Bedfordshire Bridge Association BULLETIN

No.238 April 2012

Bulletin Editor: Peter Scott 21 Salters Way, Dunstable, Beds, LU6 1BT Tel: 01582 668488 or 07956 820530 Email: [email protected]

Inside this Issue: YOUR BULLETIN REPS

Letter to the Editor...... 3 Please note that the following At Crockfords - nearly! ...... 5 people will be handing out the Easley Blackwood...... 8 latest Bulletins at your local Declarer Play Quiz...... 9 club: Fracas in Poland ...... 10 Ampthill ...... Mike Field Red Suit Transfers ...... 12 Clifton...... Alan Ellis Suit Preference Signals...... 16 Leighton B ...... David Gilling How Many Queens?...... 19 PM Bridge...... Ann Pillinger BBA Committee Report ...... 20 Bedford ...... Alan Cooke Mike Vogel ...... 22 Cranfield ...... Erica Sharrock Answer to Declarer Quiz .....23 Milton Keynes .... David Gilling Brian Keable Part 2 ...... 24 Wardown...... Peter Scott More on the Merrimac...... 26 Please ask one of them if you Recent Results...... 27 have not received your copy. An Ethical Dilemma ...... 28

BACK HOME AFTER AN EVENING AT THE BRIDGE CLUB

“Pass me the hairdryer”

2 Editorial: Thank you for your many and varied contributions to this issue which are always very welcome. Please keep them coming. As well as the usual mix of bridge features is a report on decisions recently made by your County Committee which may affect you. So, read on and please let me have your comments and thoughts on the content and anything else you wish to share with others in the next issue. Over to you ...

Letter to the Editor (EBU) membership at club and county level

Ever since the English Bridge Union, the counties, and EBU affiliated clubs, introduced the Pay to Play (P2P) scheme into , all members of affiliated clubs automatically became members of the EBU. This means in theory (but perhaps not in practice) that all players who play in affiliated clubs, at county level or in national events should adhere to the prevailing EBU standards for behaviour and etiquette within the current EBU rules and regulations for administering the duplicate (tournament) bridge game.

The above means that all EBU members should know about and implement the following items:

• Provision and display of a partnership when they play with a regular partner. • Proper knowledge of the rules for use of the Stop card, and the Alert card, when using bidding boxes. • Knowledge of the situations that require the use of Announcements and of Alerts. • Ability to implement Announcing and Alert procedures correctly.

One might have thought that by now the majority of regular players within affiliated clubs would be adhering to the above rules, but that is not so. Players fail to have convention cards and do not understand the Announcing procedures (either not announcing properly or make announcements when an Alert is required). Similarly, very few people

3 correctly implement the Alerting rules, particularly with respect to a penalty double of a suit bid (below the four level).

I know of one club where it seems to be unnecessary to have a convention card and I have been to County events where players (including committee members) have not displayed a convention card.

Unless the county and club committees can find a way to educate players and implement the required standards to the EBU members, it is likely that things may get worse. How will new players to the game ever realise that they have a responsibility to adhere to the required code of procedural behaviors for EBU membership, if the existing EBU members do little or nothing to promote those procedures?

I am not asking for the County and clubs to come down like a ton of bricks on those players who do not know or do not take any notice of the required procedures (that would be very unfair to new players just entering the game), but I do think there is a requirement for the County and clubs to put into action an education process to raise the level of awareness of EBU rules and their application within bridge in Bedfordshire.

Yours sincerely Brian Keable (EBU member for 50+ years)

Consider this: A WINNER listens to his partner’s point of view. A LOSER just waits until it’s time to express his own.

4 By John Hurst

I was amused to read Brian Keable’s Memoirs because back in 1972/73 or thereabouts, I had the fortune – or misfortune – to play against several of the people he mentions. It brings back memories of something that might have been my finest hour – but in the event certainly wasn’t!

West East Before reading on, look at these two hands and decide in what contract ♠ K982 ♠ AQ65 you would want to be in a keen team of four KO match. I think most

♥ Q7 ♥ 4 people would settle for 4 ♠ and hope ♦ KJ4 ♦ 97632 to make it around half the time!

♣ AQ52 ♣ K73 In the 1972/73 season (or 73/74, the memory blurs), my partner Don Gilbertson (Leicestershire – regrettably left us just over a year ago) played in the then prestigious Crockfords Cup with another local pair of improvers. The format was multiple teams qualifiers at some 8 venues, 4 KO rounds and an 8-team final. We qualified at Derby for the second year running out of some 50+ teams, in 2nd place, and continued by supreme effort and no mean luck, to reach the last 16. We drew ”Pencharz” at home, for a 48 match 6 x 8 boards. We were at the disadvantage – apart from the obvious one - of having a 4 person team, against their 6. We provided dinner after 32 boards, and hoped we would still be in with a meaningful reason for playing out the last 16 after dinner.

