Thursday, May 25 Larry Oakey Memorial Trophy Pairs Issue2017:4

Minnesota Gopher Regional May 22-28, 2017

Welcome to the Sheraton Minneapolis West, 12201 Ridgedale Dr. Minnetonka, MN 55305 Patti Stuhlman & Sue Jackson, Co-Chairs ♠♠ Peter Wilke, DIC ♠♠ Mike Cassel, Editor Today: Thursday, May 25 Wed Thurs Side Game Series 3rd of 4 Sessions.. 10:00 am Teal Morning Swiss Teams 1st of 2 sessions 10:00 am Larry Oakey Memorial Stratified Pairs (0-1,500,1,500-3,000, 3,000+). 1st of 2 sessions 10:00 am Thurs. Gold Rush Pairs (0-100, 100-300, 0-750) 1st of 2 sessions 10:00 am I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 10:00 am Lunch & Learn in the Lakeview Room 1:45-2:30 pm Wed Thurs Side Game Series 4th of 4 sessions 2:30 pm Purple Rain KO Teams. Semifinals 2:30 pm Larry Oakey Memorial Stratified Pairs second session 2:30 pm Thurs. Gold Rush Pairs 2nd of 2 sessions 2:30 pm Bronze Swiss Teams 1st of 2 sessions .2:30 pm I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 2:30 pm Mike Flader lesson on Lebensohl in the ballroom 6:30 pm Purple Rain KO Teams (Finals) 7:15 pm Bronze Swiss Teams 2nd session 7:15 pm Brown Stratified Pairs NEW EVENT 1st of 2 (single session entries welcome)7:15 pm Evening Swiss Teams Single Session 7:15 pm I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 7:15 pm

Larry Oakey Sheraton Lunch Deals Today, we honor a man who All-Inclusive: no extra for Tip & Taxes has been the heart and soul PREPURCHASE At the Information Desk of Minnesota bridge for over Lunch: $10 (buy before 10am) half a century: Larry Oakey. Lunch served in pool area Expert competitor, partner, Today’s Lunch: Soup & Salad Buffet: mentor, teacher, director, Chicken Caesar Salad, Cup of Soup volunteer, film aficionado, Roll and Butter, Ice Tea or Lemonade coach, dear friend and more

– we celebrate the life of our unique and EXTRA- Looking? ordinary TGLO. Need a partner or teammates this week? Contact Carol Rynders We are filled with sadness that we will not see Larry (651)503-6473 or peering at dummy, making [email protected] rulings nor zooming away on his omnipresent Go to the partnership desk at least 44 min. before bicycle. Still, we are game time. Please fill out the request form at the grateful for the many years Partnership Desk and we will help you find a partner. that this most special If you want a pair for a team game, submit your person helped to make our request as soon as possible to give the volunteers time to find teammates. Partnerships can be arranged bridge world the best it if you sign up ahead of time or 45 minutes before could be – and for his game time. Partnership volunteers will match many contributions to the players up prior to 15 minutes before game greater Minneapolis time. We try to match people with similar experience. community. Here’s to a huge round of applause for Larry! Intermediate-Newcomer Partnerships are made at the same partnerships desk as regular games. So big and loud – it shall reverberate all the way to Heaven.

TGLO – you are forever in our hearts Special Addition in the ONLINE bulletin re. GNT winners, GNTs pg.9

Gopher Highlights Cool Bridge Links #5: Terry & Kathy Beckman averaged just over 60% in Bulletins the Horizontal Orange Evening Stratified Pairs. 15th World Bridge Games Wroclaw 2016 The Tues-Wed A.M. Swiss was a 1VP victory for Kerry USBF 2017 Team Trials Holloway, Bill Kent, and Vern & Monte Evans. EuropeanTmTrials WBF bulletins, in particular, have many, many hand K Welander - Gary Knippenberg are repeat winners presentations by a number of journalists. in the Wednesday Pairs. This year’s event held in Mark Horton has a series of problems generated by honor of John Westrom. Geza Ottlik each day in the European Team trial bulletins. Jack Bleet and Pat Finley tore up the Gold Rush field Frank Stewart column 4/11/17 with an average of just under 65% to win 8.73 Gold

The 16 team Evening Swiss was bunched at the top. Only 1VP separated 1st from 3rd. Leon & Kathy Blackwell, Grant Broadwine, & Nancy Hill prevailed.

GNT Finals 2017 Congratulations to this year’s Champions who prevailed at the recent co-located sectional in Mason City. Championship teams have earned $2,000 to attend this summer’s NABC in Toronto. Open Flight: Bob & Cindy Balderson, Paul Meerschaert, Bill Kent, Peg Kaplan Flight A Mark Patton, Joe Pieper, Vern Swing, Bruce Boje “Against 3NT, West found the winning lead of a Flight B: Eric McKee - Scott Spitze, Eli Jolley, low club. John[East] put up his king, and South Elizabeth Gotlund, SEE STORY ONLINE TODAY won immediately resignedly led a diamond”. Flight C: Kristin Welter, Betty Torgerson, Brad & Katie Albers John, took his ace and fired back his deuce of clubs. This Stewart column was based on rubber More on the GNTs on pg. 6 and pg 9 and online. bridge (imp play) In a matchpoint game you’d like to defeat this contract two tricks. Bridge Acronym #3

East can signal for a heart switch as the clubs are SPS= Suit Preference Signals cashed by playing low-middle -high on the run of the clubs. The situation is more complex if East’s The Cool Bridge Link yesterday featured a series second highest club is the 8 or T and not the 7. of comments by bridge experts on memorization and Recognize that the club suit is running assuming a counting. A recent Frank Stewart bridge column, 4th best lead. East must unblock to avoid winning with a perspective shift to duplicate play, is a the fourth club. If you want to consider yourself on testimony to spot card watching because the road to higher level play then recognize that the opportunities for SUIT PREFERENCE SIGNALS abound club suit is running and your spot cards can provide

the necessary suit preference. Woodenly returning Some defenders consider SPS more important th than attitude signals. your original 4 best may give your partner a switch problem in the absence of your suit preference.

When the count of a suit is known, or assumed, the order in which you play your spot cards can be suit

preference.

Tomorrow, Friday, May 27 Friday –Saturday Side Game Series 1st of 5 sessions, Best 2 of 5 10:00 am Teal Morning Swiss Teams 2nd of 2 Sessions 10:00 am Friday Stratified Pairs (0-1,500, 1,500-3,000, 3000+) 1st of 2 sessions 10:00 am Friday Gold Rush Pairs (0-100, 100-300, 0-750) 1st of 2 sessions 10:00 am I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 10:00 am Lunch & Learn in the Lakeview Room handouts from Mn. Bridge Education 1:45-2:15 pm Friday Saturday Side Game Series 2nd of 4 sessions, Best 2 of 4 2:30 pm Crimson KO Teams 1st of 4 sessions 2:30 pm Friday Stratified Pairs 2nd session 2:30 pm Friday Gold Rush Pairs 2nd session .2:30 pm I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 2:30 pm Crimson KO Teams 2nd of 4 sessions 7:15 pm Brown Stratified Pairs NEW EVENT 1st of 2 (single session entries welcome) 7:15 pm Evening Swiss Teams 7:15 pm I/N Single Session Pairs (0-300) 7:15 pm

Be Pleasant Please It’s easy to get absorbed in your own drama at the bridge table. Remember to be courteous to the caddies, your directors, and your table opponents…. even your partner too. It’s nice to be important but it’s more important to be nice.

PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF YOUR EFFECT ON OTHERS Be aware of how a little may go a long way when it comes to your perfume

"It takes very little to make new people feel welcome, and even less to drive them away."

Seen on Bridgewinners.com after a minor altercation following an unsolicited comment: Offense is not something which is given; it is something which is taken.

