. The opening
finesse against LHO's jack. lead had not done me any damage and I
The above method of playing this won the shift of the two of clubs with
suit combination is termed an intra-fi- dummy's king. With sure spade and dia-
nesse. As we have seen, it is rather com- mond losers, I could afford only one loser
plex, even when we can see all the in the trump suit. There was that magic
missing cards. It is even more difficult to combination! I led the four of hearts
execute at the table. You need to recog- from dummy and the seven appeared on
nize the potential for an intra-finesse in my right. I inserted the eight and LHO
the heat of battle and must be fairly cer- won the jack. Another club was led and
tain of the lie of the missing cards. I trumped with the two of hearts and led
Otherwise, you'll be asking yourself why the queen of hearts from my hand.
you didn't merely take a simple finesse! Bingo! This was the complete hand:
I used to think that the intra-finesse
was one of those rare text-book situations ♠ 2
that only came up when the Hideous Hog ♥ A954
was playing against Papa the Greek in ◆ KQJ2
Bridge in the Menagerie, or the Abbot ♣ AK104
encountered Brother Xavier in one of
David Bird's articles. However, a couple
♠ AJ963 N ♠ 10874
of hands in the past year have changed ♥ KJ3 W E ♥ 107
my mind. The first came up when I was ◆ 105 S ◆ A4
playing in the 1990 Master Mixed Board- ♣ Q92 ♣ J8653
a-Match final (one of my favourite forms ♠ KQ5
of the game). The auction proceeded: ♥ Q862
◆ 98763
West North East South(me) ♣ 7
Pass
1♠ Dble 2♠ 3♥
Notice how there was a lot of information
Pass 4♥ to help find the right play on this hand.
LHO had opened the bidding and shown
The opening lead was the ace of spades up with only the ace of spades so far.
and this is what I saw: LHO must hold either the king of hearts
or the ace of diamonds to have an open-
JANUARY 1992
ing bid. When the four of hearts was led
from dummy, RHO might have played
the king, and was also unlikely to have
played the seven from a holding of J73 or
1073. I had to assume the missing dia-
monds were divided 2-2, otherwise one
of the opponents could probably get a
ruff. Spades were likely divided 5-4,
since they were bid and raised. With five
spades and two diamonds, it was not un-
reasonable to assume RHO had exactly
5-3-2-3 shape. Of course, it turned out to
be 5-2-2-4 ... well, that's another story.
A few months later, in the round-
robin final of the Canadian National
Team Championship, I was playing with
Ed Bridson and the following hand came
up:
♠ A874
♥ AKJ9
◆ 42
♣ 864
♠ Q952
♥ 84
◆ AJ3
♣ J532
West North East South
(Ed) (Me)
Pass
1◆ Double Pass 1♠
Pass Pass 2◆ 2♠
I guess if you're going to rebid a suit of
Q952 it's best to know about intra-fi-
nesses. West led the king of diamonds
and I let this win the trick -- the old Bath
Coup. Sometimes opponents get their
signals upside-down (even in a Canadian
championship!) and I was hoping for a
diamond continuation so that I could dis-
card one of dummy's club losers. West
carefully switched to the king of clubs,
however, and continued with the queen
when East encouraged. Now West
switched to the three of hearts and I was
at the cross-roads. With a diamond and
three clubs to lose, I had to hold the spade
losers to one.
Once again, there was a lot of infor-
mation. Why had West not played a third
club? Presumably, because he held only
the doubleton KQ and East started with
four to the ace. If East held both the ace
of clubs and king of spades, he might
have raised to two diamonds immediately
over the double. So it looked as though
West held the king of spades. Here we go
again. Win the heart lead with dummy's
king and lead the four of spades. When
the six appeared from East, I played the
nine and West won the ten. Another
heart was led. I won dummy's ace of
hearts, led a diamond to my ace and
played the queen of spades. This was the
complete hand:
♠ 2
♥ A954
◆ KQJ2
♣ AK104
♠ AJ963 ♠ 10874
N
♥ KJ3 W E ♥ 107
◆ 105 S ◆ A4
♣ Q92 ♣ J8653
♠ KQ5
♥ Q862
◆ 98763
♣ 7
West ducked the queen of spades, but
another spade drew the remaining trump
and I was able to lead the last club from
dummy toward the jack of clubs for my
eighth trick.
So there you go. The intra-finesse
actually does come up at the table. I'm
certainly looking for further opportunities
to try it out. How about you?

Willie Wonderful?
by Ray Lee
Perhaps one of the area's more underrated
players, and certainly one of the more
colourful, Willie Karwaser has managed
to accumulate over 1400 master points
since returning to the tournament scene
five years ago.
It was not always thus. After be-
coming a Life Master in the early 70's,
Willie lost interest in simply winning
master points and retired to the rubber
bridge arena, which became his life for
next twelve years. All weekend sessions
were not unusual. It was a lifestyle that
has inevitably left its mark on the game
that he now plays.
In the old days, Willie favoured
simple methods -- so much so that top
players would call him when they ran
into rough streaks. "I need a game,
Willie," they would say. "Straighten me
out." And he would. Now, though, per-
haps as a legacy from those years of liv-
ing by his wits in the world of rubber
bridge, Willie seems to be able to create
action at the table, the fundamental skill
of the winning tournament player.
He plays with a number of different
partners, although it is Florene Atkins
whom he credits with reviving his inter-
est in the tournament scene. His suc-
cesses, too, have been eclectic, including
a number of regional Open Pairs titles as
well as Swiss and Knockouts.
In the recent Fall Nationals in
Indianapolis, playing with Jim Howie, he
won the Morning Knockouts, placed third
in a Swiss, and first in a Swiss
Consolation event. Not bad for one tour-
nament! Undoubtedly the most exciting
hand was the following, from the Final of
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
the Morning Knockouts:
♠ A86
♥ 3
◆ 2
♣ AJ1086542
♠ K94 N ♠ void
♥ AKQ2 W E ♥ J10987654
◆ K3 S ◆ 87654
♣ Q973 ♣ void
♠ QJ107532
♥ void
◆ AQJ109
♣ K
At Karwaser's table, Jim Howie opened
the West hand one notrump, and North
overcalled two clubs, showing a one-
suiter (unspecified). Willie bid four dia-
monds (Texas) as East, commenting later
that when you are dealt "gin" you are
obligated to bid a lot. This was alerted,
but the South player did not ask for an
explanation, assumed that partner's suit
was hearts, and passed! West duly bid
four hearts, and that ended the auction.
Six was made after the spade ace was
led.
In the other room, North (Lorne
Nicol) overcalled four clubs after the one
notrump opening, and after East's four
hearts, South (Les Amoils) tried four
spades. West raised to five hearts, but
Nicol was having none of this, and
jumped aggressively to six spades. West
doubled, still convinced he had the best
hand at the table, but could find no way
to beat this contract, so the Toronto team
picked up a useful game-slam swing on
the hand!
JANUARY 1992

