Bridge Today - March 2007

March 2007

♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

Yokohama Quiz See how you would do on these challenging problems from last month’s NEC tournament in Yokohama. — page 10

Also: 2

The Red Pencil Sayanora to ... Equal Level Conversion

5

Kantar’s Korner by Eddie Kantar

22

Israel Teams Championship by Pietro Campanile

31

Bridge Yesterday Roth and Stone

NOTICE: Please share this issue of Bridge Today eMagazine with your partner. Better still, give him a subscription of his own. You’ll be glad you did. He will thank you each month and he will become a better player. Subscriptions are $33 per year for 12 monthly issues or packaged with a Bridgetoday.com $59.95 club membership. Thank you! — Matthew and Pamela Granovetter

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 2

The Red Pencil by Matthew Granovetter Equal Level Conversion

Equal Level Conversion — it sounds so eloquent, even a bit religious. Some just call it ELC. It sounds also very democratic. When it applies to bridge bidding, it is “all the rage” despite the fact that it may have been introduced first in bridge literature by Robert Ewen, of New York, in his 1973 publication, “Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit” (although he did not give it the trendy name). The following hand is on page 25 of the book:* You ♠KJ97 ♥64 ♦AQJ982 ♣8

Your RHO opens 1♥. What is your call? “After a 1♥ opening bid by your RHO, you would like to try for a spade contract by making a takeout double, but you would also like to advertise your powerful diamond suit by overcalling. Since you are fortunate enough to hold your length in the two higher-ranking unbid suits, you can do both. First, make a takeout double; if partner responds in spades or (improbably) in diamonds, all will be well. If he misguidedly mentions clubs, however, simply direct his attention to the other two unbid suits by converting to diamonds.”

*Thanks to bridgeguys website for pointing it out.

You

♠KJ97 ♥64 ♦8 ♣AQJ982 Switch the minor, and ELC doesn’t apply. You can’t correct diamonds to clubs at the same level, unless you’re Houdini. Notice something that you usually don’t see when someone is explaining ELC? There are six diamonds in Ewen’s hand, to the ace, queen, jack, nine. That is what you might call a safe harbor. Users of ELC today will do it with weaker harbors. Such as: You ♠AK97 ♥A4 ♦Q5432 ♣65

Over 1♥, they are not in the least put off by that Qxxxx suit. They double 1♥, planning to convert clubs to diamonds at an equal level. Now there are some who use ELC when a minor is opened and they have 5-4 in the majors. Not willing to overcall the five-card major, they double first....

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 3

You ♠KJ97 ♥AQJ64 ♦8 ♣982

Over 1♣ by RHO, they double, planning, if naughty partner bids diamonds, to correct to hearts and mean it as a minimum hand. I should note here that there are a number of ELC players who play it only from clubs to diamonds — they always promise a good hand when correcting to the major. If you do decide to play ELC after reading this article (you probably won’t), at least don’t play it into a major. Here you can simply overcall 1♥ and partner is there with a responsive double if he has spades or may bid spades himself and you could then raise without a qualm. Now, I would now like to introduce readers to a few bridge problems that ELC players hope and pray will never come up at the table, or have never thought about: West (you) ♠432 ♥K32 ♦76 ♣ K Q 10 9 2

North 1♥

East (partner) ♠AK97 ♥A4 ♦Q5432 ♣65

West — 3♣

East double ?

North 1♥ pass

South 2♥

Let’s try this one: North (you) ♠A873 ♥632 ♦— ♣Q87642 West pass 2♠

North pass ?

East 1♠

South double

Would you pass? No, I think you would bid 3♣. And if partner now made an ELC to 3♦, you wouldn’t mind, would you? OK, let’s get back down to the two level where it’s safer.

The bidding goes: West — ?

West (you) ♠432 ♥K32 ♦76 ♣ K Q 10 9 2

East double

South 2♥

Do you bid 3♣? Please don’t glance at the sample hands given so far. You know you bid 3♣ any day of the week, at any vulnerability at any scoring. Partner surely has nice club support and certainly not:

West (you) ♠A32 ♥97532 ♦7 ♣ K 10 9 2 West — ?

North 1♥

East double

South pass

Do you respond 1♠ or 2♣? Probably you respond 2♣. You’re only thinking 1♠ after reading the first pages of this article. I’m sorry I scared you. Of course, when partner bids 2♦ and the next hand doubles, you will run to 2♠, right? Or will you?

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 4

What if partner has our famous first illustration: West (you) ♠A32 ♥97532 ♦7 ♣ K 10 9 2 West — 2♣ ?

East ♠KJ97 ♥64 ♦AQJ982 ♣8 North 1♥ pass

East double 2♦

South pass double

Better to stick it out in 2♦ doubled. Now let’s go to the four level just for fun…. The bidding starts: West — ?

North 1♠

East double

Good-bye Yellow Brick Road Just say “No!” Or if you have already said, yes, get that red pencil out, folks, and put a line through Equal Level Conversion. You’ll be so glad you did. Here’s a nice bidding mishap, using ELC: You ♠ A K 10 3 ♥432 ♦ A K Q 10 2 ♣7 West — double 2♦

North — pass (all pass)

East pass 2♣

South 1♥ pass

So what went wrong? South 3♠

You hold as West:

Partner held: ♠Q4 ♥ J 10 7 6 ♦J3 ♣A6543 This time you make 3♦ but you missed 3NT. Why? Because partner didn’t know how strong you were.

♠432 ♥ Q 10 3 ♦4 ♣K87654 Is there any vulnerability or scoring in which you would venture 4♣? Cannot partner have a normal takeout double, such as: ♠5 ♥AJ65 ♦A532 ♣ A 10 9 2 In which case, your side is on a finesse for a slam in clubs. But you didn’t let the fear of ELC stop you from bidding 4♣, did you?!

If, however, you were not playing ELC, your sequence would show extra values, and your partner would come back with a 2NT call over 2♦. It would be that easy. Finally, some of you are asking, what do you do when you don’t have extra values, when you want to enter the auction but cannot because you have red-penciled ELC off your convention card?

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 5

You ♠ A K 10 3 ♥432 ♦ A 10 9 7 6 ♣7 West — ?

North pass

West — pass

North — 1♠

East pass pass

You are not unhappy. Sometimes North raises hearts and you get another chance: East pass

South 1♥

One idea is to slip in a four-card overcall in a major, if the major is strong. I do it all the time. I rarely get burnt. Some hate to do this. Some prefer to pass 1♥ and await developments. In the words of some great bridge sage: The auction is not over. Passing can work just fine. Sometimes when you pass your opponents bid your two suits:

Kantar’s Korner

West — pass ?

North — 2♥

East pass pass

South dealer All vul

North

♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣KJx W

I get letters and some pose interesting problems. For example: How would you play 4NT in this sequence? North pass 3 NT 4 NT?

And this....

East pass pass

South 3♦ 4♠

South 1♥ pass

Now you have to judge the position, scoring and vulnerability more astutely. It’s not perfect, and there are no perfect formulas, but once hearts are raised you have a safer entrée into the auction, knowing partner is short there. Good luck, and see you next month with my red pencil.

by Eddie Kantar

West 3♣ pass pass

South 1♥ 2♦

South 3♥ pass

West double double

N S

E

North 4♥ (all pass)

East (you) ♠Jxxx ♥x ♦ 10 8 7 2 ♣Q9xx East pass

Right or wrong (it looks right when you see the dummy) you decide to pass 4♥ doubled. Partner leads the ♦A. Which diamond do you play? In other words, do you give attitude or count?

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 6

Here are my answers: West 3♣ pass pass

North pass 3 NT 4 NT?

