|
 Commonwealth
Nations Bridge Championship 2002
by
Judith and Nicholas Gartaganis
Day
#3 of the Round Robin
We greeted the next day with nervous anticipation. Although in
a good position, arguably our team had been the beneficiary of
more than its share of luck during the first two days of the competition.
In Round 11 we faced India. Our luck continued, augmented by some
good play. The Indian players were very aggressive bidders. On
the first board we defended 4
doubled while the players with our cards were in 3NT. Both contracts
failed by one trick -- 4 IMPs to Canada. The next three boards
were pushes involving partscore battles and tight defense. Then
the Indian player at our table found himself on the hot seat.
Sitting East, at favourable vulnerability, his LHO opened a strong
club and his partner overcalled 1
showing a two-suiter with either 
+
or
+  .
RHO passed (less than 8 HCP) and, with 4
K942
K1065
Q1083,
the Indian player bid 2NT, ostensibly indicating a good hand with
a fit somewhere. LHO ventured 3,
partner passed, and RHO raised to 4.
This went around to partner who doubled. What now? The favourable
vulnerability and knowledge that there was at least one fit convinced
him to pull to 4NT. Perhaps there was some confusion regarding
their methods. By the time the smoke cleared the Indian pair played
in 6
doubled, off three tricks. At the other table India reached 4
unopposed and ended up four down for –400. This added 14
IMPs to Canada's total.
The next hand Nicholas picked up
95
K1098642
A32
5.
LHO
opened 1
and partner surprised him with a 2
overcall (5-5+ with hearts plus a minor). RHO made a 4
a fit-showing jump. Nicholas set up the defense with 4.
LHO's 4
bid came around. Not prepared to sell out, Nicholas ventured 5.
When the bidding tray came back the contract was 6
doubled. Mildly perturbed by the turn of events, he bid 7
(at favourable vulnerability), which was promptly doubled by LHO.
As it turned out 7
doubled was a good save against 4!
The four hands were:
West
|
North
Nicholas |
East
|
South
Judith |
| -
|
-
|
1
|
2
(1) |
| 4
(2) |
4 |
4 |
Pass |
| Pass |
5 |
6 |
Double |
| Pass |
7 |
Double |
All
Pass |
(1)
5-5+ with Hs plus a minor
(2) Fit showing (
+ ) |
The
result was duplicated at the other table. With two boards remaining,
there was more excitement. We held:
North: AJ
Q10872
93
KQ104
South: K82
A4
AKJ4
A875
Looking at both hands, 6
would be the preferred slam. Unfortunately Nicholas chose to show
the 5th heart and bury the club suit. The result was an inelegant
6NT contract. Fortunately for declarer the card gods were smiling,
having dealt RHO KJ3
and 63.
So Canada scored an undeserved 10-IMP gain to win the match 22-8
VPs. Had the slam had failed, India would have picked up 11 IMPs
and the match would have been a narrow 16-14 VP win for Canada.
Meanwhile the Maple Team had won its match against Antigua &
Barbuda, 19-11 VPs. India was now in a bit of trouble and needed
help to qualify. Neither Canada nor the Maple Team had had their
bye yet (18 VPs) and the two teams were scheduled to meet in the
next match.
Round 12 against the Maple Team was on Vugraph. The first two
boards were pushes. On the third hand the Maple Team bid an aggressive
vulnerable game, but misjudged the play. That was 6 IMPs to Canada
when we stopped in 3,
just making.
On the following board, after 1
by North and double by East, North/South arrived in 4.
East led the 10
and West made the good play of ducking to deprive declarer of
a subsequent dummy entry. Declarer parried this by taking a first-round
trump finesse. Identical lead, defense and declarer play meant
no swing.
After
scoring an overtrick IMP Canada earned another gain:
West
|
North
Nicholas |
East
|
South
Judith |
| -
|
-
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
| 1 |
1 |
3
(1) |
4 |
| 5 |
5 |
All
Pass |
|
(1)
Weak
|
West
Campbell |
North
|
East
Balcombe |
South
|
| -
|
-
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
| 1 |
1 |
Pass |
4 |
| 5 |
All
Pass |
|
|
Judith's
cuebid allowed her side to compete to the 5 level and Balcombe's
wise pass of 5
(rather than correcting to 5)
left the opponents unsure how to proceed. 5
failed by two tricks for -100; but +480 at the other table gave
Canada another 9 IMPs and a 16-IMP lead in the match. The play
in 5
is interesting. Declarer can guarantee his contract against any
distribution of the heart suit. He first eliminates clubs and
diamonds, then plays a low heart from one hand and covers whatever
card the opponent plays. Just as Canada seemed to be in control
of the match, the Maple Team recovered 6 IMPs by bidding and making
partscores at both tables. On the penultimate board, the Maple
Team bid a vulnerable NT game where a friendly lie of the cards
made nine tricks a certainty – Canada lost another 10 IMPs.