Charlotte Ingram Memorial Swiss

The organizers of this annual event were
surprised and pleased to welcome forty-
eight teams to a two-session Swiss at the
Royal York Hotel, on December 8th,
1991; indeed, in the first session, eight
tables were despatched to a satellite area
due to lack of space in the main hall.
The CBF's designated charities this
year are Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and
Parkinson's research, and it is expected
that they will be able to share more than
last year's profit of $1900 when the fig-
ures are finalized in January. Part of the
money will derive from the proceeds of a
draw, the prizes for which were a curious
collection of donations from various
sources. Surprised players found them-
selves carrying away everything from
bottles of ketchup to frisbees, T-shirts,
wine, and (the piéce de résistance) a ce-
ramic bowl donated (but not made!) by
outgoing CBF president Katie Thorpe.
Winning the events were:
Flight A (Open): Alan Lee, Peter
Zee, Stephen Mackay, Richard Chan
Flight B (0-300, Stratified): Susan
and Zoltan Haydu, Clara and Emil
Friedman
Flight C (0-99, Stratified): Gary
Youngs, Michael Levine, Eric Lee,
Warren Watson.
Successful as the day was, for those
who remember the early days of this
event, and the indefatigable Charlotte
Ingram herself, a tireless promoter of
bridge for charity, it was hard to ignore
the feeling that something has slipped
over the years. Director Nancy Hart re-
called years when over one hundred ta-
bles were in play at the Ingram; perhaps
next year?
Upcoming charity events include
the Calcutta (see Shelagh Paulsson's art-
cle on page 16) and a Charity Fund game
in the clubs on March 25.
Club managers wishing to publicize
charity events should contact Canadian
Master Point for a free listing.

FORUM
This is a Canadian Master Point feature whose intention is to promote discussion of
contentious topics. We need your participation on two fronts: participation in the
debate, and suggestions for future topics.
Topic #1: Should psychs be allowed in club games?
Some of the issues: should experts be allowed to psych against novices? how about
against experienced but weak players? How do we guard against private understand-
ings, or players who randomize the results in a match point game? Should different
rules apply in long IMP matches? What about at rubber bridge?
Responses, suggestions and comments by February 8th, please.
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

Upcoming Special Events

Units 166, 246, 249
compiled by Nancy Dressing

Date Event Location Contact

Jan 12 NAOP Dist. Final The Place for Bridge Joe Seigel
Toronto 416-555-8550/1

Jan 25 International Fund Check your local club

Feb 15 GNT Unit 249 C Final London Bridge Club Pat Simpson
Feb 15/16 CNTC Unit 249 Final London Bridge Club 519-555-9469

Feb 15/16 CNTC Unit 166 Final Mohawk Inn Gord Akitt
Campbellville 1:30 416-555-6791

Feb 16 GNT Unit 246 Final Pontypool Comm. Ctr. Peter Mott
Flight C Pontypool, noon 416-555-0746

Feb 29-1 GNT Unit 166 Final Our Lady of Peace HS Ann Marie Bulls
Flight B and C Brampton, noon 416-555-6972

Mar 1 GNT Unit 246 Final Pontypool Comm. Ctr. Peter Mott
Flight B Pontypool, noon 416-555-0746

Mar 3 Canada-Wide Check your local club

International Fund Game

Mar 25 Charity Fund Game Check your local club

Mar 31 Helen Shields Canadian Check your local club

Rookie Master Game

Apr 10/12 CNTC Zone Final Roehampton Hotel Pat Simpson or

GNT Flight C 808 Mount Pleasant Gord Akitt or
Dist.rict Final Toronto 416-555-5101
ext. 112

May29-2 CNTC National Final Ottawa

JANUARY 1992
Thank You, Shareholders
by Shelagh Paulsson
The fourth Canadian Invitational Pairs
will be held in Toronto on February 28-
March 1st, 1992. The event is a Calcutta;
money is raised from players' entry fees
($1000 per pair) and from "auctioning"
off the players, with the top 10 pairs re-
ceiving prize money. Proceeds from the
event are donated to Toronto's Hospital
for Sick Children. The 40-pair field will
include many top international players.
Each pair plays three boards against
every other pair and results are IMPed
across the field. Anyone interested in
playing should contact Irving Litvack at
(416) 555-2901.
Shelagh Paulsson played with David
Caplan in last year's event (Feb 22-24
1991), raising the necessary capital by
syndicating herself to friends and rela-
tives. She speaks of the event in superla-
tives, although they didn't end up in the
money (for a detailed account of the
event, won by ex-Montrealer Ralph Cohen
and his son Billy, see Eric Kokish's article
in Bridge Today, July/August 1991).
Afterward, she wrote the following letter
to her sponsors.
I just had the bridge weekend of my life.
The tournament was held at the Bradgate
Arms Hotel in Toronto, a beautiful and
elegant hotel just on the fringe of Forest
Hill. The bridge was the best I've seen
in my life, the event was well organized,
and the players were, for the most part,
enjoying themselves. If they had called
the event after the first fifteen boards we
would all be rich. Oh well, next year
we'll wait until the last fifteen for our
surge to the finish. In the meantime, I
thought I'd share with you some of my
favourite memories of the weekend.
Chuck Messinger, who was one of
my first "serious" bridge partners, has
often said that if I could get through the
first round without going for a number
we would be a sure thing. I haven't im-
proved much at this part of my game. On
the first hand of the day I held in third
hand, vulnerable against not:
♠ AK9
♥ 764
◆ K764
♣ AKQ
and the auction went one diamond, pass,
one heart to me. I was playing sandwich
notrump (weak hand with the other two
suits), and we don't make off-centre dou-
bles in this situation, so I decided to
pass.
The auction continued one spade,
pass, two spades. Here double describes
a hand with good hearts and presumably
clubs. Great! So I passed again.
Partner led the six of spades, and the
dummy came down:
♠ J752
♥ KQ292
◆ 2
♣ 6542
I won the king of spades, cashed the
queen of clubs, ace of clubs, and ace of
spades, then exited with a spade. The
American expert on my left made a big
show of counting how many points I'd
shown up with, and since the full hand
was:
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