A Worthwhile Repetition Two years ago the ACBL BOD authorized a couple of additions to the General Conditions of Contest (GCC): allowing transfer responses to a generic 1C opening and approving the use of a 2D overcall of 1N to show a one-suiter in a major. D14, in the vast Midwest, is often slower to embrace cutting edge ideas but forearmed is best after being forewarned right? Steve Weinstein shared the method he uses with Bobby Item 151-31 Convention Chart Modification: Levin: transfer responses to a nonforcing 1C opening are X-transfer to Hearts now allowed in any event. 2♥-transfer to Spades

a 2D overcall of 1N to show a 1-suiter in the majors. 2♠-range ask or Clubs 2NT-Diamonds Both of these bidding treatments will require you and your 3♣-Stayman partners to have some discussion. A simple solution to the transfer response is to double with values in the bid 3♦-minors your RHO made. A ‘cuebid of the transfer is not a cuebid 3M-Short in major(we like it to be 4x1) but an overcall. A bid in the suit your RHO is transferring Pass than double is takeout. into becomes “takeout”. To cover us on some strange meanings of 2♦ we The expert community has no consensus on dealing with the 2D overcall of 1N promising a single suited major. play this even if 2♦ has multiple meanings as long Check out these bridgewinner threads for ongoing as one of them is an unknown major. discussion of the topic: If we transfer to a minor and follow up with 3 of a http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/responses-to- major we play it as natural. If there was no 2diamond-overcall-over-1nt/ interference, transferring to a minor and bidding a

major is shortness http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/woolsey-defense-to- nt/ Some of you may be interested in the goings on with the ACBL BOD. Bob Heller, this year’s http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/counter-defense-to- board president, provides some of the most woolsey-defense-of-1nt-opening-bid/ detailed commentary on board actions of any ACBL Board member. You can view his district director reports at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/5ybbq7gp596 pd/District_Director

JIM HALL KO WINNERS

Suzanne & Warren Cederborg & Sharon & Roger Anderson

Semifinal Matches

3

Magenta Morning Swiss 10 Tables MPs A B C Names Sc 7.00 1 Bill Kent, Iowa City IA; Kerry Holloway, Bloomington MN; Vernon & Monte Evans, 94

5.25 2 Harry Sapienza, Minnetonka; David Collins, Fridley; Paul Meerschaert, Saint Paul; Paolo Ranaldi, 93

Carole Liss, San Rafael CA; Bruce Ferguson, Palm Springs CA; Virginia Noelke, San Angelo TX; 3.94 3 82 Venkatrao Koneru, San Antonio TX 2.95 4 Greg Caucutt - Pat Burrows, Rochester; Carol Cummings, Owatonna; Dave Hoffman, Merritt Isl FL 60

3.68 1 1 Dale Olson, Woolstock IA; Debra Tvrdik, Gowrie IA; Lorie Spanjers - Lynda Peterson, Ft Dodge 58

John Westrom Stratified Pairs 16.0 Tables / Based on 47 Tables MPs A X Y Names Score 24.94 1 1 1 Gary Knippenberg - K Welander, Golden Valley MN 60.79% 18.71 2 2 Warren Nelson, Cloquet MN; Dean Montgomery, Bloomington MN 58.78%

14.03 3 Tony Ames, Minnetonka MN; George Bleskachek, Eau Claire WI 58.72%

10.52 4 Susan Jackson, Roseville MN; Michael Hoffmann, Richfield MN 57.52%

8.31 5 Paul Gutterman, Eagan MN; Jon Weinberg, Scottsdale AZ 56.74%

7.13 6 Brian Crossley, Durham NC; Scott Hiller, Naples FL 56.57%

6.24 7 Carole Miner, Rochester MN; John Koch, Saint Cloud MN 55.56%

5.54 8 Susan Stubinski - Bruce Wick, Houston TX 55.45%

7.23 3 David Goodrie, Plymouth MN; John Stansbury, The Villages FL 52.77%

5.43 4 2 Phyllis Anderson, Minneapolis MN; Jane Trahms, Lakeville MN 52.17%

4.29 5 Grant Boadwine, Preston MN; Bill Heyer, Medford MN 50.69%

3.67 6 Jill Flader, Saint Paul MN; Michael Flader, Eagan MN 50.38%

3.16 3 Frank Morgan, Bloomington MN; Donna Nesser, Minneapolis MN 48.57%

2.37 4 Mary Pokonosky, Excelsior MN; Richard Cottle, Saint Paul MN 48.33%

John Westrom Stratified P 1 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 13 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H North-South Pair Percent Section Rank MPs A B C 2 63.33 B 1 1 3.79Gold Warren Nelson - Dean Montgomery 10 60.68 A 2 2.65Red Susan Jackson - Michael Hoffmann 14 56.55 A 3 1.90Red Paul Gutterman - Jon Weinberg 1 55.54 B 4 2 1.46Red David Goodrie - John Stansbury 11 55.01 A 5 0.76Red Ken Gee - Hannah Moon 8 53.23 C 6 3 1 1.40Gold Karen Thelen - Patricia Montain 13 49.87 C 4 2 0.98Red Mary Pokonosky - Richard Cottle

John Westrom Stratified P 1 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 13 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H East-West Pair Percent Section Rank MPs A B C 3 62.53 A 1 3.79Gold Carole Miner - John Koch 11 61.54 A 2 2.65Red Tony Ames - George Bleskachek 4 59.79 C 3 1 1 2.41Gold Gary Knippenberg - K Welander 14 56.47 A 4 1.33Red Brian Crossley - Scott Hiller 15 52.02 B 5 2 1.69Red Barbara Tysdahl - Dennis Ryan 7 51.02 B 6 3 1.21Red Jay Olson - Rosella Vanek 10 50.49 B 4 0.84Red Jill Flader - Michael Flader 8 50.35 B 5 0.48Red Grant Boadwine - Bill Heyer 13 46.53 C 2 0.98Red Michael Goldman - David Gronbeck

John Westrom Stratified Pair 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 13 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H North-South Pair Percent Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs A X Y A X Y 9 58.08 Y 1 1 1 46.26 52.17 4 2 5.43Gold Phyllis Anderson - Jane Trahms 16 57.69 A 2 48.75 53.22 2.65Red Terry Beckman - Kathy Beckman 11 56.92 A 3 56.55 56.74 5 8.31Gold Paul Gutterman - Jon Weinberg 3 56.41 A 4 47.89 52.15 1.33Red Kory Solarz - Terrence Lijewski 8 55.64 A 5 55.01 55.33 1.52Red Ken Gee - Hannah Moon 7 54.36 A 6 60.68 57.52 4 10.52Gold Susan Jackson - Michael Hoffmann 15 54.23 X 2 63.33 58.78 2 2 18.71Gold Warren Nelson - Dean Montgomery 5 51.03 X 3 50.35 50.69 5 4.29Gold Grant Boadwine - Bill Heyer 4 49.36 X 4 47.41 48.39 0.81Red Darlene Anderson - David Newhall 10 46.79 Y 2 49.87 48.33 4 2.37Gold Mary Pokonosky - Richard Cottle 12 41.15 X 52.02 46.59 1.69Red Barbara Tysdahl - Dennis Ryan

John Westrom Stratified Pair 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 13 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H East-West Pair Percent Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs A X Y A X Y 4 61.79 Y 1 1 1 59.79 60.79 1 1 1 24.94Gold Gary Knippenberg - K Welander 6 61.54 A 2 49.36 55.45 8 5.54Gold Susan Stubinski - Bruce Wick 14 56.67 A 3 56.47 56.57 6 7.13Gold Brian Crossley - Scott Hiller 11 55.90 A 4 61.54 58.72 3 14.03Gold Tony Ames - George Bleskachek 5 53.97 Y 5 2 2 43.16 48.57 3 3.16Gold Frank Morgan - Donna Nesser 15 50.51 A 6 45.55 48.03 0.63Red Jill Estrada - Sarah Imig 10 50.26 X 3 50.49 50.38 6 3.67Gold Jill Flader - Michael Flader 1 50.00 X 4 55.54 52.77 3 7.23Gold David Goodrie - John Stansbury 3 48.59 A 62.53 55.56 7 6.24Gold Carole Miner - John Koch 13 46.28 Y 46.53 46.41 0.98Red Michael Goldman - David Gronbeck 2 40.38 X 51.02 45.70 1.21Red Jay Olson - Rosella Vanek 8 36.79 Y 53.23 45.01 1.40Gold Karen Thelen - Patricia Montain 4

Tue/Wed Eve Orange Pairs 11.0 Tables / Based on 5 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 6.56 1 Terry Beckman - Kathy Beckman, Brooklyn Park MN 60.27%

4.92 2 Tony Ames, Minnetonka MN; George Bleskachek, Eau Claire WI 59.53%

3.69 3 Carole Miner, Rochester MN; John Koch, Saint Cloud MN 58.04%

4.59 4 1 1 Jack Bleet - Steven Bleet, Minnetonka MN 56.10% 3.44 2 2 Benjamin Levy, Vancouver WA; James Bloedorn, La Crosse WI 54.47%

