May 27th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 7 Comments 
As I made mention in a recent comment on a site today, my blogging rarely contains bridge hands, especially one in which I am personally involved. I leave the teaching to others much more qualified. However, I felt compelled to make an exception.
Playing duplicate with my favorite partner (you only get one guess), I had a decision to make. Let me preface the showing of the hand by telling you we play a sort-of-normal style (if there is such a thing). Basically: Five card majors, 1NT intended forcing, Weak NT (NV only), Flannery, Jacoby, etc. — nothing fancy.
Dealer: East Vulnerability: Both
The auction had proceeded:
N E S W
P 1H 2D
X P ?
This was my hand: Q98 AK852 KJ2 92
This is how the bidding started out. There is nothing tricky about the hand, I promise. Just make your normal call after partner’s negative double and I’ll take it from there?
The answer tomorrow!
May 19th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 33 Comments
No one can argue that deliberate, pre-arranged cheating is the most heinous of all bridge crimes. Since in our society, death is not an option, permanent banishment should be the unarguable penalty paid by the unscrupulous individuals who conceived these plans with malice aforethought. Perhaps if this strong means of punishment was adopted when it first came into existence, the issue would not still be so prevalent today (at all levels). Believe me, there continues to be, as we say, ‘wired’ partnerships whether you want to believe it or not, not only here in the States, but abroad as well. The rank and file, for the most part, are not exposed to the latter, but the big boys still encounter it in all sorts of serious competition (both here and on foreign soil). That, however, is not the subject of this blog. I would like to examine the different types of corruption of our game (and the many pitfalls responsible for it) which occur and how they are handled (and more often mishandled) by those in charge.
Let us start with a simple case of accidentally not responding to partner’s Stayman call by the obvious inadvertent Pass of 2C (described crudely as a B. F.). It happens to all of us on occasion and I have confidence that you can figure out the reference.
However, that is just the beginning of the ugly aftermath. As the No Trumper realized that he had not pulled out the 2D card he intended (denying a major) and was rushing to replace it by the proper card, the mean-spirited, ill-intending creep on his left lickety-split SHOUTED PASS.
What happened to the ACBL dictated regulation of using the green card? Was the bidding box no longer chic, fashionable or simply out of vogue? Hell, no — but the time required to reach for the Pass card might allow the NTer the time frame to explain he meant to pull out the 2D card – squelching his opportunity to appeal to the conscience of the vocal passer. No civilized person I know (IMO) would want to score matchpoints by not allowing the 2D card to be placed on the table — animals and vermin excepted.
Also bear in mind the stakes! They were not playing for money — merely masterpoints. But, perhaps it was Triple Point Day where you get a glut of those coveted meaningless pieces of paper. I might have mentioned before that I read a funny article defining Triple Points as earning one third and buying the other two thirds. Makes sense to me — but it brings people into the clubs and more money to the owners, directors and ACBL although it certainly deflates the glory of earning it the old way — where people took pride in their achievements. In the bridge world we live in today when masterpoints are awarded (mostly in the cases of B and C players) for 40% games and below for placing in their section, it makes you sit up and take note sadly — that we are acknowledging and heralding not only mediocre but substandard play as well.
Forgive me for digressing. Back to the matter of the lightning fast vocal pass. It was brought to the attention of Mike Flader ([email protected]). After a couple of exchanged emails between Mike and the victim (with Bobby interceding as well at the behest of the ruled-against party), Mike agreed that he (along with Bobby) would have allowed the green card to be picked up and replaced with the intended 2D call. However, at the present time that is not how the law views the error. My answer — screw the laws, the rules and the unyielding, less-knowledgeable directors and re-write the format to reflect justice and equity. It is pathetic if that is the way people want to earn good scores.
To me the culprit was clearly Lefty with his hungry demonstration to finish off the auction pronto like a jungle beast swooping down upon his prey – except the jungle beast is not nearly as guilty since he needs food to stay alive. The bridge culprit, on the other hand, doesn’t need masterpoints (especially the devalued ones of today) to survive. Another view is that the masterpoint hound only swoops down to be evil and to further his enjoyment of basking in his own conniving tactics and overbearing personality. Bridge is no longer the game intended by its founders to be played by ladies and gentlemen. It seems like the animals are running the zoo with the help of directors, appeals committees, and lawmakers. Time for some radical changes!
Now let’s compare the above travesty to another — which went down as one of the most hideous, egregious, infuriating, outrageous rulings in the long history of the game. You got it — that infamous “Oh, Shit!” case from the March 1999 Vanderbilt Knockouts in Vancouver.
