| 12th World Bridge Championships | Page 6 | Bulletin 10 - Monday 19 June 2006 |
| |
||
Championship Stories It's in the Timing - by Barry Rigal
In the third set of the round of 32 in the Rosenblum, there was a wild set between Allfrey and Morath (there were five doubled contracts in the first nine deals with penalties of 800, 500, and 300, together with a +750). Deal number 9 produced the most interesting play. You may care to consider it as a declarer play problem, covering up the North and South cards Upmark doubled David Bakhshi's 4♥ contract, and Tornqvist led the ♣10–suit preference. Bakhshi won in hand and took a little time to digest the implications of the auction. Eventually he found the master-play of the ♥J from hand – a play that is almost necessary (if not sufficient) to make the contract. South won his ♥Q, gave his partner the club ruff, and got a spade ruff coming back. But now the fourth spade took care of the diamond loser and Bakhshi had 790. There were actually two possible defences; the difficult one is for North not to give his partner the spade ruff but to play a diamond – South still has a trump trick to come and the defence has established the diamond trick in time. The easy defence is for North to duck the ♥J – second hand plays low after all! North wins his ♥A, gives a spade ruff, gets a club ruff, and the second spade ruff spells one down! The beauty of what didn't happen Our friend, Deep Finesse, can tell the winning line of play or defense in any contract. After all, DF always looks at all the cards, which is a huge advantage. On this deal from the McConnell qualifying rounds, Irina Levitina managed 10 tricks in a contract of 4♠, but she did not consider her performance particularly inspiring. What did excite her was the possibility for a beautiful play – and she worked it out without Deep Finesse. Levitina was playing with team captain Hansa Narasimhan.
South started with a low trump, taken in dummy with the 10. Levitina played a diamond to the king and ace and won the trump continuation in her hand. She then played a heart from hand. South won the ♥K and exited with a club to dummy's ace. Now Levitina played the ♣K, ruffed a club, cashed the ♦Q and ruffed a diamond, then played dummy's fourth club, ruffing in hand. She picked up the last trump with the ace and played a heart to the jack, queen and ace. At trick 13, North had only a heart left, so she led it perforce to dummy's good 10 as Levitina discarded her losing diamond. That was Plus 620. What Levitina appreciated about the deal was what didn't happen – and how 4♠ is always cold if she makes the right play. On a trump lead, she can win and play a diamond, but South will win the ace and continue with trumps, making two diamond ruffs in dummy impossible. Levitina, however, spotted the 100% play – lead a heart from hand at trick four. If South wins the king and exits with anything but a heart, win it, get to hand again and play a second heart, ducking if South plays the jack. If South plays the jack the first time the suit is led, declarer must play low then also. To make the contract, you must not cover the jack with the queen either time you lead the suit because if you do, North can play a third round of trumps to scuttle the contract (you get a diamond pitch on the ♥10 but no diamond ruff). To demonstrate that she is an honest person as well as a fine bridge player, Levitina did note that she is not sure she would have found the play of ducking the ♥J had the opportunity presented itself. This is Matchpoints, Not Bridge - by Matthew Granovetter I've always despised five-card suit weak two-bids. That is, until this tournament, when I agreed to play them with my Mixed Pairs partner, according to her systemic outline: When we are not vulnerable, we open 2♠, 2♥ or 2♦, with a five-card suit and 4-10 HCP. That's it. Period. Suit quality? Who cares? Distribution? Doesn't matter. OK, I agreed to play the ‘system’. After all, we're playing matchpoints, not bridge, right? This was Board 8 of the second final session:
Opening led: ♠K. I had good spades for the two-bid this time, but my shape was not much to write home about. Some people call 5-3-3-2 the ‘death shape.’ North, however, felt challenged by the bid and refused to make a disciplined pass. He overcalled 3♥. Karen McCallum, my partner, competed to 3♠, and South made a responsive double. Now North was in the hot seat and had to judge what to do. If he had passed, we would have been down one for a poor score (only 17% for us), but he chose to bid 3NT. Karen made a nice double, with the K-J-x-x of hearts behind his overcalled suit. South ran to 4♣, and I doubled with my ‘maximum’ strength (after all, I could have held 4 points). This ended the auction and South was four down (100% for us). Obviously, South could have done better by redoubling 3NT, assuming it asked her partner to choose a minor, but she was not sure the redouble was for rescue. North might have run to 4♦ himself, based on the responsive double. In any case, the 2♠ bid launched an auction of fireworks and gave N/S problems that other N/S pairs did not face. After six sessions of using McCallum two-bids, I am now convinced that they work. Have a nice week. Bridge Today Daily is available by e-mail subscription at Bridgetoday.com. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| Page 6 |
