January 13th, 2011 ~ Al Stauber ~
1 Comment 
STEVE BANDES (alias, The Hair Curler – for perpetually twisting his cowlick): (cross-referenced to Stasha Cohen, Allan Stauber and Anonymous)
Bandes (commenting to some players, including me, about his partner’s defense on a hand): Not only did he lead from 3 drek, he MUDDED on me besides!
—
Bandes was my partner in a pair event. N had responded 1♥ to RHO’s 1♣ . The opponents then quickly got to 3NT (perhaps by 1N-3N, but it occurred 30+ years ago, and was not recorded at the time). Per the above, I knew better than to MUD on Bandes from 3 weak hearts. That would lead to even more hair-curling incidents. In addition, we were playing 4th best. Since I didn’t have 4, I assumed that if I wanted to lead hearts, that meant I had to lead the highest of the next lower suit. But I wasn’t sure if that meant by rank, or by the way my hand was sorted (assuming that I had a lower one, or if not, maybe that meant a wraparound to the first suit). All of that seemed very confusing, so I led the top card, i.e., the HJ from J8x. Dummy had KQ9x. Declarer, a woman who was pretty much a novice, had Axx. She won the K, and played some other suit to her hand. At some point she played the HA, and then played her low heart to the Q with no apparent thought whatsoever, and even much less than that in her spaced-out-time discontinuum. She got 4 heart tricks, and all the other tricks that she was entitled to.
Bandes (after we had left the table): What a brilliant lead! Too bad it was wasted on a moron!
PS: Please also see a mildly related hand played by Stasha Cohen.
—
Bandes is a good player who sometimes could get somewhat absentminded — probably because of his Ph. D. We were East-West in a 3 board per round duplicate game. He, as declarer, and the opponents took quite awhile to play a hand. (Bandes really is much slower than I am!) After it was finished, he was relieved that the round was finally over, and wanted to avoid getting in time trouble on the next round. He hurriedly got up and started to rush off to the next table, even though everyone else was still playing, and there was a moderate amount of time left.
Anonymous Opponent: Wait! You can’t leave yet! We have TWO more boards to play!!!
January 11th, 2011 ~ Al Stauber ~
No Comments
ROGER ABELSON: (cross-referenced to Larry Edwards, Mike Levinson, Tony Rosenstein and Allan Stauber)
NS Vul. Board-a-match teams. The players:
S (Unknown), W (Stauber), N (Abelson), E (Rosenstein)
S: 1♣ (strong & artificial)
W (Stauber): Skip bid, 2♥ . (This occurred before bidding boxes were in common use.)
N (Abelson): What’s that?
E (Rosenstein): Preemptive, of course.
N (Abelson): Yeah, BUT IN WHAT SUIT?!!
For some reason, play was allowed to continue after this rather unauthorized question and information! — Perhaps in case Rosenstein and I would do better that way. Abelson and partner got to 4♥ , making 6. At the other table, our teammates bid and made 6H. WIN!
(I had a whole bunch of clubs in with my heart. Apparently I had mis-sorted my hand yet again! ☺ )
P.S., PPS, PPPS, etc. re Abelson (I have no idea why P.S. usually has periods and the others don’t. English lingo ain’t never made no sense to me.):
1. Abelson and Larry (self-nicknamed “The Queen of Spades”) Edwards had the best fight I have ever seen at a bridge game, although I was probably 50 feet from ringside. At the NY Hilton, they literally were tossing each other on the tables! Their combined weight (not to mention their individual weights!) was too much for some of them and they collapsed! I believe that this was the first match ever held by the World Wrestling Federation. Incidentally, I also had a good seat (although once again, not at ringside) for a Larry Edwards fight at a Poughkeepsie, NY Sectional.
2. One time I didn’t have a partner ahead of time, so I played with Abelson in a pair game at a NY Hilton tourney. He actually was a decent player, but rather “unusual” or psycho, even for bridge players. In the afternoon, we had 190 on a 156 average, for a section top. At night, he kept splashing water on his face to stay awake. Finally, he actually fell asleep at the table! At least that shut him up. We had 122, a section bottom. Our 312 was exactly average for the day! This parley of a section top, section bottom, and exact average for the day is a truly rare bridge “achievement”, and even “more rarer” for large sections (13+ tables).
