Bridge Today - April 2004

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 1

April 2004 ß ˙ ∂ ç Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

In this issue: The NEC Cup Pietro Campanile takes us on an exciting tour of this annual team event in Yokohama — Page 9

Features 2

The Spring Nationals Open Pairs

7

Bridge Yesterday

32

Hand of the Month

ALERT: Please do not e-mail this e-mag to anyone. Much time, energy and money was spent to produce this product, and most people can afford to pay for it. If you would like someone to see an issue, please contact us with his email address (write to [email protected]) and we’ll gladly pass on a sample excerpt. Subscriptions are $33 per year for 12 monthly issues. Thank you!

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 2

The Spring Nationals Open Pairs by Matthew Granovetter

April 1, 2004 — The ACBL Spring Nationals took place in Reno, Nevada, at the Reno Hilton, last week. In this issue, I’ll present some hands from the first event, the National Open Pairs, which had a twosession qualifying and two-session final. The Advantage of Poker Some bridge players were annoyed that the bridge rate in the hotel was $89 a night, while the poker players in the casino’s poker tournament had a $50 or $25 rate! I heard there were about 300 bridge players who registered as poker players. One of the best poker-faced bridge players is Piotr Gawrys of Warsaw. Piotr is known a player who never changes expression; he is very serious and few people have ever seen him smile. Here’s one example, as described by his partner, Zia.

Piotr Gawrys almost smiling!

East dealer None vul

North (Zia) ßJ9743 ˙ 10 7 3 2 ∂— çJ853

West ßA65 ˙8 ∂J542 ç A Q 10 4 2

East ßKQ82 ˙54 ∂ Q 10 9 7 3 ç97 South (Gawrys) ß 10 ˙AKQJ96 ∂AK86 çK6

Zia: “My partner opened 2ç on the South hand and rebid 3˙ over my 2∂. We play this not forcing. (He didn’t have a nonforcing hand, but he was testing the system.) I raised to 4˙. West led a diamond. He ruffed in dummy and led a low spade to the 10. When the 10 held, he never changed expression.”

Here’s a similar “refusal to win the trick” strategy by Zia’s opponent in a 4ß contract....

Bridge Today • April 2004 West dealer E-W vul

page 3 reserving his trumps for later, not exactly a smart move on this hand.

North ß J 10 7 6 2 ˙AK75 ∂ 10 9 çQJ

West ß— ˙ J 10 8 6 4 ∂K62 ç A 10 6 3 2

East ßKQ85 ˙932 ∂Q874 çK7 South (Zia) ßA943 ˙Q ∂AJ53 ç9854

West pass 2ß pass

North pass 3˙ 4ß

East pass pass (all pass)

South 1ß 3ß

Opening lead: çA

West continued to the çK and East switched to a diamond. Zia won the ace and led the ç8, discarding a diamond when West played low. East also discarded a diamond. Welcome to the “I don’t want to take my trick” club! East, of course, was North dealer N-S vul

North ß 10 8 2 ˙A32 ∂— çAKQ8765 South (you) ßKQ7 ˙KJ4 ∂ K J 10 9 3 2 ç4

North 1ç

East 2ß

North ß J 10 7 6 ˙— ∂— ç— West ß— ˙J ∂K ç 10 6

N W

S

E

East ßKQ85 ˙— ∂— ç—

South (Zia) ßA94 ˙— ∂J ç—

Zia ruffed the ∂J with the ßJ and East was sorry he had failed to ruff earlier. Here’s one more Zia tale from this event. Try it yourself....

West leads the ˙10. East discards a spade as you win the trick with the jack. You lead a club to dummy and cash a second club, everyone following. What’s your plan from here?

˙ 10

West — (all pass)

Zia cashed the ˙Q and ruffed a diamond in dummy. On the ˙A-K he threw a club and a diamond. Then he ruffed a heart as East threw his last diamond. This was the position:

The full deal is on the next page. South 3 NT

Bridge Today • April 2004 North dealer N-S vul

North ß 10 8 4 ˙A83 ∂— çAKQ8764 West East ß6 ßAJ9753 ˙ Q 10 9 7 6 5 4 ˙— ∂A63 ∂Q742 ç 10 9 çJ53 South (Zia) ßKQ2 ˙KJ2 ∂ K J 10 9 8 5 ç2

page 4 Zia called for a spade from dummy. When East went up with the ace, Zia followed with the queen. East now thought that Zia had K-Q doubleton and continued with a low spade, so Zia played low and took the rest. Making 690 was worth a top score. By the way, some East-West pairs were plus 400 on this board. Do you see how? N-S pairs that reached the aggressive 6ç contract watched in dismay as East led the ßA and ßJ. When West returned a heart at trick three the defenders took three more tricks!

Zia, on his way to the overtrick

Runners-up were St. Louis veteran Roger Lord, playing with his longtime partner Jacqueline Sincoff. Here’s a tough problem they created for one of their opponents. Suppose you are North with this hand: ß 9 7 4 ˙ 7 6 4 ∂ A 10 ç Q J 8 5 4

At favorable, your partner opens 3ç. Nice. RHO doubles and say you jump to 5ç. This is doubled but RHO removes to 5˙. You pass and LHO bids 6˙. When this is passed around to you, do you defend or take the sacrifice in 7ç? The full hand was this....

Bridge Today • April 2004 South dealer E-W vul

page 5

North ß974 ˙764 ∂ A 10 çQJ854

West (Lord) ß K Q 10 3 ˙ K Q 10 8 3 ∂QJ64 ç—

East (Sincoff) ßJ62 ˙AJ92 ∂K9532 çA

Suppose you, West, hold this hand at matchpoints:

South ßA85 ˙5 ∂87 ç K 10 9 7 6 3 2 South 3ç pass pass (all pass)

West double 5˙ pass

North 5ç pass 7ç

ß K Q 10 ˙ A Q J 10 ∂ 10 7 ç A Q 10 9

East double 6˙ double

I think I might double this, but 3ß was cold: West dealer E-W vul

North (Sincoff) ß2 ˙K76 ∂AKQJ6 ç7642

West ß K Q 10 ˙ A Q J 10 ∂ 10 7 ç A Q 10 9

East ß864 ˙95432 ∂82 çJ53 South (Lord) ßAJ9753 ˙8 ∂9543 çK8

Down five meant 1100 to East-West, but there was one problem: North-South had two aces against the slam. I was thinking of presenting this hand as an “apportion the blame between East-West” hand. But after staring at it for a long time, I couldn’t blame either player, and, after all, they did get most of the matchpoints for bidding the slam off two aces!

Wow, lots of 10’s. You are vul vs. not and open 1ç. North overcalls 1∂ and partner passes. RHO bids 2ß (fit showing, spades and diamonds). You double and LHO goes to 3∂, passed around to you. You double again and partner bids 3˙. Now RHO bids 3ß. What’s your call?

West 1ç double double double

North 1∂ 3∂ pass (all pass)

East pass pass 3˙

South 2ß pass 3ß

Even if you don’t double 3ß, you get a bad score for -140 (and if you bid 4˙, it’s worse). Many N-S pairs played in diamonds, scoring 130 or less. This was another board that helped the runners-up. Finally, let’s go to the winners’ table. Here are two exhibits (top scores) that helped them to victory. The first begins with the question: How do you score 2230? You know how to score 2220 (vulnerable 7NT making 7). But 2230? Think about it if you like before reading on.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 6

East dealer All vul

North (Cohen) ßKJ843 ˙ 10 8 5 ∂6 çKJ96

West ß A Q 10 7 5 ˙K732 ∂83 ç43

East ß962 ˙QJ9 ∂Q942 ç875 South (Berkowitz) ß— ˙A64 ∂ A K J 10 7 5 ç A Q 10 2

West — double

North — redouble

East pass (all pass)

South 1ç

My last hand this month is from the final session. You hold, vul vs. not:

One club was Precision, 16+ points, and double by West was for the majors. When Cohen redoubled to show a positive, East passed, waiting for partner to bid his best suit. But West thought that East held long clubs for the “pass” and trusted partner (see you in our next Partnership Bridge column!). Berkowitz received the ∂8 lead to the queen. He wasn’t unhappy. He took 12 tricks after drawing trumps for a score of 2230. Here’s how it adds up: Trick score was 20 X 4 = 80 Partial bonus = 50 Five redoubled overtricks at 400 each = 2000 And, of course, 100 for the insult.