2.58 3 Mark McGree, La Quinta CA; James Ashley, Burnsville MN 52.68%

Tue/Wed Eve Orange Pairs 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H North-South Pair Percent Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 3 61.61 A 1 58.93 60.27 1 6.56Gold Terry Beckman - Kathy Beckman 1 57.44 C 2 1 1 54.76 56.10 4 1 1 4.59Gold Jack Bleet - Steven Bleet 10 56.55 C 3 2 2 0.00 56.55 1.53Red Janee Oleson - Nicky Bredeson 5 52.98 A 4 63.10 58.04 3 3.69Gold Carole Miner - John Koch 4 51.49 C 3/4 45.83 48.66 0.89Red Steven Solem - Daniel Thompson 6 51.49 C 3/4 0.00 51.49 0.89Red Stephanie & Larry Miller 2 45.54 B 58.63 52.09 1.97Gold Rod Halvorson - Kathryn Tue/Wed Eve Orange Pairs 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section H East-West Pair Percent Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 4 60.42 A 1 58.63 59.53 2 4.92Gold Tony Ames - George Bleskachek 3 59.82 C 2 1 1 45.54 52.68 3 2.58Gold Mark McGree - James Ashley 5 58.63 C 3 2 2 50.30 54.47 2 2 3.44Gold Benjamin Levy - James Bloedorn 7 52.08 C 4 3 3 0.00 52.08 1.07Red Marshall Blizzard - Arnold Fockler 8 51.79 B 4 0.00 51.79 0.73Red William Cummings - Brian Weikle

Wed/Thu Side Game Series 1st of 4 sessions 5 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 2.84 1 1 1 Dallas Burns, Eden Prairie MN; Douglas Bolstorff, Eagan MN 60.50% 2.13 2 2 Carol Ann Paulson, Minneapolis MN; Larry Uttley, Duluth MN 55.50%

1.40 3/4 3/4 Diane Henson, Minnetonka MN; Barb Zipoy, Bloomington MN 54.50%

1.71 3/4 3/4 2 Diane Wright - Richard Wright, Minneapolis MN 54.50% Wed/Thu Side Game Series 1 Of 4 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 5 rounds Average: 50.0 Section J North-South Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 5 55.50 55.50 B 1 1 2 2 2.13*** CarolAnn Paulson Larry Uttley 4 54.50 54.50 B 2 2 3/4 3/4 1.40Red Diane Henson - Barb Zipoy 1 51.50 51.50 C 1 1.14Red Douglas Ogren - John Doty Wed/Thu Side Game Series 1 Of 4 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 5 rounds Average: 50.0 Section J East-West Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 3 60.50 60.50 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.84*** Dallas Burns Douglas Bolstorff 4 54.50 54.50 C 2 2 3/4 3/4 2 1.71Red Diane Wright - Richard Wright 5 48.50 48.50 B Phillip Cummins& Karen Cummins Wed/Thu Side Game Series 11.0 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 3.98 1 1 1 Marshall Blizzard, Minneapolis MN; Arnold Fockler, Rochester MN 60.71% 2.99 2 2 Benjamin Levy, Vancouver WA; Carol Rynders, Saint Paul MN 60.12%

2.45 3/4 3/4 Rod Halvorson, Saint Paul MN; Kathryn Callahan, Clive IA 55.06%

2.36 3/4 3/4 2 Michael Krasnoff - Michael Curran, Maple Grove MN 55.06% 1.77 5 5 3 Janee Oleson, Evansdale IA; Nicky Bredeson, Minneapolis MN 53.57% 1.33 6/7 6/7 4 Pushpa Prakash - Jean Witz, Rochester MN 52.98% 0.86 6/7 6/7 Jeannine McGowan - E B McGowan, Penn Valley CA 52.98%

1.00 5 Sheila Kim, Seattle WA; Eric Mueller, Minneapolis MN 51.49%

Wed/Thu Side Game Series 2nd Of 4 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 84.0 Section J North-South Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 2 55.06 92.50 B 1 1 3/4 3/4 2.45*** Rod Halvorson - Kathryn Callahan 8 53.57 90.00 C 2 2 1 5 5 3 1.77Red Janee Oleson - Nicky Bredeson 9 52.98 89.00 C 3 3 2 6/7 6/7 4 1.33Red Pushpa Prakash - Jean Witz 5 52.38 88.00 B 4 4 0.86Red Sharon Maris - Marion McDonald 1 51.19 86.00 C 3 0.79Red Larry Uttley - Clyde Johnson Wed/Thu Side Game Series 2nd Of 4 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 84.0 Section J East-West Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 3 60.71 102.00 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.98*** Marshall Blizzard - Arnold Fockler 9 60.12 101.00 B 2 2 2 2 2.99Red Benjamin Levy - Carol Rynders 2 55.06 92.50 C 3 3 2 3/4 3/4 2 2.36Red Michael Krasnoff - Michael Curran 10 52.98 89.00 B 4 4 6/7 6/7 0.86Red Jeannine McGowan - E B McGowan 1 51.49 86.50 C 3 5 1.00Red Sheila Kim - Eric Mueller 5

I/N Spotlight: Major Upset in the Flight B GNT District Finals Flight B GNT Champions 4 NLMs outduel a MN team

The combined total of masterpoints of this year’s Flight B champs from the Iowa City area were less than any one of their four Minnesota opponents in the KO final! Three of the four have less than 200MPs. An extended article on their exploits earlier this month in Eli Jolley Scott Spitze Eric McKee Elizabeth Gotlund Mason City are attached to PROOF THAT ANYONE WHO PLAYS WELL OVER TWO DAYS today’s online bulletin. It’s a great AT THE GNT DISTRICT FINALS CAN WIN A TRIP TO A NABC story..one not to be missed!

I/N Players Alert: If you are first overall in your stratum you are entitled to have a trophy…The overall winner can have their picture taken for the daily bulletin. See your director

Lunch And Learn

Gopher Co-chair Sue Jackson & her partner Steve discussed hands from the Wednesday morning session with the Lunch & Learn crowd in the Lakeview room.

The key on the hand I overheard was a defensive uppercut. This was the trump suit and

QTx (Sue)

AKxxx 8xx Jx (Steve) Steve was able to ruff one of the offsuits with his Jack which established two tricks for Sue’s QTx. Grab your lunch and stop by the Lakeview Room at 1:45pm to ask questions or listen to experts discuss interesting hands from the morning session

Wednesday Gold Rush Pairs 28.0 Tables MPs 7 B C Names Score 8.73 1 Jack Bleet, Minnetonka MN; Patrick Finley, Minneapolis MN 64.90%

6.55 2 Sandy Nelson, Minneapolis MN; Sandy Fisher, Plymouth MN 61.28%

4.91 3 Michael Kiernan - Maureen Kiernan, The Villages FL 60.45%

5.51 4 1 Scott Eller - Joseph Dixon, Minneapolis MN 56.29%

4.13 5 2 James Larsen, Mound MN; Bernice Blaske, Osseo MN 55.80%

2.49 6 Christine Greenberg, Byron MN; Rita Bertsch, Rochester MN 55.57%

2.18 7 John Ryder, Rochester MN; Valerie McGrath, Wabasha MN 55.56%

3.10 8 3 Leslie Nelson - Maury Fjestad, The Villages FL 55.47%

1.75 9 Steven Solem, Vale SD; Daniel Thompson, Egan SD 55.13%

1.59 10 Mary Doyle - W Lynn Stone, Lincoln NE 54.18%

2.32 11 4 Robert Pfeffer, Saint Paul MN; Clifford Shaw, Wesley Chapel FL 53.94%

2.63 12 5 1 Pat Kotten - Michael Kotten, Tucson AZ 53.85% 1.57 13 6 Jack Huie, Minneapolis MN; Reid Shaw, Minnetonka MN 53.67%

1.38 14 7 Lois Leistiko, Minneapolis MN; Shirley Billigmeier, Long Lake MN 53.28%