3. At some point, Abelson was rumored to have piled up a big debt with the Mafia, and skipped out of NYC to California!
4. In the 1980’s he won a National Life Master Men’s Pairs with Mike (Eagle Eye) Levinson who was virtually blind. They had the lowest winning percentage that I ever saw in a National pair event. On a 325/final session average, they had a TOTAL of something like 787 that included their carryover. A 60% game for the day would be 780. That is before carryover is added to the score. Of course, that would vary from about zero to probably at least 60-70 matchpoints & possibly as many as 100 for the leading pair.)
January 10th, 2011 ~ Al Stauber ~
No Comments
WARNING! It’s your extreme misfortune to be viewing the latest release of this undocumented document. Tough luck! The use of anti-nausea medication may be advisable before proceeding further.
These quotes and associated incidents all are drawn from my bridge “career”, although sometimes I was not an active perpetrator. Some are exact; others are as best remembered from possibly eons ago. To my limited knowledge or complete lack thereof, most have not been published anywhere — a few exceptions are quotes from bridge publications.
There are probably plenty of lists regarding other players and incidents, so I won’t tire out my keyboard making up yet another one. This is just an early shot over the board. If you have any other completely inappropriate quotes involving me, please send them and the circumstances.
If a player has cross-referenced names in the parentheses after his name, it indicates that those people were somehow involved in situations with him, occasionally even if they were only connected through a third party. To avoid massive duplication, each event (and its quotes) is usually only listed for the first participant with the lowest alphabetical name, last name first.
Please advise me of errors of any type.
Note: There may have been some Zero Tolerance and Active Ethics violations, but rules are made to be broken, especially in the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Student Union!
Believe it or not, the RPI money games were pretty clean if you don’t mind a lot of name calling. The others were more like Candid Camera, America’s Funniest Home Videos, etc., but without all of the recording equipment. For example, players hardly ever got confused whether a double was clearly for penalties or not. The former was indicated by smashing the table as hard as possible, or better yet, jumping up on it, and politely saying:
“DOUBLE!”
Also, after yet another outrageous swindle, normally the perpetrator(s) would notify the victim(s) of as many as possible of their traits such as: gullibility, stupidity, complete inability to play bridge, and a bunch of characteristics that are usually printed something like this &%#^, @)^!%, #&(!@*, etc.
THAT’S THE WAY BRIDGE WAS MEANT TO BE PLAYED!
*****
(Editor’s Note: Over the next few weeks we’re going to be presenting Al’s impressive undertaking in segments, so as not to overwhelm the reader. Expect a new post every couple of days!)
December 23rd, 2010 ~ Al Stauber ~
No Comments
BUT FIRST — as another great public service, I interrupt your web caste to bring you a couple of startling news bulletins:
- The ACBL insane asylum just announced a huge surge in lifetime residency contract declarations made on behalf of players who recently have gone plumb loco. For some unknown reason, they no longer are playing with a full deck.
Attempts to jettison the massive overflow, and squeeze them into similar WBF joints hit a huge pot hole. All of them went up in smoke, because the other outfits for misfits all claimed similar inadequacy.
- The stock prices of producers of anti-depressants and analgesics have doubled and redoubled in recent days! Even The Donald’s bids have been over-trumped. The flood gates of bills are wide open.
Furthermore, the jumps in the bidding are almost Stauberian. Short sellers are being buffetted unmercifully, despite their claims that the whole stampede is based on a bunch of unwarranted, high-handed psyches. However, it is obvious, even to kibitzers, that the companies are no longer vulnerable to ruff times.
—–
OK, so much for obviously unrelated news stories. Let’s get on with the hand. If you need a refresher, here are links to Part I and Part II
—–
It seems inevitable that many people want to know the origin of a hand, what happened in real life, etc. This was a deal (on BBO) from the bridgewinners.com 12/12/2010 Challenge Match. Please go to the latter website for additional info and comments about the hand. You may also add your own remarks.
