CBA: Obligatory first question – how did each of you learn to play
bridge? Matthew, the apocryphal story of learning to play while crawling under
your grandmother's kitchen table must have a back story.
Matthew: Yes – much later when I was 5 or 6, I was stupidly involved
with a chess game against my cousin, when I heard my grandmother double the
opponents in a four-spade contract in a gleeful voice. Not only that but she
added: “Five trump, I have five of them!” Well, I ran to the kitchen and
watched as my mom finessed through my grandmother's five trump and made the
contract. I then conceded the chess game, got some chocolate milk and sat down
to watch the bridge game. It was not until I was 12 that I actually played
duplicate. My dad was the first life master in Jersey City, and he and his
cronies taught me a lot. I think bridge has to be taught to kids, or they'll
never know what they're missing. It should be part of a social studies class in
grammar school.
CBA: I know the ACBL has made a commitment to introduce bridge to kids. Why
do you think that bridge hasn’t been more integrated into school curriculums?
In this regard, some people have maintained that bridge’s connection to poker
will ultimately boost its popularity, but I could see how this association
would make schools wary.
Matthew: You answered the question. If bridge is thought of as just another
card game, with gambling aspects to it, education boards will not want it as
part of the curriculum. Bridge has to be promoted as a social and
intellectually stimulating game, a game that helps students to learn to think
in all walks of life, and a game that helps students to learn poise, etiquette,
and other social skills.
CBA: Pam, how did you learn the game?
Pam: I learned in college. I went to Case Western Reserve and worked
part-time in a law office. One of the young lawyers in the office needed a
fourth in his regular weekly game and so he gave me a little point-count chart
published by Charles Goren, and he explained to me that bidding is a language
(I was an English lit major so that appealed to me). In addition to playing in
the lawyer's social game, there was a weekly duplicate game on campus, plus an
ongoing rubber bridge game in the student union during lunchtime. I got hooked!
CBA: You've both played bridge all over the world. Most NABCs are
played at large hotels and small convention centers, but I'm sure you played
bridge in some unusual places. What was your favorite venue, and what made it
so special?
Matthew: My favorite nostalgic venue was Valkenberg, because that's
where I first met Pamela, 30 years ago. Actually, I was just kibitzing and she
was playing, and though we were introduced, she was too busy thinking about the
bridge hands to have anything to do with me. Other wonderful places were
Beijing and Verona. A really enjoyable tournament is held in Tel Aviv in March,
where players from all over the world come. We met Belladonna and Forquet
there, from the original Blue Team, and Pamela partnered Forquet in one of the
events. Then we introduced them to our Italian bridge student in Tel Aviv, who
made us pasta dinner while Belladonna charmed everyone with anecdotes.
Pam: My favorite venue was also Valkenberg, which is a little resort
town in the Netherlands. It was my second world championship (I played for
Canada). It was there that I found out that although I had an aptitude for
bridge, I basically knew NOTHING! I found this out by going through the hands
every night with the Irish team, who were staying in the same hotel as the
Canadians. That was a blow. I would probably have given up the game except for
the fact that at this tournament I was introduced to a young American hotshot,
whose name was Matthew Granovetter! We met only to be introduced and shake
hands, but I ran into him again some months later in Toronto, and . . . .
CBA: You play together quite often, but you also partner with a variety
of other players. I won’t ask which you
enjoy more, but I do wonder if playing with other partners enhances your
partnership with each other. Do you learn things and bring them back to your
own partnership? On the flip side, are there certain aspects of your
partnership together that are “sacred” and you keep private?
Matthew: I learn a lot by playing with other partners,
but mostly I learn I prefer to play with Pamela.
Pam: There are no aspects of our partnership that
are “sacred.” On the contrary, we air our differences of opinion in our monthly
ACBL Bridge Bulletin column “Partnership Bridge” – we've been writing that column for almost 25
years, and it's amazing that we are never at a loss for disagreement material!
