P a g e |1
Newsletter
Volume 5.10
October 2016
CLUB NEWS and RESULTS
EVENTS
CALENDAR
Monday nights
at The Links
OCT 03
10
17
24
31
NOV 07
14
21
28
DEC 03
10
ROSH
JBC
JBC
JBC
HBW
JBC
JBC
JBC
HBW
JBC
JBC
THE JBC SPRING PAIRS
This event attracted an entry of 38 pairs and was played over three
consecutive sessions, on the 5th, 12th and 19th August.
Here are the top performing pairs in this event, based on the best two of
three scores achieved:
J
HASHANAH
CANARY TEAMS 1
CANARY TEAMS 2
CANARY TEAMS 3
TEAMS 8
CANARY TEAMS 4
CANARY TEAMS 5
CANARY TEAMS 6
TEAMS 9
YEAR-END PAIRS 1
YEAR-END PAIRS 2
SEPT 05
Get your entries in,
preferably on-line at
www.gbu.co.za, for the
ever-popular six-session
Canary Teams which starts
on 10 October, and runs
through until 21 November.
POSITION
PAIR
TOTAL %
1
Michael Salomon and Graham Sacks
121.50
2
Hennie Fick and Jude Apteker
117.03
3
Bernard Donde and Noah Apteker
114.02
4
Roz Bernstein and Sharon Lang
113.79
5
Deirdre Ingersent and Norman Gelbart
113.40
6
Julie Lovelace and Colin v.d. Westhuizen
112.46
And, oh yes, how’s this for a tea, catered in her inimitable style by Lotte
Sorensen?!
The Johannesburg
Bridge Club Newsletter
Publisher: Val Bloom
Editor: Stephen Rosenberg
[email protected]
082 330 4697
1|P a g e
Here’s another story, this one entitled
He who laughs last!
from the pen of Barbara Smith, pictured below, adapted from the
Financial Mail of 15 July 1983.
The 2003 von Zedtwitz
Awards
Tobias Stone, b. 1921
Barbara Smith
Tobias Stone, known to the bridge
world for almost six decades as the
one-and-only "Stoney," departed his
native Manhattan and retired to Las
Vegas in 1986, leaving behind a wealth
of bridge victories, brilliant bidding
theories, humorous stories and tales of
famous Broadway friends from his
late-night sessions at P. J. Clarke’s.
Stoney attended City College in 1935
where he met the late, great Harry
Harkavy and his legendary long-time
bridge partner, Alvin Roth, with whom
he collaborated to create the worldfamous Roth-Stone System, which
enjoyed great popularity upon its
publication in the 1950s.
He recalls winning his first event, the
Metropolitan Pairs, at the Park Central
Hotel in New York with the late Hallof-Famer George Rapée nearly 65
years ago. His sheepish grin,
incorrigible sense of humor and
astonishing capacity for accurate and
total recall of names, dates, places and
incidents delight both old and new
friends who never miss an opportunity
to pay homage to him and savour his
entertaining repartee while passing
through Vegas.
Stoney’s accomplishments fill the
bridge annals as an extraordinary
player, theorist and author. With Alvin
Roth, he scored a record-breaking 82%
game, becoming the first American
Pair to win the Deauville Invitational.
Page | 2
Other victories include the prestigious
Spingold, Vanderbilt, Reisinger, Life
Master Pairs, Life Master Individual, BA-M Teams, Mixed Teams, Men’s
Pairs, Open Pairs and the McKenney
and Fishbein Trophies. His realm of
expertise far transcends the world of
bridge, as he is also an international
backgammon
champion
and
a
respected poker aficionado.
falling over the place. But North is
even happier than South because
North likes to count extra points for
long suits. I finally had to tell them
what happened.
Peter Leventritt, pictured, is teaching a
beginners’ class in New York.
The Legal
Times
To all our Jewish
members
Q.
and well over the
Fast.
AND STILL
MORE
STORIES
from the
TEACHERS
I give a lesson on pre-emptive bidding
and then call for a hand. The class
divides the cards. The South hand is
supposed to have seven hearts, but
North winds up with the 7 hearts and
20 cards and South winds up with no
hearts and 6 cards. South calls me
over and says: "Mr. Kantar, I have
never seen a hand like this before."
But she is happy because she likes to
count points for short suits. North, on
the other hand, is having trouble
holding on to all 20 cards and they are
It is now the fifth lesson and one of the
regulars is sick. Peter is forced to ask
this fellow in the class who has not
said one word since day one and is
only there because his girlfriend
bugged him to try to learn the game to
fill in. Actually, he is a poker player.
Reluctantly the fellow sits down and is
given a set hand that Peter uses to
teach beginners. The fellow has 14 HCP
and a nice five card heart suit, and
everyone is waiting for him to bid
something. Silence. Peter asks him
how many points he has? Silence.
Well, Peter teaches him how to count
points and says you have to open
something. Silence. Peters says, "It's
O.K.; open anything you want." The
guys says” O.K, I'll open for a dollar."
A lady asks me what I think of the
"Island 2C Convention"? I tell her I
never heard of it. She says her group
likes to open 2C with 18-20 HCP. I tell
her it sounds like a regional
perversion. She says: "Tell me what
you think anyway. I play with a bunch
of perverts.".