I’m also now cluttering up bridgeblogging.com so you can also find this hand on the new “Al the Plumber” blog there. Caveat emptor: Incidentally, these two sites are normally free. However, I’ve heard that suddenly my referrals are being re-referred to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to finance a “nominal” membership fee. The above bunch of words to the wise should be sufficient.
I’m usually exhausted from having to bid my cards and those of my partners! Accordingly, I seldom kibitz online bridge battles, but “serendipity” struck on that day. I decided to multi-task my usual Comedy Central studies w/ some online hands. This was one of the hands that I happened to watch.
In the above diagram, Ben Handley-Pritchard and Tom Townsend were N-S. Steve Weinstein and Gavin Wolpert were E-W. The bidding proceeded:
| North |
East |
South |
West |
|
|
1♠ |
X |
| 2♥ (1) |
Pass |
2♣ |
Pass |
| 3♠ |
Pass |
4♠ (2) |
Float |
(1) = I thought this was supposed to be a constructive raise.
(2) = Accepting his own invitation? Or maybe 2♥ was constructive or better? Looking for 3N??? Whatever. (By the way, I usually accept my own invitation by not telling everyone I’m inviting, and just accepting immediately.)
Wolpert led the DA and Weinstein played the 8. I’m not sure what they were playing, but W switched to ♥ 5, and it went 4, 7, K. Perhaps he was hoping to establish a heart trick before S could dump one on a diamond. S played the CK, which held after W tanked for a while. A low club went to E’s J. S ruffed the diamond return, and then he hit a low club in dummy.
Obviously, W had started with Axxx of clubs. Assuming spades were 3-2, which was necessary to make the hand, S was basically gin. All he needed was W to have either 3 or 4 hearts (and technically not exactly 2 diamonds which was “impossible”). OK, all of this was “certain” based on the bidding and play.
He just could play hearts. If they were 4-2 and E didn’t ruff, or 3-3, he could play high spades ending in dummy, and pitch the CQ on the 4th heart. If they were 4-2 and E ruffed, N was in an automatic H-C squeeze on the run of the spades.
Kibitzers were encouraged to sort of violate “Zero Tolerance”. Presumably, the players couldn’t “hear” the remarks. Anyway, some of us mentioned at one point or another, that it was “cold” in a couple of ways. Unfortunately, Townsend had a blind spot and wound up down 2. Moreover, the hand swung the match.
I had a hunch that a spade lead might cause problems, and started checking out various lines, rather than kibitzing or watching TV much during some of the hands. Of course, it is dubious in real life even though it might be the winner by stopping ruff(s) or whatever. E.g., change the hand a bit, and it lets the contract make — plus everyone will call you a moron saying, “My great-great-great-great-… grandmother who never played bridge and has been dead for a zillion years could have beaten it!”
After Gavin was done playing, I kidded him by e-mail that I thought the “obvious” spade lead would beat it legitimately (assuming the best defense — not so easy!) He said the lead was “not inconceivable”, but obviously, it’s tough in real life. In any case, I thought it would be a good doubledummy problem. Coincidentally, Jason Feldman from bridgewinners.com highlighted it as a single dummy play problem from the match.
—–
It’s virtually inconceivable, but in case someone somewhere is sick of this hand by now, I’ll add just a subset parade of cases, including some of the more troublesome lines. I’ve replied to some e-mails privately, and I believe that others will be answered here. If you have more comments/questions, please send them on.
S “has” 10 tricks (or maybe even more — except for the defense’s 3 Easy Pieces!) — 2 high spades, 4 hearts, 1 club, 1 club ruff in dummy, and 3 diamond ruffs. BUT — how does he go get ‘em? In addition to ruffs, one of the things he may want to angle for is a H-C squeeze on W. Please keep in mind that he may have to duck a spade early, or lose a third spade to E when he can’t do any damage. Furthermore, he’s got to be careful in the diamond suit. He can’t afford a diamond uppercut. Also, he may have to play a diamond himself to snip the defenders’ phone line. (As a couple players pointed out, this is one reason that a diamond lead at T. 1 is dubious. Why do something declarer must do himself?)
