January 9th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments 
As you may recall from my initial blog on Hang-Ups of my Husbands, Norman undauntedly ascended his soap box to attack the use of KEY CARD BLACKWOOD (KCB) and its confederate, ROMAN KEY CARD BLACKWOOD (RKCB) Now, it is Bobby’s turn to speak up. Disastrous results stemming from KCB misunderstandings contributed to Bobby’s views, but according to him, those incidents are less prevalent now due to greater partnership discipline — though there are many (way too many) other negative fallouts.
Let us zero in on Bobby’s views about the advantages of Key Card Blackwood (KCB) ………. as envisioned by a KCB lover.
1. If all goes well, or at least as well as the user would expect, the final decision-maker will determine if their side possesses an adequate number of aces for slam purposes (good start)! In some instances, they can also judge whether the partnership has both the king (not always distinguishable) and/or queen of trump which is necessary to assure (or almost assure) a reasonable play for the small or grand slam in the offing. Another attraction, at least on some hands, a specific non-trump king can often be named at the six level (instead of just a roundhouse number), to help facilitate the prospect of a grand slam.
2. In the minds of KCB proponents (at least theoretically), the above argument is calculated to keep from reaching either a poor small or grand slam. In the eyes of these devout disciples, it protects them in large measure from being left in the unsavory (not to mention embarrassing) position of their non-KBC counterparts — having to play a virtual or real no-play slam in front of the opponents, bridge gods and everyone else watching as well as it reaching the eventual word-of-mouth audience. News travels fast in the bridge world and the on line-bridge venues act as a universal telegraph service.
3. Never underestimate the psychological comfort zone present when, even before the dummy has been tabled, both partners share the glowing feeling that the right contract has been achieved by virtue of an intelligent, systemic, methodical and somewhat artistic discourse.
Having mentioned the positive arguments above, it is time to focus on the poisoned flowers and wicked witches likely to be encountered on the yellow brick road en route to the High Rent District of Emerald City which specializes in Slam Bidding. So — permit me to now explore the perspective of the KCB devotees’ worthy adversaries:
1. Against a slam (both small and grand) when not blessed with an obvious lead choice, it sometimes appears more prudent (and safer percentage wise) to lead a trump (even from the jack) when the opponents have announced holding the trump queen (either by auction or inference). Without such information, many players (and Bobby is alluding to the very highest level) usually shy away from trump leads for fear of blowing a trick (if one actually existed) by doing their opponents’ work for them — which is now precluded by awareness of their very cushy trump holdings.
2. It follows logically that it is much easier to take a successful sacrifice against opponents who have announced possession of the trump queen (or at least are confident that the missing queen will not be a factor because of additional length). After all, the only two vitally important components of determining whether or not to take a save are (a) whether the opponents are favorites to make their contract; and (b) whether your sacrifice produces a smaller net loss than their slam is worth, if fulfilled.
3. The trump king is not worth an ace since it can be finessed — especially when one of the opponents has come into the bidding, thereby suggesting the probability that the finesse is going to work. On one occasion (not playing KCB), Bobby’s team was able to bid a grand slam holding 12 trumps missing the king wherein at the other table the players holding their cards stopped at six since playing KCB they were minus one of the five key cards and it could not be pinpointed as the missing trump king. By applying shrewd logic (or simple arithmetic), Bobby’s group managed to guess to play for the drop of the king, creating a slam swing in their favor.
4. For those not playing KCB, when the 4NT initiator follows it up with 5NT, it is an unconditional proclamation (at least at IMP scoring) that the partnership guarantees all four aces and thereby deputizes partner to use his good judgment toward the grand slam process. Such incentives to contract for all the tricks would be encouraged by the following: (a) Partner’s trump holding — certainly the king and/or the queen; (b) A likely and anticipated source of tricks; or (c) Any ‘extras’ he may hold such as a stray queen or even a singleton or doubleton (as opposed to the ugly holding of three little) usually in a side suit which partner announced earlier in the bidding. This partnership method is more valuable than the pronouncement of specific kings (via KCB) as it may enable your partner to weigh the importance of any of his hidden jewels mentioned above — with an eye to contracting for all the tricks.