2.91 8 Helen Vagle, Edina MN; Ruth Brunelle, St Louis Park MN 52.34%

1.10 9 Michael Orsted, Stillwater MN; Elisabeth Nelson, Hudson WI 52.06%

1.97 2 Sharon Jane Goggins, Oconomowoc WI; Mary Reiss, Ixonia WI 49.92%

1.48 3 Steve Polski, Ham Lake MN; Jesse Crane, Woodbury MN 48.79%

1.11 4 Carol Graham - Wayne Detmer, Woodbury MN 47.41%

6

Wednesday Gold Rush Pairs Wed Morning Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section F G L North-South Pair Percent Section Rank MPs 7 B C G 1 65.85 7 1 2.91Gold Jack Bleet - Patrick Finley G 8 63.77 7 2 2.04Gold Sandy Nelson - Sandy Fisher F 7 58.51 7 3/4 1.24Gold Michael Kiernan - Maureen Kiernan L 6 58.51 B 3/4 1 1.77G/R Jeff Jackson - Cynthia Schield G 2 56.16 B 5 2 1.24Red Beverly Kunin - Mark McGree G 9 55.98 7 6 0.67Red Noralee Mogol - Bill Madden L 4 55.62 B 7 3 0.89Red Robert Pfeffer - Clifford Shaw L 5 53.71 7 8 0.53Red Richard Winsor - Bonnie Stettler F 6 53.26 7 9 0.49Red John Ryder - Valerie McGrath F 4 53.08 B 10 4 0.62Red Susan Flaherty - Emalee Vicker L 1 52.90 7 11 0.41Red James Bloedorn - Margaret Getman F 2 52.72 B 5 0.35Red Pamela Mowery - Linda Dennis F 8 51.09 C 6 1 0.93Red Pat Kotten - Michael Kotten G 3 47.28 C 7 2 0.65Red Steve Polski - Jesse Crane

Wednesday Gold Rush Pairs Wed Morning Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section F G L East-West Pair Percent Section Rank MPs 7 B C L 1 59.51 B 1 1 2.91Gold Helen Vagle - Ruth Brunelle G 2 58.06 7 2 2.04Gold Carrie Kaplan - Angela Minto F 9 57.25 7 3 1.46Gold Christine Greenberg - Rita Bertsch L 7 56.52 B 4 2 1.29Red James Larsen - Bernice Blaske G 6 56.43 7 5 0.77Red Mary Doyle - W Lynn Stone L 8 55.89 B 6 3 0.92Red Jack Huie - Reid Shaw L 2 55.71 7 7 0.59Red Terese McCall - David McCall G 9 55.53 C 8 4 1 0.82Red Carol Graham - Wayne Detmer F 7 54.80 7 9/10 0.47Red Roger Plumb - Alice Plumb L 6 54.80 7 9/10 0.47Red Steven Solem - Daniel Thompson L 9 54.62 B 11 5 0.41Red Scott Eller - Joseph Dixon G 3 52.81 B 6 0.31Red Sharon Horgan - Alexis Campbell G 1 52.36 B 7 0.26Red Michael Orsted - Elisabeth Nelson G 8 51.99 C 2 0.57Red Sharon Jane Goggins - Mary Reiss

Wednesday Gold Rush Pairs 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section G F L North-South Pair Percent Adjust Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs 7 B C 7 B C 57.95 0.00 B 1 1 54.62 56.29 4 1 5.51G/R Scott Eller - Joseph Dixon 57.20 0.00 7 2 36.32 46.76 2.04Gold Peter Solberg - Cynthia Musser 56.90 0.00 B 3 2 44.38 50.64 1.46Gold Jerry McClurg - Marcia McClurg 56.61 0.00 C 4 3 1 51.09 53.85 12 5 1 2.63G/R Pat Kotten - Michael Kotten 55.95 0.00 7 5 49.73 52.84 0.77Red Susan Nielsen - Carol Ross 55.61 0.00 7 6 48.64 52.13 0.67Red Dave Kuschel - Rodney Melby 55.45 0.00 7 7 54.80 55.13 9 1.75Gold Steven Solem - Daniel Thompson 55.07 0.00 B 8 4 56.52 55.80 5 2 4.13G/R James Larsen - Bernice Blaske 54.01 0.00 B 9 5 40.76 47.39 0.49Red Jerry Bartlett - Jeffrey Walker 52.26 0.00 B 10 6 55.62 53.94 11 4 2.32G/R Robert Pfeffer - Clifford Shaw 52.25 0.00 B 11 7 44.66 48.46 0.41Red Richard Plaisance - Shirley Rezabek 51.92 0.00 7 56.43 54.18 10 1.59Gold Mary Doyle - W Lynn Stone 51.81 0.00 C 2 36.41 44.11 0.57Red Holly Eastman - Robert McKean 51.76 0.00 B 52.36 52.06 9 1.10Red Michael Orsted - Elisabeth Nelson 51.45 0.00 B 55.89 53.67 13 6 1.57G/R Jack Huie - Reid Shaw 48.82 0.00 7 54.80 51.81 0.47Red Roger Plumb - Alice Plumb 48.39 0.00 7 55.71 52.05 0.59Red Terese McCall - David McCall 47.84 0.00 C 51.99 49.92 2 1.97Red Sharon Jane Goggins - Mary Reiss 47.66 0.00 7 44.66 46.16 Sandra Lyons - Nita Fronk G 9 46.63 0.00 7 55.98 51.31 0.67Red Noralee Mogol - Bill Madden 45.17 0.00 B 59.51 52.34 8 2.91Gold Helen Vagle - Ruth Brunelle 43.32 0.00 B 56.16 49.74 1.24Red Beverly Kunin - Mark McGree 32.99 0.00 B 52.81 42.90 0.31Red Sharon Horgan - Alexis Campbell

Wednesday Gold Rush Pairs 2 Of 2 Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 8 rounds Average: 50.0 Section G F L East-West Pair Percent Adjust Section Rank C/O Final Overall Rank MPs 7 B C 7 B C 65.02 0.00 B 1 1 45.92 55.47 8 3 3.10G/R Leslie Nelson - Maury Fjestad 63.95 0.00 7 2 65.85 64.90 1 8.73Gold Jack Bleet - Patrick Finley 62.39 0.00 7 3 58.51 60.45 3 4.91Gold Michael – Mauree&n Kiernan F 58.79 0.00 7 4 63.77 61.28 2 6.55Gold Sandy Nelson - Sandy Fisher 57.86 0.00 7 5 53.26 55.56 7 2.18Gold John Ryder - Valerie McGrath L 56.32 0.00 B 6 2 45.11 50.72 1.24Red Lamese McDowell - William Eldredge G 54.83 -1.04 B 7 3 51.72 53.28 14 7 1.38G/R Lois Leistiko - Shirley Billigmeier 53.88 0.00 7 8 57.25 55.57 6 2.49Gold Christine Greenberg - Rita Bertsch 53.04 0.00 C 9 4 1 34.69 43.87 0.93Red Deborah Martin - Ryan Holler 52.88 0.00 7 10 50.82 51.85 0.45Red Colleen Stacey - Kathleen Maegerlein 51.72 0.00 C 11 5 2 41.39 46.56 0.65Red Mary Stern - Gary Stern 51.38 0.00 B 6 48.37 49.88 0.30Red Jean Stegall - Ed Bader 50.43 0.00 B 7 52.72 51.58 0.60Red Pamela Mowery - Linda Dennis F 50.30 0.00 C 47.28 48.79 3 1.48Red Steve Polski - Jesse Crane L 50.14 0.00 7 53.71 51.93 0.53Red Richard Winsor - Bonnie Stettler 47.37 0.00 7 51.00 49.19 Paul Klein - Nancy Klein 45.38 0.00 B 58.51 51.95 1.77G/R Jeff Jackson - Cynthia Schield 45.25 0.00 7 58.06 51.66 2.04Gold Carrie Kaplan - Angela Minto 45.20 0.00 B 41.76 43.48 Barbara Johnson - Mary Staahl 43.31 0.00 7 52.90 48.11 0.41Red James Bloedorn - Margaret Getman 40.11 0.00 B 53.08 46.60 0.62Red Susan Flaherty - Emalee Vicker 39.29 0.00 C 55.53 47.41 4 1.11Red Carol Graham - Wayne Detmer

7

Wednesday Aft I/N Pairs 12.0 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 2.89 1 1 Dan Sanders - Sue Sanders, Buffalo MN 59.21%

