              Marlboro Bermuda and Venice Cup
                       Beijing, China
                  October 8th - 21st, 1995
           Issue 12, Thursday, October 19th, 1995
           Editor: Henry Francis and Brian Senior
***********************************************************
             Bermuda Bowl Final After 64 Boards

                Boards  16  32  48  64  Cum
                Canada  25  23  29  36  113
                USA II  34  31  35  14  114

             Play Off for 3rd Place (Finished)
                Boards  16   32   48   Result
                Sweden  19   20   52     91
                France  59   50   42    151
***********************************************************
              Venice Cup Final After 64 Boards

                Boards   16  32  48  64  Cum
                USA I    29  35  36  18  118
                Germany  24  12  65  18  119

             Play Off for 3rd  after 32 boards
                Boards   16   32    Cum
                China    27   27    54
                France   45   21    66
**********************************************************
                  US open team leads by 1
                  -- and so does Germany!

Once again both matches will be available for Vugraph. The
closer match usually will be featured, but that's a tough
choice this morning!

The finalists in the Marlboro Bermuda Bowl and the Marlboro
Venice Cup have played 64 boards, but this morning it will
be almost as if they're starting from scratch. Both matches
are incredibly close. In the open event the United States
is 1 IMP ahead of Canada. And Germany is exactly 1 IMP
ahead of the United States in the women's championship.

The Americans got off to the faster start in both events.
In the Marlboro Bermuda Bowl, United States led 23 after 48
deals, but Canada scored 36 while holding the U.S. to 14
over the final 16 deals of the day. As a matter of fact,
the Americans scored on only two deals in that last set.

In the Marlboro Venice Cup, the Americans had a 28-point
lead after 32 boards, but Germany scored five double-digit
swings on Boards 33-48 and closed to within one point. In
the final set, both teams scored only 18 IMPs -- a very
tight set with only a little more than 1 IMP per board
given up by both teams.

The women have another 64 boards today, but the open teams
still have 96 -- 64 today and 32 tomorrow.

France will be awarded two medals at the Victory Ceremony
Friday. The French open team performed very powerfully
against Sweden to win, 151-91, in a 48-board match to
decide the bronze medal. The battle for the bronze among
the women was much closer, but once again France was the
winner, defeating China. 66-54.

Here are the personnel of the finalist teams:

Marlboro Bermuda Bowl.

Canada -- Irving Litvack, npc. Eric Kokish, Joey Silver,
          Boris Baran, Mark Molson, George Mittelman,
          Fred Gitelman;

United States -- Edgar Kaplan, npc.  Bobby Wolff, Bob
          Hamman, Eric Rodwell, Jeff Meckstroth, Dick
          Freeman, Nick Nickell;

Marlboro Venice Cup

United States --Steve Sanborn, npc.  Kerri Sanborn, Karen
          McCallum, Kitty Munson, Carol Simon, Rozanne
          Pollack, Sue Picus;

Germany -- Klaus Reps, npc.  Daniela von Arnim, Sabine
           Auken, Karin Caesar, Marianne Moegel, Pony
           Nehmert, Andrea Rauscheid;

-------------------------------------------------------
                      Victory Ceremony

The Victory Ceremony for the Marlboro Bermuda Bowl and the
Marlboro Venice Cup will take place Friday 2t 19.30 in Hall
1 of the Beijing International Convention Centre.
********************************************************
                  Appeals Committee Ruling
                          Case 10
                     by Richard Colker

                        Venice Cup:
                USA I (E/W) vs. China (N/S).
              Board 44. N/S Vul. Dealer West.
                        (Zhang Ya Lan)
                           S K854
                           H QJT3
                           D 97
                           C AJ9
         (Sanborn, Kerri)         (McCallum, Karen)
               S J96                   S A32
               H 4                     H 85
               D AKT632                D QJ84
               C T82                   C Q753
                         (Gu Ling)
                           S QT7
                           H AK9762
                           D 9
                           C K64

               West    North   East    South
               3D      Pass    4C (1)   4H
               4S (2)  5H      6D       Pass (3)
               Pass    6H      Pass     Pass
               7D      Dbl    All Pass

(1) Alerted.  (Trump asking--not asked.)
(2) Alerted.  (AK of trump--not asked.)
(3) Alerted by North and explained to East as forcing.
            Not Alerted by South.