Obviously, by not playing KCB, it is more likely that the slam (usually a small one) may depend on a simple finesse, but (especially playing against good opposition) — is this really such a bad proposition? Also, once in a while, even if, in theory, one’s slam depended on a finesse, the opponents will sometimes oblige by getting off to the wrong lead — and fortuitous timing will allow you to bring home the otherwise doomed contract.
Bridge is not an exact science! There are many variable human factors which impact how the game is played (or misplayed). Just to name a few — instincts, observations, table presence, habits, reading the moves, knowing your screen mates, indicative pauses or time lapses, acknowledged inconsistency, rigidity or irascibility of your opponents, etc. Bridge is certainly a game of substance — but also a battle of wits — not unlike poker. To Bobby’s way of thinking, because of the unfathomable amount of concentration required and mental astuteness demanded, it is the most majestic and challenging game ever invented.
But — life and bridge go on and bridge statistics are still in the dark ages and will remain there until enough money becomes available within the game itself to have all the records of important matches preserved, analyzed and used for the furtherance of learning what is and what is not necessary for winning.
THE END!
January 6th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
5 Comments
Did you ever stop to wonder who created some of the most popular conventions of our modern day? A couple of the most revered methods were not devised by those whose names they bear.
The most famous one, unquestionably, is STAYMAN. According to the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, “The Stayman convention was invented by George Rapee, but the first article on the convention (The Bridge World, June 1945) was authored by Sam Stayman, and the convention was named for the writer rather than the inventor.”
Another popular convention is known as JORDAN (a jump to 2NT after your RHO has doubled your partner’s opening bid in one of a suit). The Jordan 2NT bid shows four trump and about 9 HCP with defensive values as well. Though attributed to Bob Jordan, contemporaries cite Alan Truscott as the creator. However, since there was already a treatment called Truscott (describing two-suiters over a Strong Club opening) — perhaps our Bridge Copyright Bureau thought it was too confusing to the common folk to have a second convention named after the beloved New York Times columnist — so they allowed the plagiarism to stand.
There is another convention, though not designated by name, that should have been called CRANE (as in Barry Crane). I am not applauding, condemning or recommending its use, merely giving you the scoop (of which few people today are aware).
American icon, Barry Crane,* was generally regarded as the best Match Point player ever to grace a bridge table. During his heyday, he had narrowed many facets of the game down to a science! Later in his bridge career he made a practice of NEVER letting the opponents declare 1NT. Barry had gone to great lengths to analyze his results and his statistics proved that he averaged in the very low 50% range on such hands. Thus, he adopted the unmitigated stance never to allow his partnership to defend against 1NT. This was remedied by an automatic balance with a non-descript 2C bid which merely announced to the table that playing 1NT was no longer an option and thereafter — his partnership would roll with the punches and scramble for cover! According to Crane’s survey, passing was a No-No! ANYTHING was better than allowing the opponents to play 1NT. This is not an endorsement of the system though Barry was a sensational player and a fine technician and one must respect his personal views. Perhaps, it falls under the heading “tricks of the trade.” Clearly, his goal was to corner the market on master points which he did in an unprecedented fashion. (*For those of you new to the bridge scene, Barry Crane was famous for his association with such heralded TV shows as Mannix and Mission Impossible. In 1985, he was the victim of a vicious, unsolved murder which shocked the bridge world and abruptly ended his long, distinguished career. His name will always be synonymous with setting record after record in what was heretofore known as The McKinney Race).
The last of the surnamed conventions hits a bit closer to home, but I’ve opted to leave WOLFF SIGNOFF for our next meeting.
January 5th, 2009 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
7 Comments
Three down and more to come! Let me remind those of you who have not kept pace with the earlier Hang-Up blogs, I am not the ‘speaker’ — merely ‘the scribe.’ Continuing with Bobby’s least favorite conventions, let us resume today with BERGEN RAISES (BR).