2.17 2 2 Richard Day, Shoreview; Thomas Kiemen,Cottage Grove 58.42%

1.63 3 Marcia Jones - John Jones, Edina MN 56.81%

1.22 4 Janet Goltz,Bloomington ; Hazelann Lucht, Prior Lake 56.48%

1.98 5 3 1 Penny Reuben - Lois Manninen, Lakeville MN 56.40% Dan & Sue Sanders 1.49 6 4 2 Peter Davis, Hopkins MN; Alan Greenberg, Edina MN 53.50% 1.11 5/6 3 David Finholt - James Finholt, Northfield MN 53.44%

0.72 5/6 Barbara Kelley - Julianne Holt, Edina MN 53.44%

Catherine Brooks, Robbinsdale MN; Georgene 0.84 4 51.04% Bergstrom, Edina MN 0.63 5 Perry Smith, Plymouth MN; Deb Macias, Eden Prairie 50.46%

Wednesday Aft I/N Pairs Only Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 12 rounds Average: 120.0 Section K North-South Pair Pct Score Adjust Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 1 59.21 142.10 -1.75 B 1 1 1 1 2.89Red Dan Sanders - Sue Sanders 11 56.81 136.35 0.00 A 2 3 1.63Red Marcia Jones - John Jones 3 56.48 135.55 0.00 A 3 4 1.22Red Janet Goltz - Hazelann Lucht 10 56.40 135.35 0.00 C 4 2 1 5 3 1 1.98Red Penny Reuben - Lois Manninen 8 53.44 128.25 0.00 C 5 3 2 5/6 3 1.11Red David Finholt - James Finholt 7 50.02 120.05 0.00 C 4 0.43Red Becky Gamble - Linda Rosedahl

Wednesday Aft I/N Pairs Only Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 12 rounds Average: 120.0 Section K East-West Pair Pct Score Adjust Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 7 58.42 140.20 0.00 B 1 1 2 2 2.17Red Richard Day - Thomas Kiemen 9 53.50 128.40 0.00 C 2 2 1 6 4 2 1.49Red Peter Davis - Alan Greenberg 5 53.44 128.25 0.00 B 3 3 5/6 0.72Red Barbara Kelley - Julianne Holt 12 53.17 127.60 0.00 B 4 4 0.50Red Maura Nash - Dianne St Aubin 6 51.04 122.50 0.00 C 5 5 2 4 0.84Red Catherine Brooks - Georgene Bergstrom 10 50.46 121.10 0.00 C 3 5 0.63Red Perry Smith Deb Macias Struthers

Weds Eve 299er Pairs 7.0 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 2.23 1 1 Janet Goltz, Bloomington MN; Hazelann Lucht, Prior Lake MN 57.50%

1.67 2 2 Jeffrey Brauchle, Orono MN; Mark Winter, Edina MN 55.42%

1.25 3 3 Richard Day, Shoreview MN; Thomas Kiemen, Cottage Grove MN 55.00%

0.94 4 4 Diane Deutch - Ken Deutch, Saint Louis MO 54.58%

1.63 5 1 Margaret Bartell, Eugene OR; Evie Walters, Plymouth MN 53.33%

1.07 2/3 Dyanne Kerr, Lakeway TX; Cheryl Martin, Saint Louis MN 51.67%

1.07 2/3 Sharon Jane Goggins, Oconomowoc WI; Mary Reiss, Ixonia WI 51.67%

Weds Eve 299er Pairs Only Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 6 rounds Average: 60.0 Section G North-South Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 6 57.50 69.00 B 1 1 1 1 2.23Red Janet Goltz - Hazelann Lucht 2 53.33 64.00 C 2 2 1 5 1 1.63Red Margaret Bartell Evie Walters 3 51.67 62.00 C 3/4 2/3 2/3 1.07Red Dyanne Kerr - Cheryl Martin 5 51.67 62.00 C 3/4 2/3 2/3 1.07Red Sharon Jane Goggins Mary Reiss Weds Eve 299er Pairs Only Session May 24, 2017 Scores after 6 rounds Average: 60.0 Section G East-West Pair Pct Score Section Rank Overall Rank MPs A B C A B C 3 55.42 66.50 B 1 1 2 2 1.67Red Jeffrey Brauchle - Mark Winter 6 55.00 66.00 B 2 2 3 3 1.25Red Richard Day - Thomas Kiemen 2 54.58 65.50 B 3 4 4 0.94Red Diane Deutch - Ken Deutch 4 47.50 57.00 C 1 0.76Red Maura Nash - Dianne St Aubin Wed Eve Swiss 16 Tables MPs A B C Names Score 4.85 1 1 Leon & Kathleen Blackwell, Egan SD; Grant Boadwine, Preston MN; Nancy Hill, Mobile AL 60.00

G S Jade Barrett, Elk Point SD; Patricia Solick, Omaha NE; Michael Saeger, Saint Paul MN; 3.19 2/3 59.00 Diane Fansler, Edina MN Adam Gewiss, Elk Mound WI; Thomas Kite, Eau Claire WI; Del Swanson, Lakeville MN; 3.19 2/3 2 1 59.00 Gene Brandl, Apple Valley MN Dave Hoffman, Merritt Island FL; Greg Caucutt - Pat Burrows, Rochester MN; Carol Cummings, 2.05 4 53.00 Owatonna MN

8

Susan Sanger, St Louis Park MN; Amy Dutton, Mendota Heights MN; Sandy Nelson, Minneapolis 2.17 5 3 2 49.00 MN; Gregory Deweese, Prior Lake MN Carol Hieb, New Hope MN; Juanita Burke, Wayzata MN; Ellen Eid, Plymouth MN; Marlene 1.62 4 3 46.00 Kettler, Maple Grove MN 1.18 4 Tom Juntunen, Minneapolis MN; James Essex, St Louis Park MN; Patti & Larry Huiras, Woodbury 43.00

An added benefit of this treatment is the ability to use four level calls more efficiently. Robert Todd's Reverse Baze includes the following response structure after the stayman response : 4D = RKC 4C= a quantitative raise toward slam with trump support 4N= Quantitative without a trump fit.

No more “is 4N RKC or quantitative” accidents.

GRAND NATIONAL TEAMS 2017 Mike Cassel, D14 GNT Coordinator May 25, 2017 Commentary on the Status of Our Grand National Teams

I have been the district GNT coordinator since 2008. One of my original goals was to bring the subsidy for district GNT champions up to $500/player. That level of reimbursement confers a semblance of an early adage of mine: “winning a trip to the NABC should not mean winning the right to pay for one”.

The Grass Roots Fund created in 2012 provided another revenue stream to support the special events: the NAP and GNT programs. We received over $4,000 last year, but less than $3,000 this year. District 14 now pools its NAP profit, GNT revenue generation, and Grass Roots revenues and has passed motions to boost payouts on a fixed basis to NAP and GNT champions. Formally unhooking GNT team awards from GNT activities allows us to advertise, in advance, what the award will be ($2,000 the last couple of years)

The district board, last year, dedicated the first weekend in May for our GNT district finals. The board also authorized a STAC for the second week in September with the profits helping to support grass roots coffers. The $11 surcharge for players who did not play in a Unit Final was eliminated. Combining the district final weekend with a sectional allows cost sharing and ancillary events, including a regionally rated Swiss team on Sunday for sectional players, Flight C GNT teams, and non- qualifiers from the other GNT flights. The years of standalone GNT district finals, I believe, is over.

Earlier this month we held our GNT district finals with a U163 sectional in Mason City May 5-May 7. The turnout was disappointing and a return engagement in the Twin Cities area is on tap for 2018. Moving up and down the I-35 corridor with an occasional foray back to Nebraska may be the best we can do. An attractiveness of this idea is to eliminate travel & hotel costs for a subset of players every year.

Your input on venue is most welcome. Let your unit reps to the district Board know your opinions about the GNT, also, how best to deploy our Grass Roots Funds

GNT Motions

Future D14 GNT District Finals shall be co-located with a special sectional on the first weekend in May in the Twin Cities or Des Moines area subject to a request to host by a Nebraska unit. Host units are encouraged to assure that district finals contribute $3,000.

GNT team entries will mirror regional entry fees. 2018 team entries will be $56/session.

A team traveling out of state to the GNT district finals is eligible to apply for Grass Roots funds to offset the cost to reach the district final site at the current IRS approved mileage reimbursement. Pairs to receive a 1/2 share, and a single a 1/4 share.