East pass pass

South 3♦ 4♠

I thought 4NT was to play. It turned out North had a spade fit and was asking for keycards. Assuming 4NT is natural, North has to cuebid or raise spades to show slam interest. South had: ♠Kxxxx ♥A ♦AKxxxx ♣x The second one is also interesting. The full hand: South dealer All vul

North ♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣KJx

West ♠ A 10 9 x x ♥x ♦AQJx ♣ A 10 x

East (you) ♠Jxxx ♥x ♦ 10 8 7 2 ♣Q9xx South ♠x ♥AQJxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx

South 3♥ pass

West double double

North 4♥ (all pass)

with a high diamond, the correct defense if declarer has one more diamond and one less club. However, if West suspects East has four diamonds, he will surely shift to a club at trick two. East thought that it was an attitude situation and, because he wanted a club shift, he played a low diamond. West continued with a diamond and the contract was made. From East’s point of view, declarer has 10 tricks if he has a 2-7-2-2- pattern, so he must project either a 2-7-3-1 or a 1-7-2-3 (3-2) pattern in declarer’s hand. In either case partner needs count to know what to do next. Editor’s Note: For those playing Obvious Shift carding, this could be one of the exceptions to the rule of attitude at trick one. In this case, count is important because we have a cash out position. The only danger is whether both players can read that it’s a cash-out position. Since they may not, I think that East should signal attitude and West must guess the position. * * * * *

Here’s an interesting card combination: North AJ32 West Q 10 4

East pass

West was hoping East would give count so he would know whether to continue

East K87 South 965

Say West decides to attack this suit knowing the distribution. If West attacks with the 10, a form of surrounding play, he triumphs. Lacking Q-10-8, West must find the K-8-7 in partner’s hand to compensate.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 7

North AJ32 West Q 10 4

North J9x East K85

South 976

This time if West attacks with the ten and the jack loses to the king, the suit is frozen. East-West must wait patiently for their second trick in the suit. However, East may not know this as partner may have led from the Q-10-7.

North AJ32 West Q 10 4

East K75 South 986

In this layout, West cannot afford to lead the suit and must be sure to cover the 8 with the 10. Assuming the 10 is covered by the jack and king. the suit is once again frozen. East cannot lead the suit safely after winning the king, and West cannot lead the suit later. And if South leads the 9 later, West must cover to promote partner’s 7. Of course, how is each defender supposed to know what spot cards the other holds? I’m telling you, this bridge is a tough, tough, game.* And here’s another combination worth mulling over.

*Perhaps West should cover the 8 with the queen, clearly freezing the suit for partner. — editor

South Q x x (x)

The hand has been stripped and this is a side suit in which you can only afford to lose two tricks. Case (a) you started with four cards in the suit and you know they each have three cards remaining. Have you considered leading the jack from dummy, winning when East has A-10-x, K-10-x or 10-x-x, losing when West has the same holdings? The vigorish comes in when East does not cover with something like A-x-x or even A-K-x, and if he does cover with A-K-x, he may err and cash the other honor. Yes, yes. This play works much better against a non-expert East, but it is food for thought. But isn’t a big part of this game inducing defensive errors, particularly from non-expert players? Why do you think you see the same names appear in the winners’ circle, particularly in pair games. They know how to induce errors. Case (b) You started with Q-x-x in the suit and you know that the original layout of the suit was 4-3 and you know which defender started with the length. If East started with the length, lead the jack, playing East for the 10. If West started with the length, lead low to the queen and low to the nine, playing West for the 10. * * * * *

Whenever you run into an awkward bidding problem, are you compelled to dream up a bidding convention to cover it? I have had that problem over the years....

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 8

Take this sequence: West 1♦

North 2♠

East double

South 2 NT

Furthermore, if you have an exceptional two-suiter (don’t hold your breath) with the other minor and hearts something like: ♠x ♥ K J 10 x x ♦x ♣ A Q 10 9 x x

What should 2NT mean? It can’t be natural. No way can the 2NT bidder have enough to invite game in notrump in this sequence. Nor can it be a game try in spades; a 3♦ cuebid is how you would do that. Going a little further with this sequence, 3♣ or 3♥ (in the modern game) after the double shows enough of a hand to raise to 3♠ plus a strong desire for a lead in the bid suit. For example, bid 3♣ with: South ♠Jxx ♥xx ♦xxxx ♣AKJx

The question now arises as what to bid if you actually have clubs without spades? (It is unlikely you will have hearts after the negative double.) For example: ♠x ♥ J 10 x x ♦x ♣AQJxxxx Surely you would want to bid 3♣, but how? Simple: 2NT should be played as a transfer to the three level of the unbid minor.

You might try 2NT and then 3♥ over 3♣. Good luck. Maybe you will find a nice fit. However, if partner has six spades and four diamonds, I don’t know you. * * * * *

How should third hand play when partner leads the king, dummy has A-x-x and: (a) dummy plays low, (b) dummy plays the ace. Axx K

?

There are several considerations. First and foremost is the bidding. In an ideal situation the opening leader is known to have a five-card suit and third hand known to have three. In this case, third hand can afford to give suit preference (unless dummy has A-9-x or A-10-x and third hand has 10-x-x or J-x-x.) Keep in mind declarer is known to have a doubleton. This agreement can lead to some eloquent defenses....

Bridge Today • March 2007 Matchpoints South dealer None vul

page 9

North ♠A73 ♥9654 ♦ K 10 2 ♣K85

West ♠KQ864 ♥8 ♦963 ♣QJ96

Dummy Qxx K East ♠J92 ♥73 ♦AQJ4 ♣7432

South ♠ 10 5 ♥ A K Q J 10 2 ♦875 ♣ A 10 South 1♥ 4♥

West 1♠ (all pass)

North 2 ♠ (1)

East double (2)

Time for another suit-preference play. Matchpoints West dealer E-W vul

Assuming dummy plays low, East’s highest spade, the jack, asks for a diamond shift, the middle spade, the 9, asks for a continuation, and the lowest spade, the deuce, asks for a club. Given this layout (of course, I set up this hand to sell my argument), it takes a diamond switch at trick two to defeat the contract. Otherwise declarer can easily strip the hand and lead a diamond to the 10.* The same logic prevails when third hand raises a second suit and partner leads the king (king from ace-king in supported suits) and dummy tables with the queen.

North ♠Q75 ♥J93 ♦K732 ♣982

West ♠AK92 ♥82 ♦954 ♣ A Q J 10

East ♠ 10 8 6 3 ♥K754 ♦86 ♣K63 South ♠J4 ♥ A Q 10 6 ♦ A Q J 10 ♣754

(1) limit raise or better (2) stolen bid Opening lead: ♠K

?

West 1♣ 1♠ (all pass)

North pass pass

East 1♥ 2♠

South pass 3 ♦*

*Thou shalt not let them play at the two level in a 4-4 fit. Opening lead: ♠K

East plays the ♠3 at trick one, and if South believes and shifts to a club, the defenders can take three clubs and two spades. If West leads a red card, declarer can arrange to draw trumps and pitch a club from dummy on his fourth heart.* To be continued in a future issue. Ciao.

*Editor’s Note: OS carding works here if East realizes the OS is clubs. So East plays the ♠J for the un-obvious switch suit: diamonds. Not as smooth as Kantar’s suit-preference but gets the job done.

*Editor’s note: Finally a hand where OS carding works smoothly too. Thanks, Eddie! The low spade says switch to the Obvious Shift suit, opener’s bid suit.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 10

Yokohoma Quiz by Barry Rigal

In recent years there would be little argument from the cognoscenti that the best Daily Bulletin at any tournament, be it a world championship, international, or national event, has been produced by Eric Kokish and Rich Colker at the NEC tournament in Japan. The reason for this is the combination of quality and quantity – the bulletins average 25 pages of two-column analysis from the 60 or 64 boards of the day, necessitating enormous amounts of work both from them and the staff who assemble the raw data. This year Eric was unable to attend the championships, so I was deputed to try to fill those size-12 shoes. It was not my first visit to Yokohama — I had attended the world Championships in 1991 – but it was hard to recognize the neighbourhood, as what had been an outpost of Yokohama was now the centre of a thriving metropolis. That made eating all varieties of Japanese food considerably less of a trek — which was an excellent thing since the routine for the day involved rising at 8:30 to be in place at 10 a.m. for the start of play, then working through with short breaks for lunch and dinner, to a typical end of workday at 3 a.m. The good news was that Rich and I nearly matched Eric for quantity – I’m not prepared to commit myself on the issue of quality – and we were able to report on a spectacular number of well-played deals as well as the occasional missed opportunity.