Bobby classifies this as another convention that is not nearly as helpful to the users as to their astute opponents, though admittedly, does a number on lesser players! BRs are a variety of jump raises with the dual intention of showing a trump fit to partner and at the same time crowding the bidding for the enemy. Because of the theory of the Law of Total Tricks and trump fits (especially on the right vulnerability), BRs appeal to many as they serve as an obstacle course. A variety of weak raises disadvantages the opponents, forcing them to investigate their options at a high level. Quite often these calls are made with relatively balanced hands and ultra-weak holdings and intimidate unsavvy opponents into submission, thereby stealing the hand.
At least to Bobby, Marty Bergen (along, of course, with his former partner and friend, Larry Cohen — ‘MISTER LAW”) has contributed mightily to bridge by awakening us to just how valuable big trump fits can be (always nine pieces or better). With that as a premise, it is now up to the audience to evaluate how we should utilize our newfound great arsenal of trump pyrotechnics. Yes, it must be better, when holding a large trump fit with partner, to up the level as high as practical to make it as cumbersome as possible for the opponents to enter the auction and exchange information. Bergen Raises are most effective when their users have enough values to ward off the bogeyman who is frequently lurking in the shadows during attacks of overbidding — standing ready to punish these irrational blind leaps of faith.
Marty sometimes suggests jumping to three of partner’s major with as little as J10xx in that major and perhaps only xx, xxx, xxxx in the other three suits. Let us assume that he is right and not belabor this point, though there may be some well-considered high-level bridge personalities who differ. It is not that judgment with which Bobby picks a bone. It is rather the other can of worms that Bergen Raises open. BRs dictate jumping to three of a minor suit (in response to a major opening), and depending upon which minor is chosen, distinguishes between a three card raise and four card support. It is these ramifications with which he takes issue.
Counter-measures are easy to strategically deploy. Some use the double to show the other major and a minor — thereby freeing up a cue bid of the opponent’s suit as a standard three suit takeout. Yet, another effective treatment over an artificially bid suit is the plain old-fashioned double! If used for ‘lead direction,’ the absence of the double is not unlike the dog that doesn’t bark. It may suggest you look elsewhere for your opening thrust. Another benefit of the lead directing double might also suggest a possible trump suit for your side — for sacrificial purposes — even with the miraculous possibility of converting it to a ‘make.’ To Bobby’s way of thinking, BRs afford the opponents better judgment calls because more information about strength (and especially distribution) is revealed.
Novices and inexperienced players, due to their lack of sophistication, can be targets of intimidation with the deliberate use of such conventions intended to freeze the opponents out of the auction with light jumps, sometimes of Yarborough proportions. This ilk of players are easy prey as they are unsuspecting victims! Also, similar home brewed conventions figure to work against these relatively innocent beginners, but the key here is for the serious, honest wannabe who is on the rise not to be mesmerized or overwhelmed by the alleged effectiveness of such fancy footwork and needs to recognize and accept all of this for what it is. Before one embarks on these space rocketing adventures, explore their soundness and practicality — and don’t be blindly smitten into incorporating them into your partnership understandings. Employing these conventions against your talented and experienced contemporaries is one thing, but using such methods at the expense of unwitting, inexperienced, low-level players is like taking candy from a baby!
These strategies are commonly called “shooting fish in a barrel” which should be more fittingly reserved for aquariums — not bridge contests.
December 31st, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
4 Comments
I cannot confirm what year the event below actually occurred. It never entered my mind at the time that my playful stabs at poetic banter would ever be resurrected other than for my own personal pleasure. What I can state with certainty was this cold tale began late on New Year’s Eve sometime in the late Sixties or early Seventies.