East dealer N-S vul

North (Cohen) ßK9832 ˙— ∂ K 10 9 8 çJ864

West ß 10 7 5 4 ˙A ∂A7632 ç932

East ßQ6 ˙Q875 ∂Q54 çAK75 South (Berkowitz) ßAJ ˙ K J 10 9 6 4 3 2 ∂J ç Q 10

ß K 9 8 3 2 ˙ — ∂ K 10 9 8 ç J 8 6 4

Larry Cohen asked me how I would feel with this hand after LHO opened 1ç and partner preempted to 3˙. Now RHO doubles and LHO leaves it in. Gulp. “Playing with Marty Bergen,” said Larry in fond reminiscence, “we might be going for quite a number. How would you feel playing with David as your partner?” With David? Well, he must surely have a good hand to bid 3˙ vul vs. not. This was the full hand: East cashed two clubs and guessed wrong when he shifted to a spade instead of a diamond. On a high level, West, after leading the ç2, can next show suit-preference with the 3. After the spade return from East, David was able to pitch his diamond on the çJ to score 730. Congratulations.

West — double

North — (all pass)

East 1ç

South 3˙

Opening lead: ç2

Readers, please check the website soon for more Bridge Today articles about the spring Nationals.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 7

Bridge Yesterday by Paul Zweifel What’s Three Clubs?

Back in the good old days, a half century or so ago, when I was most active in tournament bridge, players were supposed to use a little inferential logic to figure out the obvious meaning of bids. This applied to both partners and opponents, by the way. If a bid was a little bit subtle so that it took some brains to figure out its meaning, isn’t that the edge that smart players are supposed to have over dumb ones? Nowadays, this has all changed. In every auction there are numerous questions like: “What’s three clubs?” I’ve been told that even though partner and I have no prior understanding it’s my duty to tell the opponent what I think the bid means. I consider that about as smart as an NFL quarterback announcing to the defense what the next play is going to be. Here are some examples. I was South:

Zweifel South 1ç 1˙ 1 NT ?

West pass pass pass

partner North 1∂ 1ß 4˙

East pass pass pass

Now the question was “What’s one spade?” except I asked it to myself. (In those days the opponents couldn’t ask questions willy-nilly.) Well, it’s pretty clear that it was a slam try; if North were only interested in game he could have bid four hearts directly over one. So with a maximum (15 points in those 16-18 notrump days) I was supposed to bid six. With less, but more than a minimum, I could make a further bid, perhaps a cue bid. Now, I don’t think it would really have helped the opponents to know what one spade meant, but why should I have told them (and why should they have asked, for that matter)?

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 8

Partner held:

ß J 10 x x x ˙ A Q ∂ A K x ç J x x

ß A x ˙ Q x x x ∂ A K J x x ç x x.

My hand was: ß x x ˙ A K 10 x ∂ Q x x ç A Q x x Zweifel South 1ç 1˙ 1 NT 6˙

West pass pass pass (all pass)

partner North 1∂ 1ß 4˙

East pass pass pass

True, he bid pretty aggressively, but with hearts coming home and the çK onside, I actually made 7. Partner’s bid of one spade is what I like to call a “retrospective cue bid.” When the bid is first made, partner assumes it to be natural, but the subsequent auction clarifies that is was in fact a cuebid and a slam try. Another example can be found in my article in the Summer 2002 issue of Bridge Today, page 26. I held the following:

Addendum: In a recent column I asked readers to contact me if they had any information about Ruth Chase Goldberg-Gilbert. Sid Lorvan reminded me that we played against her in the first Spring Nationals, Atlantic City, 1958. That’s the same tournament in which Sid and I played the 1NT-2ç2ß-3˙ hand described above.

Over partner’s (Sid Lorvan) opening notrump I bid Stayman. When Sid responded two spades, I didn’t think my hand was quite good enough to bid the slam directly, so I made a retrospective cuebid of three hearts. Sid next bid three notrump denying three-card heart support; as far as he was concerned, I had a legitimate five-card heart suit (that’s the way we bid them in those pre-transfer days). Now I suddenly realized that the hands were a misfit, doubleton heart facing doubleton (very likely the king) so I quit. Another example of a bid whose meaning should be obvious is the following.

West — 2ç

Partner North — double

East 1∂ (inquiry)

Zweifel South 1˙

This is an obvious negative double. It was an obvious negative double in the days before the negative was invented (I claimed to the director — yes, even in the good old days opponents would call the director on you*).* Partner certainly isn’t doubling a forcing bid for penalties. The double can’t be lead-directional, at the two-level, because the opponents might just redouble and make it. And if partner wants to raise, he can simply bid two hearts. What else could it be? So, by process of elimination, partner has spades, but not enough to bid two spades (and by inference, a doubleton heart in case you don’t like spades). What could be more clear?

* They called the director when I declined to tell them what the double meant.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 9

The NEC Cup by Pietro Campanile

The NEC Cup is one of the most prestigious invitational teams tournaments in the overcrowded constellation of the international bridge calendar. It is staged in Yokohama in the early-mid part of February, and the Japanese Bridge League, generously sponsored by NEC, one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, traditionally provides a lavish setting and thoroughly professional staff overseen by the tireless efforts of Tadayoshi Nakatani. This year’s edition took place from Feb. 9 to 15 and saw the arrival of yet again a strong batch of foreign teams as well as the participation of an abundant local contingent of players, some strong some not so strong, to complete a record total of 52 teams. It was difficult to pinpoint the pre-tournament favorites: The general consensus short-listed as possible winners were teams from Poland/Russia (Balicki-Zmudzinski, Gromov-Petrunin), the holders England (Senior, Armstrong, Callaghan, Lambardi), Indonesia (Lasut-Manoppo, KarwurPanelewen), Bulgaria (Karaivanov-

Trendafilov, Stamatov-Tsonchev) and USA/Germany (a.k.a. “Three gals and an extra Molson to boot” — Sabine Auken, Kerri Sanborn, Janice Molson and husband Mark).* There were plenty of other good quality contenders to make up the field: strong teams from Iceland, Israel, USA, Australia, Canada, open and ladies teams from China and from Chinese Taipei, not to mention quite a few competitive local teams whose performance would surprise more titled opponents. The format of the tournament is based on an eight-round Swiss of 20 boards per match, with the top eight finishers clashing in direct knock-out matches over 40 boards, leading to a semifinals and a 64-board final. The round robin matches provided a rich and assorted melange of interesting deals to choose from. The prize that might have been One of the early matches between wouldbe contenders for the title saw Bulgaria square off against Iceland in round two. *Since three players on this team live in the USA (although Mark Molson is a Canadian) and one lives in Europe, we will refer to this team throughout the rest of the article as USA+. — Editor

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 2 East dealer N-S vul

page 10

North ßQ82 ˙ K Q J 10 6 ∂95 ç Q 10 9

West ß A K 10 6 ˙A7 ∂AQ42 çK54

East ß943 ˙8542 ∂J8 çAJ62 South ßJ75 ˙93 ∂ K 10 7 6 3 ç873

In the second board of the match both EW pairs got to the normal 3NT spot from the West seat. After receiving the ˙K lead, they took their ace after ducking one round, with both Souths signaling an even number of hearts. Karaivanov, being a true Bulgarian and, therefore, quite reluctant to put his trust in the kindness of the cards, led a club to the çJ, cashed the two top spades, getting false count from both opponents, cleared the clubs, both opponents pitching a diamond, and played a heart to

North. Had he been right (if North had been dealt a 2-5-3-3 with the ∂K), we would have spent the next page extolling his card-reading skills while filing his details to short-list him for the Best Played hand of the tournament. Unfortunately, the cards were kind (unkind ?) and the ∂K was onside, meekly waiting to be finessed. Ingimarsson (North) cashed his hearts and his ßQ before exiting with a diamond at trick 13 — 3NT, down one, -50. At the other table Anton Haraldsson, being a practical chap, took the more mundane view of running the ∂J after clearing clubs and checking for a miracle stiff ßQ-J. That was nine tricks and an early swing for the Icelanders, who cruised to a 47-24 win, or 20-10 in Victory Points (VP). A tale of two openings The fourth round featured the clash between the previous NEC Cup holders, England, and USA+. The match turned out to be a cliffhanger, with England running up a 30-imp lead over the first 10 boards only to be caught and tied going into the very last hand.

