The_Badger

Exactly! Now if cycling, the organisers of the Tour de France can do this, why cannot the WBF do this also? Surely, the allegations mentioned in Wilsmore's book deserve merit. The number of bridge professionals who have endorsed this book speaks volumes: Bart Bramley, Fred Gitelman, David Gold, Ron Klinger, Eric Kokish, Sam Lev, John Swanson, Anders Wirgren and Bobby Wolff. And I am a mere amateur compared to these time-served professionals, but I know my way around a bridge table.

I no longer play competitive bridge - covid and disability has put an end to that, sadly - but I still read the occasional bridge book. One that caught my attention was "Under the Table" by Avon Wilsmore: I had to order it specifically from the USA. I was in regular contact with the late Alan Truscott, a naturalised British-American, the New York Times bridge correspondent for many years, 25 years ago, about The Great Bridge Scandal that occurred in the 1965 Buenos Aires Bermuda Bowl World Championship where a British partnership was accused of cheating. (I will name no names because, in my opinion, they do not deserve to be mentioned.) To summarise briefly, the pair were accused by the USA players of cheating, the World Bridge Federation found them guilty, made them forfeit the matches they had won, yet a subsequent enquiry by the British Bridge League found them not guilty. I was told by a couple of middle-aged high-ranking British players when I was playing in my college days (the 1980s) that Alan Truscott was jealous (!) and wanted to ruin the reputations of the partnership involved. Which I find incredulous! I never questioned that until I finally read Alan's book, and it was plain to see that this pair, even though they had been fine bridge players, added an extra dimension to their game by resorting to illegal methods, namely finger signalling. Which brings us to Mr Wilsmore's book which reads like a detective story, finally putting together all the clues that the Italian Blue Team cheated for 20 years before table dividing screens were introduced. The Italian Bridge Federation at the time just swept the accusations under the carpet, and the WBF didn't have the gumption to sanction these players totally, and that was that. Reading Wilsmore's book just makes me so disillusioned with the game I used to love. Add to this Boye Brogeland's and his friends' dedicated commitment to root out recent cheats in the game, and all I can say that something now needs to be done about all this retrospectively. It's about time the WBF cleaned up its own act and actually had the balls to remove all the Blue Team's record from its history, and I am not an American player with a gripe about what happened. I am disgusted that the incident in Buenos Aires was swept under the carpet by the British judiciary, and it seems that the Blue Team's victories will still be on the record books also. In my opinion, they should be voided. That might upset some Italians, but if you agree that cheats should benefit from the game then you stand alone. There will be some that will say that these players who have allegedly cheated are mostly deceased, and one mustn't speak ill of the dead, and that they are no longer with us so cannot defend themselves. But having read Wilsmore's book, it is plainly evident to the honest bridge playing professional that time and time again something untoward was happening, and the systematic and perpetual abuse of the game was, at the time, quite sickening. It wasn't a case of a one-off, but even cheating as a one-off is cheating. At least Boye Brogeland knew that what was happening was destructive to the game and took decisive action. It's about time the WBF acknowledged that they erred constantly during the Blue Team's era, and wiping their Bermuda Bowl (and other) victories and placings from the record books would at least send a clear signal that cheats will not be tolerated in our game. The title of this comment "Partner Will Understand" is a reference to Wilsmore's book, where it is evident that "partner will understand" what is going on (in the auction or play) because illegal methods are being used to convey information.

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting. Though us Brits are so 4 card oriented - or should that be time-engrained or Acolised - that we raise and bid on any old rubbish preferring length to strength.

With 3 quick tricks and a feature (singleton ♣) and 4 card trump support I'd be raising ♦s every time. Rebidding 2♠ is anathema to me.

You did your best given the circumstances. If the starred players sent a message to the kibs only, as opposed to the table, alleging that something untoward was happening, then that in my view is just a cheap shot and a case of sour grapes because they were losing. Out of the 50 or so kibs watching the table, I would bet my bottom dollar that a friend of the player accused in question has seen what you have seen and might have already relayed to his friend about the snide comments made. Except if you personally know this player, I feel you have done your bit. I wouldn't get involved beyond that.

Posted in the Intermediate/Advanced players section, so if you are at Expert level please use a 'spoiler' Thank you. A bit tougher, I feel, than usual, as there are a number of options available for declarer. Imps or Mps. Find the best way to make the contract. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj874h8d83caj542&n=sak2hq632dkj7ckt7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(3%2B)p1sp1n(12-16)p2c(Crowhurst)p3s(15-16%203%20card%20support)p4sppp]266|200[/hv] ♥J lead. Whether you cover or not, the opponents win the first trick and continue ♥s at trick two. Hint: East has two ♥ honours in his hand.

