The Canadians at the Cavendish, Cont...
By: Fred Gitelman

The third session started very well. George held:

His right hand opponent opened 1NT (15-17) in third position. Would you act at unfavorable vulnerability? George bid 2 showing both majors. I have to admit it would not occur to me to bid with George's hand. Bidding was a big winner, however as my hand was:

I jumped to 4 which made in comfort. +620 was worth 172 IMPs to George and me.

There were five possible slam hands in the third session and George and I were on the right side of all of them. We bid three slams, two of which followed an inverted minor suit raise:

2 (limit raise or better)
2 (strong bal with 4+C)
3 (shortness)
4NT (RKCB)
5 (2 Keycards and the Q or extra length)
5NT (grand slam try)
6 (I've said it all)

Most of the field had no trouble with this one so our gain was only 46 IMPs. The second inverted minor auction:

2 (limit raise or better)
2 (min bal, not all suits stopped)
3 (strength in hearts)
3 (strength in spades)
4 (cue bid, trying for slam)
4 (more strength in spades)
4NT (RKCB)
5 ( 2 Keycards no Q)

This is not a very good contract but the cards were very friendly and the slam made. Most of the field judged better than we did and stayed out of this sub-par slam. Our +1370 was worth 191 IMPs.

The third slam auction:

2 (a difficult choice)
3 (forcing)
3 (3 card support)
4 (cuebid)
4 (minimum)
4NT (RKCB for spades)
6 (1 keycard, club void)
6 (choice between 6 and 6)
6 (easy choice)

6NT is the best contract but 6 also made easily. +1430 was worth 102 IMPs as several pairs had trouble with this combination and ended up at the seven level off an ace.

The last two slam deals of the session were not really slam deals at all - only 11 tricks were available in each case. Fortuntately our opponents in both cases bid to the six level. We won 136 IMPs the first time and 171 the second time.

Largely due to our good fortune on these slam deals we won the third session with a score of +939 IMPs. Not only did this get us a nice cash prize, but we were in 11th place - within striking distance of the leaders. We also seemed to have some momentum going. Our play and our scores were getting better and better. I confidently expected to finish in the money. Unfortunately it was not to be.

Our play was somewhat flat in the last session and many of the decisions we made backfired. I enjoyed the following hand (despite the fact that we got a terrible result). I held:

After 2 passes, my RHO opened 1 with both sides vulnerable. Now, this was not just a normal 1 opening. This was Brian Glubok's latest hyper-modern Polish-Swedish hybrid 1 opening. It could show anything from a balanced 12 count to a game force in any suit. It was forcing but did not promise strength. Having no idea what to bid, I decided to apply maximum pressure and jump to 5. The bidding continued with 2 passes and a double, confirming a strong hand. The lead was the Q and dummy tabled:

LHO continued the 9 to the K which I ruffed. Assuming you are going to try to make your contract, how do you play? My plan was to cash two rounds of spades ending in dummy and ruff another heart hoping for a 3-3 break. I would then exit a low club. RHO was marked with the K and A. If the A was singleton, RHO would be endplayed into either leading a diamond from the K or giving a ruff and discard. In either case the contract would make.

Alas, hearts were 4-2 and LHO was able to overruff with the Q (he had Qx in both clubs and hearts). It looked like I was now going for 500, but, LHO, holding the J had only one safe exit - his small club. RHO won the A and was endplayed. He tried his last heart, but I was able to ruff and enter dummy in clubs to use the good hearts for my diamond loser. -200 was worth a 122 IMP loss for George and me.

What would you bid on this hand when your LHO opens 1 and your RHO responds 1?

Double seems like a standout but George bid a simple 1! He was rewarded when 1 was passed out and I put down this dummy:

With LHO holding AQxxx and RHO holding the A, no game contract can make. Most players holding George's cards forced to game. The defense slipped at some tables (including ours when George was allowed to make 11 tricks) so we won only 50 IMPs for staying low. George received quite a bit of abuse from various experts for his 1 overcall. I believe, however, that against our particular opponents he made a great bid. Both of our opponent's were highly disciplined players who would never open light, respond light, or psych. RHO was very likely to have one of the missing aces for his response and LHO was marked with the other 2 aces and the Q for his opening bid. Thus, without even worrying about losing a spade or a second club trick, there are almost certainly 4 unavoidable losers.