Pietro Campanile, author of this month’s feature article, is seen here flanked by Eric Kokish (left) and Rich Colker, right. Pietro is an Arts Management Consultant, who recently decided to take up bridge journalism and is now the assistant editor of the Israeli Bridge Magazine as well as a frequent guest writer for other bridge magazines. Pietro is married to Migry.

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 1 North dealer None vul

page 11

North ß8652 ˙AQ3 ∂A9754 ç4

West ß Q 10 ˙5 ∂ K Q J 10 8 2 ç 10 6 5 2

East ßAK93 ˙ 10 9 8 6 ∂3 çKJ98 South ßJ74 ˙KJ742 ∂6 çAQ73

West Callaghan —  2 ç (1) 3∂

North  Auken  pass 2 ∂ (2) (all pass)

East Armstrong  1 ç pass

South Sanborn 1˙ 2˙

East J. Molson double pass

South Lambardi 1˙ 4˙

(1) diamonds (2) hearts West M. Molson  — pass (all pass)

North Senior 1∂ 2˙  

Once upon a time, when FDR’s “New Deal” speech had to share front page coverage with the latest bridge escapades of Mr. Ely Culbertson, there were players like Hal Sims and Oswald Jacoby who wouldn’t have hesitated to open the North hand.

head, since the action-bidder “par excellence” had no qualms about opening 1∂ and later raising with three cards his partner’s 1˙ bid, propelling his side to a playable game that was missed at the other table. Had Mark Molson found the inspired lead of the ßQ, getting the defense off to four rounds of spades, Lambardi might have come to rue Senior’s carefree bidding (even if he ruffs the fourth round of spades with the ˙7, declarer would still fail, because when he crossruffs the hand, East can promote the setting trick by ruffing diamonds high at every opportunity). On the actual ∂K lead, declarer won, finessed the çQ, played the çA, ruffed a club low and led a diamond from dummy, with East pitching a spade. Lambardi ruffed the diamond, then ruffed a club with the ˙Q, cashed the ˙A and led another diamond leaving Janice Seamon Molson in a losing bind. If she ruffed, declarer could pitch a spade and would be able to guess from her earlier play to ruff the third round of spades low; if she discarded, declarer would make his ˙7. At the table she chose to discard a spade, but either way England would have ended up scoring an optimal +420. At the other table Callaghan’s 3∂ swiftly went down after the ˙A lead, followed by three rounds of clubs and later the ∂A. That was -50 but still 9 imps to England.* This match was dead even going into the last board:

“Aces ain’t deuces,” Big Hal used to say. This, perhaps, ran through Brian Senior’s *Anti-editor: Sabine was uncharacteristically conservative on this hand. She’d get almost as good a result as Brian Senior after her original pass if she takes a crack at 3∂! The defense takes two clubs, two club ruffs, the ˙K and ∂K for +300.

Bridge Today • April 2004 West dealer All vul

page 12

North ß J 10 9 5 4 ˙K83 ∂43 çJ73

West ßQ8 ˙972 ∂A865 çK952

East ß763 ˙AQJ6 ∂ Q 10 7 2 ç64 South ßAK2 ˙ 10 5 4 ∂KJ9 ç A Q 10 8

Open Room West North Callaghan Auken pass pass pass 2 ˙ (xfer) (all pass)

East Armstrong pass pass

South Sanborn 1 NT 2ß

At the other table, things were very different (hand rotated).... ßAK2 ˙ 10 5 4 ∂KJ9 ç A Q 10 8 ß763 ˙AQJ6 ∂ Q 10 7 2 ç64

N W

S

E

ßQ8 ˙972 ∂A865 çK952

ß J 10 9 5 4 ˙K83 ∂43 çJ73 Closed Room West North J. Molson Lambardi — — 1˙ double pass 3˙ (all pass)

East M. Molson pass 2˙ pass

South Senior pass 2ß 3 NT

After an untroubled auction, Auken/ Sanborn reached their normal contract of 2ß. Callaghan found the excellent lead of the ˙2, ducked to the jack, The club return was ducked to the king and a second heart gave the defenders two more tricks. The thirteenth heart now would have promoted the ßQ for the setting trick, and a diamond would have forced an immediate guess, but Armstrong played a second club. Sanborn won and backed her judgment by cashing her top spades to make her contract, a diamond going on the long club: +110. Perhaps Callaghan should have cashed the ∂A before leading the second heart as Armstrong’s failure to double 2˙ probably precluded his holding ace-queen-jack-fifth. Armstrong’s defense would have been best had Callaghan been dealt the ace or king of trumps instead of the ∂A.

Janice Seamon Molson has made an indelible mark in women’s bridge thanks to her reputation as a gutsy fighter as well as a superb technical player. Here she struck again with a third-seat vulnerable 1˙, a “being on a roll” kind of bid, having just reaped some juicy dividends on the previous boards. Her action pushed Lambardi/ Senior into an unsound 3NT. Janice led the ∂2 to the jack and ace and Mark switched to a deceptive ˙2. As a result, Janice won the jack and cashed her ace. When that failed to oust the ˙K, she reverted to diamonds. With black clouds of many vulnerable undertricks looming perilously over his head, Senior cashed the ßA-K and was delighted to see the queen drop. He cashed his remaining winners and took the club finesse for his contract: –200.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 13

USA+ gained 7 imps and won the match 44-36, 16-14 in VP, completing a convincing come-back against a tough opponent.

Board 4 West dealer All vul

Saving you, saving me (aha!) After four rounds, the standings were headed by Poland/Russia, who had just completed a comprehensive 25-5 rout of the second place Israeli team, thus achieving a commanding 17 VP lead over USA+.

West ßAJ965 ˙K85 ∂ 10 6 ç 10 4 3

We had left the Bulgarians after their second round loss to Iceland, in a deal where the cards were lying rather too kindly for Karaivanov’s taste. It seems only right to highlight this partnership’s chance to shine in a match where they were facing Slam Dunk, one of the top Japanese teams in the competition. It is very tempting for South to bid 5∂ over 4ß, especially if he hears any kind of encouraging noise from his partner. After Stamatov promised diamond values with his pass of 3∂, it would have taken some formidable restraint for Tsonchev not to go for the save in 5∂, even at equal vulnerability. “Taking insurance” is often an easy way out when there is a high-level competitive bidding decision to make, but here it could have easily cost a double-digit swing as the play in 4ß is not at all straightforward. If South manages to put in a diamond rebid at the four level, declarer might play him for a doubleton ˙A and try to slip through a heart to the king, then strip his black exit cards and endplay him into giving him a ruff and discard to make the club loser disappear. An alternative and much better plan, especially after the given auction, would be to play a low club from the East hand at some point, hoping for the suit to split 3-3 and pitch a heart on the fourth

North ß73 ˙QJ974 ∂K7 çQ875 East ß K Q 10 4 2 ˙ 10 6 3 ∂4 çAK62 South ß8 ˙A2 ∂AQJ98532 çJ9

Open Room West North Shimizu Stamatov pass pass 3∂ pass (1) pass pass

East Miyakuni 1ß 3˙ double

South Tsonchev 2∂ 5∂ (all pass)

(1) I would like a diamond lead Closed Room West North Karaivanov Hirata pass pass 2NT (1) pass

East Trendafilov 1ß 4ß

South Chen 2∂ (all pass)

(1) good raise in spades

club. That was the line of Trendafilov in the Closed Room after receiving a diamond lead, ruffing the continuation and drawing trumps in two rounds. In this position many declarers played both top clubs before ducking one, with the result that North was able to play a heart to the ace and wait for the setting trick. Trendafilov, instead, cashed only one top club, noting the fall of the 9, and then played the ç2 from hand, taken by Chen with the çJ. Chen switched to ˙A and a heart.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 14

What the Bulgarian champion did not miss was that this line would give him the additional chance of squeezing North in hearts and clubs whenever clubs were 4-2 with South holding a doubleton honor, while cashing both top clubs would destroy the communications for the squeeze. After declarer took the heart return with the ˙K, he proceeded to cash his top spades and the last trump gave North an impossible discard problem: ß— ˙Q ∂— çQ8 ßJ ˙8 ∂— ç 10

N W

S

E

ß— ˙ 10 ∂— çK6

ß— ˙— ∂QJ9 ç—

Trendafilov’s efforts were rewarded with a 3-imp gain for his team, when they were in danger of losing 12 once 5∂ doubled went two off for -500. Nevertheless, it would have been better for declarer to give up a club on the first round of the suit, since, as the play went, if North held the çQ-J-x-x, he could win the second club and play a third round, breaking up the squeeze. The last match of the second day, the sixth of the round-robin, saw another tough battle between the two top placed teams when USA+ played Poland/Russia.

