[PFormaini]

Kudos and congrats to Fluffy - who found and posted a line in answer to the 8-7-9 hand that I posted last week - in which he found a line the original author of the article from which the hand was taken had not considered!

I wrote to several people - and eventually Jeff Rubens, editor of Bridge World magazine forwarded my e-mail to Nick Straguzzi (the original author) while I also wrote to Danny Kleinman (co-writer now with Straguzzi of several bridge books). I wanted to wait until Nick himself answered - out of respect and just in case we were all missing something in Fluffy's proposed better answer.

Here is Nick Straguzzi's e-mail - verbatim:

"Jeff, thanks for forwarding the message.

Peter, thanks for writing -- and yes, you are correct. My sincere apologies for driving you crazy. :-) The deal is from one of the early Chthonic stories, before I began collaborating with Danny Kleinman, and before the era of Deep Finesse. A reader noticed the alternative line you spotted (a superior line, in fact, because it provides a greater chance for an overtrick) and his letter was published in TBW's Bits and Pieces about six months after the original article ran. When it came time to publish "The Principle Of Restricted Talent" anthology, I originally planned to omit the article, then to include a footnote or character comment acknowledging the other line. But in the end Danny and I and our publisher decided to leave it as-is, since Chthonic's line is not incorrect.

Best regards.
Nick Straguzzi
"

So take a bow Fluffy (who is the actual 'you' Nick refers to in his e-mail)!!! You came up with the line that not even Chthonic thought of!

[Fluffy]

<some fluffy kittens here>

I recomend you reread the 8-7-9 thread and look at what I said and what others said, you might find a surprise.

[Jlall]

lol

[PFormaini]

Fluffy, on Feb 21 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

<some fluffy kittens here>

I recomend you reread the 8-7-9 thread and look at what I said and what others said, you might find a surprise.

No surprises. Just the occasional good catch amid the usual neophyte blather.

But, in all fairness, I took the time to consult the original article author and find out whether or not there had been any revisions or corrections (none of us being gifted with the ability to consult sources we do not possess.)

Which is something I am sure that 90% of those who posted - relying on Deep Finesse rather than any actual bridge ability or analytical skill, would not have taken the time and effort to do.

Again - if you found the error in Nick's original article on your own, you deserve a slap on the shoulder and a "Well done!". After all - fair is fair.