On the day, Bill Pencharz arrived “sans partner” who was too ill to play, and Bill himself spent the whole match lying on the sofa stricken with flu, which negated one of their advantages. The four who played were (Brian Keable note): Joe Amsbury (bridge columnist in the Telegraph) with Tony Sowter (Notts. fringe international, who we knew quite well as he came to Leicester occasionally) and the Sharples Brothers! So, to work. 5 I can’t remember the exact scores, but our best hope was in snatching some sort of early advantage before we tired. Some hope! After the first set, we were around 35 imps behind. Strange to relate, from that point on we recouped a good few imps every round, dispensed with dinner as the opponents wanted to play on, and unbelievably went into the final round with a respectable lead of 17/18 or so. The next round was turning into a dream. The first five hands were all part scores and we had the best of them at our table. Unless our partners had done something ridiculous it was nearly in the bag and we would be in the national 8 team final. Hold your nerve.

I was sitting North against the Sharples; my LHO opened 1 ♣ - pass - 1♠ – pass - 3 ♠ - pass - 6 ♠ - passed out. Here’s your hand: ♠J3 ♥K109632 ♦Q10 ♣J84 Pick a lead.

Don’t spend too long over it. After toying with a heart, I chose a ‘safe’ lead of the jack of trumps. When I saw ♥Q7 go down in dummy I heaved a sigh of relief; it was short-lived. Lead a red card and you’re in the final of the Crockfords, a black one and your team mates can rightfully say the average monkey would have got it right 8 times out of 13! You saw the E/W hands at the beginning. Here’s the full diabolical layout:

Trumps drawn, fourth club takes care of the singleton heart, my ♦Q10 fall under the ♦KJ and we just take one trick with the ♦A. Anybody think 4 ♠ was an overbid at the beginning?

♠ 1074 6♠ by East ♥ AJ85 Lead is ♠J ♦ A85 ♣ 1096

♠ K982 ♠ AQ65 ♥ Q7 N ♥ 4 ♦ KJ4 W E ♦ 97632 ♣ AQ52 S ♣ K73

♠ J3 ♥ K109632 ♦ Q10 ♣ J84 6 If that wasn’t enough, on the next hand my partner opened 1 ♠. Holding KQJxxx, x, xxx, xxx I not unreasonably jumped to four. In the other room they bid 2 ♠ and 9 tricks were solid and no more! The last hand was no score. I forget now whether the margin of defeat was 2 IMPS or 3, but it was small enough that despite letting through an impossible 6 ♠, we could still have won had I bid 2 ♠. I seem to recall Sowter and Amsbury stayed for dinner, the other three left!

C’est la vie. I did get to the 8 team final of the Crockfords Plate in the late eighties with a Bedfordshire team, but it was hardly the same, and even the Cup had lost some of its shine by then. Things that might have been. I can still remember the hands and will probably never forget them, even though now I struggle to remember what was in my hand when I get to trick five or six!

“I knew that their psyches would get them in hot water one day.” (Cartoon by Marco Alcalay)

7 By Chris Watson

Most bridge players use some form of the where a bid of 4NT is used to discover the number of aces or key cards held by partner. That sentence sums up what most of us know about Blackwood. What you may not know is that Easley Rutland Blackwood was born on June 25 th 1903 in Birmingham, Alabama but lived mostly in Indianapolis, Indiana. When he submitted his convention idea to ‘The Bridge World’ the article was turned down as they considered it would never catch on. Before he became Easley Blackwood a bridge professional he was employed as an insurance manager and from 1964 he ran ‘Blackwood Enterprises’ which included a bridge club plus bridge activities on 32 cruise ships. From 1968 to 1971 he was the executive secretary of The American League and he wrote many books on bridge. He was honoured in Indianapolis when the mayor declared October 28 th 1977 to be Easley Blackwood Day. He lived until March 27 th 1992.

Less well known than his ace and king asking convention is ‘Blackwood’s Theory of Distribution’. Every bridge player has come across the saying “8 ever 9 never” when considering whether to for the queen or go for the drop.

♥ K J 10 3 2 ♥ A 8 7 4

Here you would cash the ace and probably both defenders would play low. When you play the ♥4 the player on your left plays low… What to do now?

The odds of going for the drop are marginally better than the finesse but Blackwood proposed a rule based upon Ely Culbertson’s ‘Law of Symmetry’ that suggested that imperfect shuffles produced hands that did not represent mathematical odds. Blackwood’s idea was that

8 you should look at your shortest length side suit between hand and dummy. If the shortest combined holding was either 5 or more cards of any split or 4 cards splitting 2:2 you should go for the drop. If your shortest combined holding was either 3 or fewer cards or 4 cards not splitting 2:2 then you should finesse. This formula was tested on a large number of hands and produced excellent results. One caveat was that the rule can apply only if there is no indication from either the bidding or play as to who might possess the queen. No mathematical proof that supports the experimental results seems to be available.