9

Make opening leads face down. If you regularly fail to do this, when you eventually Coming Right Up lead out of turn or generate some other bad District 14 STAC June 19-June 25 SectionalTournamentsAtClubs result by doing this, expect partner to be rather help fill district coffers. They offer upset with you. When your face-up opening sectionally rated silver points in your home clubs lead causes a problem, do not expect your side to get a favorable director/committee ruling, at least not from me. Everywhere is within walking distance Jeff Goldsmith Bridge Rules If you have the time - Steven Wright

As I prepare the layouts for the Gopher bulletin early in May I typically keep a window open on the team trials on BBO (Bridge Base Online)

The board displayed here caught my attention because 1. a 4H opening is a mild deviation from the oftquoted ‘rule of 500”. Half of the West’s in the three matches on Vugraph chose to open 4H with 7 losers, possibly only 6 tricks. Mahaffey, sitting South, was assisted by East’s heart raise. Now the partnership almost certainly has no loser in the suit

With good controls and a solid suit to run a great grand slam was reached. East’s raise could only block a diamond cuebid and had more to lose than gain in my opinion. In the Rosenthal vs. Robinson match both pairs reached a winning strain. Peter Boyd bid what he thought he could make. Chris Willenken, playing with Israeli-born Eldad Ginossar, offered up a control bid after partner’s 5C overcall. This pair was definitely in synch. North, even without great spades, offered up a willingness to play slam in any strain with his 5N call as Willenken must either have great controls or a good suit for his actions. I’d surmise that Chip Martel, with extra space from the 3H opening might have wished he’d come up with the same 5N call instead of 6C. If he had, it would be the Fleisher team in the USA1 Quarterfinals and Harris dropping into USA2 competition.

Mike Lawrence Seminar next Month Mike Lawrence seminar in St. Louis Park. Special Event - June 10&11, 2017 Here is your opportunity to hear from a Hall of Fame level player, author of 20+ books and teacher. Limited to 100 players. His presentations will be tailored for Novice to Intermediate bridge players.

Only $150 for both days, includes lectures, notes, play and hand analysis and lunch. To register, complete the flyer located at tournament. Email [email protected] for more information.

10

2017 Flight B GNT District Finals Online Addendum to the Thursday May 25 Gopher Bulletin By Mike Cassel. D14 GNT Coordinator with assists from Bob Otto, club manager, and the winners

Sweet Music…. Right Here in River City

District 14 conducted its GNT district finals in Mason City at Meredith Willson’s Music Man Square. The competition was remarkable in at least two respects. One of the Flight C champions included a player with about 60MPs who has been playing duplicate for two years. More “note”worthy has to be the championship performance in Flight B by a group of grad and post-grad students from the Iowa City area and the University of Iowa. They defeated a much more experienced Minnesota squad. Every player on the Minnesota team had more masterpoints than the entire combined total of their team.

The fellows are all in graduate studies at the University of Iowa. Eric & Elizabeth are engaged with a June wedding in their sights. The proposal was made and accepted after a Tuesday Night Bridge game (see below). Elizabeth recently completed her DMA in Musical Arts and is an organist. Eli is pursuing a MFA in Theater Arts, Scott for a PhD in Economics and Eric a PhD in Finance.

Eli Jolley Scott Spitze Eric McKee & Elizabeth Gotlund

Eli is not unknown to the ACBL. He played in, and won, the first Baron Barclay National Youth pairs in Atlanta in 2008 when he was 18 years old and living in Alabama. His partner, Jake Olson, was and is, a Minnesotan. He writes: “I started playing duplicate when I was 15. I found the game by chance on pogo.com and then became interested enough to visit the local bridge club despite knowing very little about the game. After receiving several bridge books from people at the local club in Auburn, AL--- I quickly became obsessed and 3 years later was lucky enough to win the first ever Baron Barclay National Youth Pairs NABC in Atlanta in 2008 with my then partner, Jake Olson. I still played bridge in college, but not as seriously as my studies and plays [acting] came first. I have kept up with bridge in varying degrees of seriousness since college, but it still remains my number one hobby, and at times I am tempted to pursue it in a professional sense. I am very pleased to have (finally) made Life Master at the Mason City Tournament and hope to be a Grand Life Master someday.

I feel incredibly lucky to have met Scott, Eric and Elizabeth here at UIowa and am always excited to be competing with them. I have seen them grow tremendously since I first got here a couple years ago and I love playing with people my age. Winning with them in Mason City was one of the coolest experiences of my life. I'm planning to spread the gospel of bridge and want to start teaching it when I have more time. I am an actor by trade, but I would like to be able to meld my two great loves acting and bridge into a sustainable future. And to help keep bridge alive.

Elizabeth was second in her unit’s MiniMcKinney race in 2015 in the 0-5MP category. In 2016 she was first in D14 in the 20-50MP category. She recently completed grad school in music at the U of Ia. She writes: “Eric started teaching me how to play bridge a few months after we met in Iowa City in fall 2014. It was his first year of grad school in finance at University of Iowa and my last year of grad school for music. Eric had talked about bridge and how he didn't have a regular partner, and I said that I would learn. I used to really enjoy playing canasta and some simpler card games with my grandmother and friends when I was a child. I liked bridge right away and spent a lot of time studying Standard American bidding with Eric. We played a few times in spring 2015, and we started playing regularly together at Bob's club that summer. Bob's post-game written comments on hands and verbal comments immediately after playing a hand at his table have been very helpful. Scott and Eli both came to study at University of Iowa in fall 2015, and Eric and I were teamed with them for Swiss teams at the Hills sectional tournament in September 2015. Since then, we have played as a team in several events, and we have also practiced together outside the clubs. I'm really glad I started playing bridge, and I feel that I've gotten so much encouragement and support from my teammates and other players in the area. Eric and I will be married June 24 in my hometown in Illinois. Bridge has been a fun activity for us to do together, and Eric even wrote me a poem about bridge as part of his proposal! It involved a grand slam in hearts, of course.

11

Eric McKee was 2nd in D14’s mini-McKenney race last year in the 50-100MP category. He writes: When I was a kid I loved playing Euchre, so I was already familiar with bidding, trump, and trick-taking before I ever played bridge. About 4 years ago I was studying for my Masters degree at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign when a former classmate from undergrad invited me to come to the university’s bridge club. I enjoyed it so I became a regular member. If not for the club, I might never have played bridge so it's thanks to the club advisor, Milt Epstein, and the other local players who helped out there’s one more bridge player in the world!

When I arrived in Iowa City I planned to go to Bob’s Tuesday night game and I showed up at the game hoping I could play with a standby. To my surprise, Bob required that you make an appointment to play bridge at his club so I didn’t play that day. After that I always made sure to make an appointment!

I've learned a lot by doing daily bridge puzzles at bridgeclues.com, reading some of Mike Lawrence's books, listening to comments by more experienced players (which is almost everyone!), and by just playing a lot of hands and figuring out why I got a bunch of 0s.

For the past 2 years the four of us have frequently formed a team at the local tournaments so it wasn’t too much of stretch to form a team for the GNT’s. We’ve been consistently playing well in the various open team events, so we were cautiously optimistic about our chances of at least qualifying for the KO stage. One of Eric and Elizabeth’s triumphs was Bd. 24 (of 28) in the last half of the finals: Board 24 Sunday afternoon: 24 87 West North East South Eric and I reached 6D in the north after a W Deals K85 P 1 P 1 messy auction with interference. Eric and I None Vul KT6 1 X 2 4N started using the Meckwell Lite Precision bidding system this year, and as North his .AJ764 P 5 P 6 QJT62 9543 only possible opening bid for this hand was 1D, which could be as short Q97 643 as 1 diamond. With my 17 HCPs, I was also hopeful for slam; however, in our system, I could not bid a new suit at the two level, since I had long Q3 42 diamonds and 2H would promise five hearts. Eric’s double of the spade .985 .KQT2 overcall, a support double, promised three hearts. After East’s spade AK raise, with my double stopper in spades, three aces, and singleton club, I AJT2 wanted to explore slam, but I wasn't sure where. At the time, I thought AJ9875 my only way to explore slam was to jump to 4N for RCKB, since my 1H bid had not shown my strength and since I could not bid a forcing NT or .3 new suit with my hand. Eric told me later that I could have cuebid the opponents' suit to show strength. I bid 4N, and Eric responded 5H, showing two or five keycards without the queen. I realized that I did not know which suit he was considering to be trump. (He told me later it was hearts, since he had made a support double.) I knew he had a club stopper, so NT was possible, though it seemed dangerous with my singleton club. I knew we had fewer than eight hearts and at least a seven-card, but probably higher, fit in diamonds. I thought maybe the other table would find no-trump or a low heart fit and score higher, but I did not feel comfortable being declarer on this hand since my heart was racing with the uncertain auction. I bid 6D, and we won 13 imps when Eric made 7 and our opponents, with only 28hcp, did not reach slam.

