Here and There
We present a short look at some of the action from the quarter
and semi finals. Jacobs was expected to beat Hecht and took a
handy lead into the second half, but the Danish players had not read
the script.
Board 17. Dealer North. None Vul.
|
|
♠
8 6 3 ♥ K 10 8 3 ♦ J 10 4 ♣ A 9 4 |
♠ K J 10
4 ♥ 9 5 ♦ A 9 8 6 ♣ J 7 2 |
|
♠ A Q
9 ♥ Q 7 6 2 ♦ K Q 3 ♣ K Q 3 |
|
♠
7 5 2 ♥ A J 4 ♦ 7 5 2 ♣ 10 8 6 5 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Versace |
Bilde |
Lauria |
Hansen |
|
Pass |
2♦* |
Pass |
3♣* |
Pass |
3♦ |
Pass |
3♥ |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
3NT had made an overtrick at the other table when South led the
♣8. Declarer had been allowed to win with
dumm’y jack, had returned the suit to North’s ace and then won a
third club and cashed winners, +430. By the way, East had opened
1♥, but North’s failure to switch when in
with the club ace was still slightly strange. Here South led the
seven of diamonds for the eight, ten and king and declarer played
the three of clubs to the jack and ace. North found the threatening
switch to the ten of hearts and when declarer covered with the queen
the contract was one down. If North had held ♥A/K108 alone covering would be correct. When
the Jacobs team bid these North/South cards to 6♦
|
♠
A 4 ♥ A 1 0 6 ♦ K J 1 0 ♣ 9 8 5 4 2 |
|
|
|
|
♠
K Q 1 0 8 2 ♥ J 2
♦ Q 7 6 5 4
♣ A |
a contract that failed by one trick the match was level, and the
Danes produced three rock crushing results on the last three deals
to clinch the match. This was one of them, a worthy candidate for
the best bid hand of the year:
Board 27. Dealer South. None Vul.
|
|
♠
A J ♥ A Q 7 6 5 ♦ 3 2 ♣ 10 8 5 4 |
♠ K 8 6
3 ♥ 8 ♦ Q 9 7 6 ♣ A Q 6 3 |
|
♠ 10 9 7 5
4 2 ♥ J 3 ♦ 5 4 ♣ J 9 7 |
|
♠
Q ♥ K 10 9 4 2 ♦ A K J 10 8 ♣ K 2 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Versace |
Bilde |
Lauria |
Hansen |
|
|
|
1♥ |
Dble |
2NT* |
Pass |
3♥* |
Pass |
3♠* |
Pass |
3NT* |
Pass |
4♠* |
Pass |
4NT* |
Pass |
5♠* |
Pass |
6♥ |
All Pass |
|
|
|
West led his trump and declarer won, drew a second round and ran
the queen of spades. When it held he had a parking place for a
losing club and could claim. Team Orange1 appeared to be cruising
to a place in the final against Ozdil but in the second half their
opponents came roaring back, and when they bid a slam on the
penultimate board to reduce the margin to just 1 IMP Dutch
supporters were biting their fingernails.
Board 27. Dealer South. None Vul.
|
|
♠
A Q 9 8 7 2 ♥ 10 ♦ J 9 ♣ K J 6 3 |
♠ K 10
6 ♥ A ♦ K 10 8 7 5 ♣ 10 9 7 2 |
|
♠ 5
4 ♥ 7 6 4 3 2 ♦ 6 4 3 2 ♣ Q 8 |
|
♠
J 3 ♥ K Q J 9 8
5 ♦ A
Q ♣ A 5
4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Holland |
Muller |
Bakshi |
De Wijs |
|
|
|
1♣* |
1NT |
2♠ |
Pass |
3♥ |
Pass |
3♠ |
Pass |
4♥ |
All Pass |
|
|
|
A sound auction, easily dealing with West’s intervention.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Jansma |
Ginossar |
Verhees |
Ozdil |
|
|
|
1♥ |
Pass |
1♠ |
Pass |
3♥ |
Pass |
4♣ |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5♦ |
Pass |
6♥ |
All Pass |
|
|
|
In the Women’s event Sally Brock and Margaret James followed a
similar sequence to the slam. Of course, 6♥ is a poor contract, but as a general point
notice how important it was that South’s hearts were so good. With
the same values but a worse suit it would probably be better to look
for an alternative rebid. The 5-1 trump break was awkward, but
the spade finesse was right and declarer was not tested in our main
match as West led a diamond. In the Senior event this deal also
played a big part and it was tough on the Rand team, who lost by
their semi final by 4 IMPs that this hand cost them a bundle when
their opponents played in 6NT from the South side.
|