Chris Watson Leighton Buzzard and Eaton Bray Taverners Bridge Clubs

Declarer Play Quiz

♠ Q104 ♥ Q83 ♦ Q95 The Bidding: ♣ AK62 West North East South Pass 6♥ by South N 1♣ 1♥

W E Pass Pass 4NT West leads 1♠

♣10 S Pass 5♦ Pass 6♥ End ♠ A86 ♥ AKJ10952 ♦ K4 ♣ 4

The contract is 6 ♥ by South and West leads the ♣10. How will you play the hand? Answer on page 23

9 by Brian Keable

Here are two stories from a recent event:

In June 2010 I visited Poznan in Poland, where the European Open Championships were being played, to assist Rita who was involved in the administration on behalf of David Harris (the EBL treasurer). I ended up playing with an Irish lady Maria Whelan in the Mixed Teams and the Mixed Pairs.

Maria had arrived at the Mixed Teams, 20 minutes before the start of the event, only to discover via a text that her original Polish partner was “too wrecked to play”. At the last minute I was drafted into an Irish mixed team, to play with Maria. We had little time to discuss methods and started without a convention card, and no agreements about discards. In our first match we played a strong US based team playing with a sponsor. We played against “Pepsi”, a world class Polish pro playing with a top class North American lady player. I explained at the beginning that we were a ‘pick up’ partnership, but they took little notice. Half way through one of the hands, the lady asked me what our discard agreements were. I replied: “We had no agreements”. She demanded to see our convention cards, but as we had none, she called out “DIRECTOR!” Of course we explained why we had no agreements, but he could do nothing to punish us. We played the match in a tense atmosphere until the end, when the US lady said “Have a nice day, but make sure you write out a convention card before the next match!”

In the Mixed Pairs, we were playing behind screens with a Polish/ possibly German lady on my left hand side as my mate. I assumed her partner was her husband.

Bidding Polish Lady Maria Polish Man Moi 1♠* Pass 2NT** Pass 4♠ Pass 6♣*** Pass 6♠ Pass 7♠ All Pass

10 * 5-card major ** Game forcing spade raise *** at this point I asked the Polish lady what 6 ♣ meant. She whispered back from her side of the screen: “I have no idea. He sometimes makes strange bids that I do not understand! When he does that, I don’t feed him!”. Surely they must have been husband and wife?

Partner leads a diamond, dummy goes down with king to 5 good spades, 6 solid hearts, doubleton diamond and a club. I cash the ace of diamonds, and before I can return a second diamond, all hell breaks out, dummy shouts and screams at his partner. Apparently 6 ♣ showed a void, and 6 ♠ told him that opener had two aces outside the club suit, so he bid 7 ♠ as he “now knew” there were no missing outside controls! Eventually the director is called, but he does nothing until the furore ceases, then walks away! The arguing starts again with Maria now getting very annoyed at all the aggro coming from her side of the screen. I call the director back and the Polish lady tells me off, saying that “Your wife (Maria) is making as much fuss as we are!” Eventually it all dies down and we get on with the next board.

Both stories illustrate the point that some people do not think that bridge is just a game, but something more important than that. As Bill Shankly might have said if he had been a bridge player: "Some people believe bridge is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude, I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."

Is this classed as unauthorised information ?

(cartoon by Marco Alcalay)

11 By Peter Taylor

Introduction Having been using transfers over 1NT for several years, I have noticed that, while many opponents use transfers themselves, or know how they work, a number of players seem to believe, incorrectly, that they only have one purpose: to allow the opener to play the hand. For example, I keep getting puzzled enquiries of the form “Why did you bid again if you’ve transferred to spades?” or similar. Indeed, on one occasion my opponent started to put the bidding cards away after the completion of the transfer, assuming the auction had ended. Hence, I thought it a good idea to write a basic introduction to transfers to point out the other purposes, specifically for those who don’t use or understand the system. Hopefully this article might encourage players to give it a try; if not, at least non-users should then have a better idea of what their opponents are up to when they bid a transfer sequence.

Now I assume that everyone who plays duplicate knows the basics, i.e. 2 ♦ (over 1NT) requests opener to bid 2 ♥, and a 2 ♥ response requests partner to bid 2 ♠. Apart from allowing the opener to be the declarer, the main purpose is to allow responder to offer more options to partner because many hands are awkward to bid using simple methods. So let’s have a look at a few hands, and consider how we might bid them with and without transfers, and see how they can help. (In all cases, assume partner has opened a weak [12-14] 1NT and RHO has passed.)