*Anti-editor: Perhaps they play negative free bids or 2ç would be a game force. He might not like to bid notrump when partner’s diamonds could be two small.

Our undercover “Moyse” from Russia Board 5 North dealer N-S vul

North ßAK86 ˙9 ∂KQ7543 çK9

West ß97 ˙654 ∂A982 ç Q 10 7 6

East ßQJ53 ˙ A 10 7 3 2 ∂J6 çJ2 South ß 10 4 2 ˙KQJ8 ∂ 10 çA8543

While most tables reached the normal 3NT (down one), after E-W overcalled and raised hearts, here Alexander Petrunin chose the Moysian dimension: Open Room West North Sanborn Gromov — 1 ∂ (1) 2˙ 4 ˙ (3) (all pass)

East Auken 1˙ pass

South Petrunin double (2) 4ß

(1) Precision (2) Negative, usually with four spades (3) Splinter “raise” to 4ß

Trying to fathom the reasons why Petrunin opted to double instead of bidding 2ç or a top heavy 1NT has meant sleepless nights and deep blue rings around my eyes. A lengthy stay in a secluded monastery in the Himalayas to seek heavenly guidance on the matter did not help me to solve the enigma, so I ask any kind soul out there who might be able to shed light on the mystery* to contact me at the Buddhist Retreat, Mount Everest, Nepal.

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 5 North dealer N-S vul

page 15

North ßAK86 ˙9 ∂KQ7543 çK9

West ß97 ˙654 ∂A982 ç Q 10 7 6

East ßQJ53 ˙ A 10 7 3 2 ∂J6 çJ2 South ß 10 4 2 ˙KQJ8 ∂ 10 çA8543

Open Room West North Sanborn Gromov — 1 ∂ (1) 2˙ 4 ˙ (3) (all pass)

East Auken 1˙ pass

South Petrunin double (2) 4ß

(1) Precision (2) Negative, usually with four spades (3) Splinter “raise” to 4ß

Since Petrunin’s first call basically guaranteed four spades, Gromov splintered to 4˙ with his control rich hand and a supposedly useful shortage, slam being a sound proposition facing ßQ and the two minor aces. Petrunin received a club lead from Sanborn, won in hand to play a diamond up and successfully sneak past the ∂A.* *a costly error, since the ∂A was the setting trick He then played a heart from dummy, taken by Auken with her ˙A. He won the club return with dummy’s çK, ruffed a diamond, and played three high hearts, overruffing the nine with the ace on the fourth round. Then he played dummy’s penultimate diamond. Auken ruffed high, to return a low trump to the 7 and 8. The last diamond from dummy held his losses to one more trump trick, 12 imps to Poland/ Russia. Nevertheless, USA+ won the match 58-26, or 22-8 in VPs. This result meant a considerable bunching up in the standings with the top five teams separated by a mere 3 VPs with two more rounds to go. The seventh round saw the resurgence of Poland/Russia as they blitzed England 25-4, while the powerful come-back of another USA team (Itabashi-Robison, HaydenKantor) continued with a 17-13 win in the derby with the hitherto undefeated USA+.

Alexander “Moyse” Petrunin

Whose suit is it, anyway? One of the most curious deals of the round was this one. A creative bidding effort by the Canadian foursome churned out a rather unexpected result in the match against the Japanese open team.

Bridge Today • April 2004 East dealer N-S vul

page 16

North ß9 ˙97432 ∂A762 çK63

West ß5432 ˙J5 ∂Q93 çA985

East ß A J 10 8 ˙ K 10 8 6 ∂KJ5 ç42 South ßKQ76 ˙AQ ∂ 10 8 4 ç Q J 10 7

These were the top-10 standings after the seventh round:

Open Room West North East South Kaku Carruthers Takayama Silver — — 1∂ 1ß (all pass) Closed Room West North Graves Imakura — — 1ß pass

East Mittelman 1∂ 2ß

ment and managed to take only six tricks in their 4-4 spade fit, losing a trick in each minor, two hearts and three trumps for two down 100 and an imp to Japan. It was a great hand for the “Joey Silver — Whatever you can do, I can do better — Hall of Fame collection” which has no doubt already been forwarded to the domiciles of current and previous teammates (which I guess must include 90% of Canadian bridge players). Canada went on to win the match 5132, 19-11 in VP.

South Ino pass (all pass)

Never one to be hindered by paltry considerations like vulnerability and suit quality, Joey Silver decided to pull out one of his trademark four-card overcalls to get his 14 count out and working. When his overcall was passed out, he bought a dummy that despite its trump shortage contributed two precious cards. Cool and collected, declarer ducked the opening lead of the ∂3 to East’s king, finessed the ˙Q at trick two, led the ç7 to dummy’s king, the ß9 to the ten and king, and then advanced the ç10. When Kaku ducked, Silver had six sure winners and made the ßQ later for a remarkable +80, At the other table Mittelman-Graves could not match their teammate’s achieve-

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/9 8/9 10

Team POLAND/RUSSIA USA USA+ ISRAEL INDONESIA ICELAND CANADA ENGLAND BULGARIA CHINA LADIES

VPs 142 133 131 129 128 125 123 120 120 119

Crocodile Rock Going into the last round of the Swiss and the two matches which looked likely to decide the top seeding for the quarter-finals were Poland/Russia vs. USA and USA+ vs. Israel.

Bridge Today • April 2004 North dealer N-S vul

page 17

North ß8743 ˙K962 ∂852 ç73

West ß Q 10 5 ˙ 10 ∂A974 çKQ964

East ßKJ ˙Q87543 ∂63 çJ82 South ßA962 ˙AJ ∂ K Q J 10 ç A 10 5

Open Room West North Gromov Itabashi — pass (all pass)

East Petrunin pass

South Robison 2 NT

Closed Room West North Hayden Balicki — pass pass 2ß (all pass)

East Kantor 2˙ pass

South Zmudzinski double 2 NT

In Poland/Russia vs. USA both Souths declared 2NT. Zmudzinski got the friendlier lead of the ˙10, induced by Kantor’s 2˙ bid, which he won with the ˙J. He played on diamonds, Hayden winning the second round and shifting to a low club. Zmudzinski won the third round, cashed the ˙A (West throwing a club) and his two remaining diamonds, then played ßA (Kantor carefully unblocking the king) and a spade. That was the chance for Hayden to take on the “Crocodile Dundee” mantle and rise with his queen, swallowing Kantor’s jack. But when Hayden decided instead for the “Ebenezer Scrooge” cloak and tried a cheap ß10, Kantor was forced to win the jack and now had to give Zmudzinski his

eighth trick with the ˙K. [Editor’s note: As the play went, it wouldn’t help for East to throw the ßK or ßK-J on the diamonds, because declarer can then lead a low spade, endplaying West. The ßJ was certainly more likely to be in the South hand than the East hand; nevertheless, West can save the day by discarding a spade instead of a club.) In the Closed Room Gromov led the çK and a low club as Robison held off his ace until the third round. Gromov won the first diamond, cashed his two remaining clubs, then exited with a low spade leaving Robison a trick short; –100, 6 imps to Poland/Russia. The Americans came back strongly, though, to win the match 52-24, 21-9 in VP. Israel beat USA+ 49-33, 18-12 VP, and in the other critical match-ups Canada beat Iceland 21-9, while England defeated Bulgaria 16-14 to claim the last qualifying berth. China Ladies quashed the hopes of the last Japanese team in contention with a 21-9 win, which meant a seventh place finish. Final round robin top-8 standings were: Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Team USA POLAND/RUSSIA INDONESIA ISRAEL CANADA USA+ CHINA LADIES ENGLAND

VPs 154 151 150 147 144 143 140 136

The top three teams could now pick their opponents: USA picked China Ladies, Poland/Russia chose the fourth placed Israeli team (probably on the strength of their round-robin 25-5 victory), and Indo-

Bridge Today • April 2004 nesia chose USA+. That left Canada vs. England. There was no carryover except for half an imp going to the team in each match that finished higher in the roundrobin standings (this was for tie-breaking purposes). In the quarter-finals the Chinese ladies team made quick work of the top placed USA with a one-sided 131-60 score, while Indonesia managed to hang on to enough of the 36-imp lead they picked up in the first half to end the ambitions of AukenSanborn and the Molsons, with a final score of 71-57. China Ladies were slowly turning into the surprise of the tournament but few were aware that it included plenty of talent with players who have made frequent appearances for the national team (including Zhou Xiao Ying, the top ranked Chinese lady player for much of the eighties, and erstwhile partner of Sun Ming, who had withdrawn from bridge activity for family reasons). The other two matches turned out to be much tighter affairs with the lead frequently changing hands. My wife, Migry, was playing for Israel, partnered by Michael Barel. Their teammates were Doron and Israel Yadlin, two brothers.

page 18 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Team USA POLAND/RUSSIA INDONESIA ISRAEL CANADA USA+ CHINA LADIES ENGLAND

VPs 154 151 150 147 144 143 140 136

OK, guys, better luck next time. The USA+ team bites the dust against Indonesia in the quarter-final.