♠ J752 East opened two spades, which showed a

♥ KQ92 weak pre-emptive three bid in an unspec-
◆ 2 ified suit. I had an easy pass. It went
pass, three diamonds, pass to me. Not so
♣ 6542
easy. Three notrumps, I bid confidently.
♠ 106 N ♠ AK9 Double, pass, pass to me. Well, this guy
♥ J103 W E ♥ 764 thinks he's going to get back to average,
◆ 10983 S ◆ K764 and there is the famous Hetherington-
♣ 10973 ♣ AKQ first-round-number curse hanging over
♠ Q843 my head, but I come from the "if you're
going for a number, do it, but don't send
♥ A85
your partner" school of bidding, so I
◆ AQJ5 wasn't running to four diamonds and
♣ J8 there didn't seem to be anywhere else to
go, so I passed.
The opening lead was the king of
hearts, dropping the queen, and a heart
he decided to take the "marked" ruffing was continued to the seven. East pitched
finesse in diamonds. So it was a small a club, and I won the ten in my hand. I
win, but I had managed to avoid my first led a diamond to the queen, then the nine
chance at going for a number! of hearts off dummy, overtaking with the
The next hand David and I bid a jack. LHO won the ace, and returned a
slam on a good auction and it made. club to dummy's king, which I overtook
Alright! with the ace. I cashed the good eight of
The next hand was: hearts and led a diamond: three vulnera-
ble notrumps doubled with an overtrick!
Hey, maybe I'm getting the hang of this.
Mind you, this wasn't typical of how
♠ 82 our opponents were going to fare for the
♥ 974 weekend. We could only admire what
◆ AQJ10976 happened to us on one beautiful hand
♣ K against Steve Weinstein and Fred Stewart.
They always seem to be doing well in the
♠ AQJ93 N ♠ 1074 North American events lately and we
♥ AK653 W E ♥ Q were about to see them in action!
◆ K5 S ◆ 83 They had this super science auction,
♣ 5 ♣ Q1098764 including "serious 3NT", and "kickback",
♠ K65 and landed up in six hearts. Not a cold
♥ J1082 one, but not bad. So while I was thinking
about what to lead, David said to Fred
◆ 42 that he didn't think his name was Marty
♣ AJ32 Cohen (who invented these conventions).
From the other side of the screen, Steve
Weintstein replied, no, but we play on too
many teams with him. I said that I didn't
know that was possible. Steve and Fred
didn't get it.
JANUARY 1992
♠ AK10
♥ 10753
◆ A102
♣ K106
♠ QJ42 N ♠ 95
♥ void W E ♥ QJ64
◆ QJ943 S ◆ 8765
♣ QJ43 ♣ 852
♠ 8763
♥ AK982
◆ K
♣ A07
A diamond seemed the most obvious lead
from the West hand since the only things
that I knew for sure from the auc¬tion
were that declarer liked his hand and had
a singleton diamond, and that dummy
had a spade honour. Fred won the king
of diamonds, cashed the ace of hearts and
took some time to consider the bad break.
He then led a small heart to the ten and
David's jack. David returned a heart. I
pitched two diamonds and a club on the
three rounds of hearts.
He now led a small spade. Since it
didn't seem right to split, I ducked, and he
won the ten and led another trump. In the
hopes that he didn't have four spades, I
pitched one of those. He now cashed the
ace and king of spades, played a club to
the king, and cashed the eight of spades.
Now I had to choose between throwing
away my club stopper or my diamond
stopper.
A perfectly executed progressive
three-suit squeeze. Even when it beats
you, it is a beautiful thing.
One last hand from Sunday after-
noon, when we found ourselves playing
against Bob Hamman and Nick Nickell
from Texas. Bob has played in more
world championships than I have late
nights at the Regal, and his partner, al-
though not in the same class, has a repu-
tation as a reasonable rubber bridge
player. Besides, he can't be stupid, be-
cause he bought us in the auction.
So you hold:
♠ void
♥ Kxxx
◆ Axx
♣ xxxxxx
and the bidding goes pass on your left
from Bob, a spade from David, pass from
Nick, and you bid one notrump. Two
diamonds from Bob, three spades from
David, twitch and a pass on your right.
Now I know you're supposed to
raise to four spades on these hands but
we were vulnerable...and sometimes if
you run into a bad trump break you go
down many....and the expected diamond
lead weakens your hand because your
sure entry will get knocked out on the
go....and Bob's overcall increases his
chances of holding the ace of hearts,
weakening your king....and I was pretty
sure Nick was going to double four
spades....so I talked myself out of it.
Well, it turned out trumps were
three-three....partner didn't need a late
entry to the dummy....Bob had the ace of
clubs.....David had the ace of hearts....
Nick was going to double four spades,
but he was going to be wrong. This
wasn't good for us at all.
Somehow, although we didn't win,
I don't feel like a loser. Both David and
I had a lot of fun, we helped raise money
for the Hospital for sick Children, and
we'll do better next year.
Canadian Master Point
Advertising rates
1 page $ 125
1/2 page $ 70
1/4 page $ 45
bus. cd. $ 25