The Kays’ annual New Year setting was the home of Edgar and Betty Kaplan who hosted their yearly team event replete with what Edgar called Snow Whites. A Snow White was a delicious form of imbibing to loosen up the male players who were committed to be paired up with their not-so-expert wives .. though there were some obvious exceptions (but I was not one of them). Hors d’oeuvres and marvelous cuisine were available throughout the night — with each pair having a bye-round. Norman and I were the cause of this inconvenient irregularity and we always were assigned the first sit-out, per force. Norman could not leave his stock brokerage job until the tolling bell on December 31st, causing us to arrive after the scheduled starting time (as the trip by train and cab was almost three hours). It was a very popular event and replacements were waiting in the wings — so until someone either moved away or met their maker, there were no openings as the regulars clung to their seats. Observers joshed and speculated about the going rate on the street to ‘buy‘ a place in the game!
Our routine was unalterable. Arrive late; grab a bite; enter the fray at Round 2; socialize after the game; catch some shuteye on the 4th floor of Edgar and Betty’s brownstone; and take the 6 a.m. train back to Philadelphia. It is interesting to note that Norman and Bobby had more than bridge prowess in common! Neither of them would have considered missing the TV kickoff of a Bowl Game – so our annual trips were of brief duration.
However, one year there was a major snafu. When we reached for our coats stored in Edgar’s first floor closet, mine was visible but hanging in the absence of Norman’s – was a strange colored garb which could not accommodate his girth. Being of no value, Norman did not accept the tradeoff. Obviously, not wanting to rouse our host and hostess at 5 a.m., a coatless Norman accompanied me as we trudged down West 94th Street in search of a taxi and luckily was able to hail one after waiting only ten minutes in the blizzard. During one of the Bowl Game half-time breaks, Norman called Edgar who had been anticipating his call. Earlier, Alan Truscott had telephoned the Kaplans, explaining that the Snow Whites had done their duty and at 2 a.m., in an exhausted state, carelessly grabbed a coat and he and Dorothy headed for home, not discovering his faux pas till morning.
Two days later we received Norman’s coat with an accompanying poem typed on The New York Times stationery entitled “Unhappy New Year to a Philadelphia Stockbroker.” Alan’s poem (which is a masterpiece) I will save for another occasion, bore the following introduction:
“Dear Mr. Kay, I hope you never discover the name of the Anonymous Penitent.” (Not to be outdone, I responded in kind for Norman).
To: THE ANONYMOUS PENITENT
From: A PHILADELPHIA STOCKBROKER
Diamonds are red – clubs are black
All I want is — my own coat back
Replete with gloves – and scarf – and keys
The way you found it – if you please
I cannot understand – your taste
You must have acted – in wild haste
For if vicuna – was the booty
Or perchance – a cashmere beauty
I could see – whyfor the snatch
For it would be – a worthwhile catch
But what you GRABBED – was no great shake
And what you LEFT – I would not take
Your name is known – in many lands
For stealing – overtricks and hands
But I thought – you were confined
To robbing STRANGE – opponents blind
‘Cause never did I – once suspect
That coats of TEAMMATES – you collect
Or this flash – of kleptomania
Would touch a friend – from Pennsylvania!
December 31st, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
2 Comments
With JACK DENIES/TEN IMPLIES having been laid to rest, it is time we move on to another convention which Bobby looks upon with disdain. He is not a proponent of using methods which others adopt and cling to because they offer “comfort zones.” Near the top of his Hate Parade is a popular convention known as SUPPORT DOUBLES (SD). It falls into the classification above — which he feels helps the opponents more than those employing it. A classic example of a support double is where the opener’s partner responds in a major and when RHO comes into the auction, the following comes into play:
A raise guarantees a four card fit; a double guarantees a three card fit; A cue bid would show a game force (with four); a jump cue bid would be four card support and a splinter in opponent’s suit; and a pass or some other bid would show two or less.