I was teaching a signalling lesson,
partner leads the ace (ace-from aceking), dummy has Q84 and third hand
has 93. I tell them that third hand
should start a high-low with the 9, the
higher card from a doubleton. One
lady asks: "How will my partner know
it is my highest card, what if I have a
ten or an eleven?"
I had a pupil who would never lead
away from a king. (Someone had told
not to, so he never did). Finally, he
passes away (you know, dies!) and he
finds himself in a bridge game. He is on
lead against 4 holding: K6, K83,
K972, K843. Right then and there he
knew where he was!
In a club game, we had this
auction:
West North East South
Pass Pass 1♥ Pass
2♣ Dbl 4NT Pass
5♦ Pass 6♥ All Pass
North led face down and asked the
meaning of the 2♣ bid. Declarer stated
that it showed 10 or more points and a
club suit. East did not speak. The lead
of the ♦6 was faced; dummy was
tabled, and only then did dummy say
that there was a failure to Alert and a
mistaken explanation: 2♣ was a limit
raise in hearts.
The director was called and play
proceeded.
East–West made 6♥. North–South
asked for an adjustment because of
the failure to Alert and mistaken
explanation. North claims she would
have led her singleton club to South’s
ace and ruffed the return, thereby
setting the contract, had she known it
was Drury and if a correct explanation
was made by declarer or properly
corrected by dummy prior to the
opening lead.
However, the director refused to
adjust the score.
A. If East is an experienced player,
the director should seriously consider
a procedural penalty for not correcting
the information immediately after the
final pass. With an inexperienced
player
unfamiliar
with
his
responsibilities, the director should
take time to educate them on Law 20F
(Explanation of Calls). While there is
support for this point of view in our
Alert procedures (“An opponent who
actually knows or suspects what is
happening, even though not properly
Page | 3
informed, may not be entitled to
redress if he or she chooses to proceed
without clarifying the situation.”),
North cannot be blamed for believing
2♣ to be natural because he held a
singleton. Second, the director may
have believed per Law 12C1(b)
(Awarding an Adjusted Score) that not
leading the singleton club was a
serious error: “If, subsequent to the
irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a
serious error (un-related to the
infraction) or by a wild or gambling
action, it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the
damage as is self-inflicted.” A poll of
peers may find some fearful of leading
a singleton club into dummy’s strength
against a slam, and failure to lead a
club does not rise anywhere near the
level of “serious error or a wild and
gambling action.” One additional
point: North should ask his questions
prior to selecting his opening lead, not
after. This action was unlikely to have
changed anything on this ruling, but
proper form was not followed by
asking after the lead was selected and
placed face down on the table. (See
Law 20F2.) which reads, in part, “The
player must call the director and
inform his opponents that, in his
opinion, his partner’s explanation was
erroneous, but only at his first legal
opportunity, which is: for a defender,
at the end of the play; for declarer or
dummy, after the final pass of the
auction. The relevant portion of Law
47E states, “A player may retract the
card he has played because of a
mistaken explanation of an opponent’s
call or play and before a corrected
explanation
without
further
rectification, but only if no card was
subsequently played to that trick. An
opening lead may not be retracted
after dummy has faced any card. When
it is too late to correct a play, the
director may award an adjusted
score.” Alertable bids must be alerted.
When they are not, misinformation
exists. When partner has given the
wrong information (or failed to Alert),
players have an obligation as the
declaring side to clear up that
information prior to the opening lead.
Based upon the facts you’ve shared,
the director should have strongly
considered adjusting this score.
Since not all of you had access to the
2016 Congress Daily Bulletins, I have
taken the liberty of including another
one of these articles for your
enjoyment, which, co-incidentally
echoes Barbara Smith’s article, in that
it is also entitled
To Sacrifice
or Not?
He who
laughs last!
This little story, brought to us by Sid
Ismail, pictured, occurred during the
2016 Congress Teams’ finals with
dealer N, nobody vulnerable; and the
contract, an almost impossible 6NT by
North:
by Stephen Rosenberg
Hand 19 in Round 4 of the [qualifying]
Swiss Teams’ event at Congress 2015
was rather successful for the
inveterate sacrificers!
T9
T86
T872
KT53
Dealer
South
EW Vul.
J7654
7
AK94
AJ4
N
W
E
S
KQ
AKQJ952
Q6
72
A832
43
J53
Q986
NS to
make
6 or 5NT
West leads the 3
out of turn!
“DIRECTOR!!!” North lets me know
that he knows all the options and goes
into the think-tank for a full two
minutes! He then demands a club lead
from West, the only lead that could
defeat 6NT!! Any other lead would
mean a cold contract, allowing
declarer to clear the A at his leisure.
So with an inward smile, East duly
leads the 6 , certain that declarer is
now stymied as this was the lead to
beat the contract – and how right he
was!
But the last laugh belonged to the
declarer, when West inserted the T!
So it was 6NT, bid and burgled for +990
and an unlikely bucket-full of IMPs!
763
QJ52
Q98
95
K852
A9
32
J7643
4
T
AKJT765
KT82
AQJT9
K7643
4
AQ
NS have a stone-cold 4 against any
defence; however, 12 of the 15 EW
pairs I spoke to sacrificed in either 5
or 5 doubled, down 1, for -200, a
really big improvement on the -420
that they would have scored had they
been passive and pusillanimous and
allowed NS to play unhindered in 4 !
Page | 4
Page | 5