I can’t imagine any other debacle approaching it from the standpoint of violation of bridge law or corruption of the process — but primarily enhanced by the cast of characters involved. To really understand the sequence of events, you will get a first hand accounting through the eyes of one who was there front and center and knew the background behind some of the moves. Let’s cut to the chase. Here’s the actual hand and original ruling:
A1084 Contract: 6C by South (down one)
KQ9 Opening Lead: H7 by West
KJ9
Q104
Q6
A852
—
AK86532
Unfortunately, though my husband Bobby and his partner Dan Morse originally received the correct ruling from Stan Tench, it was reversed by a prejudiced director with whom Bobby had numerous run-ins. To compound the situation, when it was appealed by Bobby’s side, the two individuals who served as Co-Chairmen on the Appeals Committee (known enemies of Bobby) never considered stepping down and recusing themselves as it was payback time. Inexcusable! There oughta be a law against it.
Sadly for Bobby this case preceded me. Had I been on the scene, you can bet your life that the Appeals Co-Chairs would have been forced to show some semblance of human decency by recusing themselves. However, I blame Bobby for not speaking up. He was naive enough to disbelieve that such a miscarriage of justice could occur as the facts were self-evident and anyone with a brain cell (or maybe two) would not have allowed the declarer to take her card back two plays later. But ACBL Land is unpredictable! Believe me, I’ve been there and can attest to it in living color (The Lone Wolff, page 217).
What actually happened was Bobby led his singleton heart against 6C, won by declarer in dummy. She then led a diamond from KJX and when Dan, fearing a singleton queen, popped up with his ace declarer ruffed. All she had to do was pull trump and claim her slam as she had a discard for her losing spade on the diamond king. Simple? Kid stuff.
However, instead of the rest of the hand being duck soup, she must have had an aberration (not uncommon even at the high levels). After ruffing the diamond, declarer played a low trump to dummy’s queen and then played a spade away from the Ace and Dan hopped up king and gave Bobby a heart ruff for down one. As she led the low spade (and AFTER Dan won the king, her universally quoted comment was echoed, “Oh, Shit!” Bobby described it in TLW: “It was a phrase that was to become so famous that those two words will always be synonymous with the most ludicrous appeals decision that ever came down the pike.”
After the play was over, declarer’s partner suggested they call the TD, Stan Tench, to the table who had no problem ruling that the result stood. Ten minutes later he was coerced into reversing his ruling, after Chief Tournament Director, Henry Cukoff (an arch-enemy of Bobby’s) became involved. Unfathomable as it is, but because of Cukoff’s brain-demented mandate, declarer was allowed to take back her card and 6C was chalked up as making. Yes, read it again. You are not seeing things!
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cukoff’s decision was backed by the late Brian Moran, possibly Steve Bates and certainly even a seemingly unwilling messenger-like Stan Tench.
Back to Cukoff for a moment. This next memorable experience took place in Orlando during the Reisinger in 1992. Bobby, as you may know, was very involved in attempting to catch cheaters, monitoring their moves and even organizing sting operations. Competing in this event was one notorious player (still alive and wide-eyed – and has even won a world championship) who thrives on clocking hands. When Bobby saw this predator gazing where his eyes did not belong, he suggested to the DIC Cukoff the need for a physical change in the table arrangement which during the second day of the Reisinger BAM event historically used an internal movement. The source of the temptation needed to be eliminated.
As it then existed, the movement called for the East-West Pair to SKIP A TABLE (GOING DOWN TWO)WHILE THE BOARDS WENT DOWN ONLY ONE. Thus, it seemed wise to re-arrange the numerical arrangement of tables in two sections (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and so on and the same with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc.) – with the sensible intent that the East-West players not directly pass the table from which their next boards to be played would be coming (especially if play had not concluded). Cukoff refused, but Bobby had him overruled and did not rise to the top of Cukoff’s Hit Parade.
And now to the Appeals Committee Chair People:
(1) Doug Heron, a Canadian politico, was a Co-Chairman. For years, Bobby fought to have the Canadians field their best players in the International Events instead of filling the chairs with the lesser lights that included several political figures. As a result of their finishing terribly, next to last or even dead last overall on occasions, Bobby proposed a motion that Canada had to finish at least in the top half in the World Team Olympiad to be permitted to have a team in the following Bermuda Bowl. Note that it would have been a slam dunk effort if Canada ever attempted to send anywhere near their best players. But, alas they had other objectives in mind. Is it any wonder that Heron was happy to foster and uphold the asinine verdict of Cukoff.
(2) Doug’s partner in crime was Bob Gookin, the other Co-Chairman, a good player, from the Washington, D.C. area. He was called before a C & E Committee when he was extremely rude and insulting to a TD who ruled against him for balancing at the three level after two long and obvious breaks in tempos (and passes) by his partner. The prosecution was headed by Bob Rosen, who enlisted Bobby’s support to help him with this particular C & E hearing. Gookin was severely reprimanded for his conduct but he was able to even the score in spades with Bobby at the “Oh, Shit” hearing.