Committee members: Jens Auken (Chair), Jean-Claude Beineix,
                   John Wignall, George Retek.

Facts: The Director, who was at the table monitoring for
slow play, observed South's pass over 6D Alerted by North
but not by South.  At the conclusion of the play East asked
West whether the pass in question had been Alerted to her
as forcing.  When she replied "no" East claimed damage,
stating that with the proper Alerts either she would have
doubled 6H or West would have passed (depending on whether
the Alert had or had not been correct).

Director's ruling:
The Director determined that E/W's bad result was not the
result of any infraction by N/S, and ruled the result
stood.  This was appealed by E/W.

Testimony:
E/W's testimony was quite complex, but (to summarize it
briefly) it was that East had tried to create a problem for
N/S, who were likely cold for a vul. game or slam, by
making a strong-sounding trump ask (4C).  This told East
what West's defensive potential might be so she could
better judge what to do later if N/S competed, but also
left West uncertain as to whose hand it was (East could
have been strong and looking for game/slam herself).

If South's pass of 6D had been forcing (as East was told),
East's pass of 6H suggested saving in 7D with some defense
against 6H (what East actually intended).  If South's pass
was nonforcing (as West believed), East's pass of 6H
invited West to bid 7D to make (what she actually did).

If East had been told that South's pass had been nonforcing
she would have doubled 6H for several reasons including:
(a) North bid 6H uninvited after previously bidding only
5H, (b) she knew E/W had good defense against 6H, (c) a
pass would be interpreted by West as a strong hand (as
actually happened), (d) to prevent any possible
misunderstanding, and (e) because she suspected a save
would be too expensive.

If West had been told that South's pass had been forcing
she would have passed out 6H knowing East held some defense
(given her defensively oriented hand).

Committee's decision:
If there had been trouble on the hand it came from E/W, who
had tried to bluff N/S (and succeeded).  However, this
success came at the cost of creating a very complex
situation which also confused N/S.  Since this confusion
was of E/W's own making, and since, in the Committee's
opinion, the different Alerts had no bearing on E/W's
bridge decisions, the result at the table was allowed to
stand.  E/W's deposit was forfeited.
********************************************************
                  A Fine Bidding Sequence
             By Toine van Hoof, The Netherlands

In the semifinals Canada kept up the good work and had a
clear win over Sweden. Eric Kokish and Joey Silver showed
their fine bidding skills on this hand:

              Board 69. N/S Vul. Dealer North.

                            S J
                            H J6432
                            D 965
                            C Q643
                   S 972             S AK843
                   H KT75            H A98
                   D QT83            D AKJ2
                   C A8               C K
                            S QT65
                            H Q
                            D 74
                            C JT9752

               WEST    NORTH   EAST    SOUTH
              Kokish          Silver
                        Pass    1S      Pass
                2S      Pass    3C      Pass
                3H      Pass    4D      Pass
                5D      Pass    6D    All Pass

In their methods, 2S is "not a terrible" raise; 3C showed a
short suit and 3H was natural (4+). Now Silver bid his
diamond suit on the four level, showing slam interest in
the process. Kokish cooperated with 5D, also promising
extras. Now Silver finished the job by bidding the slam in
the four-four fit. Twelve tricks were made easily.

In the other room East-West reached the inferior contract
of 6S, which failed by two tricks: 14 IMPs to Canada.
********************************************************
                    FRANCE  vs. GERMANY
             VENICE CUP SEMI-FINAL BOARDS 17-48
                       by Tony Gordon

Everyone expected this contest between perennial rivals to
be close with France possibly having the edge based on
their recent exploits. The match was indeed close after 16
boards since the score then was Germany 36 France 30,
however, by half-way the match was as good as over with
Germany holding a massive 117 IMPs lead. This is the story
of those fateful (fatal?) 32 boards.

The first swing was the biggest of the set.

              Board 18. N/S Vul. Dealer East.