The defenders may have to do such things as stop the squeeze, not let declarer get to dummy to cash the 4th heart after they have no more spades, squelch a possible dummy reversal, etc. Let’s take a look at some lines:
I. The Actual Winner for the Big D! Spade lead:
A. Ducked in Both Hands – Spade Continuation by Defense
1. Declarer Plays 3 Rounds of Hearts
E ruffs 3rd round. Defense has 2 cashable A’s. DOWN!
2. Declarer Plays a S, D, or hi C
E always get in somehow and plays a trump, if he has any left. Declarer is left w/ zip. DOWN!
B. Declarer Wins Spade Anywhere
1. Declarer Plays 3 Rounds of Hearts.
E ruffs, W takes 2 top tricks and leads 4th heart for E to ruff. Defense must get another trump trick. DOWN!
2. Declarer Plays a Hi Club. W Wins and Plays another Trump.
i. Declarer Plays a S or D – Similar to I.A.2. DOWN!
ii. Declarer Plays a Hi C and Ruffs Another.
W can always get in to cash the 4th club before any squeeze can be executed. DOWN!
3. Declarer Plays a Diamond. IN YOUR FACE! – Defense plays another one, tapping declarer.
i. Declarer Plays a Hi Club. W wins and Taps Declarer w/ His Last Diamond.
But now what? As in the above situations, he can’t play 3 rounds of hearts. He had better at least draw another round of trumps to stop a merry crossruff. Even so, if he then plays hearts to set up the ♥ A for a club pitch, E dumps his last club on the 3rd round. Then declarer can’t get to dummy to cash the HA. DOWN!
If declarer ruffs the 3rd round of clubs after cashing the 2nd hi trump, E has control of the situation. DOWN!
Gee, the defense has the upper hand so we can stop here. However, that was so much fun that I’ll conclude with a some prospective defensive lines that fail.
II. Defense Starts w/ 2 Rounds of Diamonds (Assume A, then low). Declarer Ruffs and Ducks a Trump Trick, Won by Either Hand
A. Defense Returns a Diamond
Declarer starts hi clubs. Regardless which one W wins and what he returns, S can always manage his entries to ruff a club in dummy, draw trumps, etc. Then W is in a H-C squeeze, as w/ other lines. MAKING!
B. Defense Returns a Trump
Declarer play is similar to II.A.1. MAKING!
C. Defense Returns a Heart or Club
Similar to II.A.1. MAKING!
D. Defense Runs out of Letters and Concedes! MAKING!
III. Defense Starts w/ a Heart or a Club
I’m exhausted! I hope I haven’t screwed up too many of the above cases. I leave the others as exercises for masochistic readers!
I now select “ADIEU” from the bidding box.
Al, the Plumber of the Depths of Lunacy!
December 16th, 2010 ~ Al Stauber ~
3 Comments
I stayed up all night reading the answers and writing this. OK, maybe I’m psyching. Actually, I got so exhilarated that I fainted, and didn’t wake up for hours.
Anyway, I’ve got enough time only to get this started and at least give you what is probably the toughest part of the solution. I know that everyone is holding his or her breath for all of this stuff!
First, here is a link to the original problem (for your convenience).
The beginning of the solution: DEFEND! AND YOU MUST LEAD A SPADE, FOR STARTERS!
At least that is my opinion, which is never wrong unless it’s not right. So blast away if you think I’ve screwed up!
Sorry, but I don’t think that those who chose to PLAY or DEFEND but led a non-spade came up the winning approach. However, you have plenty of other company anyway. After the spade lead, the defense still has work to do. I’ll get into more detail later.
There were numerous replies including quite a few from leading national and international players. Some even wrote a Ph. D. bridge thesis on the problem! A significant percentage chose to defend, but it’s not so clear to me that anyone really had a correct, reasonably complete explanation(*). However, you can explain your case to the director — Unfortunately, I guess that’s me. Probably better for you is to appeal. So I’ll put your solution & case on here w/ or w/o your name. I’m sure everyone will agree that they are completely objective! J
I can also open the whole problem to a general discussion, if I can surmount some Comcast problems. Or maybe blog somewhere. More about that later.
