|
Commonwealth Nations Bridge Championship
2002
by
Judith and Nicholas Gartaganis
Day
#2 of the Round Robin
Our
initial match of Day 2 was against Singapore, a team occupying
the 13th spot after four rounds. We quickly found out that their
score was no indication of their skill level. They drew first
blood for a 13-IMP gain when the Singapore declarer at our table
found the missing Queen (third) in a nine-card side suit. Declarer
held two nine-card fits; spades were AKJ752 opposite Q43 and hearts
were K9752 opposite AJ104. Singapore played in 5
while Canada played in 5 .
The Q
must be located no matter what, but with spades as trumps there
is more time to discover the opponents' distribution. Singapore
followed up with a 6-IMP gain for bidding an aggressive game that
hinged on the lead. Eventually Singapore won the match 17-13 VPs,
handing Canada its first loss.
Canada's
second match was against Kenya. Our first hand was a grand slam
that we reached, but which was missed by half the field. With
East the dealer, the hands were:
West:
AKQJ97
A95
 AQ
 A5
East:
10654
Q4
KJ10872
Q
Our
Kenyan opponents also reached the grand to push the board. After
a flat second board, the match turned in Canada's favour when
Kenya stretched to 3NT after our side had opened an 11-13 HCP
1NT. The three trick set translated into a 9-IMP pickup for Canada.
Then Kenya was a bit unlucky on the next hand:
West
Nicholas |
North
|
East
Judith |
South
|
| - |
1NT |
Pass |
2
(1) |
| Double |
3 |
Double |
All
Pass |
| (1)
transfer to
or |
West
|
North
Campbell |
East
|
South
Balcombe |
| - |
1 |
Pass |
1 |
| Pass |
2 |
All
Pass |
|
| |
3
doubled failed by three tricks (-800) while 2
was allowed to make at the other table, adding 14 IMPs to Canada's
total. On the last hand Campbell/Balcombe bid an aggressive vulnerable
3NT that was cold on the lie of the cards while we struggled unsuccessfully
in a non-vulnerable 2
contract. Canada prevailed 25-5 VPs. The standings after six rounds
were:
Pool
A: Maple Team (124) India (123) Canada (121) England (93)
Zimbabwe (90)
Pool B: Australia (115) Patron Team (113) Wales (102) Bermuda
(102) Malaysia (98)
In
Pool A the Maple Team and India had set a torrid pace (almost
21 VPs per match) with Canada close behind. The top three teams
were starting to open up a significant lead over the rest of the
field. In Pool B the top five teams were tightly bunched with
the sixth place (Northern Ireland) and seventh place (Guernsey)
teams a mere 2 VPs behind.
At this point there was a half-hour break before the next match,
barely enough time for a quick walk after a brief discussion of
some of the results. We speculated that despite our respectable
score we might easily fail to qualify. India and the Maple Team
had already squared off.
In the 7th round we faced Scotland. On the first board, 3
was defeated one trick at both tables, but Scotland picked up
3 IMPs for doubling. After a routine 4
contract, we reached 6
with
QJ765
104
QJ2
AK4
opposite
A10983
AK92
A75
3.
The
K
was offside, but the K
was onside so Canada gained 11 IMPs when the Scots reached only
game. In Pool B, Australia was on the good end of the identical
slam swing in its match against the Patron Team.
Canada added 9 more IMPs when the Scottish pair, at our table,
took a phantom save against 4.
On the final hand we won 8 IMPs when Scotland played in 2,
off two vulnerable tricks, rather than in the cold 1NT reached
by our partners. The final score in the match was 22-8 VPs in
Canada's favour. Had the 6
slam failed, the match would have ended in a tie.
Zimbabwe, our next opponent, had been playing well thus far. The
first board turned into a 6-IMP gain for us when a difference
in systems allowed Campbell/Balcombe to play in 1NT doubled and
making, while the Zimbabwe pair were forced one level too high
in diamonds after a competitive auction. A push board followed;
then Canada won 10 IMPs after we reached an unbeatable 3NT with
23 HCP. At the other table, Campbell doubled three times during
the auction (including 3NT!), convincing the opponents to run
to 4,
down one. After a few minor swings and pushes, this hand came
along:
East
opened 1
at our table and the final contract was 7.
We expected to lose 13 IMPs, but Campbell/Balcombe also reached
the same great contract, no swing. Then our team combined bad
results when we missed an easy game while Campbell/Balcombe were
giving up -800, costing Canada 12 IMPs. Fortunately we had a chance
to recoup that loss.
After a weak NT auction and a forcing Stayman inquiry in which
Nicholas showed spades and clubs, the final contract was 3NT.
The lead was the 6
and the dummy came down with
J8
AQ432
KQ
KJ96
while
declarer held
A965
109
A4
A10543.
If
clubs come in for five tricks, 3NT is straightforward. If not,
declarer needs the K
onside. Nicholas won the A
in hand, played a club to the King and the J
from the dummy. On the initial round of clubs, LHO had played
the 2
and RHO had played the 8.