The event consists of a round-robin — this year of 47 teams — with eight matches of 20 deals over the best part of three days, reducing to eight teams. Then there were two 32-deal quarter-finals and semi-finals, followed by a 64-board final. The finals constituted one of the better-played matches I’ve watched; Netherlands defeated Poland/ Russia 114-109, the low score giving an indication of the quality of the match. This is particularly so, given that both teams are on the active side in the auction. The deals that follow will try to give you a feel for the event; I will set you a series of problems, duplicating the problems that the players had at the table. I have rotated deals to make South declarer. 1. Round II North ♠AKJ ♥ J 10 8 6 ♦Q43 ♣875 South (you) ♠8765 ♥53 ♦K92 ♣ A K J 10

For reasons best known to yourself you find yourself in 3NT (you have shown a weak notrump and nothing about your shape at all) on the lead of a low club to East’s queen. Plan the play.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 11

2. Round III East dealer N-S vul

Should you win or duck the lead of the ♦Q? Say you duck and a diamond is continued, and you win. What should you do at the next trick? Say you run the ♣J, and much to your surprise, it holds. Play on.

North ♠865 ♥Q5 ♦A82 ♣ J 10 7 6 4

3. Round IV

♦Q South (you) ♠AQ2 ♥K98643 ♦93 ♣K2

South dealer E-W vul

North ♠KQ ♥ 10 3 2 ♦ J 10 6 ♣A8753

♥4 West 1♦ double

North pass (all pass)

East 1♠

South 2♥

Playing 2♥ doubled on an auction where you might expect the sky to be falling in, you are charmed at the sight of an exceptionally good dummy – in context.

South (you) ♠J984 ♥AK7 ♦A4 ♣QJ92

As South you reach 3NT on the lead of a fourth-highest ♥4. You put up dummy’s ten and East covers with the jack. Plan the play.

4. Round VI East dealer Both vul

North ♠A42 ♥A2 ♦ A 10 8 6 2 ♣KQ9

W

West — pass double

North — double (all pass)

N S

E

East 4♥ pass

East (you) ♠ 10 9 ♥KQJ976543 ♦J5 ♣— South pass 4♠

As East you respect your partner’s double of 4♠ — albeit with some tiny misgivings, and on the lead of ♥10 you and South follow low as declarer takes the ace, leads a trump to his king, and to your pleasure leads a club up. You ruff the king and try the ♥Q, on which South pitches a diamond, and West a club. You have already taken two tricks yourself – not bad! What should you do next?

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 12 6. Round VII

5. Round VII South dealer E-W vul

♠4 W

South 1 NT

East dealer N-S vul

North ♠KQ2 ♥AJ7 ♦862 ♣6542 N S

West pass

E

North 3 NT

East (you) ♠85 ♥K96 ♦ J 10 5 4 3 ♣QJ7 East (all pass)

Defending 3NT as East, you see partner lead an unreadable spade – let’s say a fourth highest ♠4. Declarer wins the ♠J in hand and passes the ♥10, on which your partner’s ♥5 (if the start of an echo) might suggest a switch (Reverse Smith). Do you win or duck? And what do you play?

West (you) ♠K986 ♥A64 ♦KJ5 ♣ 10 9 2

North ♠Q42 ♥Q73 ♦ A 10 7 6 4 2 ♣3

W

N S

E

South opens a 14+-17 1NT and North bashes 3NT. Your fourth highest spade lead goes to the 2, jack and ace. Declarer leads the ♦Q from hand; cover or duck? If you cover, declarer wins in dummy and leads a diamond back to his ♦9 as partner follows twice. Again, do you win or duck? If you duck, declarer leads a heart toward dummy’s ♥Q; you won’t be surprised to hear my next question — win or duck? And if you win, what should you play now?

7. Round VIII South dealer E-W vul

West (you) ♠ Q 10 3 2 ♥862 ♦A974 ♣95 South 1 NT 2♥

W

West pass pass

As West you elect to lead a diamond since you expect dummy to have four spades (what would you lead)?

North ♠A975 ♥7 ♦865 ♣KQ863 N S

Declarer gives some thought to the play to trick one. He takes partner’s ten with the king, and leads ♣J from hand; the sight of your ♣9 leads to another long pause. Eventually he overtakes, and leads a spade to the ♠J and your ♠Q. What now?

E

North 2♣ 3 NT

East pass (all pass)

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 13

8. QF 1

bid 2♦ to show a heart raise. Double on your left, 2♥ from partner, 2NT on your right, raised to 3NT on your left. When this comes back to you, do you pass, double, or sacrifice?

South dealer • N-S vul West (you) ♠ A 10 9 5 ♥ 10 7 6 5 ♦K ♣ K 10 9 3 West — pass 2♦ pass ?

North — 1♦ double 3 NT

East — 1♥ 2♥ pass

West — pass 2♦ pass double ?

South pass double 2 NT pass

At favorable vulnerability you pass in second seat, and hear 1♦ on your left, 1♥ from partner, double on your right, and you

North — 1♦ double 3 NT pass

East — 1♥ 2♥ pass pass

South pass double 2 NT pass redouble

Assuming you try to exert your machismo by doubling (LHO is after all a lady) it goes back to RHO who redoubles – expressing doubt. Do you see any reason to change your mind?

ANSWERS 1. South dealer Both vul

a diamond trick and at least one more spade trick. With four top losers it appears you need the spade finesse and the break; not so, as Ravenna demonstrated when he led a heart to the jack and king at trick two.

North ♠AKJ ♥ J 10 8 6 ♦Q43 ♣875

West ♠Q3 ♥AQ72 ♦ A 10 8 5 ♣932

East ♠ 10 9 4 2 ♥K94 ♦J76 ♣Q64 South ♠8765 ♥53 ♦K92 ♣ A K J 10

How would you fancy your chances in 3NT as South here? That was where Pablo Ravenna, of Argentina, found himself after an auction that should probably be kept concealed under the 25-year hazardous waste legislation. On a club lead to the queen, he won in hand and had to develop

Back came a club and he took a spade finesse, which held, then cashed his top spades, finding East with four. Undaunted, he then took the remaining club winners, pitching a diamond from dummy. West pitched a club on the third spade, and then two diamonds on the third and fourth club, coming down to ♥A-Q-7 and ♦A-10. Had West kept three diamonds and two hearts, declarer would have led to the ♦Q and then West would have been endplayed with a heart to lead diamonds. But Ravenna knew that he needed West to have all the key cards, so he led a heart. When West followed with the 7, declarer put up the 10 and claimed nine tricks when it held.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 14

Ravenna’s line was dangerous, I suppose, in that he might have gone down when the cards were lying perfectly. But he reasoned that the defenders would never be able to work out how to cash their five winners, and he might give himself an extra chance if the cards lay like they did. The fact that this line works does not make it right…but you have to give him credit! 2. The match between D-MaTK of Japan and Netherlands gave us very little taste of what was to come. Netherlands were comprehensively outplayed in a low-scoring match, this hand being the major gain for Japan: East dealer N-S vul

North ♠865 ♥Q5 ♦A82 ♣ J 10 7 6 4

West ♠J9 ♥ A J 10 7 ♦ Q J 10 5 ♣A83

East ♠ K 10 7 4 3 ♥2 ♦K764 ♣Q95 South ♠AQ2 ♥K98643 ♦93 ♣K2

West Bakkeren 1♦ double

North Imakura pass (all pass)

East Bertens 1♠

South Ino 2♥

Old fogies like myself mourn the loss of a penalty double, in Support Double positions. Then again, with a hand like West’s I believe you are supposed to pass 2♥ and only sit for the double if partner reopens. Ino bought the sort of dummy on this auction that suggested he must have done something good in a past life. He ducked the diamond lead and won the next, then ran the ♣J. When it held, he ruffed a diamond and exited with the ♣K. Bakkeren won and played the ♠J which went round to Ino’s queen. Ino cashed the ♠A, led a heart to the ♥Q, ruffed a club, and got out with a spade, in the process reducing both himself and Bakkeren (West) down to three trumps, for the endplay, and a mighty +670. Bakkeren’s duck of the ♣A was the fatal error. He needs to win and exit with anything but a trump to prevent declarer from reducing his own trumps sufficiently for the coup. Since 3♦ made a peaceful +130 in the Closed Room when West passed over 2♥ and East balanced with 3♦, that was 13 imps to Japan. 3. Here is my favorite deal from the Round Robin, because it features one of those rare occasions when virtue is rewarded. The declarer who played the wrong line was defeated when the cards lay badly and the opponents defended well, while the declarer who played it right was victorious. Both tables in Yamada-Poland/Russia bid to 3NT by South:

Bridge Today • March 2007 South dealer E-W vul

page 15

North ♠KQ ♥ 10 3 2 ♦ J 10 6 ♣A8753

West ♠A52 ♥Q654 ♦K987 ♣ 10 4

East ♠ 10 7 6 3 ♥J98 ♦Q532 ♣K6 South (you) ♠J984 ♥AK7 ♦A4 ♣QJ92

The Japanese West led a diamond, which allowed declarer to win in hand, when East covered, and take a club finesse. South eventually led spades to set up his ninth trick without risk, once diamonds had been shown to be splitting 4-4.