The following three hands can be difficult to handle using simple methods:

(1) (2) (3) ♠ 10 9 ♠ 10 9 ♠ Q 4 ♥ A K 10 5 4 ♥ A K 10 5 4 ♥ A J 9 5 4 2 ♦ A 10 8 ♦ A 10 8 ♦ A 10 8 ♣ K 3 2 ♣ 7 3 2 ♣ 3 2

12 In standard , responder would jump to 3 ♥ with (1), which is unconditionally forcing to game. The bid offers partner the option to bid either 3NT or 4 ♥, but what about hand (2)? With only 11 points, it isn’t strong enough to force to game (opener might have a minimum and only two hearts), but it is too strong for a weak take- out. Of course, we could take the unorthodox approach that a jump to 3 ♥ is merely invitational, but this would leave us with a problem on hand (1): we would have to bid 3NT (or the dubious 4 ♥) to ensure that we reach game.

And how do we bid with (3)? With 11 points (and 8 losers), we may have a game on (if opener has a maximum and a good heart fit), and many would be tempted to jump straight to 4 ♥, but to treat it as invitational is surely better.

This is where transfers come in. With (1), we firstly respond 2 ♦, which requests partner to bid 2 ♥, and then jump to 3NT.

With (2), which gave us a problem above, again we respond 2 ♦, and after partner’s 2 ♥, we then bid 2NT. This performs two functions: it tells partner that we have five hearts, and invites him to bid game or stay in a part-score. Opener can then Pass, sign off in 3 ♥ (with 3+ hearts and a minimum), or raise to game in 3NT or 4♥, depending on the fit.

Finally, with (3), we can transfer to hearts, and then raise to 3 ♥, which tells partner we have 6 in the suit and is a . If this sounds complicated, you can think of it as a legal method of making two bids on your turn, thereby offering partner a choice of game contracts in (1), and a choice of part-score or game in (2) and (3), and also choice of denomination in (2). The extra flexibility is evident.

Another type of hand which could cause a problem is Hand (4):

(4) We definitely want to be in game, but in which denomination? If partner’s shape is 2-4 in the majors, ♠ A K 8 4 2 then 4 ♥ is probably the best spot; if it is 3-2 or 4-2 in ♥ A Q 10 6 the majors, then 4 ♠ is better. If partner’s shape is, ♦ A 10 6 say, 2-3-4-4, then 3NT will probably be best. So how ♣ 10 can we allow for all these options, without transfers?

13 Again, transfers can help. After our transfer to spades: 1NT – 2 ♥! – 2♠! (assuming opponents pass), then we follow by 3 ♥. This shows at least five spades and four hearts, and is forcing to game. Opener can now decide on the best denomination, depending on how the hands fit. (This last sequence has caused amused queries as to whether responder has forgotten we are playing transfers. The answer is “No, he hasn’t”.) One other type of hand, which doesn’t occur often, is something like (5):

This is a super hand, and we would like to be able to (5) investigate a slam. With transfers in place, it is ♠ K 3 standard to assume the bid 1NT – 3 ♥ (i.e. ♥ A K Q 10 4 2 deliberately avoiding the transfer) denotes a hand ♦ A Q 6 with a long, self-reliant suit, and slam ♣ 8 5 interest. This has the benefit of showing slam interest to partner at the three-level, giving partner more room for cue-bidding etc. (or a simple raise of the suit if minimum). Without transfers, the jump to 3 ♥ would be game-forcing only, and any further slam investigation carries the bidding to the four-level.

Summary Assume that we have the sequence (opponents passing throughout) 1NT –2♦ –2♥ – ? We can list responder’s second possible actions as:

Action Meaning

Pass Weak take-out 2♠ At least 5 hearts and 4 spades 2NT 11-12 points and 5 hearts 3♣/3 ♦ Game try; 5 hearts and 4+ 3♥ Game try; 6 hearts 3NT 5 hearts; opener to choose 3NT or 4 ♥ 4♥ Sign-off.

After a transfer to spades the meanings will be virtually the same, but obviously switching the roles of the majors.

14 The 2 ♠ Bid It should be noted that in the above scheme the 2 ♠ bid is now superfluous, so we can, and should, put this bid to some use. There are various methods; the simplest may be to use it as a transfer to 3 ♣ (which we then pass or “correct” to 3 ♦). This then is a weak take-out, albeit at the three level.

A slightly more complicated scheme I use with my regular partner is to use 2 ♠ as a strength , so opener replies 2NT if weak, and 3 ♣ if strong. This allows the possibility of continuing to game or signing off in a minor. The main thing is that the partnership should be in agreement on the meaning of the bid.