                            S Q
                            H 6532
                            D 8
                            C AKQ9432
                 S 98742                S J3
                 H AT4                  H KQJ987
                 D KQ2                  D AJ976
                 C T8                   C --
                            S AKT65
                            H --
                            D T543
                            C J765

Open Room
               WEST     NORTH    EAST     SOUTH
            Rauscheid  Willard  Nehmert  Cronier
                                  1H       1S
               Dbl       2C       3D       5C
               5H        6C       6H      Pass
               Pass      7C       Dbl    All Pass

Closed Room
               WEST    NORTH   EAST    SOUTH
              Bessis   Auken   Saul    von Arnim
                                1H      1S
                2H      3C      4H      5C
               Pass     6C    All Pass

France misjudged the hand in both rooms. There was nothing
to the play - both declarers making 12 tricks, but Germany
had gained 17 IMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------
On Board 20, the North players held the hand below at Game
All and heard West open 1C.
                            S 8
                            H JT8432
                            D QJ963
                            C 8

For France, Willard passed throughout and her opponents bid
and made 4S. For Germany, Auken bid an uninhibited 2NT and
enabled her side to save in 5H for one down and 9 IMPs to
Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------
              Board 22. E/W Vul. Dealer East.

                            S KT864
                            H K942
                            D A5
                            C Q9
                  S 732               S AQ9
                  H J5                H QT3
                  D T96               D J432
                  C T6543             C AJ8
                            S J5
                            H A876
                            D KQ87
                            C K72

Open Room
              WEST     NORTH    EAST     SOUTH
           Rauscheid  Willard  Nehmert  Cronier
                                 1NT      Dbl
               2C       3C      Pass      3D
              Pass      3S      Pass      3NT
            All Pass

Closed Room
              WEST    NORTH   EAST   SOUTH
             Bessis   Auken   Saul  von Arnim
                               1D     Pass
              Pass     Dbl    Pass    2NT
              Pass     3S     Pass    4H
              Pass     4S   All Pass

In the Open Room, Rauscheid's 2C over the double showed
either clubs or 4-4 in any two suits. France then proceeded
to end up in 3NT played by the wrong hand. Rauscheid led
the C3 and Cronier tried the C9 from dummy. Nehmert covered
with the CJ and Cronier had to duck. Nehmert checked the
club position by playing the ace and then, unlike the
defender in the same position in the Bermuda Bowl, found
the winning heart switch. Now the defense had to make a
heart trick to go with their two clubs and two spades and
the contract went one down.

In the Closed Room, Auken and von Arnim reached a 4S
contract that appeared to have four losers, but Auken
engineered a Morton's Fork Coup to bring home the contract.
Saul led a diamond and Auken won in hand and led a spade
towards dummy's jack. Saul won with the SQ and continued
diamonds. Auken continued spades and Saul won the ace and
played a third round of diamonds. However, Auken ruffed,
drew the remaining trumps and led the C9 from hand leaving
Saul without recourse. In practice she ducked, so Auken
ditched her CQ on the DK and just lost a heart trick.  If
Saul had risen with the CA, Auken could have pitched her
heart losers on dummy's DQ and CK.

It is interesting to note that Saul could have beaten the
contract by finding the same heart switch at trick three
that Nehmert found in the Open Room against 3NT. However,
Germany had gained a thoroughly-deserved 10 IMPs and the
segment score was 36-0 in their favor at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------
France got on the scoreboard in this segment with a 4 IMP
gain on Board 24, but on Board 25 Willard did not play 4H
to the best advantage and lost 10 IMPs when Auken made the
contract in the other room. Although France stemmed the
bleeding for a while, they suffered another major loss on
the penultimate board of the set.

              Board 31. N/S Vul. Dealer South.

                            S T8653
                            H AJT95432
                            D --
                            C --
                 S --                  S J974
                 H K8                  H Q6
                 D JT97654             D KQ32
                 C Q642                C K83
                            S AKQ2
                            H 7
                            D A8
                            C AJT975

Open Room
               WEST     NORTH    EAST     SOUTH
            Rauscheid  Willard  Nehmert  Cronier
                1C       3D       4H       5D
                Dbl    All Pass

Closed Room
               WEST    NORTH   EAST   SOUTH
              Bessis   Auken   Saul   von Arnim
                                        1C
                3D      3H      5D      Pass
               Pass     5H     Pass     6C
               Pass     6S    All Pass

In the Open Room, Willard reluctantly passed out 5D
doubled, but +500 was small compensation for the missed
small slam in either major.