4. We left East in mid-hand on lead to 4♠ after ruffing a club and scoring a heart trick: East dealer Both vul

North ♠A42 ♥A2 ♦ A 10 8 6 2 ♣KQ9

West ♠J86 ♥ 10 ♦KQ93 ♣AJ862

East ♠ 10 9 ♥KQJ976543 ♦J5 ♣— South ♠KQ753 ♥8 ♦74 ♣ 10 7 5 4 3

For Poland/Russia, Balicki led a heart, keeping the defense in the game. Declarer put up the ♥10 and won Zmudzinski’s ♥J to take the club finesse. Zmudzinski won as Balicki had followed with the ♣10 — Reverse Smith, asking for a switch — and shifted to diamonds! Balicki won the ♦K and reverted back to hearts, establishing two tricks there. (As the cards lie, he could also have returned a diamond.) Now when declarer knocked out the ♠A West could cash out for down one. Nicely done! But declarer had opened the door to EastWest by playing clubs before spades. Here it would seem that you want to keep East off lead for precisely the reason that a diamond shift might hurt you, and the losing club finesse will surely give East the chance to switch. The point is that if East has both critical black honors, your choice of plays here does not matter, but if the cards lie as they do in real life, then no shift can hurt you when West takes the ♠A.

It went: ♥10 to the ace, spade to the king, club to the king and ruff. The ♥Q was cashed, South throwing a diamond. At the table, West now let the contract through by discarding a diamond. But even if he had pitched a club at trick four, you as East would have needed to shift to a diamond to break up a trump-squeeze. (Maybe a thoughtful partner would ruff your ♥Q, cash his ♣A, and exit with his last trump to break up any pressure!) Here is the whole scenario from the table....

West — pass double

Schollaardt North East — 4♥ double pass (all pass)

Jacobs South pass 4♠

Bridge Today • March 2007 East dealer Both vul

page 16 Jacobs overruffed and drew the last trump, to reach this position:

North ♠A42 ♥A2 ♦ A 10 8 6 2 ♣KQ9

West ♠J86 ♥ 10 ♦KQ93 ♣AJ862

East ♠ 10 9 ♥KQJ976543 ♦J5 ♣— South ♠KQ753 ♥8 ♦74 ♣ 10 7 5 4 3

The position now was:

W

S

E

W

N S

E

♠— ♥KJ976 ♦J5 ♣—

The third round of trumps forced a club from West, and the fourth round of trumps forced West to concede. If he pitched another club, declarer would play on clubs and the ♣10 would eventually be good. If he pitched a diamond, declarer would play a diamond to the ace and ruff a diamond and lead a club up to concede just one trick in the ending. Contract made. In Depth

♠A4 ♥— ♦ A 10 8 6 2 ♣Q9 N

♠— ♥— ♦KQ9 ♣AJ86

♠753 ♥— ♦7 ♣ 10 7 5

To review, Leon Jacobs played 4♠ doubled on the lead of the ♥10. Imagining trumps were not going to break he quite reasonably won the ♥A and played a trump to hand and a club to the ♣K and a ruff. When East cashed a top heart he threw a diamond loser away and West erred by pitching a diamond — a club is far better.

♠J8 ♥— ♦KQ9 ♣AJ86

♠— ♥— ♦ A 10 8 6 2 ♣Q9

♠— ♥KJ97654 ♦J5 ♣—

♠Q753 ♥— ♦7 ♣ 10 7 5 4 Now since a diamond play would let declarer ruff out the diamonds, East played a third heart and Jacobs pitched a club as West ruffed in, perforce. Had he discarded a club, declarer would have had enough entries to ruff out the diamonds. As it was,

If West had discarded a club at trick four, East must return a diamond to defeat the contract. A third heart would lead to the same ending as above. Picture West, in the diagram to the left, with one more diamond and one less club. On the diamond return, the ♦A wins, a diamond is ruffed, and a club led to the ace. West leads a trump to the ace. The ♣Q is cashed, a diamond ruffed and a club ruffed. But declarer is stuck in dummy with two diamonds facing his ♠Q and ♣10 while West still has the ♠J and a diamond, so West must score a trump trick.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 17

5. We left East deciding at trick two whether to win or duck a heart play, and what to do next. South dealer E-W vul

North ♠KQ2 ♥AJ7 ♦862 ♣6542

West ♠ 10 9 7 4 3 ♥542 ♦AK7 ♣98

East ♠85 ♥K96 ♦ J 10 5 4 3 ♣QJ7 South ♠AJ6 ♥ Q 10 8 3 ♦Q9 ♣ A K 10 3

Defending 3NT as East, you see partner lead a fourth highest ♠4. Declarer wins the ♠J in hand and passes the ♥10, on which your partner’s spot card might suggest a switch. Clubs or diamonds? Which needs less? Or more precisely, which defense can

6. Here is the full deal. East dealer N-S vul

North ♠Q42 ♥Q73 ♦ A 10 7 6 4 2 ♣3

West ♠K986 ♥A64 ♦KJ5 ♣ 10 9 2

East ♠J75 ♥J985 ♦83 ♣KQ87 South ♠ A 10 3 ♥ K 10 2 ♦Q9 ♣AJ654

you recover from if you select wrongly? Let’s assume you can read from the spots that declarer is likely to be 3-4 in the majors, and thus has only six tricks in those suits. If so, then say you play a diamond and find partner with the “wrong” hand: a 5-3-2-3 pattern with the ♣A-10 and ♦Q. The good news is that you may still set the hand anyway, since declarer has only eight winners. Conversely, if a diamond is essential you may not get another shot. On the actual hand (or if declarer has the ♦K instead of the ♦Q and not the ♣10) you’d better play a diamond now, or it is too late. In the match between Japan and China, Sun shifted to diamonds, while Hirata played the ♣Q; 10 imps to China. Round the room 3NT was declared at every table — and was set on each of the 10 occasions North played it — not an especially challenging feat. Of the 37 times the contract was played by South it made 22 times. Hmm, maybe all this proves is that defense is a lot easier with the sight of all four hands. At the table in the match between Helman and Israel on a spade to the ♠J and ♠A declarer led the ♦Q, ducked all round, then cleared the diamonds. West took the third, shifted to the ♣10 to the ♣Q and ♣A, and now a heart to the queen let declarer run the diamonds. With the ♥J and ♣K well placed that was an easy +400 to Israel. If West covers the ♦Q, maybe declarer should duck. But say he wins and leads a low diamond back to the ♦9. Now the defenders can duck and disrupt declarer’s communications. South can do no better than lead a heart toward the ♥Q....

