Kaplan Nuggets I: prior to 1980
In addition to the few brilliancies and many
errors reported here, each player made thousands of sound, accurate decisions
which go unheralded because the right play or bid is unspectacular.
"Analysis of the 1958
World Championship", TBW 1958, as reprinted (abridged) in TBW 1.1998, p.
21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And there was Forquet’s incredible auction
on Deal 58. He held:
8 6 / Q J 4 / A J 10 7 / J 10 9 4
With both sides vulnerable, Siniscalco
opened with one spade. Forquet responded one notrump. Siniscalco rebid two
spades. Forquet rebid two notrump. Opener ran to three spades, and, so help me,
Forquet persisted with three notrump, and went for 500. I know a few players
who bid like that, but they are all either occasional club players or dentists,
not World Champions.
Ibid, p. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[North opens 1D; at both
tables E-W finish in two diamonds on a 3-3 fit]
Seemingly, East-West are inextricably
trapped into a diamond contract by North’s diabolical one diamond opening.
Ibid, p. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A decision like that five-heart bid can be
justified only by success, and this one wasn’t so justified.
Ibid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, to push the opponents into a
contract and then sacrifice against it is one of the gravest bidding crimes.
Ibid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as Stone was about to pay the penalty
for his rashness -the difference between a rash bid and a courageous one is a
matter of result- Chiaradia came to his rescue.
Ibid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Tobias Stone does not open
on K5/AQ76542/Q43/4; a game is missed]
Granted that he believes in
"sound" openings; surely he could "take his life in his
hands" and open this holding.
Ibid, p. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For a full explanation of this remarkable
auction, I must refer you to the perpetrators.
Ibid, p. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Open Room, Altman, West, had to make
a blind opening lead, and chose a trump (violating "Mathe’s Law":
never lead a trump, unless it turns out right).
"Play-off semifinals,
Stayman vs. Sheinwold", TBW 11/1972, p. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The experts turned out in force, but the
field was one of the weakest in years. That sounds contradictory -the
explanation lies in the explosive growth in the number of
"professional" teams composed of a wealthy amateur and his hired
hands (...) I give three cheers that bridge experts are being paid for their
expertise. Only good comes from C.C.Wei’s sponsorship of the Presicion team
(...) or Ira Corn’s of the Aces; there, the experts are paid to work out their
partnerships, to practice, not to play with the sponsor. But I will weep three
tears on the day on which America is represented by a man who has bought his
place on the team.
Sorry about my diatribe -let’s get back to
the Vanderbilt.
"Pros and
contracts", TBW 5/1973, p. 5-6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the sponsor who won through to the
final would have to play 36 boards -probably too much of a handicap for a
first-class team.
Ibid, p. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Murray overcalls a strong
club on 
K9xxxx and out]
In the Open Room, Hamman’s opening showed 17
points or more; Murray’s overcall (...) showed his presence at the table.
Ibid, p. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You can buy my rights to open an off-beat
one notrump with a six-card minor for an old subway token.
Ibid, p. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This stampeded North-South into a slam, which East
doubled –the deadly "negative slam double" showing zero defensive
tricks (it beats me how anyone can think he knows whether a hand like East's
has a trick, or whether West's hand is worth zero, one or two tricks).
"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3 imps to SMITH, giving them a little breathing room.
A lot of breathing room –since that was board 64. The
match was over…
Ibid, p. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[West opens
on K85/KQJ7/J8/Q874; with ten points and extras, partner drives to 3NT]
Down three at both tables, a normal result perhaps. Or
perhaps one should play weak notrumps, or inverted raises. Or perhaps one
should not open West's pile of trash.
"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[North
holds 108/Q/Q10865/A9876, at favourable]
In the crude old days, East-West would have been left
alone to go down in some game contract, since North-South would have had no way
to compete (…) Today, there is no such problem, for we have modern gadgets. In
Room 1, the unusual notrump allowed North-South to steal the contract at three
hearts doubled (…) down 700. In Room 2 (…) the unusual notrump reared its head
again. Down 900 in four, 5 imps to Smith for stopping so cautiously at three.
Ibid, p. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, those totals were reduced by a rash of slow-play
penalties, six (!) of them: Defenders 62 ¾,
"The
1977
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Closed Room, West's gay jump raise shut
North-South out of the auction, luckily for them.
Ibid, p. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as though the normal diamond lead will defeat
the contract (…) However, it is no longer fashionable to lead partner's bid
suit; West tried the ten of hearts instead. (…) Plus 600.
"The
1977
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been said that the Manila Bowl did not produce
very good bridge ("poor but honest," in the pithy phrase of an expert
witness), but the records and my charge sheets do not support this opinion. Oh,
there was a refreshing number of errors, as always –yet, a report like this,
which necessarily concentrates on the swings rather than on sound, good bridge,
gives a distorted view.