Now, I ASK YOU – why are people (with commonly known personal vendettas against others) sitting in positions of power? RECUSAL is a rather new word and may not be in many old dictionaries but it certainly should be in fluent use with the ACBL and MANDATORY that people with either biases or prejudices should never be appointed to a decision-making status where good friends or bitter enemies are involved. If by accident, they are — they should have the decency to voluntarily step down!
May 14th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 13 Comments
At our duplicate club in Vegas, the owners always seem to stretch their best feet forward in an effort to improve the game (as far as both equity and comfort). Before the kickoff, I saw Dixie Perkinson (one of the owner/directors) diligently plastering down something on each board like a tireless robot. And — fearing not though curiosity once killed a cat, I was true to form and zoomed in to see the legend she was attaching.
One of the weekly directors, Bill Johnson, who is active in our Unit, came up with the idea of making the “Dealer” more legible to the naked eye so they took advantage of Patsy Huckabay’s gracious nature (who just happens to be in the printing business) and ordered hundreds of labels for the upcoming Unit Regional in June. Dixie then carried the idea further by ordering extras, affixing them to all the boards at The Las Vegas Bridge World. I know many times I have had to squint to see whom the leadoff hitter is, and these tiny stark white stickers (emblazoned with bold black print that say DEALER) remove all doubt.
May 9th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 4 Comments
The 2010 Cavendish Invitational Pairs ended this afternoon with yet another notch in the belt of the amazing partnership of Bobby Levin and Steve Weinstein. This is their fifth triumph together (1999, 2002, 2007, 2009 and 2010) but Steve is two up on Bobby – winning in both 1993 and 1996 with Fred Stewart, a charming gentleman who was married to Stevie’s late mother. Helgemo and Helness (two Norwegian superstars with world class reputations) went into the finals leading and finished second. In the World Bridge Production Pairs, our own Ross Taylor made a good showing, finishing one place out of the money. This money bridge tournament (originally held in New York City beginning in 1975) is now hosted at the magnificent Green Valley Ranch Resort in Henderson, a suburb twenty minutes from Las Vegas.
Be sure to check out the following site for all the results of this exciting five day marathon:
http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=53.
Though the event drew sensational superstars from all over the globe, the attendance was noticeably down and the money pool less than in previous years. The economy has taken its toll on so many ventures – and it was obvious the Cavendish Invitational was among them.
May 5th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 17 Comments
One habit to which I unconditionally plead guilty is that of being a Pack Rat. The dictionary definition refers to compulsive hoarding and no doubt, I fit the bill because my aversion to discarding items of non-intrinsic value has gotten the best of me. It is one thing to take pride in our home’s Trophy Room shared by both Norman and Bobby. A quick occasional dusting coupled with a bottle of Wright’s Silver Polish comes in handy every few months (or when I am expecting company). But, I have no excuse for the endless stacks of boxes of programs, articles, clippings, ACBL bulletins, WBF briefcases, et al. with which I have trouble parting. It wasn’t bad enough I dragged Norman’s from Philly to Dallas to Las Vegas, but how could I keep Norman’s memorabilia and discard Bobby’s? No way!
One item responsible for much of the space consumption is the Annual World Bridge Federation Collection of hands. Bobby’s stash goes back to 1970 and even when he did not participate in the event as a contestant, he attended in an administrative capacity … missing very few .. and his colorful stack seems to reach to the sky. To this day, he still savors the joy of going over some of the impressive brilliance of those who played — and reminisces of the lifelong friendships of yesteryear — often recalling to me special happenings or celebrations which will live within him forever.
The other day his 2009 WBF Sao Paulo Book arrived. Though he is ‘semi-officially retired’ except for his Aces on Bridge Column, he is totally consumed by the vast amount of pro bono work in which he enjoys participating — but of course I tear him away from his computer twice a week for our duplicate forays. Sometimes, I wonder how he can pack so much into a day (especially nearing 78 and probably never playing better) … but hold everything. When the book arrived accompanied by a lovely note from WBF President, Jose Damiani, everything stopped as he began flipping the pages. That night, half asleep, I heard a voice whisper, "Honey, are you up?" "Well, if I wasn’t then — I certainly am now," I replied, humoring him. Rousing me from la-la land, he beamed. "Look at this hand!" (Just what I wanted to see at 11:30 p.m.) It appeared on page 206 (Set 3, Board 33) (semi-finals of the Bermuda Bowl Matchup between Italy and Bulgaria).
The auction actually began with a strong 1C bid by North, 2C (natural) by East; Double (negative) by South; 3C (support) by West; Double (takeout by the opener); 4C by East and eventually 4H by South which ended the auction. The West defender (Versace) led a club which was won by Lauria (East). Here is the entire hand:
KQJ92
Q542
AKJ
2
(Versace) (Lauria)
A107 6
J86 A7
7643 10952
974 AQJ1065
8543
K1093
Q8
K83
Lauria, looking at dummy, must have known that it was imperative for partner to have the spade ace for the hand to be beaten and most likely led his singleton instinctively and quickly. However, he does have the moral and legal responsibility to lead all cards in tempo.