The Israeli team, at the awards ceremony. Simon Kantor of the USA team

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 19

Slowly slowly… Board 3 South dealer E-W vul

North ß42 ˙ 10 9 7 6 4 3 ∂K32 ç98

West ßKQJ765 ˙— ∂ Q 10 6 çQJ63

East ß A 10 9 8 3 ˙— ∂J98754 çK5 South ß— ˙AKQJ852 ∂A ç A 10 7 4 2

All four tables got to the same 6ß doubled contract. Poland/Russia vs. Israel Open Room South West North Petrunin D. Yadlin Gromov 1 ç (1) 2 ß (2) pass 6˙ pass pass double (all pass)

East I. Yadlin 4ß 6ß

(1) Strong, artificial (2) Sound overcall in spades (you could say that again!) Closed Room South West Barel Zmudzinski 2ç 2ß 5˙ pass 6˙ pass double (all pass)

North Migry double (1) pass pass

East Balicki redouble (2) 5ß 6ß

(1) Very weak (2) Fear not partner, I have you covered!

Canada vs. England Open Room South West Mittelman Callaghan 1˙ 1ß 6˙ pass double (all pass)

North Graves 2˙ pass

East Armstrong 4 ˙ (splinter) 6ß

North Senior pass pass 6˙ double

East Silver 3ß 4ß 6ß (all pass)

(1) Splinter raise Closed Room South West Lambardi Carruthers 2ç 2ß 4˙ pass 5˙ pass pass pass

In Poland/Russia vs. Israel, Petrunin found himself in the increasingly common, albeit unfortunate, situation of opening a strong club only to see the bidding return to him at the 4ß level. He reasonably decided that this was not the hand for scientific prodding and placed a “bid on if you dare” 6˙ on the tray. East dared and was promptly doubled. Barel at the other table knew that his partner would not contribute much to the cause and went on slowly but surely to 6˙, again East saving twice. Both North players cleverly led the ç9 and South won the ace. Alex Petrunin cashed the ∂A before returning a club while Michael Barel returned the ç2 immediately. Declarer had to lose two diamonds for –500. No swing. George Mittelman did not start playing bridge yesterday and, after contemplating his beautiful two loser hand, must have had a tingling feeling that if Mr. Murphy was to be believed, his hearts would be routinely outbid by the opponents’ spades and the best chance he had to buy the contract was to forego a 2ç opener, get his suit out

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 3 South dealer E-W vul

page 20

North ß42 ˙ 10 9 7 6 4 3 ∂K32 ç98

West ßKQJ765 ˙— ∂ Q 10 6 çQJ63

East ß A 10 9 8 3 ˙— ∂J98754 çK5 South ß— ˙AKQJ852 ∂A ç A 10 8 4 2

Canada vs. England Open Room South West Mittelman Callaghan 1˙ 1ß 6˙ pass double (all pass) Closed Room South West Lambardi Carruthers 2ç 2ß 4˙ pass 5˙ pass pass pass

North Graves 2˙ pass

East Armstrong 4 ˙ (splinter) 6ß

North Senior pass pass 6˙ double

East Silver 3ß 4ß 6ß (all pass)

immediately and to slowly be “pushed” to the five- or six-heart level depending upon his partner’s reaction to his 1˙ opening. Graves, having been thoroughly schooled in the same softly-softly approach, volunteered a delicate 2˙ with his six-card support. Long John Armstrong, however, has also been round the block once or twice and took no notice of the Canadians’ pussyfooting, taking the save in 6ß. Graves led a trump. Mittelman cashed the ∂A when he won the çA, down 500.

If those results, tactics, deception and insurance, were interesting, consider the sandbagging efforts of Joey “Now you see it, now you don’t” Silver, who took the panoramic route, stopping to admire the view in 3ß and 4ß before having to “save” in 6ß. Why “save” you might ask? Well, hmm ... believe it or not this is what happened at the table (sorry Pablo, but your check bounced)! Brian Senior (North) appreciated that a heart lead was not only pointless but also potentially dangerous, but couldn’t tell whether the defenders’ outside trick source was in clubs or diamonds. Hoping to know more after seeing dummy and thinking it might be important to hold the lead, Brian made the expert lead of the ∂K. Unfortunately for him, he was in no position to lead to trick two. Pablo Lambardi, who had been granted that privilege, was not keen to cash the çA at the potential cost of a 300-point undertrick, and saw no pressing need to worry about dummy’s diamonds (his partner held the ∂Q, right?). Accordingly, he decided to exit “passively” with a heart to force dummy. John Carruthers was delighted to accept that force and absolutely thrilled at being able to discard one of his four clubs. The other three went on dummy’s diamonds after trumps were drawn and he chalked up +1660. Make it 19 imps to Canada. In the other matches Indonesia gained 11 imps against USA+ when Mark and Janice Molson forged on to 7˙ but were unable to convince Henky Lasut/Eddy Manoppo to sacrifice while China Ladies gained an unusual imp by selling out to 4˙ in one room for –480 while doubling 6ß for +500 in the other.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 21

Cloak and Dagger Board 13 North dealer All vul

Closed Room West North Zmudzinski Migry — pass 1ß pass pass 3 NT

North ßA962 ˙J76 ∂ 10 9 8 2 ç95

West ßK7543 ˙ A 10 9 5 2 ∂7 ç63

East ß— ˙Q843 ∂QJ543 çQ874 South ß Q J 10 8 ˙K ∂AK6 ç A K J 10 2

Open Room West North D. Yadlin Gromov — pass 2 ç (2) pass (3) 3˙ 4∂ pass pass

East I. Yadlin pass 3 ∂ (4) pass double

South Petrunin 1 ç (1) double (5) 5∂ (all pass)

(1) Strong, artificial (2) Diamonds, or both majors (3) 5-7, perhaps more if no 5-card suit (4) pass-or-correct (5) Penalty of diamonds and/or not minimum

East Balicki pass pass (all pass)

South Barel 1ç 2 NT

The Russians’ Precision 1ç opening seemed tailor-made to bring the best out of the Yadlins’ cloak and dagger repertoire. Here Petrunin (South) had a tough bid over Israel Yadlin’s 3∂ and decided to show his strength as well as his diamond values with a double. When Doron Yadlin revealed his shape, Gromov could either pass 3˙ to show a minimum or “raise” his partner’s diamonds. When he chose the latter, Petrunin was once again on the spot, but with 26+ points on the line it would have been a remarkable view not to go to game. Bidding 4ß on the way would have worked but such a bid, after Doron had shown a major two-suiter, would have required some extensive prior knowledge of the hand records. Five diamonds doubled went three down after ˙A and a heart, with declarer doing his level best to extricate eight tricks by repeatedly forcing East with spades past West’s king. At the other table Zmudzinski was right to lead a heart against Barel’s 3NT, but he led his lowest rather than his highest. Barel won the ˙K, finessed in spades, and spurned the club finesse for +600. That was 16 imps to Israel, losing the match by 5 now at 27-32.

Heads or Tails? For Seeding Rights.