Eric discusses the play on Bd 24: After Elizabeth placed the contract it was my job to make it. My main problem was to find the two red queens. If I find both then I can make 6 and have play for 7. After the opening lead I was able to infer that west had both queens using three pieces of information. First, the opponents had 12 high card points between them. Second, East led the king of clubs so he likely had 5 of the 12 points. Third, West had overcalled 1S. For his overcall West ought to have around 8 points which makes him the favorite for holding both queens. I finessed him for both and made seven. I know making an inference like this should be easy for a good bridge player. But I was still super happy to have correctly made that inference, because it showed to me the studying I’ve been doing to improve my declarer play really has paid off.

Scott Spitze has been making a mark for himself too. In 2015 he represented D8 at the Chicago NABC in the Flight C GNT finals. He was 2nd in D8 5-20MP miniMcKenny in 2015. Last year he placed 3rd in the D14 50- 100MP category. “I started learning around age 12 or so, my mom had recently started learning duplicate, and the woman who taught her was offering lessons for children. My family played quite a few card games, so I picked it up pretty quickly. For a long time, I mostly played with my mom. I started playing more seriously around 4-5 years ago. Scott joined the ACBL in 2013. The Chicago NABC was his first, a lot of fun, and he is looking forward to Toronto. “When Eric suggested playing in the GNTs, I was thinking we would have to find a different fourth, as Eli had too many points (too much online bridge). But the others were adamant about playing together, even if it was in B. I was a little skeptical, but in a tournament earlier this Spring we played together and played really solid, and I thought we had a chance to at least make it past the first day. Obviously, we did a little better than that. After we qualified the first day, it felt good and we knew that no matter what we did, we could go home knowing we played well. And after the first day, I think we felt that there was no one we couldn't beat, which always gives you confidence. I think we played very in the moment and took each match a board at a time.” He and Eli had their own slam story from the first half of the Flight B finals in Mason City: board 9--- http://tinyurl.com/mej7ftl is the link to the auction and play of the hand. Scott said “Once my partner jumped in diamonds and I had a max I knew we were going to slam. The other table bid 5.” 9 KJ8 N Deals AK764 West East Eli and Scott reached this ambitious slam. In a EW Vul 74 1 standard or 2/1 context the East hand is a player, but 1N 3 not necessarily a strong jump shift. It’s a four or five .752 loser hand (LTC) but that is predicated on finding a fit. 4 5 T3 AQ6542 “I had a max and I knew we were going to slam.” J53 T 6 KT53 AQJ96 It’s hard to argue with success when you reach a 24hcp slam. [Ed.] South had a normal lead from the club sequence. Had a heart lead .AK98 .6 been found, East would have needed to find the SK onside. If, at any 97 time, North HAD found a bid, the probability of holding the SK would Q982 have been quite high.

82 With the pointed suits breaking well making seven was not difficult. The .QJT43 Iowa squad picked up another 13 imps.

12

In conversation with a member of the 2nd place Minnesota team I learned that the Iowa team bid a third slam that required either a side suit K onside or if not, the KT onside doubleton. If the K WAS onside then the trump suit had to play for one loser only with a singleton 4 opposite AQJ653. Playing this combination for five tricks is about 43%. So the slam is not much better than 20%. It was a good day as the K WAS onside and the trump suit WAS 3-3

Iowa City’s Bridge Mentor /Teacher/ Club Manager

This story would be incomplete without a commentary on the University Bridge Club in Iowa City, managed by Bob Otto. Bob’s club is the only club I know of whose primary focus is on imp play. District 14 is dependent upon a healthy level of GNT club qualifying games and Bob’s club is continually first or second in our district’s table count. As can be seen by the performance of this group of non-life masters his efforts have been richly rewarded this year

I asked Bob to share with us his philosophy and “sources and methods“ and he was kind enough to share in great detail:

“I don't think any other club in the district spends as much time as I do training my players how to play in IMP Pairs and Team Events. I took particular pleasure to see some success this year. I spend a lot of time running and practicing team games.”

My “bridge lab” is my main game and is held on Tuesday Nights in Iowa City. It is an open club, so anyone can play, but I want you to make a reservation if you want to play. Seventy-five per cent of the players are those with little experience…..many non-life-masters. I sanction the game so these folks can earn master points if they have a good game. I started the “bridge lab” seven years ago as a friendly venue for my students to hone their bridge skills.

I observed that prior to beginning this game my students would finish a class and report to a local game; but soon would drop out. The students would bid and play a little slower than more experienced players. The old cadre would embarrass students by calling the director for hesitations in the bidding. Their slow play was another issue that irritated the more experienced players in the game….so slowly my new class would disappear from the scene. The students loved the bridge….but not the unfriendly atmosphere. All my teaching efforts were being destroyed by folks who invested no time nurturing the future of the game….the new player.

At my game at the senior center you are welcome to use bidding aids at the table. I want players who recognize the triggers to use bidding sequences they have not memorized. Everyone at my game is trying to improve their game. Everyone wants the other players to improve….we are a very friendly group. Players with poor results will get an email where errors were made. I send out a general email how the bidding should have gone on each hand.

You don’t need a partner. I will find you a partner. The Tuesday night game has become the biggest game in town….even though it is held in the evening. Everyone goes home with a hand record. The ACBL has two kinds of game….match point pairs and IMP Teams. We teach how each game is played…..we do pairs from May thru August. We do teams from September thru April. Most players prefer the “team season” to the “pair season”. During the “team season” players can request their “team” play as a team. I honor those requests. I want players to have fun and build solid teams that can go out to the sectionals and do well. If you have a partner, I will create a competitive team for you. I put stronger pairs with weaker pairs to form teams. I put LMs together on teams. I don’t want a whole bunch of teams to have one LM on the team. I usually have 2 teams with LMs of 2500; one team with 500-2500. This leaves me with 4 to 6 teams who are in the C Strata. If we have 9 tables…..we use a BAM movement with 8 3-Bd matches. When you have such small matches….even good teams can lose a match to a weaker team.

It is a rare night when a team does not win at least one or two matches….so everyone in the room goes home with some master points. As soon as a player wins a few master points…..they become members of the ACBL. Our club has recruited 40+ players in the past 7 years. The ACBL has awarded our club 4 enhanced Club Championships for recruiting. Players begin to move up the master point ranks. They get the great ACBL Bulletin with those great articles….and they get letters congratulating their accomplishments. My players do well in the Unit Ace of Clubs. Good results begets more good results. Each year I try to recruit players who have little experience to join us. I am not interested in just preaching to “the choir”….I like getting new players who “know nothing” and get them on track to learn this great game.

I spend a lot of time on the phone…..especially on Monday Night. I need to get 4 to 6 C-Strata teams. If I cannot get a good team movement with a lot of C-Strat teams…..we will play IMP Pairs. During “Team Season”….it is IMPs, IMPs, IMPs…all the time. Match Point Pairs is what all the other local clubs play……they never spend any time teaching iMPs.

Imps is the best scoring method for new players. They learn to get to their games and slams. In defense, beat the opponents’ contract. In playing the hand…..there is no emphasis on over tricks. My players like it when 13

everyone wins some points. I rotate pairs around playing in different combinations of teams. Everyone learns the other pairs in the game. The players know I will create “fair” Teams…and when you have a roomful of “equal” teams…..playing three or four board matches….everyone has a chance to win some matches.

Elizabeth Gotlund won the Ace of Clubs award in 2016 for our Unit 163 and the District 14 for the 20-50 category. Her husband-to-be, Eric McKee, won the Unit and District Ace of Clubs awards for the 50-100 category. As they learned the IMP game strategy, thewinningy became very good. They understood my “Rules for Why you Lose Team Games”. They found two other local college players, Eli Jolley and Scott Spitze, a began team games at the Unit Sectionals. They have a spirit. They like to play together. They are having fun…..and they practice IMPs for the past 8 months. They know the strategy well. Most players don’t really understand IMPs. A lot of their competition just play match points…..they have not had the training on how to play IMPs.