The problem is twofold: (1) Leading your singleton in a timely fashion; and (2) Helping partner to know whether it is a singleton or doubleton (other than by tempo). The fast return of the S6 was actually appealed** and the declaring side argued it was an obvious singleton and partner knew to win the SA and return it for the ruff. If partner had the trump ace (which he needs to beat it anyway), it is important for Versace to know if it is a singleton (giving him the immediate ruff as he could never reach him again) or a doubleton (in which case he must keep communication by ducking and winning the return after partner hops up with the HA). Still rubbing my eyes and listening with half an ear, I conceded it was a tough problem and dove for the pillow but there was no peace for the weary, as he excitedly continued ..
Bobby said, "Don’t you see it"? Moi? Give me a break? It was really a baby play for him (and yet not one of the analysts came up with Bobby’s solution which would have made life easy for the defense)! CASH THE TRUMP ACE FIRST AND THEN LEAD YOUR SINGLETON; PARTNER WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO WIN IT AND GIVE YOU THE RUFF. In retrospect, it sounds logical and easy — and yet until now that defense was never suggested. With the actual return of the spade, Versace had to decide whether it was a singleton or doubleton – and he guessed right. However, he should not have been placed in that unenviable position!
**What actually happened: The Appeals Committee cut the baby in half, judging the Italians would defeat the contract only half of the time and the other half of the time it would make. They must not have considered the right defense. If they had — they would have denied the Italian claim because of the out of tempo spade return due to the inferior play of NOT cashing the HA first, but rather leading his spade prematurely. The proper appeals ruling would have been 4 hearts bid and scored up to the Bulgarians because Versace should have ducked the initial spade return when partner did not cash the HA initially. From Versace’s perspective, if Lauria had a DOUBLETON spade and, of course, the theoretical heart ace (which he needed to beat the contract), he WOULD NOT cash the HA first, but rather lead what appears to be his doubleton spade, which Versace should duck to preserve communication for the eventual spade ruff. Then after declarer leads trumps, Lauria would win his trump ace and continue spades for the eventual setting trick of the spade ruff. In the other room, 4S (not 4H) was bid and made.
I love playing with an eleven-time world champ and learning from him — but not at midnight. However, If ever a hand justifies his world renowned reputation — this is the one!
May 4th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 13 Comments
I would like to address a bridge subject that has long been the bane of my existence — and worsening day by day. There is nothing as irritating and disconcerting to me as players who either create breaks in tempo (with resultant problems) or those who take advantage of said BITs by their ensuing action, claiming "they were going to bid anyway." LOL!
Let us address them from two perspectives – from the club level to the highest echelon of the game. There are two factors involved: (1) In which venue it occurs; and (2) The strength of the enforcement and mind set of those in command.
At the club level, whether one wants to admit it or not, no one (director/manager/owner) wants to lose a customer. It is characterized by reduced attendance and money out of their pockets. However, if a club operates under the auspices of the ACBL and issues masterpoints, it is really obligated to uphold the basic rules of the game. Of course, the ACBL is in a similar position to the club owners and just as the club owners may find their card fees ebbing by disgruntled attendees who have been reprimanded (even politely and gently) — the ACBL may find their dues dwindling because of malcontents. I don’t think either of these issues matter as the equity and honor of the game must be upheld at any cost.
As an aside, allow me to cite two personal experiences. I played duplicate in Philadelphia for about forty-five years. For some reason I cannot recall these unethical practices early in my career. Maybe I just didn’t know enough about the game and its nuances and pitfalls. However, for the last twenty years there, I attended only one duplicate club and I can tell you, especially on the days run by my partner, Jane Segal, it was a no-nonsense operation. Then I remarried and moved. Since about 2006 we have been playing at LV Bridge World, recently taken over, owned and run by Dixie Perkinson and Joanne Euler. They make an incredibly well-directed, concerted effort to guide their people to play by the rules and those who follow the straight and narrow appreciate their stalwart efforts. Those who were unaware of their failings, have come around to the proper deportment at the table — or else they have suffered the consequences of having the auction rolled back or received adjusted scores.
The decisions made at sectionals, regionals, nationals and beyond are the problems of the ACBL and their tournament staff. Wearing a director’s badge does not necessarily mean you are knowledgeable or familiar with establishing equity — but as they say — let their mother worry. By the way, the solution I ‘love’ the most is where it is suggested that a poll of the subject party’s peers be taken. Does that mean if an unskilled, moronic individual is the subject of discussion, you take a poll of "like" morons to determine that their bids are in accordance with the one in question. Perhaps the directors and appeals committee members should be better trained and be in a position to make crucial judgments without such ludicrous polls.