Downsides of Transfers So what are the downsides of transfers? The most obvious one is that we no longer have the weak take-out into 2 ♦. However, in the years I have been using transfers, I estimate the number of times this has been a great inconvenience to be in single digits (although we know that memory can be deceptive!). However, I’ve lost count of the times when transfers have been beneficial and, of course, we can still get to 3 ♦ via the 2 ♠ scheme described above.

I’d also mention that if the 1NT is doubled, it is standard (although partners can agree otherwise) for transfers to be OFF (like Stayman), so now the 2 ♦ weak takeout becomes available.

Another downside is that it gives the opportunity for the opposition to make a lead-directing double. But even that is double-edged: it gives opener the option of passing (showing two cards in the target suit) or bidding the suit anyway, showing 3+ cards. A more subtle point: if the LHO doesn’t make a lead-directing double, a strong RHO – who will be on lead – might infer that LHO doesn’t have any quick tricks in the transfer suit, and look elsewhere for an , but how often is that likely to cost?

We might also list the psychological point that it takes a little bit of study and discussion, but I would encourage you to try it; after a few tries it becomes easier to remember.

Finally, transfers give the opposition a better picture of our hand, but any system has that flaw!

15 By For the Improver Peter Scott

♠ K752 5♣ by South ♥ K643 Lead is ♦A ♦ 5 ♣ K864

♠ J109 N ♠ AQ63 ♥ J109 W E ♥ 8752 ♦ AKQJ4 S ♦ 9862 ♣ 93 ♣ 5 ♠ 84 ♥ AQ ♦ 1073 ♣ AQJ1072

Please take the East seat in defence against 5 ♣ by South. Your partner leads the ace of diamonds, dummy goes down revealing a singleton diamond. Do you just play your lowest diamond on the ace without thinking, and hope your partner switches to a spade? If so, you are missing the opportunity of suggesting to your partner which suit you would like him to switch to. Clearly, there is little point in a diamond continuation, so your partner has to decide whether to attack spades or hearts, or make a passive exit with a trump. Can you see what will happen if he switches to a heart or trump (or continues diamonds)? Declarer will simply draw trumps, cash three hearts and two diamonds in dummy (using ♥AQ as entries to hand) coming to eleven tricks.

16 So what can you do about it? You want partner to switch to a spade giving you two more tricks and so you must give him a suit preference on the ace of diamonds. Play a high diamond to ask for the higher of the other two suits (ignoring the trump suit) which are hearts and spades. The nine of diamonds therefore asks for a spade switch while the two asks for a heart switch (the lower of the other two suits), thereby solving your partner’s dilemma of ‘ what do I do now ?’ By switching to a spade, you make two spades to go with the ace of diamonds: 5 ♣ -1. “Unlucky partner” says dummy - no “well defended opponents!” Use this defensive signal to help answer your partner’s questions.

Here’s another example:

♠ 10752

3♠ by South ♥ K65 Lead is ♦A ♦ Q5

♣ K864

♠ 63 ♠ J9 N

♥ AQ74 ♥ 9832 W E AK962 84 ♦ S ♦

♣ 93 ♣ J10752 AKQ84 ♠ ♥ J10

♦ J1073

AQ ♣

Your partner cashes the ace and king of diamonds, on which you peter - playing the eight followed by the two to show a doubleton (or four). Your partner correctly plays you for the doubleton and then leads a third diamond for you to ruff. This is another situation where he will use a suit preference signal to tell you which suit to return in order for

17 him to give you a second diamond ruff. He plays the nine of diamonds to ask you for the higher of the other two suits (ignoring the trump suit) which are hearts and clubs. You therefore return a heart to his ace and collect another diamond ruff taking 3 ♠ one off. Had you not returned a heart, declarer would have drawn trumps and easily come to nine tricks. Change the ace of hearts in the West hand for the ace of clubs and your partner would have led the two of diamonds at trick three - asking you to return a club after ruffing the third diamond.

So you can see the information you can give your partner, rather than just playing your lowest card in the suit in these situations. Why not try them out next time the opportunity arises and give your opponents a jolt!

“Knowledge of the mechanics will suffice to put a player in a commanding position in the post-mortem. To become a member of the upper crust calls for more, much more. Resilience imagination, occasional flashes of inspiration, these are the hallmarks of quality. And this transcends the realm of science.”

18 by Tim Sharrock I’m sticking my neck out, and it will doubtless get chopped off by one or more of the many players who are far better than I am, but here goes.

Together with my several regular partners, I play Rolling Blackwood and Rolling Gerber for ace-finding, king-finding and sometimes even queen-finding. I have occasionally seen even Grand Masters botch Roman Keycard (misunderstanding the proposed suit), and asking for kings can be impossible if the putative slam is in a minor. A Rolling system avoids such problems.