I am very proud of this team. They do not bring a lot of experience….but they understand the IMP game and are disciplined in its application. They have trained playing in very short matches….and winning…..so when you expand to 12 or 24 boards…there is good chance they will beat you. I had to chuckle in Mason City when I overheard some of their competition that they just had a bunch of college “kids” to beat. . I am sure they soon found out they had their hands full. Their two matches in the KO rounds were not close. The “Kids” took care of business. “This group can challenge and beat far more experienced players

At the Bridge Lab…….we are teaching how to play pairs and teams……and I think you will find “the regulars” like playing where beginning players are given some respect. Everyone has been a beginner….so relish that you have a new player in your game. More players mean bigger games. Behave, and don’t belittle the less experienced player who is using a bidding aids to manage a “Stayman” auction. Remember, there was a time when you may have needed help with “Stayman”. I want players to begin using bidding tools before they have them memorized…..just use your bidding aids. As you learn how it works….you won’t need the aids.

Scroll down for “Robert’s Rules of IMPs Order?!

14

RULES FOR WINNING TEAM GAMES

If you follow these RULES religiously…..you will win most of the time. When you LOSE you can probably trace the loss back to where you or your teammates BROKE one of my RULES ON HOW TO NOT LOSE TEAM GAMES. 1. BID TO YOUR PROPER CONTRACT. If you belong in game….be there. If you should be in slam….be there. If is only a part score hand…..play in a part score. You and partner should discuss your bidding methods so you can arrive at the appropriate contract. 2. DON’T MISS GETTING YOUR GAME BONUS. If you are vulnerable and whether you bid the game is a close decision….bid the game. Missing a vulnerable game will cost you 10-13 IMPs. This loss of IMPs is huge. If you are Not Vulnerable, DON’T BID THE CLOSE GAMES….missing a game when you are not vulnerable will only cost you 5-6 IMPs. If you stretch to a NV game and go down you will lose 5-6 IMPs….since you will be minus 50 and your opponents will be plus 140. If you stop in the part score and it makes game….you will lose about 6 IMPs when you score 170 and the other team gets 420….so when you are Not Vulnerable……and it is a close call…..its about an even win or loss…..5 IMPs.

On the other hand….when VULNERABLE, you want to bid the close ones. If you misguess in this situation….the loss is HUGE. If you stretch to game and go down…and your opponents guess to stop in the part score, again you lose 6-7 IMPS….you are minus 100 and they are plus 140 so you lose 240 or 6 IMPs. If you stop on the close VULNERABLE GAME….and you are wrong…..now you score plus 170 and your opponents score plus 620….and you lose 450 or 10 IMPs. It is no longer winning or losing 6 IMP….so be conservative WHEN NOT VULNERABLE, but be AGGRESSSIVE WHEN YOU ARE VULNERABLE…..as you will lose almost double the IMPs if you guess wrong. 3. LISTEN TO THE AUCTION. Be aggressive and open the hands that have the values to open. Pass, if you don’t have the values. Make light opening bids, but have good values to enter an opponents’ auction. Listen to the auction. If the hand belongs to the opponents….let them have the bid. The opponents at your table are your teammates at the other table. If your opponents are bidding to 2H….then your teammates should bid to the same 2H contract and the result will be the same at both tables. If your RHO opens 1H and after you pass, your LHO bids 2H and the bid is passed to you….WHAT DO YOU DO?? In a team game, you would pass…..IN A PAIR GAME YOU WOULD BID. The difference is that in a pair game YOU DO NOT HAVE TEAMMATES AT THE OTHER TABLE. In the team game format…..if 2H is a reasonable contract, your teammates will be in the same 2H contract.

4. DON’T COMPETE WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR HAND. Let’s take the situation I described in the previous Rule 3. In a PAIR GAME….YOU WOULD ALWAYS BALANCE…..IN A TEAM GAME…..YOU WOULD NEVER BALANCE!!! The difference is…..in a pair game…..it is you against the rest of the field. In a team game YOU HAVE TEAMMATES TO PROTECT YOU. Let’s say you balance and go down 2 and lose 100 points….so you push the hand. When your partners come back they report that they played in 2H and scored plus 110. You report that you balanced in at 2S or 3 of a minor and lost 100 points….so you get lucky and hothing bad happened….but you would have gotten the same push board by just letting your opponents play 2H at your table.

Actually, losing just 4 IMPs was a good result…..worse things can happen. If you balance in a the opponents double your 2S bid and you go down the same two tricks, now you have lost 300 points. When your teammates come back to the table and report that they bid to 2H and made it for plus 110….you are going to have to fess up that you made a pair game bid in a team game and did not trust your partners to protect you to bid the same 2H….so now you waltzed into the auction and gave your opponents plus 300. Your teammates were plus 110 and so you lost 190 points and you lost 5 IMPs. YOU HAVE TEAMMATES, LET THEM PROTECT YOU IN THESE SITUATIONS. If you bid, you risk a penalty that makes no sense. Now here is the saddest story….you bid 2S, balancing when you could have passed out 2H and let your teammates protect you…..and now your LHO discovers an Ace in the hand and instead of 2H, your LHO should have made a forcing raise or a limit raise and the opponents now bid to a game…..and if is a vulnerable game….now your 2S bid has let the opponents correct a huge error…..and intead of having them play in 2H and score plus 170….you are now defending 4H and losing 620. You were on your way to winning 10 IMPs on the opponents’ mistake….but you made a pair bid in a team game. YOU HAVE TEAMMATE, LET THEM PROTECT YOU IN THESE SITUATIONS. Nothing good can come from you balancing. More team games are lost when you did not rely or trust your teammates to protect you.

15

5. DO NOT TAKE A SACRIFICE BID…where you bid to go down for less than what the opponents can score. This is a pair game tactic. In a team game YOU HAVE TEAMMATES. Your teammates will be in the same game contract…..so just pass and let your teammates protect you on this hand. Only bad things usually happen when you sacrifice in a team game. Perhaps the game you thought your opponents were going to make goes down…..and your partners were in the same game….going down. Now when you sacrifice and go down 300 points, your partners are losing 100 points and you are losing 9 IMPs on a hand that was going to be a push board with both games going down 100. The other bad thing that can happen is you go for a bigger penalty than you thought….so instead of going down 300 you go down 800 and now you lose 5 IMPs if the game makes by partners for 620 and if the game was going down….now you have lost 900 points to lose 14 IMPs.

6. DO WHAT IT TAKES TO DEFEAT YOUR OPPONENTS CONTRACT. You and partner want to be tigers on defense….take all the tricks that you can. If you can defeat your opponents at your table and your teammates do not get as good a defense….you can get some huge wins. If you are plus 100 and your teammates are plus 620 or 420…..you are winning 13 or 11 IMPs. If you defend badly and allow the opponents to make a contract that should be set….this will be bad if this is a part score….AND REAL BAD if it is a game or slam.

7. DO NOT DOUBLE THE OPPONENTS’ CONTRACT. Usually, just bad things can happen. If you do want to violate this rule, HAVE TRUMP TRICKS…..AS ONLY TRUMP TRICKS ARE GUARANTEED TO TAKE TRICKS. I AM JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO REPEAT THIS FACT…..IN TEAM GAMES….YOU HAVE TEAMMATES. If you double a final contract and fail to set it, you just lose IMPs. Let’s say they bid 4S and you double….and they make it, then you lose 590 or 790 depending upon the vulnerability….and your teammate will bring back a plus 420 or 620 and you are going to lose 5 IMPs. Some times when you double…..you give the declarer a clue about the bad trump break and without the double, the hand would have gone down….but with the warning…..now the hand makes….so your teammates go down because they had no warning….and your opponents are making the hand. Another sad situation….is after the double the opponents run to a contract that they can make. Instead of taking the sure set, you scared them into a contract you could not defeat.

8. DO NOT DOUBLE THE OPPONENTS IN A PART SCORE. This is like the last Rule, but can be more costly….since it can create a game bonus where there was no game bonus. Let’s say you and the opponents are fighting over the bid and they keep bidding diamonds and you are bidding spades….so when you bid 2S….they bid 3D and when you bid 3S…they bid 4D. If you don’t double, and they make it….the opponents score 130. If you double and they make it, you will lose 510 or 710 depending upon the vulnerability. If you defeated the contract….a trick or even 2….it would not be worth what you lose if you are not able to defeat 4D.

16