Let’s delve into Bobby’s thinking process and see why he is so vehement about its flaws:
It allows the opponents to judge how far to compete; what to lead; and how to defend or declare (based on almost always finding out how many of a particular suit is held by the bidders — based on the SD technique). It is a simple matter of arithmetic. Add your trumps to their known total — and deduce your partner’s holding). Here is a classic example:
Dealer is West; Both sides Vulnerable
West North East South
1C P 1H 1S
X* 2S 3C ?
(*) Support Double — promising exactly 3 trumps
You are South, holding AQJXX 10XX AJX QX
You had better pull out the green card and Pass — and let us examine WHY! Partner has exactly 3 hearts and probably at least two clubs, making North-South’s playing potential closer to 7 tricks than 9. Normally, without the support double, South would venture a 3S call (courting a minus 200 number — even in the absence of a double by the opponents).
The North hand could hold: 109XX JXX KQXX JX. By the way, the opponents (on this layout) might be able to score up 140 in hearts (or at the least –110) and only 110 in clubs, shying away from the seven card heart fit in favor of the probable nine card club mesh. Playing match points, it makes a considerable difference. (Besides, you know the hearts are breaking).
Another argument against SDs is illustrated with the following layout.
AQX
X
QJX
AKJXXX
X J109XX
AQJ10X 9XXX
AXXX KXX
XXX X
KXXX
KXX
10XX
QXX
Dealer is North; NS Vulnerable
North East South West
1C P 1S 2H
X 4H P P
?
If compelled to double 2H to show a three card spade raise, how does the North hand know what is right in an accelerated auction when it comes back to him at the four level? Had North been allowed (anti-systemically) to bid 3C, then over 4H, he could have bid 4S (showing 6 clubs and 3 spades) — South could now pass with five spades or take a save at 5C (as in this case) with a double fit and little defense (for down one against a makeable game).
Bobby feels the “comfort zone” induced by knowing the exact number of pieces partner holds is not it is all trumped up to be and just as informative to the opponents who can assimilate the knowledge to even better advantage!
We’ll ring in the New Year with the next installment ….
December 28th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
7 Comments
Being married to two Hall of Famers places me in a unique position. I am joined in that classification by my good friend, the late Betty Kaplan, who divorced Alfie Sheinwold to marry Edgar Kaplan, though the men continued to be associates and their system (Kaplan/Sheinwold) weathered the anticipated chatter and gossip storms. The other gal to lay claim to that title is Betsey Lazard who was once married to Bobby Wolff (yep, the same one) and became Mrs. Sidney Lazard in the early 2000s. To those detached from the bridge world, it must appear analogous to playing a game of musical chairs but because of frequent tournament encounters, per force, the scars heal, the ‘exes’ usually become friends and on occasion their extended families became partners and teammates. (Even the Wolff/Lazard twosome fell into that exclusive category)! So much for Nuptial Bridge Trivia.
For yours truly, co-habitation (ala legal marital status) with individuals of Norman’s and Bobby’s caliber was (and is still) quite stimulating and offers insight into a higher level of bridge which I never knew existed. It was like being transported to another planet via a space capsule! But — rest assured — it takes a definite toll on one’s ego, image, confidence and self-esteem. Yet — there is a big ‘up’ side. If you have broad shoulders, you realize that (in addition to the martial bliss you anticipated – and I have been twice blessed), the positive benefits significantly outweigh the negative putdowns that accompany the transformation. Norman, for the most part, operated in a gentle, low gear. His displeasure was evidenced (at least to me) by biting down involuntarily on his lower lip. He never had to utter a word! (I wasn’t always certain what atrocity I had committed — but I assure you — it was something horrendous)!
However — make no mistake as to Bobby! He utilizes all his cylinders and you learn to roll with the punches and fasten your safety belts. Where shall we begin? Let us postpone his diatribe on harmful Bidding Conventions and tackle another of his gross dislikes: JACK DENIES, TEN IMPLIES (JDTI). But — as made abundantly clear earlier, I am only the Messenger! Are you ready?
According to Bobby ..