For the most part, we love the same systemic tools and general style (e.g.,
what constitutes an opening bid, opening-lead style, etc.), and just to show
you that nothing's sacred, we are planning to publish a series of booklets
revealing all the secret weapons incorporated in our system “GUS” (Granovetter
Unified System). The fact that I play with other good partners has been very,
very beneficial to our partnership. My other partners and I usually discuss our
bridge games with Matthew, and that keeps our own partnership fresh with the
infusion of new ideas. Sometimes I am on the same wavelength more naturally
with other partners, but I still enjoy playing with Matthew most of all because
he pretends to overlook all of my mistakes. :-)
CBA: Speaking of mistakes, are there some that
stand out? Do you approach mistakes by trying to learn from them, or by
brushing them off? Some of us tend to overlearn from our mistakes, while others
seem to make the same mistake over and over again.
Pam: Lots of my mistakes stand out! I think that
making the same mistake over and over again comes from stubbornness. A person
refuses to believe that he or she is “really” wrong so they continue to do
something that doesn't work over and over, hoping to “prove” that they were
right all along. Obviously, this is an ego problem. Interestingly, the best
bridge players are very humble and the mediocre players are arrogant. When you
are humble, you can admit that your mistake was a mistake and go on to the next
level.
Once, I made a
dumb mistake and sulked about it until my partner said, “You know, you're not
that great; you make mistakes.” That remark actually helped! Now when I make a
mistake, I think of what Bob Hamman always says about himself, which is: “I
know every time I sit down to play I'm going to make 10 mistakes; so when I
make one, I just say, OK, that's one; OK, that's two; etc.” For Bob, a mistake
can be playing the 3 instead of the 4, but at his level, that's still a
mistake.
My worst
mistakes occur when I'm not “engaged” in the hand – in other words, not doing all the work a hand
requires, or not being 100% focused. Recently, I went down in a hand because I
had miscounted my losers and “gave up,” so to speak. I was not “engaged” and I
think it's inexcusable. If you play bridge to while away the time, then you
don't want to break your head on every board and you make careless errors, but
if you think bridge is an art form, like I do, you have to sweat to play well – for one thing, you have to count endlessly and
that's hard work.
Sometimes I go
through periods of having weird lapses. Once, for a few months, I couldn't
count my long suits! I'd have seven diamonds and count only six. Finally, when
my partners put down a long suit in dummy, they would say “six hearts” or “seven
spades.” That was very scary but thank G-d it went away. I think we all have
lapses that are unavoidable. There are also mechanical errors, which are
unavoidable, where you pull the wrong card or lead out of turn. Our brains play
tricks on us! I hate making mistakes because I feel like a fool when I do. But
the late Victor Mitchell, who I think was the greatest player who ever lived,
used to say all the time, “Bridge makes fools of us all.”
CBA: How about selecting teammates? I have to imagine the process of
putting together a team at the highest levels is awfully, well, delicate.
It’s difficult enough at the club level or for a local tournament – it’s got to
get thorny when you’re transitioning from one established world-class team to
another.
Pam: We almost never get to pick our teammates. We
mostly play on professional teams and are invited to play on a team already in place.
In the olden days, first-class players played exclusively with each other in
national and international events, and they played with students or proteges
only in secondary events. Some people, like Edgar Kaplan, managed to do this
throughout their lives. But it's now virtually impossible to play on a team
without a sponsor; after all, bridge players must make a living. Once in a
while we do play “for fun” and then we play with friends whose company we will
enjoy both at and away from the bridge table.
If I could pick
anyone I wanted for teammates, I would choose Meckwell, of course. Jeff
Meckstroth is from Ohio (as I am) and we've always been friendly since I first
met him decades ago when he was skinny and sported a long blond ponytail. I
love the way Jeff thinks and I love his ferocity at the bridge table. I love
talking to Eric Rodwell about bridge and I like him a lot as a person, so
obviously they'd be perfect (not to mention how they play). I like both of
their wives as well! My third pair would be Alan Sontag and David Berkowitz.
They're a new partnership, but we played with them in California at a regional
last year (on Rose Meltzer's team) and won all the events. They were humble and
funny and they are both great players. We recently played with David in a
Florida regional as well, and we beat an all-star Polish team and it was fun.
Plus, we've known them since we first met and I think of them like family. It
always helps when you feel comfortable with your teammates and can be honest
about your game with them.