However, I am more concerned here with the inefficiency of the directors at the duplicate club level as it is prevalent in hundreds of clubs all over the country and the issues are either ignored or not taken seriously. Just add up the scores and send in the points. That is the disgusting familiar scene to which most clubs give way. It is the easy way out — but it does not bode well for the future of the game.
If you want to play by your own rules, go home and play old-fashioned kitchen bridge where you can bid One Club to show a real four card or longer suit or bid A Club to show an artificial suit of three or less. That’s how I played when we first learned — but everyone bid the same way — so no one had an advantage. But, here we are in 2010 and it is time someone took the bull by the horns and put a stop to all of the illegal exchange of information, non-alerts, inappropriate alerts, not knowing your system (known as Convention Disruption), huddles, hitches and any other type of Breaks in Tempo (BITs), etc. It has to start somewhere and teaching the club directors the whys and wherefores is a good place to begin. From our present experience, few are qualified. It is the director’s absolute responsibility to run a ‘clean’ operation and must take the initiative to explain the no-nos of the game in a tactful, pleasant, firm and respectful manner.
Let’s examine the rationalization of the player who takes advantage of partner’s huddle:
1. Do you truly believe that he or she does not know that one must bid based ONLY on the thirteen cards before them? It should not come as a surprise to them. (Yes)
2. Do you think that because they have gotten away with it for so long, they have just become a creature of habit? (Yes)
3. Do you think that if no one politely calls the director (when appropriate), it will stop on its own? (No)
4. Do you think it is fair to the rest of the field to allow the BITs and pay them no mind, knowing the partner will take full advantage of it? (No — except that few will care and will rarely know about the situation at the other table)
5. Do you think it might not be a good idea for a "teacher" to indoctrinate new players by explaining the protocol of the game before teaching his or her students to count up to thirteen? (Absolutely!!!!)
6. Do you think it will not be a ‘shocker’ when players climb from ‘C’ to ‘B’ to ‘A’ strata and eventually play in tournaments where they will find themselves before committees? (Yes. It is part of the process — though an embarrassing and rude awakening they should have been spared by their local club director)
Perhaps sage advice to ethical players (who are not in a game forcing sequence) is that if they pause a long time before passing, they have placed their partnership in jeopardy, creating an awkward situation. So, they may as well bid as they have barred their partner unless he or she has automatic action. If it is a close decision, partner of the passing huddler should feel compelled to bend over backwards not to bid. If the director is a believer in active ethics (and fortunately our primary directors are), you will see how fast the balancer comes around after a reversal of the auction a time or two!!!!
There are many offshoots of this concept, but let’s concentrate on the above and leave the rest for another time.
April 14th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 10 Comments
While furrowing through some bridge memorabilia stashed away over fifty years, I came across a poem I don’t even recall penning, but the circumstances are self-explanatory. I don’t profess to be Emily Dickinson or Elizabeth Barrett Browning — but considering the vintage, I thought some might find it amusing. The background first …. and I have to confess I cannot remember for which male chauvinist it was intended — but this is what provoked my verse (written through the eyes of my male bridge partner — but obviously all in jest):
Back in the mid-fifties, there was a bridge game in Philly every Monday night in the back room of a restaurant called Maxwell Fried’s. It was “the” game in the suburbs. In fact, it was the site of the first time I ever played with Norman Kay in 1961 — but this story takes place four years prior when I first learned the game at Junto (a Night School specializing in many subjects – with bridge having been a very popular class taught by Bennett Disbrow). The name Disbrow is meaningless to most of you readers — but he was known for collaborating in some bridge point count projects with Charlie Solomon whom many will remember as President of both the ACBL and WBF back in the Sixties.
Armed with the scant knowledge gleaned from my formal six-week course, I would mosey over to the game — merely to sit and watch those who were worshipped as the experts. (Since then I have learned a new interpretation of the word “expert” — although in 1957 — everyone appeared to fit the bill to me). In those years, I was young, had a cute figure, and bubbling with enthusiasm for my newfound play toy called ‘bridge.’ Eventually several of the better players offered to partner me and, of course, I was flattered that they wanted to help an obviously struggling neophyte. Most of my mentors were kind and gentle (far from haughty), but there must have been one macho man who played with me on a fairly regular basis (with none of the obvious strings attached) for which I was most grateful! He had a great sense of humor and though his name escapes me — the proof of the pudding is in the poem.
Considering it was over half a century ago, you will have to forgive my attack of Half-Heimers (that means you are not quite there – but certainly on your way)!
From the tone of my poem, he turned his nose up at most FEMALE bridge players — and regardless of all the chatter about the terrific women players in Philly back then — the only true expert was someone few have heard of (Sally Young) who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001 and incidentally was Life Master #17 and the first woman to achieve that status.