One of the worst conventions conceived preaches the LEAD OF THE JACK TO DENY A HIGHER HONOR. In return for this dubious advantage of letting partner know that you are denying the Ace and the King (and also, of course, the queen unless you are playing Rusinow), you are doing your partnership a disservice by telegraphing that message to your enemies.
Let us assume the contract is NT and the classic holding for our purposes here are QXX(X) opposite KX(X) .. or .. KX(X) opposite QXX(X). The following are the known pitfalls of JDTI — dependent upon the telltale lead of the JACK or the TEN —
a) WITH THE ASSURANCE that the Ace is in RHO’s hand, defender goes about his business by NOT wasting his honor on the first round, wisely saving it for a later go-round (and thereby becoming a charter member of the Honor Conservation Society); and
b) WITHOUT THE ASSURANCE where the Ace is, it becomes strictly a guess whether to rise or duck.
Another on-point example of the fallacy of this Jack Denies principle is the following:
Let us assume you are defending against a NT contract. When a singleton appears in dummy (marking declarer with the King and Queen), defender often has little option but to duck (depending, of course, upon the rest of the hand). If RHO wins the Ace, two winners are immediately established for declarer. Even if Righty allows declarer to win the trick, everyone knows if push comes to shove later in the play that the remaining honor is safe from the prey of the ace in opening leader’s hand (because the lead of the Jack has already guaranteed RHO has it). Telegraphing the opponents who has what makes JDTI a lose/lose situation for the defense.
Invoking this principle gives aid and comfort to the enemy, i. e., the informed declarer who knows exactly who holds the Ace. It lends an added dimension to declarer’s options, removing some of the guesswork, while his not-so-lucky counterpart/s at the other table (either at matchpoints or team contests) have to blindly work it out on their own. The defense is giving up too much by adopting this method of leading.
Bobby called to mind a fortuitous incident quite apropos on this very subject. In the mid-eighties, the semi-finals of a U. S. Team Trials went into overtime and Bobby’s team eked out a one imp victory. He fondly recalls romping home with a 3NT contract and luckily for him, his opponents were playing JDTI. The opening lead was the Jack and in desperation, looking at KXX in dummy, RHO rose with his doubleton ace and returned the suit, allowing Bobby to bring home the game. The same suit was led at the other table, but the contract was 1NT. In this latter case, the location of the ace was unknown so declarer ducked (as did Righty) to win in his hand and when LHO got in, he returned the ‘non-committal’ Ten and declarer (not privileged to know where the ace was) rose with his King, lost to the unguarded Ace and made only six tricks. They captured the Trials Final which qualified them to represent Zone 2, and went on to win the World Championship in 1985 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Twenty-three years later Bobby recounts the JDTI hand from the Trials and is a cogent reason for his continuing hang-up about Jack Denies, Ten Implies!
Stay tuned for more …..
December 25th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
2 Comments
In the early to mid-Sixties when I first became exposed to the ‘serious’ side of the game, the bridge tournaments in The Big Apple never ceased to amaze me. The top guns converged on the site — not only from Manhattan and outlying suburbs but from New Jersey, Delaware, D. C., Pennsylvania as well as all points North as well. The walls were bursting at the seams with masterpoints (even before today’s inflation) and it was reminiscent of a major NABC. I was like the publicized American Express Card because Norman never left home without me. Even though I understood the rudiments of the game, at that time I never entered the competition — just sitting spellbound – contented to be mesmerized by the magic performed before my eyes.. The cast included (besides Norman’s partner, Edgar Kaplan) — such luminaries as Roth, Stone, Schenken, Leventritt, Harmon, Stakgold, Gabrilovitch, B. J. Becker, Crawford, Rapee, Landy, Hazen, Sheinwold, Silodor, Fishbein, Root, Goren, Ogust, Koytchou, von Zedwitz and the list went on. See what I mean? I wasn’t exaggerating! You had to be there to experience the excitement in the air.