CBA: I’m trying to imagine Jeff Meckstroth with a
ponytail. :-) Do you have a favorite event? Winning one of the Reisinger/Spingold/Vanderbilt
trifecta has got to be at the top, but is there another event you really enjoy
playing in?
Pam: I never won a big event like the trifecta you mention, but I did
win the open three-day National Swiss and that was a lot of fun. I've also had
a first and two seconds in the Cavendish Teams. I guess if I had to pick an
event I'd like to win the most it would be the Reisinger because people say
that board-a-match is really the best game because it gives equal weight to
every hand (in a Spingold, you can play a trick better on ten hands for 10
imps, then lose 13 on one board on a slam swing – so you're down 3 imps instead
of ahead by 9 boards!). As far as I can remember, I played in the Reisinger
only once (on a bad team) and was cut the first day. Would love to give that
another try.
CBA: In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges faced by the ACBL
today? I suspect that the ACBL has a challenging job juggling its priorities
among game promotion, sanctioning body, tournament management, club
administration, rules and ethics authority, and member services, to name a few.
The United States Bridge Federation (USBF) was effectively spun out of the ACBL
in 2001 to separate the task of selecting and supporting United States teams in
international competition. Should the ACBL consider something similar for its
other functions?
Matthew: The ACBL's biggest challenge is to increase
membership and lower the average age. If the ACBL is successful in this,
everything else will fall into place, because it will become a wealthy
non-profit organization, with a future. Right now the ACBL is a solvent
organization without a future. The new CEO and the board of directors have to
see the forest through the trees: the promotion of the game to young people is
the top priority. Advertising strategies are needed. We have a great product
but it's not selling.
CBA: But bridge has an awfully steep learning curve compared to other
competitive pursuits. I keep coming across references to players who learned
the game “by picking up Scheinwold’s Five Weeks to Winning Bridge,” or
something like that. Most folks today just don’t seem to have the time or
willingness to do that. It seems we need to find a way to make the game more
accessible—something like MiniBridge, which seems to have enjoyed success as an
introduction to the game in Europe.
Matthew: Bridge is the greatest game ever invented and I've seen kids pick
it up after a few minutes. Maybe the book Five Weeks to Winning Bridge
backfired – it's too long – maybe it keeps people from learning the game! We
wrote a book with Charles Schulz illustrating his Peanuts cartoons. The book
was called, “Learn Bridge in 9 Minutes.” I think it's just a question of the
right marketing. Our publisher, unfortunately, didn't market the book – they
just wanted a title. We need a good marketing strategy for bridge and the game
will boom again.
CBA: There always seems to be a certain amount of nostalgia among
experienced bridge players for the halcyon days of yesteryear. Has the quality
of bridge improved since you've begun playing, or are we missing something
compared to the past?
Pam: I would agree that most people think the good old days were a lot
more fun. It's true that there was a lot of screaming going on. In those days,
instead of “zero tolerance” for rude behavior, we had “anything goes.” But
basically I think the reason it was more fun is because the game was mostly a
hobby; even the best players had “day jobs.” Interestingly, even back then,
Meckwell weren't exactly what you'd call a barrel of laughs – they were deadly
serious and that's why they've done so extraordinarily well. I think today
people are equally serious – we are playing to excel and win, not to have a
good time! But you can actually do both if you play our new system, GUS. I
haven't had so much fun playing bridge since I was in college.
Matthew: I agree. Years ago the “characters” were more pronounced, less
tame. Today everyone is on his best behavior – nice, but boring. We need to let
loose and form a venue for the very top players to be characters again (where
beginners to the game will not be offended). This would take a bridge pro tour
where prize money is at stake and people could watch with a smile as the
players' eccentricities were displayed. Good entertainment and promotion for the
game! We're working with Larry King, the tennis promoter, to do this – using
our new GUS system to try to light up a spark in the bridge world, similar to
the way C. C. Wei used Precision to promote the game (when I started playing)
and even the way Ely Culbertson and Charles Goren promoted their systems 60
years ago. The thing about GUS is that it's scientific and fun – every auction
is new and fresh. We hope this will turn on teenagers to the game and spur
corporate sponsorship for a pro tour.