Here is the poem as seen through the eyes of my sweet (but pompous) male partner:
Advice to My Female Partners
I have seen the fumes of anger — accumulate en masse
Appearing very starkly — in the bidding and the pass
The voice is raised an octave — the warning (oh so clear)
Unless you deviate your course — the price you’ll pay is dear
Avoid the common pitfalls — hark to what I say
Forget your early training — and start anew today
I will set the contract — I will choose the spot
You will follow blindly — That is a ‘woman’s lot’
The majors and the No Trumps — off limits and taboo
But if it’s clubs or diamonds — I’ll let you play a few
Conduct yourself quite meekly — Adhere to every speech
And concentrate completely — on the bridge lore that I teach
And if I play a contract — that happens not to make
Praise at once my efforts — and “mourn a rotten break.”
If you become declarer — (unlikely though it be)
Inform both your opponents — they’re lucky it’s not me
And should you heed my warnings — I’ll guarantee for you
A partner who is talented — and very modest too!
April 4th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 4 Comments
In an earlier blog about Edgar’s famous ‘quips,’ someone who had heard Edgar in action was just as impressed with his verbal talents as Chief Roaster at Norman’s 60th milestone. I named all the celebrities who honored my request, sending marvelous notes of congratulations to my shocked husband. However, as explained, I got the idea from Norman himself when he presented me with something similar for my ’67 Mixed Pair victory. Most of the responding celebrities were in the political field such as the Mayor of Montreal (fittingly as it was the scene of the crime), the Mayor of Philadelphia, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Senators Joe Clark and Hugh Scott, Michigan’s Governor Romney, Senator George Murphy, General Al Gruenther, the widowed Jacqueline Kennedy, Californians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, New York Major Lindsay .. and a host of others — with many gracious and entertaining ones from the world of bridge.
My own personal favorite (with no close second) is the following which was posted from Toronto (dated August 16, 1967):
My dear Judy:
When I heard that the National Mixed Pairs in Montreal had been won by Kaplan – Kay, I was not surprised as I have long felt that this event would be their true medium but I did somehow doubt their eligibility.
I have just now been informed that the Kay was one “Judy” and after consulting the Bridge Encyclopedia, I learn that she is wife of “Norman.” I therefore hastily write to the said Judy in wild admiration for if you can win with Kaplan, you can win with anyone (I have tried several times with a singular lack of success).
One of the main drawbacks in winning a national event with Edgar Kaplan is that you have to have your picture taken with him and then have it plastered all over the Bulletin and an even worst catastrophe is the possibility of having to defend with him.
My formula for success in mixed pairs events is not to play but I beg to advise that should you be forced to defend with Kaplan next year, I shall be available after each session and until the small hours of the morning in order to console you.
With utter admiration.
(signed with X’s and O’s) E. Rutherford Murray
Can you blame me for loving Eric from afar after penning such a masterpiece?
March 28th, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 7 Comments
Often I smile and reminisce about the old timers (most of whom are gone) who graced the vugraph table with mike in hand, making us laugh and challenging our thought process as we watched the key matches on the big screen. Vugraph has come a long way and many clever commentator-analyzers of the past helped to popularize it at NABCs and WBFs. The outstanding ones at NABCs were Ron Anderson, Edgar Kaplan, Eric Kokish, my Bobby (before his hearing went downhill) and one of the most outstanding (at the traveling Omar Sharif Bridge Circus competition) — Mike Ledeen. They played to packed houses and were so very entertaining. I rarely got to hear Edgar as he and Norman were usually playing, so it was a treat for me to read what follows below. I do remember Betty’s collection of Edgarisms but I hadn’t seen them in thirty years.
I want to share with you some of what were named “Kaplan Quips.” Recently, I read them on line and the article was prefaced: “Quotes from the Rama Room — as recorded by Betty Kaplan, Edgar’s Boswell, at the 6th World Team Olympiad in Valkenberg, Netherlands, in 1980.* Edgar was about the most glib-tongued person I came across in my bridge travels — or any travels for that matter: The humorous words just rolled off his tongue like lightning bolts, one after another.
Here goes ….
“I don’t know what North was thinking of doing, but it’s just as well he didn’t.”
“I think he’ll keep doubling them until he finally beats one.”
“The difference between a brave bid and a foolhardy bid is largely a matter of result.”
“That’s unfair. North-South were just having a good time and suddenly East-West turned nasty and doubled.”
“Four hearts is a very good bid — but on some other hand.”
“West passed, hoping his partner would double but that was too much to hope for in this world. It will happen all the time in the next world.”
“If you average South’s bidding on this hand (one too many) and on the previous hand (one too few), he comes out just right.”
“When in doubt, put the opponents on lead. Why should you make the mistake?”