After Sidney Silodor passed on, Norman and Edgar gravitated to each other and constituted one of the longest-running partnerships in the history of bridge. Their record was quite impressive although Norman always reminded flattering admirers that if they checked the bridge annals — they would find — as a pair, he and Edgar probably lost more events together than any regular twosome in history.
Edgar was always the Team Captain and arranged and coordinated his group’s efforts. Norman’s only responsibility was to show up at game time — in top form, remember their system (KS) and be available to play every match. They were competing in a prestigious team game, possibly during the traditional Memorial Day Regional, which began earlier in the week. Norman and I would come up for the evening sessions on the Pennsylvania Railroad as he did not like to take much time off from his brokerage position at Merrill-Lynch. He played Wednesday and won and since they had a relatively easy match on Thursday, he took the day off. So there we were on the train to New York at 4:00 p.m. Friday afternoon. A half hour outside of Philadelphia’s 30th Street terminal, somewhere in the Trenton area en route to Penn Station, Norman picked up the New York Times to check out Alan Truscott’s column, curious to learn the previous day’s results. (Incidentally, the team decided to show their appreciation for Norman’s stalwart efforts to commute during the week and replaced Edgar with Norman as Captain). Imagine the shock when he spotted the headlines ……… KAY TEAM ELIMINATED ……. but no one bothered to telephone him about the upset.
December 23rd, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
1 Comment
Even at the highest levels of the game, conventional preferences play a big part. What one guru may embrace — another might despise.
Let me begin with a disclaimer. I, in no way, profess to be an expert or a theorist. I am merely sharing with you some words of wisdom that have been (if you’ll pardon the expression) ‘espoused‘ to me by my bridgemates.
Norman, who publicly soft-pedaled his preferences and turnoffs, departed from the norm — vociferously decrying the merits of ROMAN KEY CARD BLACKWOOD. I recall kibitzing a practice session in New York’s legendary Cavendish Club. Norman and Edgar were testing their partnership against another pair who were in the same boat. Their opponents (both world renown players who shall remain nameless) — in a long, complicated, scientific (?) auction reached a grand slam. Apologetically and in a meek, embarrassed tone, Norman offered, “I am afraid I’ll have to double.” In disbelief, each of the opponents leaped from their respective seats, and in sync questioned …… “YOU don’t have the trump ace?” So much for RKCB — but those things happen in the best of families.
Another one of Norman’s ‘unfavorite’ conventions was the UNUSUAL NT. He claimed if it succeeded in landing you the contract, it served its purpose. However, the other side of the coin had immense drawbacks! Should you get outbid, it presents your opponents with a AAA Road Map, advantaging them with far too much information about your distribution and allowing them to make educated guesses as astute declarers.
Norman played with Edgar Kaplan for over forty years (with a temporary hiatus from 1960-63 when he partnered Sidney Silodor until his death in August of ’63). in 1964, Kaplan-Kay reunited. With regard to system designation, Edgar was the uncontested Chief and Norman the Indian. The Kaplan-Sheinwold style of bidding prided itself on playing WEAK NT (12-14) and a strong, forcing 2C rebid over a 1D opening. The latter treatment remained intact till Edgar died in 1997. However, the 12-14 opening NT was drastically revamped by Norman after he went for 1100 against a part score (doubled and very vulnerable)! To make matters worse, the hand was written up by Bridge Columnist Florence Osborn on New Year’s Day in the old New York Herald Tribune for the world to see. We were attending a neighborhood celebration that very afternoon and Norman had to endure a lot of good-hearted teasing and the titters of his erstwhile admirers.
On the evening of January 1st an ultimatum was issued to Edgar and from that moment on — the Kaplan/Kay Convention Card charted their 1NT openings as 12-14 NON VULNERABLE ONLY (which Edgar tauntingly referred to as “Cowardly KS”). I have triumphantly converted Bobby to that version of the Weak NT, but he is a ‘tough sell’ and the jury is still out. Whether I have achieved a permanent victory — or he is merely humoring me for the time being — remains to be seen.
To be continued ….