“I don’t like this one bit!” thinks Balicki

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 22

Luck be a lady tonight West dealer N-S vul

North ß 10 9 7 3 ˙K95 ∂KJ8743 ç—

West ßQ2 ˙83 ∂A ç J 10 9 8 6 5 4 2

East ßJ854 ˙ Q 10 6 4 ∂62 çQ73 South ßAK6 ˙AJ72 ∂ Q 10 9 5 çAK

over 5ç have been forcing at red vs. green and, therefore, was his double showing an unsuitable hand for bidding on? If, however, the double was simply meant to show values, then 5∂ from North should be clear-cut. My opinion is that the double of 4∂ should promise a bid over 5ç and, therefore, Gromov’s hand would have been best described with a “pass and pull” action. As it went the Yadlins were down 800 in 5ç doubled but Israel gained 11 imps when Migry brought home 6∂ against the odds after Balicki decided to hide in the bushes with his eight-card club suit, thus denying declarer the vital information that might have guided her to divine the actual layout.

(1) Puppet Stayman (2) At least one four-card major (3) Four spades

Migry got the çJ lead, on which she discarded a spade from dummy; now cashing the second top club could have somewhat simplified her task, forcing Balicki to find the ßQ exit when in with the ∂A and leaving declarer to draw the correct inferences in later play. At the table, instead, Migry knocked out the ace of trumps and threw a heart, instead of a second spade, on the club continuation, sensibly deciding to play for hearts 3-3 or ˙Q doubleton. She drew the outstanding trump and tried to ruff out the ˙Q. When that failed, there was little to do apart from hoping for an “allegedly” impossible layout by playing West for a 2-2-1-8 shape and hoping that Zmudzinsky (East) was holding the spades as well as the ˙Q. She ran her trumps to find that she had indeed squeezed Zmudzinski in the majors and brought home 1370.

Once Doron Yadlin (East) chose a restrained 4ç initial action over his partner’s 3ç opening, probably mindful of his majorsuit values and of earlier random holdings from his partner in the same position, the stage was set to uncover another potential agreement black-hole: Would Gromov’s pass

Methods, methods One of the pleasures of covering an event such as this with Eric Kokish, a.k.a. the Archimandrite of Bidding Theory, is the chance to listen to his deep analysis of otherwise plain bidding sequences, which are turned inside out and given a totally

Poland vs. Israel Open Room West North I. Yadlin Petrunin 3ç pass 4∂ double (all pass) Closed Room West North Balicki Barel pass pass pass 3 ç (1) pass 3 ˙ (3) pass 4∂ (all pass)

East D. Yadlin 4ç 5ç

East Zmudzinski pass pass pass pass

South Gromov double double

South Migry 2 NT 3 ∂ (2) 3 NT 6∂

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 23

new and often unexpected meaning to plug some gaping holes in a natural system. This hand provided Eric with plenty of ammunition to vent his spleen at the many players who were rambling in the dark, because of “inferior” agreements: Board 12 West dealer N-S vul

Canada vs. England Open Room West North East Senior Silver Lambardi 1ß pass 1 NT 3˙ pass 3 NT 4ç pass 4˙

North ßAQ73 ˙9762 ∂Q7532 ç—

West ßKJ965 ˙AKQ5 ∂— çAQ86

looks right, 4˙ to complete a 5-5, 4ß with an independent suit, or four of a minor with three or four of those to complete his pattern. Here West bids 4ç, after which all is again sweetness and light.”

East ß— ˙ 10 4 3 ∂ A 10 9 6 çKJ9732 South ß 10 8 4 2 ˙J8 ∂KJ84 ç 10 5 4

Kokish: “I could write a book on this one, but the anticipated sales numbers would cause me to rethink my position. Before getting into what happened, I will share my theoretical and heretical opinions with you. After 1ß-1NT, I believe that West should settle for 2˙, which gives him his best chance to get his shape across if the bidding continues. And here I am aware that many would pass 2˙, but I wouldn’t recommend that either. East bids 3ç over 2˙ and all is sweetness and light. Blah blah blah. If West jumps to 3˙ I would love to bid 4ç with the East hand but my agreement is that this would be an advance cue-bid for hearts (5ç would be natural). What’s left for me is 3NT or 3ß and I’m a 3ß guy because it leaves opener the most room to finish describing his hand. But then I believe that 3ß doesn’t mean a lot while 3NT does (extras, lots of stoppers, 2-2-(5-4) shape). Over 3ß West can bid 3NT when that

South Carruthers pass pass (all pass)

To prove Eric’s point, one need only look at the Senior-Lambardi auction where the Englishman managed to actually bid out his shape only to have Lambardi give preference to hearts since he could not bring himself to believe that 4ç was natural when he was looking at K-J-9-x-x-x in the suit. Poland/Russia vs. Israel Open Room West North East South D. Yadlin Balicki I. Yadlin Zmudzinski 1ß pass 1 NT(1) pass 3˙ pass 4˙ (all pass)

The Yadlin brothers finished also in 4˙, +450, but did not even get close to uncovering their club fit.

Board 12

North

The Israeli team is busy scoring it up....

Bridge Today • April 2004 West dealer N-S vul

page 24

ßAQ73 ˙9762 ∂Q7532 ç—

West ßKJ965 ˙AKQ5 ∂— çAQ86

East ß— ˙ 10 4 3 ∂ A 10 9 6 çKJ9732 South ß 10 8 4 2 ˙J8 ∂KJ84 ç 10 5 4

Poland/Russia vs. Israel Closed Room West North East South Petrunin Migry Gromov Barel 1 ç (1) pass 2ç pass 4 ∂ (2) pass 4 ß (3) pass 5ç (all pass) (1) Strong, artificial (2) Exclusion Blackwood (3) One keycard outside of diamonds

The Russians seemed to be best positioned to land in 6ç thanks to Gromov’s 2ç reply over his partner strong club opening, but Petrunin launched himself into Exclusion RKCB and then he demurely bid 5ç when Gromov showed one key card outside of diamonds. The truth is Gromov read 4∂ as simply void-showing and had meant 4ß as a cue-bid. Petrunin scored two overtricks in 5ç for +440. No swing.

Semifinal Match

Canada vs. England Closed Room West North East Mittelman Armstrong Graves 1ß pass 1 NT (forcing) 3˙ pass 4ç 6ç double pass redouble (all pass)

South Callaghan pass pass pass

At one table, however, the basic natural bidding tools of the veteran GravesMittelman partnership worked wonders. George not only leaped to 6ç once Graves disclosed his club suit at the four level, but promptly redoubled Armstrong’s lead directing double, a well grounded action taken straight out of the “Don’t you know who I am?” — Mittelman’s book of gutsy bridge, since the Canadian was sure that since Graves was extremely unlikely to hold a doubleton spade, a two down penalty was odds against, with the mathematics therefore favoring the redouble. And right he was. Callaghan (South) had too many spades to follow Armstrong’s advice, so he led the ˙J. Graves won, cashed the çA, and led a low spade. When Armstrong put in the queen Graves ruffed, drew trumps, ruffed out the ßA, and claimed: +1580. That was 15 imps to Canada, who trailed by 11 with eight hands to go, 73-84, after that well-deserved gain. England, however, managed to survive another tight battle and defeat the valiant Canadians 97-93.5. In the other close match Israel scraped through by the tiniest of margins, beating the pre-tournament favorites by 64-63.5, a victory by half an imp, leaving Poland/Russia, along with USA, to rue their quarter-final picks. The two semifinal matches were: Indonesia vs. Israel and China Ladies vs. England.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 25

Silence is golden Board 2 East dealer N-S vul

North ßQ94 ˙Q8 ∂Q87 çKQJ54

West ßKJ862 ˙ 10 ∂9543 çA76

East ß A 10 ˙AJ965 ∂ A K 10 ç932 South ß753 ˙K7432 ∂J62 ç 10 8

Open Room West North Callaghan Lu — — 2 ˙ (xfer) pass 2 NT pass 3 NT (all pass) Closed Room West North Wang Senior — — 1ß pass 2 NT pass

East Armstrong 1 NT 2ß 3˙

South Hou pass pass pass

East South Yan Lambardi 1 ç (strong) pass 2˙ pass 3 NT (all pass)