“It is always a good idea to make only six when you’ve missed a grand slam. The opponents don’t know how good a result they have.”
“Well, it was only sporting for declarer to give East his trick back.”
“He may bid and he may not. I believe that covers all possibilities.”
“If you’re a good enough player, you can get away with making mistakes because nobody will believe it.”
“That’s the story of my life — all my life, I’ve been setting up non-working endplays.”
“Declarer could try a non-working squeeze.”
“After all, East-West have a clear majority of the point count (21).”
“The defenders made 2NT so it was an accurate contract — just played the wrong way.”
“I understand some super-modernists are back to leading queen from queen-jack. They call it ‘reverse Rusinow.'”
“He’s preserving his options to misguess the diamonds.”
“In order to let the contract make, the defenders must lead a spade. No other line of play succeeds.”
“South’s bid implied: I have four spades, four hearts, six clubs and the rest are diamonds.”
“They avoided the trap of bidding a slam on the second hand to compensate for the one they missed on the first.”
“South had five hearts and five clubs, but they were not playing five-card majors so he opened 1C.”
“I don’t understand how declarer made only five spades. I understand why he wanted to make only five spades: It wouldn’t be so obvious then that he had missed a slam.”
“To teach the opponents not to preempt against you, you must not only double them, you must also beat them.”
“Some people bid 3NT over their partner’s three-level suit bids on the theory that it’s more dignified to go down in game.”
“In his 3NT contract, declarer has seven tricks. One more from heaven makes eight and where there’s eight, there’s nine.”
“I don’t think anyone in this tournament can bid diamonds to show diamonds. We lost the club suit in the 1950s. Now diamonds are gone and hearts are sinking fast.”
“Everything gets doubled in the Closed Room except when it goes down.”
“If you want to bid naturally and still sound modern, just say your bid shows the suit below the suit above the one you bid.”
“Now his 3D bid shows a singleton diamond. When he rebids diamonds, it will confirm a singleton diamond.”
“Now he has forced North to lead away from his DK but unfortunately North didn’t have it. It’s called the phantom endplay.”
“In the old days, you had to grit your teeth and pass with the North hand. Now you can make a negative double with the result that you go down instead of the opponents.”
“East is wondering why he didn’t pass 1S. So am I.”
SO MUCH FOR EDGAR’S PEARLS OF WISDOM!
March 23rd, 2010 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~ 12 Comments
Until October of 2007 — the time of the infamous WBF Women’s Bridge Team victory incident in Shanghai with which (by this time) you are all familiar — I wasn’t sure I even knew who Danny Kleinman was. I must have had one of those senior moments as today he reminded me we weren’t total strangers! More than twenty years ago, at a national tournament within commuting distance of his Los Angeles home, he encountered me as an opponent, and seeing the name “Kay” on my convention card, he inquired whether I was the daughter of the famous Norman, and very flattered (as my daughter Robin is thirty years my junior), I proudly owned up to being his wife. Then, earlier in 2007 (which I had also forgotten — but this fella has a memory like an elephant) , Danny and Jeff Rubens assigned me to write a book review for The Bridge World. I found the script so boring and not my kinda thing (and didn’t want to be negative) that I refused — so Danny pinch-hitted for me. My not recalling the distasteful incident is probably known as selective memory.
The Shanghai trophy presentation made the headlines (but not without incident) and many bridge sites carried the story, with accompanying photographs. It caused a huge backlash and attempts at punishment with the accompanying resultant threats of law suits, etc. It was ugly, indeed. Danny was vehemently in favor of freedom of speech and I was violently against what I considered a U. S. act of being disloyal and unpatriotic. We became opposing forces in cyberspace and harsh but sincere blogs were exchanged. It matters not as it is water under the bridge but certainly proved the old adage — “It’s an ill wind that blows no good.” After the brouhaha subsided, Bobby (who knew Danny from earlier days) renewed their friendship (corresponding about other mutual issues) and before I knew it, we were a triumvirate In fact, when Danny visited Las Vegas two years ago for the Nationals, we met for dinner (and luckily Bobby is not the jealous type) as I fell in love with Danny right on the spot. He was exactly what his emails portrayed — brilliant, sincere, sensitive, honorable, staunch and forthright — the very qualities I adore in a human being.