Hug a Novice ?
by John Cunningham
The second thought that sprung to mind
on being asked to contribute a piece to
this publication was "what is the con-
stituency? Who will be reading this?"
And that gave me the idea.
Brooke Nelles, one of our area play-
ers, was quoted not so long ago as saying
that he enjoyed all aspects of bridge.
Kitchen bridge, tournament play, it didn't
matter: all had their attractions.
Now, Brooke is a competent player;
he was a member of a Northern Ontario
team participating in the CNTC National
Final this year. He is a frequent and wel-
come competitor on the South Western
Ontario "circuit". Being able to enjoy a
quiet social evening of bridge is admira-
ble: I suspect that this is a rare quality in
tournament players.
Why is that? Well, there are many
different levels of enjoyment of bridge.
There is the sociability. But as far as the
game goes, "kitchen" bridge players are
often operating at a very low level of
awareness. They may have different
rules of propriety. They cheat. What's
that? Well, in many games, "coffee-hous-
ing" is perfectly permissible. Talking
into the game is encouraged. It's a differ-
ent ball of wax. Some will defend it,
even vigorously, but I don't like it. The
uncharitable amongst you will point out
Shelagh Paulsson
Private Bridge Lessons
Team Coaching & Preparation
555-2763
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
that that is because this format creates a
more level playing field: the experienced
player has less of an advantage. Fair
enough.
What about playing for money?
The concept of your local rubber bridge
club, where you play with other random
fish, be they piranha or guppy, is in many
ways a good test of character. There is
nothing like a little adversity to build
your game, and perhaps sharpen your
wits. Victor Mollo was right on the mark
when he called this environment a "me-
nagerie". If you haven't read S.J. Simon's
"Why You Lose at Bridge", which exam-
ines this society, you've a treat in store.
Maybe you can't afford to lose your shirt.
There's always duplicate.
The point I hoped to make was
that bridge is played on many different
planes. I suspect social bridge is pretty
well dead. There's no peer pressure
amongst young people to learn the game;
it doesn't lend itself to instant gratifica-
tion.
Duplicate? Any fifth grade student
of demographics will tell you we're in
trouble. The population is dying. This
seems so at both the club and the tourna-
ment level.
So what do we do to help? Hug a
novice?
JANUARY 1992

Hug a Novice! by Barbara Seagram

17 million bridge players exist in North
America but only 400,000 are playing
duplicate. This speaks poorly of how
well we, as bridge enthusiasts, are mar-
keting the game.
Our task is threefold:
1) Tell our non-bridge playing
friends and people at work about the
wonders of the game. Put posters up.
Encourage them to take lessons.
2) Drag our kitchen-bridge-playing
friends out to our local duplicate bridge
club and either play with them in a novice
game or introduce them to the director
who will be thrilled to find them a part-
ner. Most clubs will allow strong players
to play with a "rookie" in a novice
game.
3) When seeing an unfamiliar face
at the table, assume "new" and be
friendly, pleasant, and polite.
Toronto in 1992 is a superb oppor-
tunity to get new players involved in the
game. The Easter Regional at the Royal
York Hotel, April 14-19, will have a game
for absolute beginners where they can ask
questions about every hand while they
play: Friday, 17 April at 1:00 p.m.
Change your lead, change your bid,
change your mind. The entire week will
have events afternoon and evening for
players with 0-5, 0-20, 0-50 and 0-100
events with guest speakers.
The future of duplicate bridge lies in
your hands ...... spread the word!

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

Be a Better Bidder
by Joe Seigel
Joe Seigel, bridge teacher and club
owner, will be a regular contributor on
ideas and topics of interest to intermedi-
ate players.
Kitchen Bridge vs. Duplicate
There is a vast difference between play-
ing kitchen bridge and duplicate. At
home each hand is played once, and the
result itself is the key thing. If the op-
ponents have been so unkind as to bid
and make a grand slam on the first hand
it may well take the next few hours to get
back to even. The total score is all im-
portant - whoever has the greater accu-
mulation of points at the end of the
evening wins all the matchsticks, or
toothpicks, or shekels. There are no other
results available for comparison purposes
in order to see if a better result could have
been obtained. Thus errors can go unde-
tected.
However, in duplicate bridge the
same hand is played a number of times
throughout the session, each time by dif-
ferent opponents. The random luck of
the cards is removed by using compari-
son scoring where your score on each
hand is compared against all the scores
received by all the other pairs who played
the hands you actually held. You receive
one matchpoint for each score that you
beat and one half point for each score that
you tie The magnitude of the result itself
is unimportant,; what coutns is how well
your score compares to others. Interest is
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
maintained even with the lack of high
cards as you and your partner must con-
centrate on defense as well as bidding
and dummy play - one trick could be
vital. Every hand played during the
session counts equally towards your final
standing.
Partnership Trust
It is very important to be disciplined in
the bidding. You promise minimum val-
ues and suit length by your bids and part-
ner has no right to assume anything extra.
Problems arise when one of you doesn't
have his bids or tries to mastermind the
bidding. But both partners do not need to
have all the information about the hand
- as long as one of the pair has all the
relevant information he or she can set the
contract for the partnership.
Points Schmoints!
Always remember, tricks are important,
not points. You have no idea of the num-
ber of times we hear players lamenting
about how they just had to bid after re-
ceiving a minus 500 result. There are
two types of points, high cards and dis-
tribution. Distribution points should gen-
erally be added only when a trump suit fit
has been established. We must constantly
re-evaluate our hand: a strong hand could
be devalued because of a misfit, or a
weak hand could become strengthened by
the continuing bidding.
JANUARY 1992
Shoe vs. Montreal, 1967
by Michael Schoenborn
In the Golder Master Pairs in 1967 when
John Cunningham carried me to a fifth
place finish, there were some great hands
- all of them great for him and nightmares
for me. I finally came into my own
against Eric Kokish and Joey Silver,
whom we beat by half a matchpoint over-
all.
On the first hand Eric bid one spade
on my right, I passed, Joey bid two clubs,
and John said, "Double." He had 2NT
available to show a big shapely hand, so
he probably had a fairly good hand in
high cards and really good support for
both the red suits. He felt he was being
robbed by somebody psyching and he
had a good opening bid or better. It went
two spades on my right and I had a sur-
prising hand:
♠ xxx
♥ Jxxx
◆ AKxxx
♣ x
We were both vulnerable, and, of course,
a lot was going to depend on how part-
ner's hand came up, assuming that he had
four black cards. If he had a singleton
spade and three clubs, we were going to
make five hearts; if he had two double-
tons, we were going to make four hearts;
and if he had three spades and one club,
we were going to make three hearts.
Obviously, if I had bid four hearts
right away, I was going to hear four
spades from somebody and I was not
going to know what to do. Or even five
clubs because what defence did we have?
We probably had a nine-card fit in both
the reds and it was unlikely that both
suits would split 2-2, so we were proba-
bly not going to beat four spades.
Armed with all that knowledge I bid
only three vulnerable hearts. It went
pass, pass, three spades, and then in the
direct chair, which should have made it
obvious to everyone that I wasn't bidding
it for -200, I bid four hearts, which they
doubled.
Partner had the singleton spade so I
duly made an overtrick. Partner had just
what I expected:
♠ x
♥ AKQxx
◆ QJxx
♣ xxx
Being the not-too-tactful guy I was in
those days, I asked Kokish if he really
thought that I had bid four hearts in the
hot seat just to try to go for the magic 200
number.
I guess that perturbed them quite a
lot because on the next hand I did some-
thing really stupid and they punished
themselves instead of me. Partner opened
one notrump, and Eric bid a vulnerable
three spades, which I didn't think he
would do without a really great hand after
what I had just said to him. Like a fool,
I had to make a bid (I wasn't all that ex-
perienced in those days, plus I was hav-
ing a really bad day). I had:
♠ Jxx
♥ KQxx
◆ xx
♣ AKxx