In the Closed Room, von Arnim started with a strong club
and then made a forcing pass over 5D. The message of her 6C
bid was that she was prepared to play outside of hearts
and, of course, Auken was only too happy to bid 6S. The
4-0 trump break held declarer to 12 tricks, but that was
14 IMPs to Germany.
-------------------------------------------------------
After sixteen traumatic boards a stunned France had lost
the segment 64-5 and were facing an overall deficit of 65.

For the third segment France replaced Bessis - Saul with
Blouquit - Lise, but a buoyant Germany were unchanged.
However, the third segment followed the pattern of its
predecessor. France gained on only one board and Germany
again scored over 60 IMPs.

France's biggest loss came when they bid to a hopeless slam
on board 44, but most of their remaining losses were
attributable to missed games. Board 43 was a case in point.

             Board 43. Love All. Dealer South.

                           S QJT96
                           H -
                           D QT98
                           C 8753
                  S 52               S 74
                  H Q2               H AK98764
                  D A6532            D 4
                  C KQJ9             C A64
                           S AK83
                           H JT53
                           D KJ7
                           C T2

Open Room
               WEST    NORTH     EAST     SOUTH
               Lise    Auken   Blouquit  von Arnim
                                           1H
               Pass      1S      Pass      2S
               Pass     Pass      3H      Pass
               Pass      3S     All Pass

Closed Room
               WEST     NORTH     EAST    SOUTH
            Rauscheid  Willard  Nehmert  Cronier
                                           1D
               Pass      1S        4H     All Pass

In the Open Room, the four-card major opening made life
difficult for France. Sweden had faced a similar problem in
the Bermuda Bowl and indeed had passed out 2S. Blouquit was
made of sterner stuff, however, and she protected with 3H.
Lise might have been tempted to bid one more, but she
passed and passed again when Auken competed to 3S. To have
missed the game was bad enough, but France then failed to
defeat 3S when they took only one diamond ruff.

Nehmert had no problem in reaching 4H in the Closed Room
and that was 11 IMPs to  Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------
When the smoke had cleared, Germany had won the third
segment 65-13 and the overall score was Germany 165 France
48.

********************************************************
                     Meet Michel Lebel

Yesterday we ran short bios of the French team, but somehow
Michel Lebel was omitted, for which we apologize. Lebel,
who is 51, has five children. He is a bridge writer and a
journalist. Distinguishing feature: he could sleep on his
copyrights but suffers from scratching his boyd when there
are important championships ahead.
********************************************************
                  Luck Is Part Of The Game
                      By Brian Senior

I didn't go to Albuquerque last year but I did read the
bulletins and was horrified by some of the views on ethics
of an American named Jeff Polisner. Mr Polisner is not here
in Beijing but instead we have Rich Colker, who seems to
have gone to the same school.

I am all for Active Ethics, but the whole thing is being
taken too far by a small group of influential people. For
example, if my partner's tempo causes me a problem I agree
completely that I should bend over backwards not to take
advantage of the unauthorized information. This is, after
all, covered in the Laws of the game.

At the same time, I am not at all happy with the notion
that an appeals committee might decide that whatever action
I take must be deemed unlawful if it happens to work once
partner has hesitated. Bridge is a thinking game, and we
cannot rule on the basis that only one member of a
partnership is allowed to think on each deal. This is the
way things are in danger of going, and this will destroy
the game we all know and love.

I was inspired to write this piece when I saw Rich Colker's
article, 'Luck Isn't Always What It's Cracked Up To Be'
(see page 00). He discusses the deal where Auken/von Arnim
got lucky to make 6H as reported in Monday's Daily News and
states that it is bad for the game when this sort of thing
happens.

I disagree. One of the great strengths of our game is that
there is a significant luck factor. Take that away and you
reduce the chance of upset results. In turn, you lose
many players  who live for the chance to create an upset,
whether it be a couple of LOLs getting a top against the
club expert or an unfancied team knocking the top seeds out
of the Vanderbilt.

If you have a bidding misunderstanding the odds are that
you will lose out because of it. Sometimes you will get
lucky, which is as it should be. That's like the lazy
declarer who can't be bothered to count the hand out may
play against the odds who may bring home a contract that
the hard working expert fails in. Perhaps the next step is
to legislate against that sort of luck?