Bridge Today • March 2007 East dealer N-S vul

page 18

North ♠Q4 ♥Q73 ♦ 10 7 6 4 ♣3

West ♠K98 ♥A64 ♦J ♣ 10 9 2

♠Q4 ♥Q7 ♦ 10 7 6 4 ♣— East ♠75 ♥J985 ♦— ♣KQ87

South ♠ 10 3 ♥ K 10 2 ♦— ♣AJ654

The ♥2 is led. The next critical play is that West must fly up with the ♥A, but clearing spades at once is not good enough. Instead he must shift to a club. Declarer must win and now he appears to have five diamonds, a club, two hearts and a spade. But this is the position:

♠K98 ♥64 ♦J ♣92

W

N S

E

♠75 ♥J98 ♦— ♣K87

♠ 10 3 ♥ K 10 ♦— ♣J654 Declarer is in hand, and needs two tempos; one to knock out the diamond, one to set up the spade. The lead is in hand and it is entirely appropriate in the land of Judo — the art of self-defense where one converts one’s opponent’s aggression to his detriment — that declarer now has to self-destruct. If declarer leads a heart up to clear diamonds, West wins the ♦J to lead a third heart and establish partner’s heart. If declarer plays a spade, the long spade is the setting trick.

Round VIII When the last round of the Swiss started there were five teams relatively sure to make it through: Poland/Russia, D-MaTK and Tiny Ant of Japan, Hackett (England and Helgemo), and OzOne of Australia. They all avoided disaster in the last round and duly qualified. There were two matches that featured teams on the bubble of qualifying; Poland played The Latin (a mixed South American team) while Israel played Ireland. A big win for any of those four teams would probably suffice, a winning draw might be enough for Poland. Israel got their big win and duly qualified, but because Netherlands had vaulted over them with a maximum win, Poland needed 20 from a maximum of 25 VPs to be sure to advance, and got only 17, to miss out by 2 VPs. This deal was the most challenging technically of the Round Robin, I think:

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 19

7. Round VIII South dealer E-W vul

the ♥A and returning the ♥J. Kwiecien was not born yesterday; he rose with the ♥Q and had nine tricks. No swing.

North ♠A975 ♥7 ♦865 ♣KQ863

West ♠ Q 10 3 2 ♥862 ♦A974 ♣95

East ♠864 ♥ A K J 10 5 ♦ J 10 ♣ 10 7 4 South ♠KJ ♥Q943 ♦KQ32 ♣AJ2

South 1 NT 2♥

West pass pass

North 2♣ 3 NT

Even after a club play at trick four the defenders have to be very careful. Declarer wins the second round of clubs in hand and cashes the ♠K, then runs the clubs. This is the five-card ending: ♠A9 ♥7 ♦86 ♣— ♠ 10 3 ♥8 ♦A9 ♣—

East pass (all pass)

In a match between The Latin and Poland the spade opening lead found by the Polish West had made declarer’s task an easy one. In the other room a low diamond to the ♦10 and ♦K saw Kwiecien overtake the ♣J and finesse in spades. When Ravenna (West) won his ♠Q he needed to exit with a club to start cutting declarer’s communications (as we’ll look at shortly). The ♥8 was not good enough. Brenner (East) short-circuited this discussion by winning

W

N S

E

♠8 ♥AKJ ♦J ♣—

♠— ♥Q94 ♦Q3 ♣— Declarer has the lead in North and seven tricks in the bank. Suppose he leads a heart (cashing the ♠A would squeeze his own hand). East must win. If East leads the ♦J, South covers and West is endplayed in spades. But if East takes both hearts, West throws a spade; now South ducks the ♦J but East puts South in his hand with the ♥Q to lose the setting trick to the ♦A in the end.

At another table, Yaniv Zack for Israel against Ireland played 3NT on a diamond lead. He led a low club to dummy, and finessed in spades. West won and led ♥8 to the ♥K for ♦J back. Zack ducked, won the club return, unblocked spades, and ran the clubs. Note the difference from the previous position — the round of hearts did not do any harm per se, but the combination of the heart shift plus forced diamond play had cut the defensive communications and tightened up the position for the squeeze — not rectifying the count, but reducing it to a legitimate squeeze without the count. (Turn the page:)

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 20

♠A9 ♥— ♦8 ♣3 ♠ 10 3 ♥— ♦A9 ♣—

W

N S

E

♠8 ♥ A J 10 ♦— ♣—

♠— ♥Q9 ♦Q3 ♣—

8. QF I South dealer N-S vul

West ♠ A 10 9 5 ♥ 10 7 6 5 ♦K ♣ K 10 9 3

West — pass 2♦ pass double (all pass)

North ♠Q7 ♥K8 ♦ A 10 9 8 7 4 2 ♣A4 East ♠843 ♥QJ943 ♦J6 ♣Q82 South ♠KJ62 ♥A2 ♦Q53 ♣J765

Campanile North — 1♦ double 3 NT pass

East — 1♥ 2♥ pass pass

Barel South pass double 2 NT pass redouble

You’d like to play this in 3NT, not 5♦, though a club lead might embarrass either contract. Still, the fall of the ♦K forgives

On the last club West was caught in a strip-squeeze. The best he could do was to pitch his ♦9, but declarer could exit with a diamond and finesse on the spade return. Zack duly did this to gain 10 imps. West might do better to pitch an unconcerned spade early on the run of the clubs, and then to let go the ♦9 while retaining a low heart. That at least gives declarer a valid losing option.

any inaccuracy in the bidding, right? Wrong — or at least not quite right the way you’d expect. Barel-Campanile for Israel held the N/S cards and Barel passed in first chair, Migry Campanile opened 1♦, and East overcalled 1♥, an action that would not meet with the approval of many — let’s be charitable. After West’s cuebid of 2♦, North doubled and East felt he had done enough and bid only 2♥. When South bid 2NT North raised to 3NT and West smartly doubled in the pass-out seat. That floated back to South who redoubled (showing doubt) and North without much doubt let it slide. On a heart lead declarer won in hand and led a low diamond up, and on the sight of the ♦K graciously conceded the ♠A. Twelve tricks made. Quick, everybody, what does that score? Yes, 2,200 for 17 imps; and you thought that a result of 2200 normally would lead to declarer losing imps! The last deal for this issue has no problem associated with it — it is more humorous than anything else. The quarter-finals had started very well for China-Beijing (China had entered two teams in the event

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 21

— the national team China-SMEG narrowly failed to qualify for the knock-outs) against Marston-Prescott on VuGraph. Then along came this deal, which should gladden the hearts of anyone who believes in the ultimate inferiority of strong club systems over natural.*

You might be surprised to discover that 4♥ is quite playable — and on the actual defense at the table of a spade lead and heart switch to the ♥J and ♥Q and a heart back, all Marston had to do was draw trumps and find the ♣Q. What about best defense?

North dealer None vul

Game is still cold, at least at doubledummy, and as Monsieur Fermat would say, I have an interesting proof of this but not enough room to write it in my margin.

North ♠AK53 ♥9654 ♦J73 ♣Q9

West ♠ 10 ♥87 ♦ K 10 9 5 2 ♣K8642

East ♠62 ♥ A K J 10 ♦A64 ♣ A J 10 3 South ♠QJ9874 ♥Q32 ♦Q8 ♣75

Open Room West North Prescott Ju — pass double 3♠

East Marston 1♣ 4♥

(Well all right, on best defense of two rounds of spades you ruff in dummy and play three rounds of clubs, unblocking from hand. If South ruffs, the ♥Q comes down, so North ruffs. Now if a third spade is led, declarer ruffs in dummy, crosses to the ♦A and plays out three rounds of hearts.) No matter how much you hate the bidding in the Open Room, you’d probably prefer it to what happened in the Closed Room:

South Shi 2♠ (all pass)

Marston assumed the double of 2♠ would deliver hearts — apparently it normally does; still doubling 3♠ and bidding 4♥ over a 4♦ response might have been less committal? *Perhaps, but after a standard 15-17 1NT by East, he will probably play there for +90. — editor

Closed Room West North Cheng Richman — pass pass 3♠ 3 NT pass

East Wang 1♣ pass pass

South Nagy 2♠ pass pass

Wang’s pass of 3NT suggests it had not occurred to him that this call might be the minors. Oh well. Sadder but wiser, or at least better informed, he moved on to the next deal. See you in April for the conclusion.