December 21st, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
5 Comments
As I was dashing out to play bridge this afternoon, I received a call from an old partner. She began with … “Do you have a minute? I have a hand for you.” “O. K. — let’s hear it,” I replied. She continued, “You hold two black singletons, AK109 of hearts and AK109XXX of diamonds.” I asked what the problem was. She laughed and said, “Obviously they forgot to shuffle the board and yesterday, the declarer was in five diamonds — down one — BUT today she stopped in four making.” I shamelessly asked who the culprit was and when she told me, I blurted, “For heavens sakes, the lady is 80 years old!” “Yes” replied my friend, “but she was 80 years old the day before also.”
December 18th, 2008 ~ Judy Kay-Wolff ~
3 Comments
Honesty has always been heralded as the best policy. It holds true with family, friends, business associates and the public at large. However, should it also encompass truthful answers to posed questions concerning bridge? It depends!!!
When one expert asks another expert for his valued opinion, the supposition is that the one who inquires seeks the benefit of the other’s good judgment — not necessarily to hear concurrence with the bid or play he made in actuality. It is not to nurture or soothe one’s ego — but to delve into the mind set of a contemporary — possibly to hear a different approach, suggestion, analysis or solution.
However, do the same conditions of contest prevail when two arguing partners (and lesser players, to boot) accost an expert, pedaling a hand on which they vehemently disagree — each wanting the cornered person to agree with his point of view? That’s an easy one. It depends upon whom you ask.
If Bobby Wolff was the target, I guarantee you that neither partner would walk away wondering what Bobby thought! They would know! Bobby has never been accused of couching his feelings or fudging his thoughts. He loves the game too much — and if he is sought out, he will never soft soap or sidestep the issue. It is not about hurting feelings — but rather about honoring the beauty of our sanctified game (according to The Lone Wolff).
No expert can escape the inevitable “what would you have done with this hand?” question. Bobby’s predecessor in my life, Norman Kay, had a different perspective. He was a very sensitive human being — with a penchant for not making waves. When placed in the same position, Norman handled matters in a more delicate fashion (like King Solomon) trying to resolve issues fairly and peaceably — with a minimum of finger-pointing or embarrassment. Norman’s M. O. would include a smile and a soft sympathetic voice asking what the person actually did.
Regardless of how grotesque or irrational the action might be, Norman would appease the questioner by sweetly saying, “It is a matter of judgment, ” or “It could be right,” or “You were unlucky,” or the worst of all possible retorts (at least from my personal vantage point) … “It is an awkward hand” (a luxury Norman never granted to me). He would be non-committal to the sweet Little Old Ladies who would approach him in a state of bewilderment after being chewed out by their equally unskilled partners. Those bystanders who knew his style were accustomed to his dog and pony act and found it amusing as they watched his anticipated routine. However, when I was placed in the same battered position as the LOLs, I received no words of solace — simply the harsh truth. Norman expected better of me!
It is hard to fathom that this sweet, soft-spoken gentleman (in the eyes of those seeking a shoulder to cry on) was brutally frank with me in an earnest effort to point me in the right direction. I suppose I should have felt flattered that he saw a glimmer of hope but it was tough to stomach such a flagrant variation in standards. My boo-boos never fell into the wishy-washy category as my counterparts. The old sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander adage was not applied as I was not coddled or extended the same latitude as Norman’s adoring public.
But it’s not over till it’s over! A few years after we were wed, when Norman was asked to pen some words of wisdom for The Bridge Set, published by The San Fernando Valley Unit, he deferred to me and I finally had my day in court. It didn’t take a mental giant to come up with a subject and the perfect title ….. EVERYBODY GETS AWKWARD HANDS (but me) by Mrs. Norman (Judy) Kay. (I just re-read it and it’s still pretty funny almost forty-two years later).
The article appeared in the publication’s swan song, the January-February, 1967 issue, but in all objectivity, I don’t think my contribution had anything to do with it going belly-up!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related