The “en passant” 3˙ call from Armstrong (although a reasonable bid) would come Board 2 provided the first swing in both back to haunt him, as Hou was dissuaded matches. In the Indonesia-Israel match, from leading her five-card heart suit. WithDoron Yadlin (West) opted to simply transout a heart lead, declarer’s task was considfer to 2ß after the 1NT opening, a choice erably more difficult. Hou found the lead that must have taken into account their of the ç10 and Armstrong ducked twice, partnership’s aggressive opening style. Two took his çA on the third round, and played spades made with an overtrick, +140. At the the ˙10, queen, ace. He continued with the other table Karwur showed no such re∂A hoping for something to happen and straint and Panelewen was happy to accept then ended up playing for a magic layout in his 2NT game invitation. Barel (South) led spades with Q-x-x onside. When that failed, the inevitable heart to the 10, queen and Lu could collect all of her clubs and play a ace, and declarer now started spades, playing heart to Hou’s king. Declarer also lost a ßA and running the ten. Migry took her diamond for three down, –150. queen and played the çK, ducked all round with Barel playing the 8. She then Wang (West) got the çK lead. Trusting switched to the ˙8, covered by the ˙9 and Lambardi’s signal, she took the second ducked by Barel in the hope that his partround of clubs and started hearts, Senior ner had started with Q-8-x. That was covering the ten. The fall of the 8 on the declarer’s ninth trick for +400 and first second round meant that she could develop blood to Indonesia. a third winner on power. South switched to a diamond to the queen and ace, but a In the other match the auctions were spade shift would have been better. Wang quite different. “Those who speak too drove out the ˙7, Lambardi exited with his much will end up with flies in their last heart, and Wang played ∂K and a third mouth.” This Italian saying could easily diamond to establish the thirteenth diaserve as the caption for this board.... mond in her hand. Wang took two spades, three hearts, three diamonds and the çA

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 26

for +400 and a 10–imp gain. The score was China 10, England 2, and an early sign that England was in for a much tougher battle than they might have anticipated. The ghost of the singleton king of clubs Board 16 West dealer E-W vul

North ß 10 9 6 ˙AQ6 ∂J3 çAJ875

West ßA72 ˙987 ∂ 10 9 6 5 ç432

East ßQ43 ˙J542 ∂AQ872 çK South ßKJ85 ˙ K 10 3 ∂K4 ç Q 10 9 6

Indonesia vs. Israel Open Room West North D. Yadlin Manoppo pass 1 ∂ (1) pass 1 NT (all pass)

East I. Yadlin pass pass

South Lasut 1ß 3 NT

(1) Precision (could be as few as two) Closed Room West North Karwur Migry pass 1ç 3∂ pass pass 3ß pass 4˙ (all pass)

East Panelewen 1∂ pass pass pass

South Barel 1ß double 4ç 4ß

Manoppo’s systemic 1∂ opening worked very much against him, since it silenced the possible diamond overcall from the opposition. The Indonesians sailed to 3NT where they lost four diamonds, the çK and the ßA. At the other table, the bidding made it somewhat easier for Barel to locate his side’s 4-3 spade fit. Nevertheless his decision to bid 4ß was not straightforward and it earned him a free one-month supply of falafel when it proved to be a winner. After a diamond to the ace and a diamond back Barel crossed to a high heart to pass the ß10, which held. The ß6 went to the 8 and ace, and back came a second heart. Barel won in hand, lost the club finesse and finished with ten tricks for +420 and 11 imps. Israel took the lead 27-22. In the other match, the English got to 3NT while the Chinese stopped in 1NT. Their conservative action, however, generated unexpected dividends when 3NT turned out to be no fun for those who still deny the validity of the “rule” that the çK is always singleton offside. Since Brian Senior, like Manoppo, belongs to that stubborn minority, he had no practical chance to take nine tricks after a diamond lead. Despite blocking the diamonds, the defense still managed to collect three diamond tricks, the ßA and, the singleton çK! At the other table Lu (in 1NT) took ten generous tricks after the ∂2 lead to the ∂K, a losing club finesse and a low diamond return to her singleton ∂J! It was another big gain for China, now leading 48-14. A few boards later China struck again:

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 25 North dealer N-S vul

page 27

North ß J 10 7 ˙ A 10 7 6 ∂ 10 9 7 5 3 çJ

West ßAK6 ˙8 ∂AK84 ç 10 8 6 4 2

East ßQ943 ˙QJ9 ∂62 çAQ95 South ß852 ˙K5432 ∂QJ çK73

China Ladies vs. England Open Room West North East Callaghan Zhou Armstrong — pass pass 1ç pass 1ß 2ß pass 2 NT 3∂ pass 3 NT

South Dong pass pass pass (all pass)

Closed Room West North Hou Senior — pass 1 ∂ (2+) pass 2ç pass 3ß pass 4∂ pass

South Lambardi pass pass pass pass (all pass)

East Lu pass 1ß 2˙ 4ç 5ç

cashing the thirteenth spade allowed North to get rid of that cursed ˙7, which was blocking the suit. As a result, Dong could now cash her two winning hearts when she got the lead with the çK. Three notrump was down one and 10 more “heavy” imps went to China. China 64, England 47. Doron Yadlin (West) got the ˙6 lead, and the queen won the first trick. He saw no reason to delay the club finesse, hoping

Indonesia vs. Israel Open Room West North D. Yadlin Manoppo — pass 2 ç (inverted) pass 3 NT (all pass) Closed Room West North Karwur Migry — pass 1 ∂ (2+) pass 2ç pass 3ß pass

East I. Yadlin 1ç 2˙

South Lasut pass pass

East Panelewen pass 1ß 2 NT 4ç

South Barel pass pass pass (all pass)

Lu (East in the second auction) showed excellent bidding judgment. Her sequence to 5ç, exploring all possible alternatives on the way, was a good demonstration of how effective this pair could be. Five clubs rates to be a much better spot than 3NT but the blockage in hearts could come to the rescue of a lucky declarer. Both Armstrong and D. Yadlin got a heart lead against 3NT, but from different sides. At the Englishman’s table the ˙3 from South went to the ace and the ˙10 back was correctly ducked by Dong. Armstrong, however, was unaware of the blockage and decided to run his tricks before taking the club finesse. So he cashed four rounds of spades and two top diamonds and then finessed in clubs. But that, if that failed, the opponents would not have a clear idea of his values and his distribution and might decide not to continue hearts. He came to hand and took the club finesse. His foresight was rewarded when the actual layout meant that the defense could not extricate their heart winners. Since the Indonesians stopped in 4ç after an auction that was similar to that of the Chinese until the critical pass over 4ç by Karwur, Israel gained 6 imps.

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 28

Both leading teams managed to stretch their leads, completing two convincing wins over their opponents: China Ladies vs. England 94-65 , Israel vs. Indonesia 92-47. The final was going to be China Ladies vs. Israel. Signaling woes The first hand of the final supplied plenty of material for discussion: Board 1 North dealer None vul

North ß 10 8 5 3 ˙AKQ3 ∂ Q 10 7 çQ7

West ßQJ97 ˙97 ∂J çKJ9865

East ß642 ˙62 ∂A986 ç A 10 4 2

where the 6 is simply a neutral or semineutral card and three each where it is respectively high or low. Anders Wirgren has recently published an illuminating article on signaling systems, pointing out that each method has its bad cases but that it’s important to play with the percentages when trying to resolve ambiguous situations. His opinion on the case in question tends to back up Barel’s judgment at the table: “West is missing these spots: 9865432. Since there are two higher and four lower, the 6 tends to be high. So I would go wrong at the table, just like Barel.” That can come as a little consolation to the Israeli defender who lost 11 imps for being “right.” The Israeli pair’s carding agreement caused another unfortunate swing on board 6:

South ßAK ˙ J 10 8 5 4 ∂K5432 ç3

Against 4˙ both West players led the ∂J, 7, ace, low. East returned the ∂6 and both declarers followed with the 5, concealing two lower spot cards in an attempt to convince West that the 6 was a high diamond suggesting a switch to spades. Wang Yanhong was not deceived and switched to the ç6 (fifth from six). Yan Ru won the ace and dealt her partner another diamond ruff for one down, –50. Michael Barel got it wrong at the other table by switching to the ßQ, +450, 11 imps to China. While at first glance it may feel right to play the ∂6 as a low spot, as Wang did once declarer ditched the 3 and the 5, a deeper analysis reveals that the guess is a totally even-money proposition, with nine layouts

Where can we find one imp? The Russians and Poles search but come up emptyhanded after their quarter-final match against Israel.