Bridge Today • March 2007

Israel Teams Championship by Pietro Campanile

page 22 son], Levin, Altshuler, Fohrer) defeated the Herbst Team (Ilan and Ophir Herbst; Barel, Zack, Barr) by 140-100 after having trailed by 50-84 at the half. Here are a few interesting hands from both semifinals. The last hand before the interval proved to be quite swingy in both matches: East dealer None vul

The most prestigious event on the Israeli bridge calendar is the National Teams Championship. The play-offs of its top division, the “Liga Leumit,” took place earlier this year to assign the title that gives the holders the chance to represent Israel in certain international competitions, like the European Champions Cup. The championship is structured over several levels with divisions ranging from the national down to club level, and at the end of the regular playing season there are promotions to a higher division and relegations to a lower one according to the results. In the “Liga Leumit” however the top four teams are admitted to a play-off stage where they play a semifinals and final of 56 boards to decide the title. In the first semifinal the Segev Team (Segev-Tal, Gelbard-Engel, Lilo and Matilda Poplilov) defeated the Bareket Team (Bareket-Roll; Lengy-Leibovits; Reshef-Ginossar) by a clear 139-92. The second semifinal saw the clash of the two pre-tournament favorites, including players with a lot of international experience. In the end the Birman Team (David Birman, Zwillinger, Alon Birman [David’s

North ♠J932 ♥— ♦AKQ932 ♣A43

West ♠64 ♥ Q 10 6 3 2 ♦87654 ♣8

East ♠Q8 ♥J974 ♦ J 10 ♣K9652 South ♠ A K 10 7 5 ♥AK85 ♦— ♣ Q J 10 7

West Bareket — pass pass pass

North Matilda — 2 NT (1) 5 ♥ (3) 7♠

East Roll pass pass pass (all pass)

South Lilo 1♠ 3 ♠ (2) 6 ♣ (4)

1) Game forcing raise in spades 2) 17+ pts with shortness somewhere, usually 6 spades or 5-4-3-1 3) Exclusion Blackwood 4) Two keycards excluding ♥A and no ♠Q

Matilda and Lilo Poplilov bid aggressively to 7♠. With such a good source of tricks in the diamond suit, Matilda (North) pressed on to the grand slam, encouraged by her partner’s 3♠ bid, which showed 17+ points and usually six spades.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 23

♠J932 ♥— ♦AKQ932 ♣A43

East dealer None vul

♠64 ♥ Q 10 6 3 2 ♦87654 ♣8

W

N S

E

East dealer N-S vul

♠Q8 ♥J974 ♦ J 10 ♣K9652

♠843 ♥952 ♦ 10 9 7 ♣KQ32

♠ A K 10 7 5 ♥AK85 ♦— ♣ Q J 10 7

In the second semifinal Amir Levin and Alon Birman got to 6♠ after this bidding: North A. Birman — 5 ♥ (1) 6♠

East Zack pass pass (all pass)

W

N S

E

♠ 10 5 2 ♥ Q 10 4 ♦J8643 ♣65

♠AKQJ76 ♥J76 ♦— ♣ A 10 9 4

The lead of the ♦8 did not create too many problems for declarer: ♦A, ♠A-K, finding out the good news, ♥A-K and a heart ruff, diamond ruff uncovering the ♦J10 doubleton and a claim, since dummy’s diamonds are now set up. At the other table Ginossar-Reshef played in 6♠ and, quite naturally, Barel (West) led his singleton ♣8. Reshef inexplicably played low from dummy, letting East in with the ♣K. East was only too happy to return a club back for Barel to ruff: 6♠-1 with 7♠ making at the other table meant 17 imps to the Segev team, who closed the half leading 64-47.

West Barel — pass pass

♠9 ♥AK83 ♦AKQ52 ♣J87

South Levin 1♠ 6 ♣ (2)

1) Exclusion Blackwood 2) Two keycards excluding the ♥A and no ♠Q

The Herbst brothers at the other table earned their team 11 imps when they reached 7♠, leading 84-50 at the half. The second board of the third quarter was another very swingy affair:

In the Barel-Herbst match it very much looked like the Herbst team was heading for a significant loss on the board as HerbstBarr only managed to reach 3NT after this bidding: West Levin — pass pass

North I. Herbst — 2♦ 3 NT

East Altshuler pass pass (all pass)

South Barr 1♠ 2♠

At the other table Birman-Fohrer explored the hand much more thoroughly and got to the grand slam in spades. The trailing team could now significantly narrow the gap with a successful declarer view in 7♠ on the lead of the ♣K. The contract is obviously laydown if diamonds are 4-4, as declarer can now pitch all his round suit losers on dummy’s diamonds after ruffing one round of the suit. However, that is only a measly 33% chance, which is only slightly improved by the added odds of finding a doubleton ♥Q somewhere. The most natural line looks to be a squeeze in clubs-hearts on West and that is what Fohrer tried to execute, going one off when the diamond split proved unfavorable and the guard in the red suits was held by East.

Bridge Today • March 2007 East dealer N-S vul

♠843 ♥952 ♦ 10 9 7 ♣KQ32

page 24

♠9 ♥AK83 ♦AKQ52 ♣J87 W

N S

E

♠— ♥AK8 ♦AKQ52 ♣— ♠ 10 5 2 ♥ Q 10 4 ♦J8643 ♣65

♠AKQJ76 ♥J76 ♦— ♣ A 10 9 4 A perhaps less intuitive alternative can be arrived at if one considers that East is a very likely candidate to hold length in the red suits, once West shows up with three trumps and some club length. The winning line combines diamonds 4-4 and the ♥Q doubleton with an elegant trump squeeze on East. After taking the club lead with the ♣A, start cashing four rounds of spades, discarding a heart and two clubs from dummy. The opponents will need to pitch accordingly and you shall probably get to a layout like this:

David Birman declares as the Herbst brothers defend.

♠— ♥952 ♦ 10 9 7 ♣Q3

W

N S

E

♠— ♥ Q 10 4 ♦J8643 ♣—

♠76 ♥J76 ♦— ♣ 10 9 4 Now cash the ♠7 and West will jettison a club while you discard another heart from dummy. What can East do? If he pitches a diamond, he will give a strong signal that diamonds can now be cashed as there are only seven left, which will split 4-3 an overwhelming amount of time. So you’ll get to dummy with the ♥A, ruff a diamond with the last spade, go back to dummy with the ♥K and make the rest of the tricks. While a heart pitch will let you enjoy your ♥J in hand, for the thirteenth trick, if you guess the position. As it goes, Fohrer’s 7♠-1 meant a somewhat undeserved 13 imps for the Herbst team, which were to be their last big gain of the match: From now on it would be oneway traffic and a steady series of gains for the Birman team. In the other match, again one pair reached a notrump contract while the other was in spades, the difference being that the notrump contract reached by LeibovitsLengy was an unmakeable 7NT, while Lilo and Matilda stopped in 6♠, which made comfortably. That meant a second swing of 17 imps to the Segev team, all the more staggering if we think that with a different view those two heavy losses could have been turned into an overall gain of 7 imps for the Bareket team.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 25

Another critical swingy board which sealed the fate of both matches came close to the end: North dealer Both vul

North ♠ K Q 10 8 7 5 ♥— ♦QJ6 ♣ 10 8 3 2

West ♠J4 ♥— ♦9875 ♣AKJ9754

East ♠32 ♥AKQ832 ♦ K 10 4 3 2 ♣— South ♠A96 ♥ J 10 9 7 6 5 4 ♦A ♣Q6

West Roll — 3♣ 5♦ redbl

North Matilda 2 ♦* pass pass (all pass)

East Bareket 2♥ 3♦ pass

South Lilo pass 3♠ double

*Multi, either strong balanced or a good weak two in a major

The North-South defenders cashed their two spades. Declarer took the club switch and guessed diamonds, playing small to the ♦10 and ace. Another inevitable trump loser meant two down and -1000 because of the misguided redouble. The loss on the board for the Bareket team could have been much less if at the other table ReshefGinossar would be left to play in 4♠, which is only defeated by an unlikely trump lead and might generate +620. This is what happened instead:

West Engel — 5♣ double

North Ginossar 3♠ double (all pass)

East Gelbard 4♥ 5♦

South Reshef double 6♠

The contract went two down for another -500 and a third 17-imp swing to Segev, who went on to win 139-92. In the HerbstBirman match the board turned out to be no less exciting: Birman-Fohrer bought the hand for 5♦ undoubled (!) which drifted two off, while this is what happened at the other table: West I. Herbst — 4♣ 5♣ (all pass)

North Altshuler 2♦ pass pass

East O. Herbst 3♥ pass pass

South Levin double 4♠ double

The defense took no prisoners: Altshuler led the ♠K, overtaken by Levin with ace in order to cash his ♦A and play back a spade to his partner’s ♠Q. Altshuler understood what was required of him and played back the ♦Q, covered with the ♦K and ruffed by Levin, who returned a sneaky ♥5. Declarer pitched a diamond and Altshuler ruffed. Back came the ♦J, ruffed by Levin in order to return another heart and ensure another trick for the defense by promoting Altshuler’s ♣10. All in all the defense had collected two spades, a diamond and four club ruffs for a well deserved +1400 and a final match score of 140-100. The Final So it came to be that the final would be an unexpected encounter between Birman and Segev, with Birman odds on favorite to take the trophy, mostly thanks to the superior experience of his players who had reached this stage of the competition many times before, often winning it.