In my view, if I have forgotten the system and am therefore
in a stupid contract, it is absurd to tell my opponents of
the fact. Let's see if they can work it out through their
own skill and accurate defensive carding. So the Germans
got lucky on this deal? Good luck to them! The only time
that ethics come into the equation is if  there is a
suggestion of a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Mr. Colker tries to clarify a point by suggesting that you
agree to play a complex defense to a strong club but don't
actually agree what defense -- as if that is in some way a
parallel situation. Rubbish! Of course that would be wrong.
It is certainly right to expect a pair to agree their
methods properly and know them but when there is an
occasional memory lapse we should accept that it happens in
good faith. As I say, it will lead to a bad score far more
often than a good one.

Mr. Colker's piece ends with two points: to remember that
we are talking strictly about the top-level game and to
keep in mind, 'What is truly best for the game of bridge?'

I would suggest that what is best for bridge is to reduce
the gap between the top-level game and the rest of the
bridge world, thereby making it more accessible. This is
essential if we are ever to attract much needed money to
the game. And we cannot close the gap by diffusing more and
more rules and regulations down through the ranks. We have
to bring the top-level game back into the real world.

You try telling Mrs Guggenheim that every time she forgets
her system she must get a bad result; there is no room for
luck in this game. See how long she keeps playing.

Can you think of another sport where luck is legislated
against?

This all started out as a fun article about a basically fun
occurrence (albeit a little rough on the opposition). Take
the fun out of the game, take the luck out of the game,
legislate down to the tiniest detail, and in a generation
bridge will be dead, played only by a few aging lawyers and
chartered accountants who enjoy the cut and dried nature of
what used to be a game.

The Active Ethics Brigade mean well but they want to take
it all too far. If we let them, they will destroy the game
we love. It's time for those of us who live in the real
world to speak out. Let's take what is good in the concept
of active ethics and treasure it, but let's not take on the
whole package without discrimination.
********************************************************
                  Watching on the Internet
                   by Matthew Granovetter

Board 58 of the quarterfinals, which produced so many
swings, would have been a successful deal for one of my
favorite lead conventions: the double of a slam calling for
the highest ranking unbid suit, rather than dummy's first
bid suit.

              Board 58. Game All. Dealer East.

                           S 9
                           H AK9
                           D T
                           C AJT96543
                 S Q873               S AKJT54
                 H JT8                H 43
                 D KQ9875             D A32
                 C --                 C 87
                           S 62
                           H Q7652
                           D J64
                           C KQ2


Here was one auction in the Canada vs. South Africa match:

               West    North    East   South
              Kokish  Mansell  Silver  Cope
                                 1S    Pass
                2D      3C       3S     5C
                5S      6C      Pass    Pass
                6S    All Pass

South led the CK, and that was curtains for South Africa.
In the method  I suggest, North can double for a heart
lead, not a diamond lead, and that makes a big difference.
I picked up this double idea from the old rubber bridge
days at the Mayfair Club in New York, when another form of
bridge, called Cut-throat, in which Goulies were dealt,
produced lots of slams. So double of the final slam
contract was used for the highest unbid suit.

This is not only a matter of frequency (which lead is more
likely to defeat a slam, dummy's suit or an unbid suit?)
but playing traditional Lightner, where you double with a
void in dummy's suit, you sometimes alert the opponents to
run to another suit or notrump.
-----
Bridge Today Magazine can be obtained by email through a
credit card via Email at "gran@harel.tau.ac.il".

The cost is $27 for one year plus a $10 fee for surface
mail or $22 airmail.  Identify yourself as one of the
players or press at the Beijing tournament and take a $5
discount.)
********************************************************
                   Bridge is #1 with Joey

"I never let my law practice get in the way of my bridge,"
says Joey Silver of the Canadian team. "One time I was
involved in a major drug trial in Montreal, and the
Canadian National Team Championships came up right in the
middle of the trial.  Playing was more important than
defending, so I asked for an adjournment. And I got it! I
played in the CNTC, than went back to defending my client
after I finished playing."
********************************************************
        Luck Isn't Always What It's Cracked Up To Be
                       by Rich Colker

A hand reported in Monday, 16 October Daily News No. 9 from
the 11th match of the round-robin raises a somewhat
different issue from what was explored in the original
article.  The deal was:

              Board 16. E/W Vul. Dealer West.