CBA: Right — one of the reasons bridge is so inhospitable for
television is that the players are so wooden at the table. The ACBL Rules and Ethics
practically mandate this behavior, so it makes sense to get outside of the
formal ACBL structure when bridge is played for exhibition purposes. If there
was a format where the top players had the elbow room to show off their “eccentricities”
and pizzazz, is there anyone in particular that might surprise us?
Matthew: Yes, I think most of the top players are eccentric or have habits
that other top players know about and joke about – and are not publicly known.
For example, Jeff Meckstroth is very careful about the way he writes his scores
in the convention card . . . . Try touching his scorecard one day and see what
happens. Or Bob Hamman will clear his throat whenever he is about to make, what
he thinks, is a superbly witty remark. Kit Woolsey, when he has a problem, puts
his hand over his forehead but when he's getting a series of good results,
he'll start rocking back and forth. Steve Robinson likes to joke at the table: “We
play upside down – we smile when we don't like the lead.” Well, that's a few
examples. Years ago, however, star players would have more “dangerous”
eccentricities, like the time Sidney Lazard knocked the orange juice out of
Phil Feldesman's hand, because he thought orange juice was bad for his game, or
the way Ira Rubin would smile gently at his partner, asking him to explain why
he had made the bad play he made, and then – upon hearing the explanation –
explode in a shriek, heard across the room. And then there was Helen Sobel, who
as declarer, to guess a queen, would cross her legs and play the defender who
didn't look at her for the queen.
CBA: You’ve mentioned your new approach to bidding — “GUS” (Granovetter Unified System). Tell us
more about the system —does it have a pedigree? What kind of auction style is
it? Is it something suitable for the everyday club player, or is it targeted
for the expert?
Matthew: It's based on “relay bidding” which means one-way auctions, where
one player asks the other player to describe his hand. This type of system was
first introduced to me by a friend of mine when I was 20 years old and I was
smitten with it, and have been devising methods like this ever since. It's easy
to play such a system, if you have an open mind and are willing to dramatically
change styles. Young people already play similar methods in other countries –
it's appealing to them, because the idea of picturing your partner's hand
exactly before the dummy comes down is imaginative and fun. We older players
could do it too ... in bridge, I believe you can teach old horses new tricks,
because most bridge players have fertile minds and are looking for fresh ideas.
GUS is especially fun for couples who can discuss the system at home between
sessions. So in answer to your last question, it's not only suitable for
everyday players, it should inspire them to play even more bridge!
CBA: I’m personally looking forward to learning more about GUS, and I
believe you’re going to offer some classes in the near future on selected parts
of the system. I really like the approach you’ve taken for weak two-bids; I
can’t stand Ogust responses because they provide nonspecific answers to
multiple questions, leaving the 2NT bidder with a guess more often than not
even with the Ogust response. What is your least favorite convention in modern
bidding?
Pam: That would be preemptive jump raises and jump
shift responses to an opening bid (in and out of competition). I know that “blocking”
bids are important, but for me, it's so much more fun to reach a good game or
slam than it is to preempt my own auction. I find that those bids push the
opponents into lucky cold contracts more often than not. This has nothing to do
with preempting as an opening bid – that is invaluable because it takes up so much
space. But if partner already showed an opening bid, what is the point of
preempting him? Do the opponents often have a game or slam after we opened the
bidding? I think not . . . .
CBA: Right — it seems there are so many tactical
bids available as responder when holding a weak hand, especially when you have
a fit. Some people think they qualify as quasi-psychs (e.g., responding 1NT to
partner’s 1S opening with Qxxx Jxx xx xxxx), but I think it’s just good bridge.
Pam: Yes, “stealing”
is definitely good bridge! Alvin Roth once suggested that if you are favorable
and partner opens a weak two bid, and you have a bad hand, if second hand
passes, you should raise with a singleton! Each opponent will have length in
partner's suit and if the points are evenly divided, nobody will be able to
double, so you'll go down a few at only 50-a-trick! I actually had a chance to
raise with a singleton after (pass) –2H– (pass) but I passed like a coward and
they got to 3NT making (vulnerable), when a 3H bid by me would have blown them
out. On the other hand, I cannot tell you how many times my opponents have
pushed me into thin games that are cold by making “weak jump raises” of their
partner's suit.