I am probably Danny’s biggest fan — not only for his impeccable ethical manner, unyielding spirit, theories and demeanor at the table — but for his determination to protect the game and its integrity — at any cost. Danny’s talents are many. According to the ACBL Bridge Encyclopedia (and I am embarrassed to admit — not a current edition) .. he was a computer programmer, bridge and backgammon teacher, songwriter, writer, and graduate of Oberlin College — among other things. He designed and programmed the first backgammon computer (Jack Gammon) and is the author of hosts of bridge books and hundreds of articles. And, though not mentioned in my non-current edition, I know he has made many impressive contributions to The Bridge World Magazine, serves on its staff in several capacities and directs the Master Solvers’ Club twice a year. Currently, he also plays with clients at clubs or tournaments and they get double their money (both the fun of playing with a terrific player as well as a critique — board by board). A written analysis follows the next day, not an at-the-table critique that can often be mistaken and usually disrupts the game for the opponents as well as the student. It is quite apparent how much he loves the game and honors it in every respect. Believe me, these are just a few of his credentials as I could go on and on, time and space permitting. And surprisingly — I haven’t even gotten to his (IMHO) greatest unique talent and that is his mastery of the English language, his serious, dry sense of humor which I find utterly captivating — and his ability to mix names and words to achieve hilarious reactions, driving his point home in spades. Danny, like Bobby and myself, are outspoken activists about the seamy and sordid aspects of bridge ethics — even at the club level — fighting to restore bridge to the majesty it deserves.
Frequently, Danny releases his bridge tensions by immediately describing the personal incidents against him (or his partner) with which he has a rightful gripe. They are so cleverly presented, they really should be chronicled for posterity. I have been reading and delighting in them for a couple of years and decided it was time to share a recent pair of them with you. The monikers he uses are so descriptively on point but he always emphasizes that real names are never used to protect ‘the guilty.’ Try his latest for size and I think you’ll agree his bridge heart is in the right place and he is trying desperately to right the many wrongs evidenced at the tables. Unfortunately, so few who rule the game are familiar with the nuances necessary to make equitable judgments — but this is one for the books!
1) PLAYER MEMO, Smart Alec
March 21, 2010
WEST (Smart Alec, dummy)
C-A8 (auction and other suits irrelevant)
East, Dog Meat, was declaring 1 NT, and led the C7 towards dummy. I was South and covered with the C9. Dog then called “Club,” and dummy, Smart Alec, had a problem. He had been following the play closely enough to know that playing the C8 was an error. What should he do? Comply with the instruction to play a “club”? Alec solved this problem by hesitating. A few seconds later, Dog noticed that I had covered the C7 with the C9 and said, “Play the ace.” The director, Don Krum, when called to the table ruled that as the C8 had not yet been played, and Alec had not signaled to Dog, Dog could play the CA.
Danny Kleinman
2) DANNY’S REPLY TO ME — FOLLOWING MY RESPONSE TO HIS JUSTIFIED OUTRAGE:
When my partners call a card from dummy, I always play it in tempo. Then, if my partner has made a slip of the tongue and corrects it without pause for thought, the director can allow her to change her play … or not. However, when an opposing declarer calls a card from dummy and the dummy does not play it, a director call is necessary … and more often than not, the director allows declarer to change the call.
One round later yesterday, I went down in a slam that I could have tried to make in any of six different ways, choosing one of the two lines destined for failure. I don’t know whether my indignation at “S mart Alec’s” being allowed to get away with her maneuver contributed to my poor guess as to the winning line. One of the alternative lines I thought of and rejected was a Vienna Coup that would have succeeded (instead I tried to ruff out a suit). Later, I thought of a name for “Smart Alec’s” latest travesty: a Vieira Coup. That’s right, a coup named for Meredith Vieira of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” notoriety.
In effect, when a declarer calls for a card from dummy, and dummy refuses to play it, dummy is asking, “Is that your final answer?”
As for Smart Alec’s ploy on Saturday, a simple change in the enforcement of the rules would prevent it; In case of failure to alert or misinformation given to opponents, make the penalty automatic, with no need for the victims to prove damage. Other infractions do not require such effort on the part of opponents. If a player bids out of turn, the penalty is automatic; the opponents do not have to prove that they were damaged. If a player revokes, he does not escape penalty when the opponents cannot prove they have been damaged. Indeed, the subsequent trick that may be transferred can be the ace of trumps. When I lost the ace of trumps thanks to my partner’s revoke on a deal many years ago, I invented the Kleinman Safety Play : “Always cash the ace of trumps at the first opportunity, else you may lose it after your partner revokes.”
Failures to alert can harm the opponents in subtle ways for which there are presently no remedies, even when the partner of the player who fails to alert draws attention to it before the opening lead. For example, after an alerted artificial bid, the next player has a chance to double. His partner may be guided to an effective opening lead by such a double or by his choice not to double. At the end of the auction, the player who made an unalerted artificial bid draws attention to the failure to alert, and explains the artificial bid. Too late! Now the defender who might have doubled has to think whether the lost opportunity to double has damaged his side, and how he can prove such damage to the satisfaction of the director. The burden of the defender has been doubled by the failure to alert … or even the delayed alert at the end of the auction (or occasionally, at some later point in the auction after he has already passed over the artificial bid).
Make the penalties automatic, and the players who habitually do not alert or offer only delayed alerts will shape up, just as they have learned not to revoke.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related