In the following auction, what does George's 1NT bid mean?

Does he show 12-14 or 18-19? I thought he was showing 18-19 and raised to 3NT with:

George had a nice looking 14 count but could not quite come to enough tricks. We lost 78 IMPs for not doing enough homework. An informal poll of experts suggests that nobody has really given this auction any thought. Some vote for 12-14, some for 18-19. Nobody is sure what is right.

Towards the end of the session we started to get some big results. First I held:

George opened 2NT showing 20+ to 22-. In my view this hand is not quite worth a quantitative 4NT but it would be if you could tell partner to evaluate based on a club fit. George and I play this great convention that lets us describe an invitational or better hand with five clubs and 332 in the other suits. Here's how it works: Start by bidding 3 as a transfer to 3. Over 3, jump to 4. This means: "partner I do not really have hearts, I have five clubs and a balanced hand with at least slam invitational values". We use a direct jump to 4 over 2NT to show the same hand type with diamonds instead of clubs. The more you know about partner's shape, the more accurate your quantitative no trump bidding will be. If you want to adopt this convention you have to be careful to discuss what to do when opener wants to super-accept hearts. On the actual deal, George had an average hand with the KJ10 and bid 6NT. It took a heart lead to beat 6NT and when George received a diamond lead he was +1440 for 234 IMPs.

Shortly after that I held:

With both vulnerable LHO opened 4 and George doubled. We play this double for takeout and I judged to respond 4NT, tentatively showing the minors. If George bid 5 I would correct to 5 (yuck). I was pleased to hear George bid 5 but RHO went on to 5. My double ended the auction. 5 was down one and since 5 was also going to go down, we were well rewarded with 143 IMPs. On the next deal we did even better, winning 179 IMPs by pushing the opponents into game and then doubling them for a 500 point penalty.

As the event was winding down, it felt like we had chance to place in the high overalls if we could finish strongly. It was not to be. In the second last round we had our biggest disaster of the tournament, a 225 IMP loss. The cause was once again due to lack of homework - we had never discussed bidding over our own gambling 3NT openings (has anyone ever had a good result from this convention?).

We ended up +11 IMPs in the fourth session and 12th overall. Not a spectacular performance, but it was somewhat satisfying given that we were in 38th place after the first session, and that we had managed to win a session.

The winners were Fred Stewart and Steve Weinstein - their second Cavendish win. The victory was a popular one as both Steve and Fred are among the most liked and respected players in North America. Neil Chambers (an ex-Canadian) and Jon Schermer, also a very classy pair, finished second. The Italians continue to assert themselves in just about every event they play in. Lauria-Versace finished third while Lanzarotti-Buratti finished fifth. This foursome were also the winners of a very strong Cavendish Team Event that took place in the two days prior to the Cavendish Invitational Pairs. Mark Lair and Eddie Wold gave further indication of the quality of their new partnership with a strong fourth place showing in the Cavendish Pairs.

The organizers of the Cavendish did a sensational job in the running and promotion of the 1996 edition of the Cavendish Invitational Pairs. I have lamented in the past that it is too bad we cannot have bridge tournaments in North America with the class, prestige, quality, and professionalism of the invitational events in Europe. The Cavendish, however, ranks right up there with the best of the European tournaments. Certainly in one area - the size of the prize pool - the Cavendish Invitational Pairs is in a class by itself.

Since Gene Saxe and Bill Rosenbaum took over the operation of the Cavendish Invitational Pairs a few years ago, the field has gotten stronger and the prize money has virtually doubled each year. These men deserve a lot of credit as high profile big money tournaments really help to put our game on the map. Florine Atkins, a transplanted Canadian now living in New York, also deserves special thanks. Florine was in charge of the first rate hospitality that was provided for the players and their spouses.

The Canadians at the Cavendish, Cont... By: Fred Gitelman

The Canadians at the Cavendish, Cont...
By: Fred Gitelman