                          S J
                          H 76
                          D QT863
                          C KQ972
                 S T8643           S KQ975
                 H 83              H AKQJT92
                 D KJ74            D --
                 C J3              C A
                          S A2
                          H 54
                          D A952
                          C T8654

               West    North   East    South
               Pass    Pass     4NT     Pass
                5D     Pass     6H     All Pass

According to E-W's partnership agreement (which East had
forgotten) the 4NT opening showed both minors.  West picked
diamonds, and East interpreted her bid as showing the
(useless) ace of that suit (4NT having been intended as
asking for specific aces).  East then bid 6H, ending the
auction.

South led the SA on which declarer alertly dropped the
king.  South, now believing that East might have relied on
West's having the DA for the success of the slam, tried to
cash that ace next, and the slam came home.  Needless to
say (but I'll risk it anyway) a spade continuation at trick
2 would have met with a quite different fate.

In the other room E-W reached the same (inferior) slam, but
South unerringly led and continued spades, sinking E-W's
contract.  When I watched this board the E-W pair bid to
5H, making only five, while in the other room 6H was again
defeated.  The Daily News No. 6, commenting that the book
on how to bid the East hand had yet to be written,
contained another report of 6H being set.  And so on...

Was it just coincidence that the pair who had the bidding
misunderstanding made their slam, while many (most?) other
E-W's were being set (or held to 11 tricks)?  What role did
E-W's unusual methods, which they then forgot, play in all
this?

Please, I am not criticizing these particular E-W players
for either their methods or the fact that they forgot them.
How many of us have not been there (more than once)
ourselves?  Still, the problem I wish to call your
attention to remains the same: another favorable result for
the confusion created when players roll out their own
"home-grown" system and then end up forgetting it.

Yes, I know.  I can hear those of you who are saying, "But
most of the time when players forget what they are playing
they get the worst of it.  Even here E-W reached the wrong
(6H) contract instead of the much safer 6S, placing them in
jeopardy.  They just 'lucked out' this time."  Well how
many pairs reached the superior 6S contract using any
methods, with or without bidding misunderstandings?  And
how many of those who reached it normally made it?

"And what if the players have psyched their bids?" you say.
Certainly psyching is an integral part of the game, but
psyching methods which are already unusual, complex or
obstructive carry with them their own ethical baggage.
Just how much do players have to contend with before the
game becomes a contest of luck rather than bridge skill?

It certainly isn't good for the top-level game (or any
level, for that matter) when things like this happen.
Doesn't it leave you feeling a bit uneasy when players
(especially top players) profit after a (supposedly)
disastrous bidding misunderstanding because their opponents
don't have the proper information about their bidding
methods?  Well, what can be done about it?

Law 75 says that, as long as the opponents have been
properly informed about a partnership's understandings, a
player is not obligated to disclose information about his
own hand just because it does not agree with the stated
understandings (as when that player has forgotten his
agreements, or psyched)--as long as his partner is subject
to the same misconception as the opponents.

On the other hand, Active Ethics suggests that when the
opponents are a-priori more likely to be damaged they
should be told the truth about the player's intentions
(actual holding).  In other words, when a deviation from
their understandings gives a pair an "unfair" advantage, it
is not in keeping with the spirit of the game to withhold
the correct information from the opponents.

An example may help to clarify this point. Playing against
a strong 1C opening one of the most effective defenses is
simply to not discuss what you are playing, but agree to
play something complicated and artificial (and Alert
partner's bid, but explain it as "either this or that, we
really haven't discussed it.")  The confusion will almost
invariably work in your favor.  In such situations players
should be required (in accordance with Active Ethics) to
disclose their bidding intentions to the opponents (in
their partner's absence, of course).

In the deal that began this article the East player could
tell the opponents that the 4NT bid was intended as asking
for specific aces IF the declarer is likely to derive an
unfair advantage from with holding that information.  This
still leaves it up to the East player to decide whether or
not to inform the opponents (subject, of course, to a
Director's and/or Committee's later judgment).

It is also possible to remove the player's discretionary
rights by requiring that the opponents always be informed.
Whether or not disclosure is required, this procedure
cannot be used in situations where the player's partner is
still actively involved (i.e. when the auction is still
open, or the informing side is on defense), and sending him
away from the table would itself be too informative.

Well, what do you think?  Let me know, and maybe in a
future article you'll see your (collective) reaction to
this issue.  Remember, we are talking here strictly about
the top-level game.

And one more thing.  Keep in mind, "What is truly best for
the game of bridge?"
********************************************************