After the ace response to Blackwood 4NT, kings can be asked for by bidding the next naturally unbid suit. Thus, if the Blackwood bidder holds all , he receives the reply 5 ♣ and (unless diamonds have been bid naturally ), 5 ♦ asks for kings. If the responder holds two kings and replies 5NT, 6 ♣ would ask for queens, probably still leaving space to stop in a small slam if necessary. If diamonds have been bid naturally, then 5 ♥ will ask for kings, and 6 ♣ would show two. As the adverts say, “Simples!”

Rolling Blackwood and Rolling Gerber work so well that I wonder why everybody doesn’t use them. Doubtless someone will tell me.

Your views are welcomed on this please - Ed

BEAUTY THERAPY, FACIAL, NAILS, WAXING, MASSAGE and REFLEXOLOGY Luton area or visit you

Also: Thai fruit and soap carving and decoration for that special occasion. Call Siriphan on 07857 268137 (or the Bulletin editor) to make an appointment. www.siriphan.co.uk

19 What has the Committee been up to this last year? The Committee usually meets four times each year on Saturday mornings. Meetings are lively and benefit from the combination of contributions of both newer members and those with longer experience of bridge in the County. Views are not always unanimous but consensus is usually achieved on the many issues. A significant early decision of the new Committee was to re-establish a Competitions Sub-Committee. This enables the many details involved in organising the competitions programme and any new proposals to be discussed and summarised for consideration, acceptance or modification by the Management Committee.

Using the financial assets: Over many years the Committee has felt the need to continue a policy of taking forward a balance of around £7,000 in the Association’s accounts, in case the annual income from the Bedford Congress and the Bedfordshire/EBU Swiss team events organised by Rita and Brian Keable produce little profit (which has been the case, though only occasionally). However, members have encouraged us to be more relaxed about this. So, the Committee decided to purchase ‘Bridge Scorers’ which the County has needed for some time, rather than to continue to rely on borrowing or loaning them.

Whether financial support should be available to members selected to play in Eastern Counties League matches has been an issue for some time with alternative views. The outcome of much discussion is that members may claim for some help towards the cost of travel to away matches in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, the sum varying according to the number travelling together in a car. Payment of the full fee to members who qualify as Bedfordshire representatives to the EBU’s national inter-county championships: the Corwen (Pairs) Trophy, the Pachabo Cup (Teams-of-Four) and Garden Cities Club (Teams-of- Eight) has been restored after a temporary reduction last year to 50%.

20 In awarding prizes for success in County events, vouchers or bridge books will be available as an alternative to wine for those who prefer the former. The eligibility for a ‘non-expert’ prize is being reviewed and a proposal to rename these ‘newcomer prizes’ is being considered, a newcomer being a member who has attended no more than ten County events.

Qualifying for the County Pairs At some point in most seasons, the matter of appropriate and fair opportunity to qualify for the semi-final and final of the annual County Pairs arises. Clear rules have been available for the heats and were in the earlier editions of Local Bridge . However, occasional local differences in interpretation by clubs arise and club members may be concerned that they should not be unduly disadvantaged by the presence of visitors from other clubs to the actual club heat. The rules which remain similar and which will be sent to all members before the start of next season will now state that in addition to the top 50% of the field playing at a club venue, 50% of those who are members of that club will also qualify. Everyone attending is deemed to be playing ‘with standing’ except those who declare their wish to play to qualify with another partner at another heat, or those who have already qualified in another heat. If after qualifying, you find your partner cannot play in the County Pairs, you may seek to qualify in another heat. However, qualified ‘orphans’ can’t pair up with another orphan at a later date.

The Marsh Trophy At the time of re-establishment of a Competitions Sub-committee led by Derek Marsh, it was agreed to rename the ‘One Star Pairs’ as the ‘Marsh Trophy’. Efforts are being made to make this competition for members with fewer than 10,000 master points more attractive, and it was good to see the table numbers double from last year. Now the challenge is to double the number again next year which could make this the best attended Pairs event in the County calendar!

Our representative David Gilling has attended EBU Shareholders’ meetings and our secretary receives many papers for and from such meetings. We need to take forward aspects of the EBU’s education programme. There are no shortage of matters for our attention such as arrangements for matches in the County leagues and knock-out competitions, the coming EBU Blue Points and ‘stratified’ events. If

21 there are some aspects of the game and its future in the County where you would like to make a contribution, for players from beginners to lifelong players, please do let a Committee officer or member know, especially if you feel we need your views and perhaps can draw on your experience elsewhere.

Mike Vogel 1946 - 2012 With great sadness, we have to report that Mike Vogel died of cancer at St John’s Hospice in Moggerhanger on Thursday 23rd February aged 65.

Mike was a stalwart of Bedford Bridge Club and BBA events, including the Bedfordshire League and Knock- Out, and represented the County regularly in the Eastern Counties League. Time and again, his peers have commented that he was an exemplary partner and opponent, always generous with praise and forgiving of errors.

