Round 12 – Poland
v Italy
It would have been fun to watch two pairs of brothers meet each
other but, in this match between Poland and Italy, Lo Presti/ Mazzadi
were again movie-stars for Italy on the vugraph-scene. Poland lined
up Krzysztof Buras/Piotr Lutostanski on vugraph. In the Closed Room
the di Bello brothers battled against the Kotorowicz brothers.
The match was important for both of the teams; Italy wanted to
secure a win in the round robin to gain the right to choose their
opponent in the semi-finals, while if Poland survived this round
they would have a very good chance to be one of the top four teams
and so make the knock-out stages.
On Board 5 the di Bello brothers sacrificed in 6©
against 5ª and that
went two down for -300. In theory you could beat 5ª
but in practice it rather often will succeed. Wong/Ieong of China
Hong Kong, found the correct defence against USA2’s Hurd/Wooldridge.
In this match Buras doubled 5©;
+100 and that was the first 5 IMPs of the match to Italy.
Board 6. E/W Vul. Dealer East.
|
|
ª Q J 10 3
© 4
¨ K Q 9 8 5
§ K 7 6 |
ª A 9 6 5 4
© J 10
¨ 7 4 3 2
§ 10 9 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª K 8 7
© A K 9 7 3
¨ A J 10 6
§ 2 |
|
ª 2
© Q 8 6 5 2
¨ -
§ A Q J 8 5 4 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Lo Presti |
Buras |
Mazzadi |
Lutostanski |
|
|
1© |
4§ |
Pass |
5§ |
Dble |
All Pass |
West |
North |
East |
South |
K. Kotorowicz |
S. di Bello |
J. Kotorowicz |
F. di Bello |
|
|
1© |
2§ |
Pass |
2© |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
5§ |
Dble |
Rdbl |
All Pass |
|
|
|
I think Furio’s redouble was reasonable. After a heart lead
and a club return declarer was doomed to go one down for –200.
At the other table Lo Presti led ªA,
a perfectly normal thing to do, and he was unlucky to find that
this was the only lead to make the contract easy for declarer; +550
and 13 IMPs to Poland.
In the following auction 3NT shows shortage in hearts, 4§
is a cuebid and 5§
shows three key cards. What’s your lead sitting East?
ª
9 6 ©
K Q J 7 ¨ K
9 6 5 3 §
9 4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
3NT |
Pass |
4§ |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5§ |
Pass |
6ª |
All Pass |
|
|
|
Board 8. None Vul. Dealer West.
|
|
ª A K 10 5 3
© A 10 8
¨ 10 8 7 4
§ 3 |
ª 8 2
© 9 5 4 3 2
¨ A 2
§ 10 6 5 2 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª 9 6
© K Q J 7
¨ K 9 6 5 3
§ 9 4 |
|
ª Q J 7 4
© 6
¨ Q J
§ A K Q J 8 7 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Lo Presti |
Buras |
Mazzadi |
Lutostanski |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
3NT |
Pass |
4§ |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5§ |
Pass |
6ª |
All Pass |
|
|
|
West |
North |
East |
South |
K. Kotorowicz |
S. di Bello |
J. Kotorowicz |
F. di Bello |
Pass |
1ª |
1NT |
Dble |
3© |
Pass |
Pass |
4© |
Pass |
4ª |
Pass |
5§ |
Pass |
5© |
Pass |
5ª |
Pass |
6ª |
All Pass |
|
After five rounds of bidding the di Bello brothers ended up in
the final contract of 6ª.
East’s 1NT showed four hearts and a five-card minor and West
tried to make life hard by a pre-emptive 3©.
Stelio’s 5©
denied a diamond control but the Italian brothers were short of
space and ended up in slam anyway. East found the diamond lead and
the defence cashed their two top diamonds; -50. Well done by East
but not a very impressive bidding sequence by North/South.
In the Open Room 3NT showed heart shortage. When Mazzadi led ©K
the board became a significant swing for Poland, 6©
made in one room and beaten in the other; 14 IMPs to Poland.
Board 9. E/W Vul. Dealer North.
|
|
ª A 5
© A K
¨ K 10 9 3 2
§ J 8 5 2 |
ª K 7
© 8 7 6 5 4
¨ A J 4
§ A 6 3 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª 10 9 8 4 2
© 10 9 3
¨ Q 6 5
§ 9 7 |
|
ª Q J 6 3
© Q J 2
¨ 8 7
§ K Q 10 4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Lo Presti |
Buras |
Mazzadi |
Lutostanski |
|
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
2§ |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
|
West |
North |
East |
South |
K. Kotorowicz |
S. di Bello |
J. Kotorowicz |
F. di Bello |
|
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
|
|
|
Stelio di Bello won the heart lead with the ace and established
three club tricks. A heart came back and when declarer played a
diamond up the contract was made, as he only had to take the spade
finesse.
The beginning of the play was the same at the other table but when
Krzysztof Buras ran ¨7
to East’s queen, back came another heart. West came in with
the ¨A and cashed
two heart tricks; one down and 10 IMPs to Italy. If the diamonds
would be the other way around Krzysztof’s way of handling
the diamonds would have been the right way to play.
At half time Poland was in lead by 30 IMPs to 15.
On Board 18 Lo Presti/Mazzadi stretched to a horrible 3©
contract, declarer might scramble seven tricks if he was lucky but
Lo Presti wasn’t; three off and 3 IMPs to Poland. The Kotorowicz
brothers were in a similarly horrible contract – 3¨
on a four-three-fit – and went one down.
On the very last board the Italians took their chance to narrow
the gap.
Board 20. All Vul. Dealer West.
|
|
ª 10 9 8 6
© Q 5 2
¨ 8 4 3
§ A K 7 |
ª 7 3 2
© 9
¨ A K Q J 10 9 5
§ 10 2 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª K Q J 5 4
© A 8 7
¨ 6 2
§ 8 5 4 |
|
ª A
© K J 10 6 4 3
¨ 7
§ Q J 9 6 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Lo Presti |
Buras |
Mazzadi |
Lutostanski |
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
2NT |
3¨ |
4© |
Dble |
Pass |
4ª |
5§ |
Dble |
5© |
Pass |
Pass |
5ª |
All Pass |
West |
North |
East |
South |
K. Kotorowicz |
S. di Bello |
J. Kotorowicz |
F. di Bello |
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
2ª |
Pass |
4© |
Dble |
All Pass |
It wasn’t easy for Jakub to realize his partner only had
one defensive trick. Stelio’s accurate jump to 4©
made it difficult for the Poles to find the right thing to do. I
don’t sympathize with Jakub’s idea of doubling 4©
and would rather pass with Eeast’s hand. On vugraph Paul Chemla
pointed out that it would be obvious for West to remove the penalty
double, but it at least wasn’t obvious for Krzysztof. At the
other table Lo Presti didn’t want to play in defence and his
removal to 4ª should
indicate seven diamonds and three spades, which helped Mazzadi to
find the right track. After East’s 5ª
Lutostanski wasn’t sure of what was going on so he passed.
5ª went two off
but when the di Bello brothers collected +990 in the Closed Room
Italy gained 13 IMPs.
Poland made a solid impression, while neither of the Italian pairs
played their best bridge in this match and would on that basis be
quiet happy that the defeat wasn’t more heavy than 13 VPs
to 17 (30-39 IMPs).
|