It looks as if Kokish has seven solid
spades, so, considering that partner would
have to have the rest of the deck without
the spade suit, white against red, you
probably close your eyes and double be-
cause even if he has seven solid spades
he's going to go for -500.
That would have been a pretty good
result but I figured I'd be really clever on
this hand. Maybe he had eight solid
spades as he had advertised and we'd get
only -200. Why would he try to go for
-500? So I bid four hearts, a call which
on a scale of one to ten is a clear-cut
choice for a zero.
That goaded Silver into bidding five
diamonds on his spade void for what¬ever
reason he saw fit, other than the previous
result. He had:
♠ void
♥ Jxxx
◆ AK10xxxx
♣ xx
I guess what he was thinking was
that if I had a four hearts bid and my part-
ner had a one notrump opening bid that
included poor spades, then maybe his
partner had short hearts with some sort of
diamond tolerance and somehow he was
going to make five diamonds.
Partner found a sporting double on:
♠ Axx
♥ Ax
◆ QJxx
♣ QJxx
Kokish panicked and converted to
five spades and I doubled that, which was
a lot better than doubling three spades.
He converted to six diamonds and partner
doubled to get 1700.
This was a very strange board be-
cause our +1700 was a tie for top. And
not only was +1700 only a tie for top, but
there were two pairs at each and every
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
score. There were two -1400's, two
-1100's, two -800's, and two -500's.
If we had played our normal three
notrump spot, or three spades doubled,
we would have received practically a
zero. Instead, we managed eleven and a
half on that one to go with our twelve on
the first one, so we finished half a point
ahead of them.
There's another story from that tour-
nament. We ended up in the last round
playing this lovely little old man and
little old lady who were extremely timid
bidders. In fact, on the first hand we
opened a weak two-bid in spades and it
got passed out there when they were on
for six clubs.
On the second board the man opened
the bidding with one club. At that point
I realized that if we had another top
board, we might have a chance to be
somewhere in the money. We needed a
top board because I had taken about five
zeros in the second session against which
we had only the one or two good things
which I just told you about. Partner over-
called one notrump, pass, and I had:
♠ 3
♥ 64
◆ KQ10965
♣ 6543
What the hell, I was going to get a top on
this thing, so I bid three notrump. The
opening lead was a club, small from
dummy (my hand), the ace won and part-
ner dropped the jack. So far, so good. I
took a judicious peek into both the op-
ponents' hands, and I found that the hand
on my left, for some reason best known
to himself, started life with a three-card
club suit, and five hearts to the queen-
jack, as well as the guarded ace of dia-
monds.
I prepared to get my next zero be-
cause why should this shot be any better
than any of the other ones I took? Just
JANUARY 1992
for an added bonus, the hand on my right
had K108x of hearts to go with the man's
QJxxx, and also the jack of diamonds.
Anyway, the man shifted, again for
reasons best known to himself, to the
heart jack from QJxxx and John won the
ace, which was doubleton opposite my
doubleton. He now played a diamond to
the ten and it held; the man didn't fall into
taking that one. John played the king of
diamonds and drove out the ace. The
man didn't duck that one, so we didn't get
to steal even one extra diamond trick.
Now the man led a low heart. They
already had their two minor suit aces and
they were due for four hearts before they
cashed out whatever they would get in
spades. The lady won the eight, but she
thought she has a tenace position over
Cunningham's heart queen, so she fired
back a spade.
I was sitting there knowing how fu-
tile that all was because the dummy was
completely dead. Cunningham could win
the ace or ace-king of spades, whatever
he had. What good was it? All we were
going to get were our ace of spades, our
heart, our two clubs and a diamond for
five winners. If we got another spade
trick in the wash, that was only six win-
ners. Either way it was a zero. I sat there
really upset because partner had played
so well all through and I had done it
again.
John casually won the spade return,
cashed the two high clubs, and then sud-
denly produced the deuce of clubs over to
my six! That was three club tricks, five
diamonds, and two aces for +630.
That moved us up to fifth which was
a major thrill for us because we each had
a little over a hundred master points and
it was really quite something to place in
the overall. I must say that John certainly
earned it.
Anecdote Contest
Here is your chance to appear in print
and win a valuable (?) prize from
Canadian Master Point! Each issue you
will be asked to submit bridge anecdotes
based on a specific theme. Anecdotes
should be amusing or "interesting" and
should be 150 words or less. The winning
entry will be selected at the sole discre-
tion of the editors. Anecdotes will be
judged on humour (or interest) and meet-
ing the theme. The best entry or entries
will be published.
This month's theme is "bridge in a
far-away location" (outside Ontario at
least). Here is a sample from your edi-
tors:
This story takes place in Fort Lauderdale,
a "hot-bed" of bridge. Maureen Culp
joined Linda Wynston, Ruthie Gold, and
Joyce Cadesky for a bridge game while
on holiday in Florida. They decided to go
to one of the strongest and largest bridge
clubs in Fort Lauderdale for an afternoon
duplicate. When they got there they were
astounded to see 37 tables in play. Not
only that, but today was a "pool" day.
Ruthie generously donated the 25 cents
per player required. At the end of the
game they were pleased to discover that
their two pairs had won in each direction
and could therefore claim the entire pool.
They were however, very suprised to find
out that the total pool was $1.00! They
all gave back their winnings to Ruthie
who looked at the $1.00 in her hand sadly
and said, "I didn't even get any interest."
We know you can do at least as well as
this. Please submit entries no later than
February 8th.