For some 38 years, Mike was a master at Bedford School, teaching Classics and English for overseas students. He also devoted himself to tutoring students there in bridge, encouraging them to participate in County events and taking them to the Young Chelsea Club to gain experience. His protégés include Graeme Robertson, who was a member of the Bedford School team which won the Schools Cup in 2007 and a member of the successful England Under-21 team. Mike was awarded the Alex Salisbury Award by the English Bridge Union “for his services as a serving schoolteacher to youth bridge.”

When he found that he had cancer and was being treated in Addenbrooke‘s hospital, Mike undertook a sponsored walk from Bedford to Cambridge to raise money for Wallace Cancer Care, and his example subsequently led to the establishment of regular fund- raising for charity at Bedford School.

Above all, Mike was a kind and gentle man. His friendly smile will be missed by us all, but especially by his regular partners, Chris Parkin and Maggie Willis, and by his wife, Sue, and his son and daughter, Ben and Mira. “A lovely man.” by Tim Sharrock 22 Answer to the Declarer Play Quiz on Page 9

In order to solve this conundrum, you will have to make an educated guess as to where the ♠K and ♦A lie. As West has overcalled in spades, this makes the % shot to play him for both cards. If so, you still appear to have two losers: one spade and one diamond.

However, to make, win the opening lead with ♣A and clear enemy trumps in two rounds. Now lead the ♦4 to ♦Q95 in dummy. West is now in a hopeless ‘no-win’ situation. Heads you win - tails he loses! If he plays ♦A, your ♠86 disappear on the ♣K and ♦Q. If he ducks, you simply throw ♦K from hand on ♣K next trick, thereby reducing your losers to one in each case. 6 ♥ made! If you suspect that East holds the ♦A, the still works by leading a small diamond from dummy towards your ♦K4 holding (West must still hold ♠K).

This is an example of the Morton’s Fork Coup (after which a road in Milton Keynes is named). It is said to originate with the collecting of taxes by John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury in the late 15th century, who held that a man living modestly must be saving money and could therefore afford taxes, whereas if he was living extravagantly, then he was obviously rich and could still afford them.

Here is the full deal: ♠ Q104 6♥ by South Lead is ♣10 ♥ Q83 ♦ Q95 ♣ AK62 ♠ KJ9532 ♠ 7 N ♥ 6 ♥ 74 W E ♦ AJ7 ♦ 108632 S ♣ 1098 ♣ QJ753 ♠ A86 ♥ AKJ10952 ♦ K4 ♣ 4 23 Brian Keable’s

Bridge Memoirs (Part 2)

In Part 1 of my bridge memoirs, I wrote that I was never a great card player and explained how I made my first squeeze at the table, and was told afterwards that I could have made an overtrick via an automatic ! Well, below is an example of my ability to make contracts, not by good card play, but via ‘technique in the bidding’:

The story goes according to one Michael Dilkes (former Oxford student and occasional team mate) that he thought that my first making squeeze (pseudo at that) was purely because of my bidding style. He said I opened 1 ♠ (with a five card suit) and rebid 2 ♥ holding a three card suit of AKQ. When the hand was finally played in a spade game, both opponents held four hearts, one to the jack and the other to the ten, and both thought that they had to hang on to the suit.

In the late sixties until 1978, I lived in Fulham in a flat owned by well known bridge player Bob Rowlands. During this period I became closer to Rita than just a bridge partner, and for a longish period stopped playing bridge.

I remember several interesting stories about Bob. One year I played with Bob in the Easter Guardian. We did quite well and I met someone from my old college team who was utterly gobsmacked that I had done so well compared with him. It had taken me ten years.

Later in the same event, we played two French experts, who knew Bob was a top English player and perhaps foolishly assumed I was of similar ability. I remember playing in 3NT and having no great idea as to how to make the contract let alone the overtricks needed for a good board, I played a few cards and then put left hand opponent in. After some thought he switched suits and tricks began to flood in. At the end of the hand the Frenchmen began to talk loudly about the defence. My French is so so, but I was able to decipher what all the

24 noise was about. First Frenchman: “Why did you defend like that?” Second Frenchman: “How was I to know that a great player like dummy (Rowlands) was playing with a berk like declarer (me)?” In 1970 or 71 I played at the Harrogate Congress, partnering the Nark with Bob Rowlands and David Gostyn as team mates. In the teams qualifier, the Nark and I had a storming set and easily qualified for the final. Before the final, Bob Rowlands looked around the room, and said to Tony and me: “Enjoy yourself boys, there are at least three better teams here than us. We can’t expect to win and for an irregular partnership you did your bit in the qualifier”. Well, after the first half of the final, we certainly weren’t enjoying ourselves; nothing much had gone right. Still, we weren’t too dismayed, Bob didn’t expect us to win did he? After we scored up we were fourth, Bob and partner having had a very good set, and now they were furious not to be in the lead! That taught me a lesson: never believe a bridge player when he says he does not expect to win, so don’t worry if you have a bad set. All real bridge players want/expect to win. We finished fourth.