(*) This is why:
1. Many who led a spade said they also would lead one at the next opportunity, regardless if they went into a lot of cases or not. However, I believe that can be shown to be incorrect in the case indicated below. Therefore, such replies don’t make it either.
2. Of the others who led a spade, quite a few went into some detail. However, most did not consider the case when declarer wins it in either hand, and then PLAYS A DIAMOND AT TRICK 2. Of those who did, NO ONE LED ANOTHER DIAMOND! I think the defense MUST do that.
I would have liked that those who more or less just said it was right to lead a spade w/o much detail to at least mention this case.
In problems that require a trump lead, often another is required when possible, but I don’t think so in this situation. In addition, there is the old saying, “When both sides lead the same suit, one side crazy!” I think these are some of the things that make this a good problem.
—–
Sorry, that’s all for now. I’ve got to switch from bridge madness to other lunacies of the world! I hope to be back with more about the problem later tonight.
In the meantime for those who want to pursue it some more —
One of the main aspects mentioned in various replies is that in some variations declarer is trying to set up a heart-club squeeze on West. How does South try to do that, and how does the defense counter it? (i.e., such as #2 above. 🙂 )
See ya later!
Al, the Plumber of the Depths of Lunacy!
December 15th, 2010 ~ Al Stauber ~
3 Comments
This hand was played recently at IMPs. It has been rotated because only South is allowed to be the declarer in write-ups.
I know that some of you are aware of it, so I will not present it for discussion for now. If you wish, you may send comments to me. Then I’ll coagulate them with my summary of what I think is the answer.
|
|
North
♠ K 8 7
♥ A 9 6 4
♦ J 9 5 4
♣ 10 3 |
|
| West
♠ 10 9
♥ 10 5 3 2
♦ A K 2
♣ A 8 7 6 |
 |
East
♠ Q J 6
♥ 8 7
♦ Q 10 8 7 6
♣ J 9 4 |
|
South
♠ A 5 4 3 2
♥ K Q J
♦ 3
♣ K Q 5 2 |
|
S is in 4♠ .
Assuming doubledummy play by everyone, even those who are not dummies, would you:
- Play
- Defend
- Call Regis and/or Meredith
- Ask the audience
- Abstain. You don’t care what anyone says. This hand could not come up in real life. (In addition, how low can card players get? South’s spades are obviously rejects from a REAL poker crapshoot in which such crap didn’t count as a straight flush.)
Those eventually choosing to either play or defend only get .0000000001% credit for the correct answer. The rest depends on your explanation.
As per some questions:
1. The bidding is irrelevant because it is a doubledummy problem.
South is in 4♠ , West is on lead, and everyone can see all the cards.
2. If you choose to PLAY (i.e., declare), you must be able to make it on any lead & any defense. You can play any way that you want to, but so can the defense — as long as it is legal! 🙂
If you choose to DEFEND, you can have West’s opening lead be anything that you want — but you can’t change it later! You can play any way that you want to, but so can the declarer.
3. NO! There are no UNDO’s allowed once you screw it up by your first approach!
—–
Please be specific regarding what you would do to counter any plays by the opponents, until you get to a point where the hand is clearly over one way or another. Thanks.
Go to it!
——–
**UPDATE**
Wow! I’ve got a lotta entries to go over. I guess I shudda charged a buck each for this “contest”. I cudda made a million bux! But maybe nobody wudda entered then. Oh well. Shudda, cudda, wudda — that’s the story of bridge.
Anyway, it’s still free. Soooo, new entrants: please send your replies before the price goes up. I’ll try to summarize everything Wed. nite or so — if I’m not exhausted from overreading & overbidding. BTW, I won’t connect any names to comments, unless a “contestant” says it is OK to do so. However, later we can have a free-for-all re my conclusions.
Thx.
Al, the Plumber of the Depths of Lunacy!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related