Ibid, p. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Third to
speak, at favourable, East holds: 852 / AK1075 / J 105/J7]
The effete, unimaginative two-heart opening did not
appeal to Lazard, East at Table 3 –he chose the man's bid, one spade.
Unfortunately, partner took him seriously, so East-West played in four spades
on a deal in which one North-South pair played in five spades. Four spades
doubled was not a triumph for machismo –down six, 1100.
"The
-------------------------------------------------------------------
West, of course had no thought of sacrificing; he was
happy to defend. However, his defense was not happy.
"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the six-notrump contract so boldly bid by
Passell-Brachman is far from lay-down. Boldly bid, did I say? Why, they were
cowards –the queen-jack of clubs were doubleton, diamonds were three-three, and
the spade king was on-side, so a grand slam is cold.
"Canadian
Spingold", TBW 11/78, p. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond question, ROOT had been unlucky throughout the
match, but their worst luck was in having opponents that played magnificently.
Ibid, p. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The four-spade contract at Table 1 was no thing of
beauty, but imps, not esthetics were at stake. (…) Plus 650, a result that
would win any beauty contest –and which won 10 imps for
"Grand
National", TBW 12/78, p. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[
Russell chose to begin the auction with a two-diamond
overcall; alas, that ended the auction as well.
"Playoff
Semi-final", TBW 3/79, p. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On the seventh deal [of the segment] Morehead rested,
but they had scored 64 imps without reply.
Ibid, p. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[At the
table the score was 270-268, but the official result was 264-244 after various
slow time and late arrival penalties]
The official committee, which had been sitting around
kibitzing for days on end, could feel that they had been genuine participants
in the event. Anyway, Morehead had played 2 imps better than Reisinger (…), 13
imps faster, and 5 imps prompter, to win their way into the final match.
Ibid, p. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On a rainy day, or even a cloudy one, the slam might
be beaten by a 4-1 trump break, or a 4-1 diamond break and a ruff, or by a
heart lead and misguess. However, the sun was shining bright, and nothing of
the sort happened –six clubs rolled home.
"Playoff,
II", TBW 4/79, p. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Player
holds ♠AJ963 ♥AJ109753 ♦--- ♣8]
He chose to open four hearts (it is only when you hold
four cards in the other major that you are not supposed to preempt).
Ibid, p. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
One member of the leading team was heard to exult:
"Ahead by 59, and we have our top line-up the rest of the way –it's all
over!" It is dangerous even to think such things, much more to say them.
Ibid, p. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[The
diamond suit is distributed thus: A10873 / QJ642 / K95 / ---]
Now three of diamonds from West, four from North, nine
(an esthetic error –East has a complete count, so he knows that the five will
hold)
"Virginia
Vanderbilt", TBW 5/79,
p. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[After a
slow double of a 7♦ sacrifice, they reach 7♥]
At Table Three, North-South were allowed to play seven
hearts by their opponents, but, it turned out later, not by the committee.
Ibid, p. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And 7 imps when Lair-Wold guessed right to bring home
a lucky game, while Wei-Meckstroth played a sound partial (it is astonishing
how often the luck goes to the team playing better).
"Virginia
Vanderbilt, II", TBW 6/79, p. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WOLD have been playing very well, although not quite
so well as the figures … would suggest. A few of their errors did not get into
the totals, being duplicated at the other table. One example was that grand
slam in the first quarter where the ace of trumps was unluckily located.
Ibid, p. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Freeman
goes to 7♥ against a failing 6♠]
So, Freeman took out insurance, an action that would
be automatic at rubber bridge. At IMPs, though, insurance premiums come high …
for 11 imps.
Ibid, p. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[One team
is swinging at the last quarter]
Sanders, finding the Michaels bidder with a singleton
diamond, played for the queen of clubs in that hand –down 100. … However, one
of the reasons Sanders did not play his opponent for a normal cue-bid, with a
zillion cards in the majors, was that the Wei team's bidding in this session
had had little relationship to their cards.
Ibid, p. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At Table Three, North-South were inveigled by Flannery
into four spades, but the Unusual Notrump came charging to the rescue –minus 50
in five clubs.
"The Grand
National", TBW 9/79, p. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[They bid a
skinny game and play well to make it]
See? It's alright to overbid if you overplay also.
[They play
well to go down 1 in a grand slam, other table down 1 in small slam]
The overplaying had avoided an adverse swing of 3
imps, but the overbidding had given up a potential 17 imps.
Ibid, p. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At Table 2, it was Stauber, West, who made the
lead-directing double, telling himself what to lead. Had he taken his own advice
he would have gained 16 imps (…) but he chose instead to cross up the enemy
with a geart lead [so the slam made]
Ibid, p. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to the next part of Kaplan Nuggets
Back to the Kaplan Nuggets page
Back to Nikos Sarantakos' bridge page
2001-2006 Nikos
Sarantakos
sarant@pt.lu