CBA: Matthew, do you have a least favorite
convention?
Matthew: I love conventions, gadgets, etc, so this is a
tough question for me. My least favorite would be the entire 2-over-1 system.
Everything is forcing, but it's difficult to know when partner has extra
strength, and how many clubs he has when he bids 2C! My next least favorite is
Michaels for a major and an unknown minor. I've lost tournaments on this one,
when the bidding went (1S)–2S–(4S)–all pass. Our side had a 5-5 minor-suit fit,
but the fourth hand, with five diamonds and three small clubs could not bid 4NT
to ask the minor, since partner may have held clubs. Pamela and I have played
for years “color cue” where 1S–2S or 1H–2H shows the two suits of the same color.
Identifying the suits you have early in the auction is helpful, don't you
think?
CBA: Absolutely—this would also seem to be an argument for treatments
like negative free bids, non-forcing new suits by advancer, and other ways of
getting involved in the auction without getting overboard. Do you like these
treatments as well?
Matthew: I don't like negative free bids, because it's difficult to
describe when you have a good hand if you have to start with double. But we
play a 2/1 in competition is forcing only one round, so it can be light. As for
overcalls and responses to overcalls, we have always played them not forcing –
competitive bidding is a jungle and you have to get your long suit in ASAP, in
case you have a nice fit.
CBA: You both regularly play at all levels of competition: club games,
Regional tournaments, NABC+ events, and internationally. What is the biggest
difference between the top flight players and the rest of us that scratch
around as club players? To put it another way, what part of the game could most
of us get better at if we realized how much improvement was possible?
Pam: The biggest difference is that top-flight
players are deadly serious about the game. They play it for a living and they
are very hungry to do well on every single board. They have regular
partnerships and they put a tremendous amount of effort into their system
notes, so they have agreements in place for almost every situation that you can
imagine. To this day, Matthew and I spend a great deal of time at tournaments
discussing bridge with other experts.
I don't think
you can improve without playing with and discussing bridge with good players. I
was very lucky because the best players played with me when I began (this was
in Cleveland). In addition, all the young players would go out for something to
eat after the game, and we'd go through all the boards. If you aren't lucky
enough to be able to hire a teacher or to discuss bridge with experts, then I'd
say the best thing you can do is force yourself to count on every hand. Count
the points, count the distribution, and try to imagine the layout. But, really,
the best way to learn is to have an expert teacher, either a friend or a pro,
and listen to what they have to say rather than “airing” your own point of view
on every hand!
Matthew: The difference between the top flight and club
players is also concentration. As a kid, I kibitzed Paul Soloway in a world
championship and he played too fast from dummy as declarer and blocked a suit.
He slapped his knee and cried out, “Paul!” to himself. It was probably the only
time in his life he had ever done this. The top players pride themselves on
concentration. We all know the story of the bet between two people in an
English bridge club – they had a
naked woman sit down to kibitz a famous player. He didn't flinch. He played the
hand with excellent technique and then went on to shuffle the cards for the
next deal. Well, if you didn't know the story, you now do. (He eventually
noticed.)
CBA: I’m not sure Cincinnati would be ready for that! Any thoughts on
the best way to introduce rubber bridge players to duplicate?
Matthew: Actually, I'd like to introduce duplicate players to rubber
bridge. For one thing, there aren't many rubber bridge games left these days.
For another, it's the duplicate players who are missing out on all the
excitement. The strategies of rubber bridge are very interesting, and the
ability to play lots more deals in a small time frame help rubber bridge
players become better card players. I think we should find a way to run rubber
bridge tournaments. There'd be more luck, but the excitement of the big scores,
completing partscores, winning a rubber, even getting your honors, would be
fun.
CBA: I never thought of it that way—we might just have to look into
some of those ideas! Matthew, Pam, thanks so much for your time and thoughtful
answers, and we’ll see you around the bridge table.
© 2011 Cincinnati Bridge Association and Matthew and Pamela
Granovetter