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 6 East dealer E-W vul

West ß7 ˙AKQ2 ∂A92 ç J 10 8 3 2

page 29

North ßJ9 ˙ 10 7 5 3 ∂Q853 çAK7 East ßK3 ˙94 ∂ J 10 7 6 4 ç9654 South ß A Q 10 8 6 5 4 2 ˙J86 ∂K çQ

Both Souths opened 4ß and played there, without opposition bidding. This proved to be an easy hand to defend for Wang/Yan when East followed to the ˙A with the 9. West cashed two more hearts and the ∂A, –50. In contrast, Barel/Migry had their problems. Barel led the ˙K, asking for count, and Migry followed with the 4, even cards showing an even number of cards (when even cards are available). West switched to the ∂A, trying to get some clarification, 3, 10, king. East was trying to discourage a diamond continuation while asking for a heart (lowest even is the most discouraging card, suit-preference implications not relevant in “unknown-length” situations). But West “knew” that East could not hold the ∂4 or ∂6, which would be more clearly discouraging, in that order. As the ∂10 was most likely to be from relative shortness, declarer figured to indeed be shorter in hearts than diamonds. Therefore, Barel did not revert to hearts and continued diamonds, hoping that East could ruff and would also hold the ace of trumps to set the contract. Perhaps he was unlucky in finding the actual layout, but my gut feeling is

that it should have been much easier to get this right (in comparison to the earlier board) since a singleton ∂10 with East would mean that declarer was exactly 7-1-5-0. Dong discarded hearts on the ∂Q and çK and took the trump finesse for +450. That was 11 imps to China, pulling away to a 30-6 lead. After some wild imps changing hands in the next ten boards, Israel struck back: Board 18 East dealer N-S vul

North ß K 10 9 6 ˙8543 ∂J4 çQ75

West ßA874 ˙AKQ9 ∂ 10 9 ç 10 6 2

East ßJ3 ˙J762 ∂AQ87 çAJ8 South ßQ52 ˙ 10 ∂K6532 çK943

Both sides got to 4˙, but the systemic differences meant that Yan would declare it from the East seat, after a weak notrump opening and a Stayman sequence, and Barel from West. Yan took the ß2 lead with dummy’s ace, presumably in order to take a diamond finesse and set up some winners on which to pitch her possible club losers. Her ∂9 went to the 4, 7, king, with Doron Yadlin (North) making the good play of not covering with the jack. South played back a heart, which she won in dummy and continued with a second diamond to the jack and ace. (If North had played the ∂J on the first diamond, declarer, with three diamond tricks in the bank, would have known to lead spades at this point.)

Bridge Today • April 2004 Board 18 East dealer N-S vul

page 30 and play a third round of trumps, leaving Yan a trick short. One down, –50.

ß K 10 9 6 ˙8543 ∂J4 çQ75

ßA874 ˙AKQ9 ∂ 10 9 ç 10 6 2

ßJ3 ˙J762 ∂AQ87 çAJ8 ßQ52 ˙ 10 ∂K6532 çK943

A heart to dummy now revealed the bad trump split, and when she played back a second spade, Doron could rise with the ßK After 32 boards China Ladies led 93-80, and those early “signaling” swings had had a huge effect on the half-time score. Board 38 East dealer E-W vul

North ßQJ86 ˙ K 10 4 3 2 ∂92 çK8

West ß 10 5 3 ˙5 ∂ J 10 8 7 6 çQJ94

East ßA ˙AQ9876 ∂AK4 çA52 South ßK9742 ˙J ∂Q53 ç 10 7 6 3

Open Room West North Hou D. Yadlin — — pass 2ß pass double

East South Lu I. Yadlin 1 ç (strong) 1 ß 4˙ pass (all pass)

Barel (West) got a trump lead. He won in hand and played the ∂10 to the jack (which he must have been pleased to see), queen and king. Hou returned a spade and Barel ducked, won the spade return and ruffed a spade. With the ∂9 an entry to ruff his fourth spade with the ˙J, Barel now had the necessary communications to draw trumps and cross back to dummy with the çA to cash his last two diamonds. Losing only a spade and a diamond meant a big +450 and 11 imps to Israel.

Closed Room West North Barel Zhu — — 2∂ pass 3∂ pass 5∂ (all pass)

East Migry 2ç 2˙ 4∂

South Dong pass pass pass

Once again the strong club opening did not fare well against competition, although Lu’s view to drive immediately to game with her hand had something to do with the poor final score. It’s a mystery why Lu did not double 2ß for takeout. Perhaps double was not available to her for systemic reasons (maybe it shows an upper range balanced hand). Doron’s “greedy” double added insult to injury, and the contract went two off for -500. At the other table a good old-fashioned natural sequence got the Israelis to a delicate 5∂. Barel took the trump lead with dummy’s ace and played ˙A, heart ruff, çQ to king and ace, finessing the ten on the way back, spade to the ace, heart ruff, spade ruff, heart. Dong ruffed in with her ∂Q and Barel threw his last spade. Dong

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 31

played back a trump but Barel had to make two of the last three tricks for +600 and a healthy 15 imps injection to revitalize the Israeli hopes to win the trophy. The score was: China 103, Israel 95.

Closed Room South West Dong Barel Pass 2 ∂ (1) pass 3˙

A couple of misunderstandings cost Israel dearly in some of the first boards of the last set of 16 and the gap between the two teams widened until this deal all but sealed China’s victory.

(1) Multi (2) Competitive, not penalty

Board 59 South dealer None vul

North ß A K 10 4 2 ˙— ∂QJ93 çK762

West ßJ9 ˙KJ9843 ∂K4 ç943

East ßQ753 ˙ 10 7 6 ∂ A 10 7 çAQ5 South ß86 ˙AQ52 ∂8652 ç J 10 8

Open Room South West I. Yadlin Wang pass 2 ∂ (1) pass pass (1) Multi

North D. Yadlin 2ß double

East Yan 3˙ (all pass)

North Zhu 2ß (all pass)

East Migry double (2)

It is difficult to blame either of the Yadlins for their action on this board. Doron’s reopening double is clear-cut and his brother’s subsequent pass could easily have nailed the only plus for their side, since the alternative calls of 3ß, 3NT (yuk!) and 4∂ would mostly work only if matched with the kind of values that will defeat 3˙. Yan had no problems in making the contract and the resulting 11-imps gain meant a 156-118 score with five boards to play. The final score was 163 to 130. China Ladies had demonstrated a remarkable ability to successfully scrap with the best scrappers in the business, like SeniorLambardi and the Yadlins, while playing equally well against more technical pairs. Good teams make their own luck and it was evident to anyone who had been watching that China was indeed the team of destiny this year, consistently doing the right thing on the deals that mattered. The Israeli team played well for the most part, too, and their accomplishment in reaching this final after defeating Indonesia and the Poland/Russia powerhouse is in no way diminished by losing to such a worthy winner.

China Ladies win the whole thing!

Bridge Today • April 2004

page 32

Hand of the Month

On this hand from the NEC tournament, South played in 4ß against the lead of ∂A and a diamond. North ßAJ965 ˙K85 ∂ 10 6 ç 10 4 3 West ß8 ˙A2 ∂AQJ98532 çJ9

East ß73 ˙QJ974 ∂K7 çQ875 South ß K Q 10 4 2 ˙ 10 6 3 ∂4 çAK62

Declarer ruffed the second diamond, drew trump, and led çA and a club. West won the jack and shifted to ˙A and a heart. Now declarer won in dummy and played all the trumps, squeezing East in hearts and clubs.

Mark Feldman, our chief technical proofreader, pointed out a very interesting play for West. After winning the çJ, he should shift to the ˙2 instead of ˙A and ˙2. It looks like this is a poor play, since he can later be endplayed, but the answer to this is that declarer doesn’t know that West has only two hearts! Imagine that West has three hearts to the ace. When he shifts to the ˙2, declarer wins the king and must hope for a 3-3 club split. Now let’s review the play on the real layout where West has only two hearts. The ∂A is led and a diamond continuation is ruffed. Declarer draws trumps and leads çA and a club (or, better, a low club before cashing an honor). West wins the çJ and shifts to the ˙2, pretending he has three of them. Declarer wins the ˙K in dummy and, unless he has x-ray vision, tries for a 33 club break by cashing the top clubs. On the third round of clubs, West discards his ˙A, which he has just underled! Now declarer cannot fall back on an endplay and must lose two heart tricks.

NEWS! Starting with the May issue, articles will appear on the Bridgetoday.com website as they come (hot) off the “press.” Please check the MAGAZINE page for these articles.