| 35th World Interzonal Team Championships, Paris, France | Friday, 26 October 2001 |
|
USA I vs Netherlands Venice Cup Round 7 By Patrick Jourdain (Wales) Most bidding boxes contain more green cards than red, but, for the replay of the final in Bermuda where the Dutch took the Venice Cup by a fraction of an IMP, one could predict that a different balance was required. Almost every deal in the first half of the match had interesting competitive decisions in the bidding. The players often acted as if their Green cards had been removed. The first board, though flat, contained some technical points of interest. "Equal level conversion" is the modern theory that allows you to make off-shape take-out doubles, particularly of an opening major suit bid where you have the other major, long diamonds, and short clubs. If your partner responds in clubs, you can "correct" to diamonds without promising extra values. The snag, of course, is that when you do correct, advancer does not know your strength. This gave Karen McCallum a problem holding, as East: ª 6 © Q 7 6 ¨ Q 8 7 § A 10 7 6 3 2 The auction had begun:
What do you call? McCallum made the right decision when she played for Sanborn to have no more than a normal overcall, and Passed. The green card proved useful! The spotlight now turned to Bep Vriend, on lead as North, with: ª K Q 9 8 7 © 10 8 ¨ 10 9 5 § Q 9 8 If you read declarer as holding four spades and five diamonds,
then a trump lead makes sense and it would have been enough to threaten
Three Diamonds. On the actual heart lead you obtain your ruff, but
it is not enough to beat the contract:
The defence made a heart, a heart ruff, and two spades. On a trump lead declarer may be held to one ruff, five trumps and two aces. Board 2 illustrated the point about aggressive bidding. Dealer, East, holds, at favourable vulnerability: ª 9 3 © J 7 4 ¨ A Q 10 7 4 3 § 7 2 What would you call? Jet Pasman opened Two Clubs showing a weak
two in diamonds, or a strong hand. Karen McCallum at the other table
had a weak two in diamonds available (but see Board 5 for an example
of that), and chose Three Diamonds. This was the full deal:
Elsewhere Three Diamonds doubled went for 1100 but on this occasion both declarers emerged with six tricks for a swing of 5 IMPs to the Dutch. Board 3 contained another test of aggression. As East you hold at adverse vulnerability: ª K 9 5 4 © 10 9 3 ¨ K J 10 7 § A 10 Dealer, to your right, opens 1©, you Pass and where it was raised to Two Hearts that is Passed back to you.Would you protect? Jet Pasman did, with a double. Anneke Simons removed to Three Clubs which was Passed out. This went three off (one table recorded -1100 in Three Clubs doubled). McCallum wisely allowed the Dutch to play peacefully in a partscore. 4 IMPs to USA. On Board 4 East held: ª 10 8 5 © 10 5 4 3 ¨ K J 5 4 3 § 6 At many tables West opened a weak two in spades and North made a take-out double. Your choice on the East cards? McCallum raised to Three Spades, and the next player, Marijke van der Pas, leapt to Five Clubs. This was unbeatable and on a spade lead declarer made 13 tricks. The point is that at several tables North-South reached a slam, making the lead crucial. Opener held: ª K J 9 7 3 2 © 2 ¨ A 10 9 7 § 5 2. If East bids Three Diamonds for the lead, that kills the other side's chance of 3NT (often making 13 tricks) or Six Clubs (their diamonds were 2-2). The auction at the other table had been:
West, Anneke Simons, led a spade, declarer at once claiming thirteen tricks. However, it transpired that North had alerted her own 3¨ bid to East as an artificial force, whereas South had explained it to West as natural. The claim of damage resulted in an award of 3 IMPs to the Dutch. On the same deal the French North-South pair in the Bermuda Bowl made the error of reaching SEVEN Notrumps. They might well have made Six with an overtrick, but Seven has the snag that the player on lead spots the winning defence whenever he holds the missing ace. On this occasion the leader meanly doubled and led diamonds. The defenders were so happy to put the grand slam 1400 down that they blocked the diamond suit and missed their fifth trick! Board 5 had something in both bidding and play:
If the diamonds come in 3NT is easy for East-West, so it was surprising to find one table opting for 5¨ and the other for 3ª doubled, which is close to making. Five diamonds went two off. Against 3ª doubled Kerri Sanborn led a top diamond, but then switched to a trump. East played ace and another. South could ruff two diamonds, but was then unable to make the queen of hearts as East ruffed in. One off and 7 IMPs to the USA. Board 6 produced another decision about protecting. West held: ª Q 9 7 5 4 © 10 9 ¨ A Q 8 3 § 9 2 At adverse vulnerability South on your right opens 1©, you Pass, North responds 1NT and that is Passed back to you. Would you do anything? Kerri Sanborn tried Two Diamonds, showing diamonds and spades. The snag is that partner is not expecting the spades to be longer, so when Two Diamonds was doubled McCallum, holding: ª K J 10 © J 8 6 ¨ 6 4 2 § K J 8 5 did not correct to Two Spades. The penalty was 500 to give the Dutch 8 IMPs compared 3© making at the other table. Kerri Sanborn, with an excellent play, came close to making a borderline
game on the next board:
In the Closed Room the Dutch had stopped in Two Notrumps and come to nine tricks, so the Americans were hopeful of a gain. North led a heart and Sanborn rose with the nine in order to take the diamond finesse. This lost and Vriend found the good switch to a low club taken by dummy's king. Declarer looks doomed, for she cannot even set up the eighth trick in any suit without the defence cashing five tricks. However, Sanborn found the good shot of at once returning a club. Caught unawares South played low and the ten fetched the queen. With the clubs blocked, things looked much more interesting. After long thought North played the queen of spades. Sanborn won and took the reasonable line of relying on the diamond break. She cashed the second spade throwing a club and played on diamonds. When they did not break the contract failed, as the defence could now make two more clubs. Cashing the second spade put declarer to an awkward discard. The analysts might like to check what happens if it is left in dummy. The position is complex, but I reckon the defence still have the upper hand. There was little in Boards 8 and 9, but Board 10 provided another
tricky 3NT:
The seat from which it was played made a difference. Where North was declarer the game went three down! On VuGraph Marijke van der Pas was declarer from the South seat. The lead was a diamond giving declarer four tricks in the suit. Declarer won the ten, and ran the seven of clubs, losing to the ten. Oddly, it may be best for East to shift to a heart. This gives declarer an eighth trick but not a ninth, as West can lead hearts again when in with a spade. However East actually switched to the safer-looking spade, the four. Declarer ducked to West's queen, and with the spade position unclear West decided to continue the suit. Declarer won and played another club. When East won she tried a third spade. Declarer had to guess the layout, but there was a clue. If West had not been looking at the ten of spades it would have been much more likely that when in earlier she would have switched to a heart. Van der Pas duly inserted the seven. When this fetched the ten she claimed her game with three spades, four diamonds, and two outside aces. The swing was 14 IMPs to the Dutch who led 33-10 at half-time (the gap increasing later by 3 IMPs as a result the ruling on Board 4). In the second half (not seen by your reporter) the USA recovered the deficit. The match could not be said to have resolved which is the better team, for it ended in a 15-15 draw. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Page 2 |