Twenty Years Ago
by Ray Lee
Just over twenty years ago (shud-
der!) I began writing a weekly bridge
column in the Toronto Star. It's fascinat-
ing to look back at some of those old ar-
ticles -- they reflect a time when today's
top experts were brash young newcomers,
challenging the established stars, a time
when men were real men, women were
real women, and little furry creatures
from Alpha Centauri were real .... well,
you get the idea.
In May 1971, the Ontario stage of
the trials to select Canadian teams for the
1972 Olympiad was well under way; what
follows was my assessment of the pros-
pects. It appeared originally on May 8th,
1971.
The second stage of the long process
to select a team to represent Canada in
the 1972 Olympiad in Miami, Fla. begins
next week in Toronto.
Twelve South Ontario teams quali-
fied from the first round in February. A
complete round-robin of 22-board
matches will be played. The top six teams
on the basis of total victory points will
qualify for the Ontario finals in August.
They will be joined at that stage by qual-
ifiers from North and East Ontario.
Bruce Gowdy's team, which won
the February trials, must be the favourites
again, but a great deal of interest will be
centred on the team which came second.
It is composed of four of Toronto's best
young players and its performance may
well be a pointer to Canada's future suc-
cess in international competition.
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
The members of this team have wide
differences in their style and ap¬proach
to the game. Alex Kisin, "The Killer",
was the subject of this column three
weeks ago (a column which featured the
infamous Kisin Double, along with Alex's
brilliant card play. Ed.). His partner,
John Sabino, is one of the most imagina-
tive players in the game. Although tech-
nically not as good as some, he more than
makes up for it by the sort of table pres-
ence that has the opponents thinking he
must have looked at their cards.
John Cunningham is brilliant, but
highly temperamental -- when he feels
like it he is capable of playing better than
anyone on the team. His partner is team
captain David Lindop, one of the most
underrated players in Toronto.
♠ A
♥ J953
◆ Q104
♣ J10862
♠ Q987 N ♠ 1052
♥ K1O84 W E ♥ 2
◆ 6 S ◆ K9732
♣ KQ54 ♣ A973
♠ KJ643
♥ AQ76
◆ AJ85
♣ void
Five Gold Points away from his Life
Master title, Lindop plays a fine steady
game, and has the ideal temperament for
high pressure tournament bridge. He was
JANUARY 1992

the hero of the above hand from the Open and Bill Crissey did go on to win both the
Pairs at the recent Brantford tourna- Ontario and the national trials, and
ment. joined Eric Murray and
Most South's played in four hearts,
tried to draw trumps, and found that hand ♠ void
fell apart when they broke badly. ♥ J953
Lindop ruffed the opening king of ◆ void
clubs lead, crossed to the ace of spades, ♣ void
and ran the ten of diamonds. When this
held, he continued with the queen; East
♠ Q N ♠ 10
covered, and West ruffed the ace, return- ♥ 1O8 W E ♥ 2
ing another club which declarer ruffed. ◆ void S ◆ 9
Now Lindop played the king of ♣ 4 ♣ 9
spades, throwing a diamond from the ♠ J64
dummy, and followed with the jack of ♥ A
diamonds, discarding a club when West
threw a spade. The last diamond was led,
◆ void
and West ruffed in with the king, return- ♣ void
ing a club to South's queen of hearts (see Sammy Kehela on the Canadian Open
diagram). team in 1972.
Now a spade ruff in dummy and a Alas, the Lindop team did not fare
trump back to the ace of hearts set up the well in the short term. However, else-
end position where the lead of a spade by where in these pages is a report on the
South picks up both West's trumps for an 1991 CNTC, the winners of which will be
overtrick on a hand where most players representing Canada in the 1992 World
were going down! Champioships. The reader will notice
How was I as a forecaster? Bruce that among the players on the winning
Gowdy, Duncan Phillips, Gerry Charney team is .... David Lindop!

Master Point Press on the Internet

www.masterpointpress.com

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

www.masteringbridge.com

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

www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books.

www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and
other bridge notables.