During my time living in London, besides playing bridge, I was also involved in teaching. Over the years I assisted at the London School of Bridge, the Mayfair Bridge Studio and at the Acol Bridge Academy. During the early seventies I assisted regularly at the London School of Bridge to earn extra cash to build up a deposit to buy a house. In 1978 I married Rita and we moved to Bedfordshire. When Rita and I arrived in Bedfordshire in 1978 we did not intend to play bridge, having two children to look after. Somehow or other we went to a BBA event around 1979 and met David and Marie Gritt, who then played in Bedfordshire, whom I knew from living in London. They persuaded us to play again and for a time we played with them in the League and the Knockout Cup (which we managed to win). Since then we seem to have played continuously in Bedfordshire events, including in the County team.

For a long period we played regularly in EBU events, mesmerised by the supposed glitter of the Green Point, and eventually became Grand Masters. When I first heard of Master Points, I said the EBU had struck on the most wonderful marketing scheme possible, getting punters to pay with dollars (cash) and get rewarded with Zlotys (EBU Master Points).

25 Apart from playing bridge and occasionally doing a little bridge teaching, for nearly twenty years I have run Green Pointed events on behalf of the BBA, and served as County Secretary on two occasions. For a long time I was the editor of the County Bulletin, then not as fine a stylistic production as the current Bulletin, but a journal that pulled few punches when commenting on bridge matters.

I am currently struggling along as County Captain for the Eastern County League. I still enjoy playing for the County, but it gets harder to find enough decent players willing to give their time up to play.

Over the years I have mostly enjoyed my time in the bridge world, but these days find that the relatively poor standard of local bridge makes it harder to make the effort to go out and play. Today’s players are more aggressive than previous generations but overall the standard in local clubs is very low.

The Merrimac Coup

An interesting adjunct has been offered by Christopher Parkin to the feature on page 15 of the December Bulletin:-

‘This Coup was named after the American steamship Merrimac, a coal-carrying ship sunk in 1898 during the Spanish-American war in Santiago Harbour in an attempt The actual ship (photo 23rd April 1898) to bottle up the Spanish Fleet.’

Incidentally, while on the subject of bridge coups, you may remember the Question of Defence on page 19 of the April 2010 Bulletin (of course you kept a copy!) where East has to jettison the ace of spades to create an entry for his partner with the queen. This is an example of the , named after an early 19th century French chess and player. Ed.

26 Recent Results

Date and Event Winners and high achievers

24th November Winners: David Willett & Greg Ward Inter Club Teams-of-4 David Dickson & David Harris Wilstead ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠

8th December Winners: David Willett & Greg Ward Seniors’ Teams David Dickson & Masood Mazhar Wilstead ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠

9th January Bert Shiebert & Peter Scott BGB Winter Sim Pairs 13th (out of 1962 pairs) with 67.3% National UK event ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠

10th January David Dickson & Ron Davis BGB Winter Sim Pairs 2nd (out of 1894 pairs) with 73.84% National UK event Mick Francis & Roger Hoxey 14th with 68.5% ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ 12th January Winners: Marsh Trophy Helen Lymer & Mary Robinson with 67.9% Wilstead ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ 19th January Winners: Swiss Pairs Alan Oddie & Ron Davis - 105 VPs Wilstead ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ 21st January 4th Iain Roberts and Alan Oddie’s EBU Swiss Teams Congress team with 167 VPs 27 Results continued ... 11th February BridgeClubLive (on-line club) 5th Peter Scott & Malcolm Burch Congress Pairs, Hinckley with 60%

♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠

23rd February Winners: Leighton Buzzard ‘A’: BBA Teams-of-8 Jon Guess & Eric Cohen, Peter & Judi Malpass Wilstead Chris Watson & Peter Scott, Andrew Mason & Bob Brown with +100 IMPS

(courtesy of )

The late US star Alvin Roth, a very ethical player, was once defending 7NT while playing for money. The hand featured this heart suit in a three card ending:

7NT by ♥ K43 South N W E ♥ 862 ♥ Q95 (Roth) S

♥ AJ10 Alvin Roth Alvin Roth

South had started with four hearts and had to guess who had the queen. He started by leading the jack from his South hand. West went into an Oscar-winning performance trying to make South think he held the queen, and finally played the two. South, taken in by all of this, played the three from the North hand and Roth the five!

When Roth’s partner saw that Roth held the queen and could have defeated 7NT by taking the trick, he asked him why he had not done so. Roth replied: “Because I thought you had it”.

28