Now RHO followed with the 7.
The distribution of the diamonds was unclear, but it seemed likely
that LHO had longer diamonds than RHO. Declarer had few clues;
however, RHO's play in clubs seemed unusual given that he knew
declarer held spades and clubs. Nicholas decided to finesse and
was rewarded when clubs divided 3-1. The K
was offside so 3NT was destined to fail had declarer misguessed
clubs. Canada added 11 IMPs to its total. On the last hand Campbell/Balcombe
played in 3NT while their counterparts settled for 3.
No Trump made nine tricks while diamonds made just eight for a
Canadian gain of 12 IMPs. This gave us an important 24-6 VP win
and allowed us to keep pace with India and the Maple Team.
During the competition it quickly became apparent that "standard”
systems vary from one country to the next. Many of the United
Kingdom jurisdictions play weak NTs with Acol 2 bids. The Caribbean
countries favour a strong club system while in North America,
strong NTs and weak 2-bids in the majors are the norm.
In the ninth round Canada faced Trinidad & Tobago on Vugraph.
The first hand provided both teams the opportunity to profile
their strong club systems.
West
|
North
Nicholas |
East
|
South
Judith |
| -
|
-
|
1
(1) |
Pass
|
| 1
(2) |
Pass |
3
(3) |
Pass |
| 5 |
All
Pass |
|
|
(1)
16+ HCP
(2) negative, 0-7 HCP
(3) forcing
|
The
Daily Bulletin described the Canadian effort as "ambitious”.
Campbell's aggressive assessment of his hand helped propel the
partnership to 6.
On the lead of the K
Balcombe ruffed in hand and then ruffed a club to get to dummy
to finesse the K.
All reasonable lines of play lead to success. The successful slam
won Canada 13 IMPs. After three relatively flat boards Canada
picked up 6 IMPs for bidding and making a partscore in both directions.
Then we had a bidding mishap and played in 6
when thirteen tricks were laydown. Fortunately the Trinidad &
Tobago pair had a similar accident so the board was a push. Canada
won the match 21-9 VPs.
The last match of the day (Round 10) was against Jamaica. We expected
a tough match. Jamaica stood 5th in the standings and had beaten
England. Their worst score had been an 18-12 loss. Unfortunately
for Jamaica, both Canadian pairs were in sync and most of Jamaica's
decisions turned out poorly. For example, on the second board
we propelled ourselves into 3NT.
West
|
North
Nicholas |
East
|
South
Judith |
| Pass |
1NT
(1) |
2 |
3
(2) |
| Pass
|
3NT
|
All
Pass |
|
(1)
11-13 HCP
(2) Stayman with no
stopper |
East
commenced with the K
and erred by continuing the 4.
The Jamaican pair was playing reverse attitude signals and apparently
had no agreement about leading the Q
to ask partner to unblock (the Jack or the Ace) or give count.
Declarer gratefully won the 9,
discarding the 5
from dummy, and led the 2
to the 10.
West won with the K
and played hearts, the only safe continuation. East won the A
and exited with a third round of hearts, which declarer won in
hand with the J.
Declarer laid down the A,
as East perforce discarded a diamond. At this point Nicholas played
the 2
to dummy's 8.
Had the 9
been with East, West would have been immediately endplayed into
giving declarer his 9th trick in clubs or spades. No such luck.
After winning the 9
West continued with the K.
Declarer won the A
and discarded the J
on the 13th heart. He traveled to the Q
and cashed the A,
squeezing West in the black suits. This was good for a 12-IMP
gain for Canada since Campbell/Balcombe defeated 3NT at the other
table. On four of the next five boards Jamaica got the short end
of partscore battles that cost an average of 5 IMPs per board.
On the penultimate hand Jamaica suffered a bidding accident to
miss a vulnerable game. The end result was an unexpected blitz
(25-3 VPs) for Canada. The standings after ten rounds were:
Pool A: Canada (213) Maple Team (206) India (191) England
(166) Zimbabwe (154) Jamaica (147)
Pool B: Australia (193) Patron Team (188) Bermuda (171)
Pakistan (168) South Africa (167)
Over the last four matches we had scored 92 out of a possible
100 VPs thereby vaulting into the lead in our group. With just
five matches remaining, both England and Zimbabwe looked like
long shots to qualify for the playoffs. Meanwhile, in Pool B the
scores were much tighter and several teams still had decent prospects
of qualifying. Australia's position seemed comfortable, nearly
a full match ahead of third place. The next day we were scheduled
to play critical matches in the first two rounds -- first India
and then the Maple Team.
There was no formal program for Wednesday evening so we retired
to the pub for some drinks prior to dinner. Actually, regardless
of the evening's activities, our hotel pub served as a regular
"watering hole” for us. Canadians, particularly Western
Canadians (three of our team live in Calgary, Alberta), like to
enjoy a tournament regardless of the bridge results – a characteristic
we suspect is shared with Australians, the Welsh and the English
to name just a few other nationalities!
|