Computers and Bridge
by Fred Gitelman
Imagine this hand:
♠ Ax
♥ Axx
◆ AKxxxx
♣ xx
♠ Kx
♥ Jxx
◆ Jx
♣ Axxxxx
Sometime in 1997, you arrive in 3NT,
and the spade queen is led. You win in
the dummy and play a low diamond to-
wards your jack. RHO hops up with the
diamond queen and returns another spade.
You claim nine tricks. You sneak a look
at RHO's hand and find that he held four
diamonds to the queen, so your safety
play was necessary. Nicely played.
After the session, you decide to give
this problem to BASE IX, your computer
bridge program, to see if it finds the
safety play. BASE IX wins the spade
lead in declarer's hand. BASE IX now
ducks the first round of diamonds! You
ask BASE IX (in a language resembling
English) why it didn't win the lead in
dummy to lead a diamond towards the
jack like you did.
BASE IX informs you that both
lines of play will succeed if diamonds are
3-2, and that both lines of play will fail if
diamonds are 5-0. BASE IX will make
3NT whenever either defender has a sin-
gleton Queen of Diamonds. BASE IX
now amazes you by stating that your line
will never pick up any 4-1 diamond break
unless either defender holds the KQ alone
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
of hearts or a singleton heart honour (an
opponent with Qxxx should rise on the
diamond, blocking the suit, and kill dum-
my's heart entry).
Since the odds of either opponent
having a singleton queen of diamonds are
5.65%, and the odds of hearts being the
way you need them are 3.39% (not to
mention that even if hearts are blocked,
when the diamonds break 4-1 your line
only works when RHO has singleton
queen or queen fourth) BASE IX played
the hand properly. Nicely played.
Science fiction? Maybe not. Bridge
software has traditionally not been very
impressive, but advances are being made.
I am currently working full-time on de-
veloping intelligent bridge-playing soft-
ware. The product described above is not
yet available but it represents the goal
towards which I am working In this ar-
ticle, I will discuss some of the strategies
I am using and some of the problems I
am facing in developing this product.
Let us first think of how an expert
human player solves a problem like the
one above. This person has acquired a
great deal of knowledge about bridge
through study and experience. For ex-
ample, they would know the correct way
to play the diamond suit for five tricks
without even having to think about it. A
good player knows the fundamental prop-
erties of most suit combinations. If he
comes across a suit combination he is not
familiar with, he has the means to come
up with at least an ap¬proximate an-
swer.
If that were all there was to playing
a bridge hand, declarer play would be
easy (and computer programs would
JANUARY 1992
never make an error). The concept of
context is what makes declarer play such
a challenging exercise. The diamond suit
in the above deal can only be properly
analyzed by taking into account the prop-
erties of the other three suits.
My current product, BASE III, is
able to solve out-of-context suit combina-
tion problems. It can also handle some
suit combination problems with limited
context (for example, you can tell it how
many entries exist to both hands and/or
how side suit(s) is/are known to be break-
ing).
In a functional sense, BASE III ac-
tually "knows" more about suit combina-
tions than any human bridge player. But
it actually knows only one thing about
suit combinations: it knows how to solve
them. It contains an algorithm, a step-by-
step set of instructions, for solving this
type of problem. It is never wrong.
Unlike the human expert, however, BASE
III does not accumulate knowledge. If it
saw the same question ten times in a row,
it would have to figure out the answer
each time. BASE III's advantage in speed
and accuracy compensates for its lack of
permanent knowledge.
The human expert still has a huge
edge. Although he does not have access
to quite as much "suit information", he
knows how to apply the information he
does have and how it can change in the
context of a hand.
Although BASE III essentially "un-
derstands" each of the four suits in the
current hand, it does not understand how
their properties affect each other. It does
not understand the entire deal and its im-
plicit complexities.
BASE III can nevertheless be used
to solve declarer play problems, through
a process of asking it a lot of questions.
Of course, you have to know which ques-
tions to ask; this amounts to having a
good understanding of card play (you
essentially describe the context of the
hand to BASE III). I am currently work-
ing on getting BASE III to the stage
where it can ask itself the right questions.
At that point, I will have created the hy-
pothetical program described at the be-
ginning of this article.
BASE IX will be designed to model
human bridge thinking. There are many
domains of problem (besides suit combi-
nations) that act as first principles in
planning a declarer play problem.
Knowledge of the end game, inferences
from the bidding, calculating odds,
knowledge of tactics (the holdup play, the
loser-on-loser play, etc.) and many other
factors contribute to the "clues" needed
to solve a declarer play "mystery". My
product can handle many of these things
already with great speed and accuracy,
but it cannot yet use the information it
discovers. Maybe one day.
Many people think that a computer
will never be able to play a good game of
bridge. One of their most valid objec-
tions is that computers will never under-
stand the "human side" of bridge. It is
difficult to describe what exactly is meant
by the "human side" of bridge, but the
hand we have been studying contains a
good example of why bridge reasoning is
not a strictly technical exercise.
Imagine you took the line of play
originally suggested (spade ace, diamond
towards the jack). Imagine that RHO has
the singleton queen of diamonds or four
diamonds to the queen and that the hearts
are unblocked. Will RHO always know
he can beat you by returning a heart? He
will have the critical diamond/heart hold-
ing about 14% of the time. What if he
goes wrong half the time? Then BASE
IX's suggested line is inferior.
Several factors influence how often
RHO will go wrong, but his ability is the
most important one. If RHO looks like
he will just return his partner's suit with-
out thinking, then you should give him a
chance to make an error. Even if RHO is
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

a good player, he still may not return a
heart, for example if he has the king of
hearts,without the queen. From his point
of view, your five points in clubs and
hearts could be the queen of hearts and
the queen, jack of clubs. In this case, not
returning a spade could be fatal.
The probability of RHO making an
error is at the heart of this problem (no
pun intended). I would call this quantity
an intangible: it is not a number that you
can compute accurately. My programs
have solved this problem by assuming
that the defenders never err (a practical,
but unrealistic, solution). Perhaps by
1997, BASE III will have advanced to the
point that it will understand how context
shapes a bridge problem. It probably still
won't understand how human factors can
contribute to context.

Barbara Holmes and Bob MacNeil get into the spirit of things on Halloween night at
The Place for Bridge

TRAVEL WITH A PRO - DONALD TRAVEL

MAUREEN A. CULP, C.T.C.
TRAVEL COUNSELLOR
555 BROCK ST. S., WHITBY, ONT., H0H 0H0
(416) 555-8867 TORONTO 555-1136 FAX (416) 555-9189
JANUARY 1992
The Impact of Bridge and Whist On
Playing Cards (part 1)
by Tom Dawson
Tom and Judy Dawson have been collect-
ing playing cards for about twelve years,
and their 1500+ collection of decks is
possibly the most comprehensive in
Canada. They have for the last two years
been co-editors of "Clear the Decks", the
magazine of the card-collectors' club,
52+J. As well as articles such as the one
that is reprinted here, the magazine in-
cludes a regular mail-in auction in which
members can "clear their decks". The
Dawsons would like to hear from anyone
who might have interesting cards, bridge-
related or otherwise -- however, the cards
must be old or very unusual.
The history of the manufacture of playing
cards for the past 100 years is closely
intertwined with the evolution and devel-
opment of the game of whist and its de-
rivatives, bridge, auction bridge and
contract bridge.
These games have had a significant
impact on such key playing card qualities
as size, composition, design, and number
of suits. I will try to trace, very briefly,
the evolution of these games and devel-
opments in playing card manufacturing
that occurred in response to this evolu-
tion.
Whist, as it is still played today, had
its origins in the game of "Trump" or
"Triumph" which is first mentioned in
English literature in 1529. It appears to
have developed into a game similar to its
present form by 1674 when it was fully
described by Henry Cotton in his games
book "The Compleat Gamester". In the
last half of the eighteenth century it was
popularized by Hoyle and gradually
evolved from a game played by "low
sharpers" to, by the 1890's, "almost the
only card game of civilized life" accord-
ing to the famous authority at the time,
Henry Jones, who wrote under the pseud-
onym "Cavendish".
The game of bridge, in its earliest
form, was first mentioned in the literature
in 1886 in England. At that time it did
not resemble today's sophisticated game
of contract bridge, but was closely related
to whist and a Russian game called
"Biritch". In both of these games a full
deck of 52 cards was dealt to four play-
ers, a trump suit was established and each
hand consisted of 13 tricks. A trick was
the play of one card by each player where
the highest card in the suit led won the
trick, unless "trumped" by a card from
the trump suit. The main innovations in
Bridge were the naming of the trump suit
by the dealer or his partner, the play of
two hands, his own and the dummy, by
declarer (the one who named the trump)
and scoring for tricks taken which dif-
fered depending on the named trump. It
was also possible to play "chicane", or
"notrumps" as we do in present day con-
tract bridge.
Another huge development, in both
whist and bridge, was the invention of
"duplicate" movements which allowed
the same hands to be played by different
tables of four players. This innovation
did much to increase the game's popular-
ity, as it opened the way to holding large
competitions where most of the element
of chance was removed and the true skills
and experience of players would come to
the fore.
 CANADIAN MASTER POINT