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 26

Nevertheless, the final was an incredibly close and exciting affair, with both teams going neck and neck until the last hand. This made for a great show for the thousands of kibitzers who watched it online through the BBO VuGraph, organized thanks to the industrious efforts of Ilan Shezifi, a leading bridge director in Israel. The initial score was set at 7-0 for the Segev team thanks to the positive

carryover originating from the 18-12 victory in the direct clash from the round-robin stage.

South dealer E-W vul

on the ♥K and then setting up dummy’s spades with ♠K, ♠A and spade ruff for +940, 10 imps to Segev and a score of 99-88 in their favor.

North ♠K97 ♥3 ♦J864 ♣AQ642

West ♠Q83 ♥ 10 9 7 5 ♦AK73 ♣J7

East ♠J6 ♥QJ64 ♦ Q 10 9 5 2 ♣ 10 3 South ♠ A 10 5 4 2 ♥AK82 ♦— ♣K985

Birman-Fohrer stopped in 4♠ after a very quick 1♠-2♣; 4♣-4♠. Declarer made 12 tricks for +480. At the other table Israel’s new young bridge star Dana Tal found a much more descriptive bid to send across her shape: South West Tal Levin 1♠ pass 4 ♦ (splinter) pass 4 ♠ (cue) pass 6♣ (all pass)

North Segev 2♣ 4 ♥ (cue) 4 NT

East Altshuler pass pass pass

With clubs 2-2 and spades 3-2, declarer had no trouble bringing home 13 tricks after drawing trumps, pitching a spade

We pick up the commentary of the last set of 14 boards when the score was a close 88-89 in favor of the Segev team. The first two boards of the set were flat leaving the score unchanged. The first significant swing occurred on board 45:

Next comes a hand that presents a bidding problem in which the approach is heavily affected by the type of scoring. What would you reply to partner’s 1♦ opening with: ♠ J 10 3 ♥753 ♦KJ86 ♣Q52 Segev opted for 1NT because of his flat shape while Birman chose 2♦, probably because of his poor major holdings. In both cases partner invites game with 2NT, showing a likely 18 or bad 19 count. Do you accept the invitation or not? Here is the complete hand:

Ron Segev and Dana Tal

Bridge Today • March 2007 Board 46 West dealer Both vul

♠K865 ♥K9842 ♦4 ♣764

page 27

♠ J 10 3 ♥753 ♦KJ86 ♣Q52 W

N S

E

♠52 ♥AKJ8 ♦KQJ953 ♣ 10

Board 52 East dealer Both vul

♠AQ ♥ 10 6 ♦9732 ♣ K 10 9 8 3

♠ J 10 8 6 4 3 ♥74 ♦864 ♣KJ

♠9742 ♥AQJ ♦ A Q 10 5 ♣AJ Segev passed 2NT while Birman bid on to 3NT. The decision is a really close one: It is true that North has a flat shape and the points are not good; on the other hand we do know that we have 25-26 points and the vulnerable game bonus is a powerful incentive to bid on. In my view passing 2NT with the North hand is a long-term losing decision, because even if we assume we're facing an 18 count (with 19 many players would bid 3NT in this specific sequence), at teams it is good policy to press the opponents into defending a possibly tight game rather than risking a sizeable negative swing by stopping in 2NT. As you can see, unless you can set up a spade in time, 3NT needs both the ♥K and the ♣K onside or some unlikely defensive error. After a heart lead by West at one table and a club lead by East at the other, both declarers took eight tricks, and Segev stretched their lead by another 6 imps to 105-88. After five rather uninteresting boards where each team scored one imp, this exciting hand came up:

W

N S

E

♠Q97 ♥ Q 10 9 5 ♦2 ♣97642

♠AK ♥632 ♦ A 10 7 ♣AQ853 West Matilda —

North D. Birman —

East Lilo pass

pass pass pass

1♦ pass 4 ♣ (Gerber) pass 7♦ (all pass)

South Fohrer 1♣ 2 NT 4 ♦ (0 or 3)

Once Fohrer upgraded his 17 count and opened 1♣, it did not need a lot of bids for Birman to get to 7♦. West Levin — pass pass pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North Segev — 2♣ 3♦ 4 ♣ (cue) 4 ♥ (cue) 5 ♠ (2+∂Q) 6 ♥ (˙K)

East Altshuler pass pass pass pass pass pass pass

South Tal 1 NT 2♦ 3 ♠ (cue) 4♦ 4 NT (RKCB) 5 NT (kings?) 7♦

At the other table Dana opted to open 1NT with the South hand and that meant that the World Schools champions would have a much tougher task in getting to a grand slam with a possible combined count of 29-31 points on the line. As the great Edgar Kaplan used to say: “Both pairs have bid to the top spot; all that they have to do now is to find a way to make the contract!”

Bridge Today • March 2007 Board 52 East dealer Both vul

♠ J 10 8 6 4 3 ♥74 ♦864 ♣KJ

page 28

♠52 ♥AKJ8 ♦KQJ953 ♣ 10 W

N

E

S

♠Q97 ♥ Q 10 9 5 ♦2 ♣97642

♠AK ♥632 ♦ A 10 7 ♣AQ853 Birman was playing the contract from the North seat and received the ♣7 lead. He naturally rose with the ♣A, noticing the fall of the jack from West. Declarer continued with a small club from dummy, ♣K from West ruffed in hand, three rounds of trumps finishing in dummy, ♣Q and another club ruffed, ♥K, ♦J and ♠A-K leading to this position: ♠— ♥AJ ♦— ♣— ♠8 ♥7 ♦— ♣—

W

N S

E

♠— ♥Q ♦— ♣9

♠— ♥6 ♦— ♣8 So far East-West have really done their best to conceal the heart position from declarer: especially Lilo by counting declarer’s hand* and therefore choosing to anticipate the heart discard at an earlier point of the hand when it would not arouse declarer’s suspicion. *East knows that declarer has only two spades; otherwise he would ruff one in dummy.

At the other table Dana Tal was playing the contract from the South seat on the lead of the ♠J. After a similar sequence of plays, with declarer also trying ♣A and club ruff, Dana got to the exact same final position of two cards with Levin-Altshuler also succeeding in concealing the actual position thanks to an early heart discard by East. David Birman and Dana Tal were unknowingly facing similar problems: They knew that East had started either with a 3-4-1-5 or a 4-3-1-5 shape. East was now down to a heart and a club (in which case the remaining hearts are 1-1) or a spade and a club (in which case the hearts would be 20). It was a question of where the ♥Q was. So they needed to figure out whether to go for a heart finesse or to play for the drop, since if East held the ♥Q, the club-hearts squeeze he was under had by now forced him to bare the ♥Q. Birman was playing the hand a little earlier, since his table had been playing more quickly, and, after some thought, he played a heart to the …. ace, dropping the ♥Q offside and making the slam. So all the kibitzers following the event knew that 7♦ had been made at the other table, by the time that Dana had reached the position. One particular kibitzer had more at stake in the outcome than anyone else: Moti Gelbard, one of the leading bridge teachers in Israel, had decided to let the two juniors play in the last set and was now frozen in front of the computer screen at home watching the nail-biting finish and waiting for Dana to decide what to play. Dana eventually played a heart to the … ace, and at the same time a loud primeval yell was recorded by the inhabitants of the usually quiet Philadelphia Street. After such a long tension watching the hand