Ok, you know where you went wrong and best to forget about this board and put it down to tiredness or lack of concentration and move on. However, did you think about the opponents' hands at trick 1? The reason why I ask this is by trick 6 the ♣Q was established for a discard. The ♣2 lead is either a singleton, from three small, three to an honour, or four to an honour - I'm assuming GIB doesn't lead it's lowest from five to an honour (please correct me if I'm wrong). West then turns up with the ♣K at trick 5. It would be a wily defender who would have led ♣2 from ♣K2 at trick one. I can't imagine GIB having that vivid an imagination, but a very experienced human defender given the bidding might find such a lead. If the lead is a singleton, then you would have been down immediately assuming the opponents then find their ruff, so taking the finesse of the ♣Q at trick one is probably, sorry definitely, not an option. It is always worth trying to determine some of the opponents distribution from a lead. Leads are normally standard, and most defenders will stick to their set leads. You did what most experienced defenders do before embarking on a crossruff namely cashing your side suit winners before drawing trumps. Better luck next time.

I could think for another 15 minutes on this one but don't think I will ever come down on one bid or another. At MPs it easier to X than IMPs, and 4♥ could be the winning call (as suggested by Cyberyeti) but I'm also in the camp that it is an undisciplined call (eagles123). Pass is forcing right? Only joking :)

There's a simple maxim I use when presented with this situation, although it wasn't invented by me, and I don't think it was a Bols Bridge Tip either, but some expert/world class player said it at some time or another, can't think who it was off the top of my head. Something like this... If you find yourself in an impossible (or near to impossible) contract as declarer, visualise the opponents cards as favourable to you as possible and plan your declarer play on that basis.

I don't see this hand as strictly a 50% or so slam, even though in essence that's what it is. There's also a 50% chance the opponents will make the wrong lead if the hand is played by South. North's hand is far too strong for a 1NT opening, even though you'd like to protect those doubleton kings. Even though you could be missing two aces here, I see the bidding going 1♣ - 3NT - 4NT (quantitative) - 6NT. It doesn't give much away. This is the type of non-descript auction that defenders hate. Now find the winning lead, or the losing lead? Not so easy...

Obvious comment: pre-empts (and raising pre-empts) are designed to make life difficult for the intervening players. This is a good hand for illustration in my view as your in the 4th position, the most difficult one even though you have some clues about the distribution. From your ♥ holding there's a very good likelihood that North will have at least a five card suit, maybe two, in ♣s, ♦s or ♠s. However tempting it is to double, I don't believe it's right to try to bid North's cards for them: you haven't got shortage in ♥s so double would be telling a lie. I'm a firm believer of the late Rixi Markus's maxim of bidding what is in your hand, so I, too, would be bidding 3NT with your hand.

Welcome to the forum, imadraggin :) 2/1 is a completely different system than Acol, but over on this side of the Atlantic we have a similar systematic raise called the 3NT Pudding Raise. With four card majors (as played by Acol) this shows a balanced 4333 hand with four card trump support. The idea is to offer opener a choice of games in either 3NT or 4 of a major, or an opportunity to cue bid below game, depending on the suitability of the hands. 2/1 has far more options to reach game without employing a 3NT bid, however if hands are relatively balanced/semi-balanced and there are a lack of ruffing possibilities, 3NT might offer a better score than 4M, especially at matchpoints. Even with a 5-3 major suit fit. There's also another consideration to take into account: right-siding a potential contract. If responder has an unprotected honour card, playing the hand from his side of the table might be only way game can be made. And also, just bidding 3NT as a response provides little information to the defenders, too.

Whilst I agree with Stephen in principle, I also think this area of redoubles over two and three level pre-empts should be by agreement or discussed as a partnership. The redouble here by the opponents is primarily for business, although there could be an element of 'pseudo psychic redouble' (my way of putting it) putting pressure on the opposition to either leave it in or find a fit. [The same thing occurs when a weak 1NT opening is doubled and automatically redoubled, and the opponents have to guess whether it is genuine, or some ploy to find an escape fit at the two level]. My thinking is - and there will be plenty that will disagree with me - that if the redouble is for business, it's sort of ludicrous to leave it in as the opponents will rack up a good score if the contract is made. And as Stephen rightly says, it also gives the opponents 'a get out of jail free card' too by having the redouble as 'help' if they need it. But there again, the partner of the doubler might have such a poor hand, that bidding is hazardous, and the last thing he wants to do is encourage partner by bidding a four card suit with a Yarborough.

4♥ shouldn't make on a ♠ lead. There's no reason - I can think of - of playing West for a singleton ♥K, except he might (and equally might not) have it for the vulnerable overcall. On the K and R evaluation, North's hand seen in isolation comes out at 4.4, but what it doesn't do is take into consideration is the ♥ fit, the doubleton ♦ and the ♠A as "a new evaluation based on partner's bidding." The known 9 card fit adds a point, and the doubleton ♦, too, so North's hand is now a respectable 6 count as a basic evaluation. Add that to the 18 point K and R evaluation of South's hand, and the total is 24. 3♥ as a contract on 24 "total points" sounds about right. Ok, so sometimes you miss a game, but as we have all discovered, any hand evaluation method has its plus points and minus points.

Advert for Modified Gazzilli, too :)