As whist reached its peak, and the
new game of bridge started its rise in
popularity in the 1890's, a number of card
manufacturers realized they might attain
a competitive edge if they could cater
more directly to the whims and wishes of
these players. Experimentation and in-
novation became the name of the game,
and things which we now take for granted
in playing cards were developed. Let's
take a look at some of these.
1. "Whist" cards - A narrower and lon-
ger card was developed as an aid to play-
ers who had to hold 13 cards in their
hand. One of the first of these was
"Tennis #144" by National in 1885
(Spade Ace pictured right). Soon USPC
had produced Ivory #93 and Trophy
Whist #39 which also featured new style
courts (Heart Queen pictured right).
Others eventually jumped on the band-
wagon and by the 1930's most of the
cards produced were of the narrow vari-
ety.
allowing competition where results could
be compared between players.
The first of the special decks was
"Bird's Duplicate Whist Cards", a cum-
bersome, but workable, method of play-
ing the same deals at two or more tables.
Other duplicated decks were produced
over the years with dealing diagrams on
the backs which were easier to use. One
of the most interesting of these is the
deck (Spade Ace and back pictured far
right, middle and bottom) made for the
1934 World Bridge Olympic which al-
lowed over 100,000 pairs to play the
same hands at the same time all over the
world.
(to be concluded in next issue)

2. Teaching decks - Dougherty produced

"Foster's Self-Playing Whist Cards" in
1889 which, through dealing set hands by
means of numeric codes on the card
backs (back pictured far right, top), al-
lowed players to practice and improve
their game. Two years later Russell &
Morgan published "The Ames Whist
Lesson Cards" which had helpful hints
for play on the faces of each honour card.
Since then these ideas have been used by
a great many manufacturers in conjunc-
tion with whist and bridge experts of the
time.

3. Duplicated trays and decks - One of

the first duplicate trays was the one de-
veloped by Kalamazoo. All manufactur-
ers tried to cash in on the duplicate boom
through new types of trays and boards
and by developing special cards which
could accomplish the same objectives of
JANUARY 1992

Micro Bridge
Companion
Great Games Products,
Bethesda MD
PC version only. $59.95 US.

Reviewed by Linda Lee

As Dr. Johnson remarked in a differ-

ent context, "it is not done well, but the
marvel is that it is done at all." Micro
Bridge Companion does not play bridge
as well as most club duplicate players, but
it does play bridge well enough to be en-
joyable, most of the time. Certainly, un-
like chess programs, bridge programs are
not yet ready to challenge human beings
for mastery of the game. I always expect
to "beat" the computer.
Microbridge Companion has three
parts. The first two allow you to play
random bridge hands with the computer.
The third is a library allowing you to re-
cord and annotate hands.
The best way to play against the
computer is to use the "Play a Match"
option. This allows you to play a match
of up to sixteen boards with the com¬puter
playing the other three hands. You can
select IMP's, board-a-match, or total
points scoring. You can then have the
com¬puter replay the match, playing all
four hands, and compare against the com-
puter. I always expect to win this test but
it is sometimes interesting to see how the
computer does. Much more fun is to con-
vince your favourite partner or opponent
to replay the match and compare the re-
sults with you. You can leave the match
on the computer so the other player can
see the results as well.
The computer is very limited in its
conventions and system. You can select
weak two bids and type of jump overcall

but not much else. I miss limit raises, in
particular. is an on-line tutorial if you need it.
While we have thoroughly enjoyed
this game, and it is in constant use, the
deficiencies of the computer partner can
be quite frustrating at times. For example,
it is prone to inviting to game and then
going to slam when you accept the invita-
tion; similarly you are often hung when
you balance. After some trial and error I
find I get the best results by opening very
light hands. Perhaps the most frustrating
moments occur when you are defending
with the computer: you can feel very
helpless when the computer won't cash
the setting trick. You learn never to give
up as declarer and I have found bizarre
ways to make impossible contracts.
There are several nice features and
a few that allow you to cheat if you want.
(For my spouse - I would never stoop so
low). You can go back one or more tricks
or bids by depressing the minus key. This
allows you to experiment or to correct a
"mispull". You can get a review of the
auction and of the tricks to date, or see
how the computer evaluates the hand.
One of the best features of the game is
the ability to claim or concede at any
point. You can claim even if you don't
have all of the rest of the tricks. The
computer will make you an offer based
on its evaluation of the number of tricks
that you should make on a claim. You
can accept the offer or play on. Using the
same mechanism you can also concede
the remaining tricks. This mechanism
works very well but once or twice the
computer has offered me too many
tricks.
You can also play "Microbridge
Four". The game plays in an identical
way but each deal is an individual hand
and the hands are not saved, for replay.
The game is very easy to play - you really
CANADIAN MASTER POINT
don't have to read the manual - and there
The game plays in four modes which
range from fast to slow. In modes 2 and
3 the game is fast up to the last five or six
tricks and then slows down considerably.
In mode four the game is slow through-
out. I usually play on mode 3, but I
haven't seen a big difference in ability
from one mode to the other, in any case.
The "record hand" feature allows
you to save your favourite bridge hands
with annotations. If the hand was played
with Microbridge IV, it will save the bid-
ding and play as it occurred and you can
annotate the hand, otherwise you can
enter the hand, the bidding, and the play.
If you don't remember all the cards you
can put in those you do remember and the
computer will randomly generate the rest
of the hand. Hands can be grouped in
directories and files. While this feature
is easy to use, the ability to annotate the
bidding and play is somewhat limited. A
more serious drawback is that when you
are replaying the hand you must follow
card for card the line of play as recorded
(see below) so it is not very useful as a
means of "seeing how your friends do."
The game also comes with a number
of lesson hands from Bridge World. You
play the hand but you are not allowed to
play "the wrong card." These hands are
fun and some are pretty tough, although
sometimes you are forced to play the
cards in one order even when another
order is equivalent so you have to keep
trying until you get the line the computer
wants.
Overall, this game packs a lot of
value for under $60.00 US and would
make an excellent gift for bridge players
of all levels. Available from the manu-
facturer or bridge supply houses.