The match ended in a 15-15 VP tie, a result that didn't help India
one bit. The standings with three rounds to go were:
Pool A: Canada (250) Maple Team (240) India (216) England
(202) Zimbabwe (189)
Pool B: Patron Team (227) Australia (218) Pakistan (208)
Wales (208) Bermuda (197)
With our two toughest matches of the day behind us, Canada remained
well-positioned to qualify for the semi-finals. In Pool B it was
still a dogfight as to who would prevail. The next match was Canada's
bye. Our last two matches would be against Antigua & Barbuda
and then Mauritius. India was running out of time. Unfortunately
for them, the Maple Team blitzed Jamaica in the Round 13 thus,
for all intents and purposes, eliminating India from the playoffs.
Canada beat Antigua & Barbuda 23-7 VPs and prevailed against
Mauritius 24-6 VPs, finishing with a hefty 315 VPs (out of a possible
368) and top spot. The standings in Pool A at the end of the round
robin were:
Pool A: Canada (315) Maple Team (297) India (284) England (246)
Scotland (228) Zimbabwe (226)
Poor India had scored an average of 19 VPs per match, yet had
failed to qualify. Most of the drama was in Pool B. After fourteen
rounds the standings were:
Pool B: Australia (259) Patron Team (257) Wales (252) Pakistan
(235) Northern Ireland (232)
In the last round the critical matches were:
Patron Team vs Uganda
Australia vs Pakistan
Wales vs Malaysia
The Patron Team seemed to have the easiest draw, but Uganda had
already shown they could play well having defeated several good
teams. Australia, looking over their shoulder at the surging Welsh
team, needed to win. The Australians found it rough going against
Pakistan. With the match in the balance, the following hand proved
to be the nail in their coffin:
At
the first table Australia played in 5
after East preempted in hearts. West led a diamond and declarer
put in the Queen, quickly wrapping up his contract. At the other
table:
West
Australia |
North
Pakistan |
East
Australia |
South
Pakistan |
| - |
- |
- |
1 |
| 1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| Pass |
3NT |
Double |
All
Pass |
The
double would have been brilliant had West held the A.
As it was, after the lead of the J
declarer gathered in eleven tricks for +1150 and an 11-IMP gain.
Pakistan went on to win the match 23-7 VPs. Could Malaysia hold
off Wales? On the hand above, Malaysia stopped in 4,
which rated to be a big gain for Wales. But wait! Wales reached
6NT and looked destined to lose the board; however, the card gods
smiled once again. East led the A
presenting declarer with his 11th trick (assuming the K
is onside). The run of the clubs squeezed West in spades and diamonds
so Wales scored +1440 for a 16-IMP gain. Wales won the match 22-8
VPs and overtook Australia on the final round. The standings after
15 rounds were:
Pool B: Patron Team (277) Wales (274) Australia (266) Pakistan
(258) Northern Ireland (257)
The results of the Round Robin created a peculiar situation. The
Patron Team and the Maple Team were ineligible to win medals since
neither competitor represented a Commonwealth jurisdiction. It
would be Canada versus Wales (Adam Dunn, Dafydd Jones, Peter Goodman,
Gary Jones, Tim Rees, Filip Kurbalija) for the gold medal. The
bronze medal would be awarded to the highest-placed Commonwealth
team that played in the two-day Manchester 2002 Bridge Challenge
commencing the following day. The Bridge Challenge competition
would include 14 county and sponsored teams in addition to the
non-qualifiers from the original competition. It would be a total
round robin (2 boards against every other team) with cumulative
IMPs determining the winner.
That evening the EBU had arranged for the competitors to attend
the greyhound races. We decided to make a beeline for our favourite
"watering hole” since none of us were racetrack fans.
The match tomorrow promised to be challenging and entertaining.
Any concern we had about restraining ourselves in terms of celebration
was immediately alleviated when we realized that somehow the Welsh
team had already beat us to the pub!
Canada had entered the competition as one of the pre-tournament
favourites based on its gold-medal win in Salt Lake City. We had
lived up to our pre-tournament billing with consistent play plus
a pinch of luck thrown in. Our team wanted to win the next day,
but would the card gods still be smiling in our favour? The difference
between winning and losing is often so small that it can boil
down to playing with confidence and trusting your judgment.
|