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 29

unfold Moti could finally scream out his joy when Dana succeeded in bringing home the slam. All this excitement and a flat board! The fact that the two juniors were playing very solid bridge was shown on board 54, with only three boards left to play. ♠AQ5 ♥ K 10 8 3 ♦J873 ♣73 ♠KJ84 ♠ 10 9 6 2 N ♥AQ65 ♥J72 W E S ♦ 10 2 ♦Q9 ♣KJ8 ♣AQ96 ♠73 ♥94 ♦AK654 ♣ 10 5 4 2 At both tables East-West got to the contract of 2♠ after West had opened All was not lost though. Board 55 North dealer Both vul

♠J7653 ♥ 10 9 6 5 ♦AQ8 ♣7

♠Q98 ♥72 ♦73 ♣K98543 W

N S

E

♠ A K 10 ♥Q ♦ J 10 9 6 2 ♣ A Q 10 2

♠42 ♥AKJ843 ♦K54 ♣J6 West Levin — 1♠ 4♠

North Segev pass pass (all pass)

East Altshuler 1♦ 3♥

South Tal 1♥ pass

1♣ and raised his partner 1♠ reply. Both Souths led the ♦A and switched to a heart at trick two. Both declarers played small from dummy, but while Birman (North) inserted the ♥10 and was thus unable to stop Lilo from making his contract, Segev (North) rose with ♥K and returned a club (though a heart back would have been better as then the defense would always defeat the contract). Altshuler took in hand and finessed in spades, losing to the ♠Q. This allowed the defense to score a club ruff. (Declarer did not find the scissors coup play of the ♦Q to take away South’s entry.) North returned a club, taken in dummy, and declarer played spades again hoping to find an original holding of ♠A-x-x with South. Segev won his ♠A and played a diamond to his partner in order to receive the club ruff, which scuttled the contract. That meant a further 5 imps for the Segev team, who were now leading by 111-90 with only two boards left. Amir Levin got the ♥7 lead to the ♥K and a diamond back. He successfully finessed the ♦Q and played ♣A and club ruff. The fall of the ♣J and the opponents’ carding seemed to pinpoint a 6-2 break in the suit, so declarer now cashed a high spade and finessed again in diamonds with small to the ♦8. Confident that spades had to be 3-2 (since North could be placed with two hearts, two diamonds and six clubs), Levin simply cashed the ♠A and played a diamond to the ace. When North discarded, declarer ruffed a heart in dummy with the ♠10 and played another winning diamond, pitching another heart from hand. The defense could only take two hearts and a spade.

Bridge Today • March 2007 Board 55 North dealer Both vul

♠J7653 ♥ 10 9 6 5 ♦AQ8 ♣7

page 30 North dealer Both vul

♠Q98 ♥72 ♦73 ♣K98543 W

N S

E

♠ A K 10 ♥Q ♦ J 10 9 6 2 ♣ A Q 10 2

North D. Birman pass pass pass (all pass)

East Lilo 1♦ 3♣ 3♠

W

N S

E

♠ A K 10 ♥Q ♦ J 10 9 6 2 ♣ A Q 10 2

♠42 ♥AKJ843 ♦5 ♣9643

♠42 ♥AKJ843 ♦K54 ♣J6 West Matilda — double 3♦ 4♠

♠J7653 ♥ 10 9 6 5 ♦AQ8 ♣7

♠Q98 ♥72 ♦K743 ♣KJ85

South Fohrer 2 ♥ (weak) pass pass

At the other table the contract was played from the East seat and the lead was the ♥K followed by a switch to the ♦5. Understandably deceived by Fohrer’s topheavy “weak 2,” Lilo assumed that the ♦K was offside and South’s ♦5 might even be a singleton. So he rose with the ♦A, making sure of the contract if the layout had been something like this:

The winners: (L to R): Zvi Engel, Ron Segev, Dana Tal, Moti Gelbard, Matilda and Lilo Poplilov

His plan was to ruff a heart in hand and then cash ♠A-K. If the ♠Q did not drop, declarer could now simply give the lead to North with a diamond, who had no hearts left to play. Naturally things did not quite turn out that way, and when the diamond was played, Fohrer was only too happy to jump in and cash two more hearts, sending the contract two down for a last gasp 13 imps to Birman, who was now trailing by 103-111 with one board left. Unfortunately the last board did not present enough spice to be able to gain the required imps and despite gaining 4 imps on it, the final result of 110-106 rewarded a first time winner of the Liga Leumit: Team Segev (Moti Gelbard-Zvi Engel; Matilda and Lilo Poplilov; Ron Segev-Dana Tal) who pulled together a remarkable season by playing good all round consistent bridge even faced with teams who on paper were supposed to be their better. For the Birman team the consolation was that they actually ended up scoring more imps than their opponents and could attribute the loss to the 7-imp carryover. Once again, hearty congratulations to both winners and runners-up for providing us with such an exciting and well played final!

Bridge Today • March 2007

page 31

Bridge Yesterday by Matthew Granovetter The Flip Side

Let’s go back in time today to a lovely summer setting in Rapallo, Italy, 1957. At the swim club, Al Roth and Tobias Stone are enjoying a relaxing afternoon in a friendly rubber bridge match against two of their hosts.

North dealer N-S vul

North (Stone) ♠8764 ♥AKQ ♦AK2 ♣ A 10 3

West ♠J32 ♥ J 10 9 5 3 ♦5 ♣KJ76

East ♠ Q 10 5 ♥87642 ♦Q87 ♣Q4 South (Roth) ♠AK9 ♥— ♦ J 10 9 6 4 3 ♣9852

West — pass pass pass (all pass)

North 1♣ 2 NT 3♦ 4♥

Opening lead: ♥J

East pass pass pass pass

South 1♦ 3♣ 3♠ 6♦

Every opening bid in the Roth-Stone system was at least two highcard points heavier than today’s openings. But the flip side of the system was that responder could be more aggressive than today’s responders. Players today would open the North hand 2NT. Stone, however, opened 1♣ and it was Roth, sitting South, who became the aggressor. After Stone’s 2NT rebid, Roth showed his club support (before the days of artificial check backs!) and Stone showed his diamond support (those anemic spades were never mentioned). It was Roth who bid the spades with his A-K-9. Stone had great cards for slam and when he cuebid 4♥ Roth bid the slam. Roth said afterwards, “The final bid was somewhat of a gamble. Hands of this nature are very difficult to bid, and you will sometimes find yourself in a bad slam.” Perhaps this sounds like he was “covering his tracks” but he said it honestly after the hand. To make 12 tricks, Roth had to time the hand carefully. He won the heart lead, discarding a spade, cashed a high trump, led two rounds of spades and then another trump to dummy. When the ♦Q did not fall, Roth ruffed a spade, establishing the thirteenth spade in dummy. He now had three discards for three club losers. If he had drawn two rounds of trumps before cashing his ♠A-K, he would have been set.

Bridge Today • March 2007 North dealer N-S vul

page 32

North ♠8764 ♥AKQ ♦AK2 ♣ A 10 3

West ♠J32 ♥ J 10 9 5 3 ♦5 ♣KJ76

East ♠ Q 10 5 ♥87642 ♦Q87 ♣Q4 South ♠AK9 ♥— ♦ J 10 9 6 4 3 ♣9852

After the hand, Roth played some tennis and took a swim in the pool, thinking about whether there was any lead that could defeat 6♦. But the answer was no. The best lead for the defense is a club. Declarer wins in dummy, cashes two spades and goes to dummy in trumps. A spade is discarded on a high heart and now a decision has to be made: Ruff a spade or cash a high trump? On the actual layout you must ruff a spade, but what if the ♦Q was dropping doubleton and someone held the ♦Q-x and a doubleton spade? If you play a spade, they ruff in with the ♦Q and cash a club trick. So a club lead might have defeated the slam, depending on Roth’s table presence….

Roth and Stone

Renewals and Gifts We hope you enjoyed this issue. To renew your subscription or buy a new gift subscription for a friend, please contact us at [email protected]. Enjoy your bridge!