The Semifinals
Goldberg v. Herbst
by Jos Jacobs
After the morning excitement of the quarterfinals the winning tams had to sit down again at 16.00 hrs. to contest the berths for the finals. It would be Brigada v. Erichsen and Goldberg v. Herbst. One might thus say that the last stages of these Championships are an all-European affair with a slight Israeli flavour as one or two players from the Herbst team are not Dutch.
Below are a few swing boards from the Goldberg v. Herbst semifinal:
A more flexible approach by the Dutch South scored a sizeable swing for her side:
Board 5. Dealer North. N/S Vul.
|
|
♠ A K Q J 8
♥ Q 9 5 3
♦ 9
♣ 9 8 2 |
♠ 10 9 6 4 3
♥ J 10 2
♦ Q 5 4
♣ 6 3 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
♠ 7
♥ 6 4
♦ K J 10 7 6 3 2
♣ J 10 5 |
|
♠ 5 2
♥ A K 8 7
♦ A 8
♣ A K Q 7 4 |
Open Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Herbst |
Goldberg |
Bar |
Goldberg |
|
1♠ |
3♦ |
4♣ |
4♦ |
5♣ |
Pass |
5NT |
Pass |
6♣ |
All Pass |
|
The disadvantage of 4♣ was that North could not make any more constructive move on his own over the diamond raise. South did her best with 5NT, a general try for a possible grand, but North saw too many holes in his hand to accept. A good grand missed.
Closed Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Efraimsson |
Van Cleeff |
Svedlund |
Van Ettinger |
|
1♠ |
3♦ |
Dble |
4♦ |
4♥ |
Pass |
4NT |
5♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
7♥ |
All Pass |
|
|
|
South’s double over 3♦ gave North the chance to voluntarily introduce his heart support. That was all Van Ettinger needed more, so it took little time to reach the grand. Well bid and a fully deserved 13 IMPs.
A declarer misplay proved very expensive on board 6:
Board 6. Dealer East. E/W Vul.
|
|
♠ Q 10 7 5 4 2
♥ A Q 10 2
♦ Q J 2
♣ - |
♠ J 8 3
♥ 8 6
♦ A 9 7 4 3
♣ 8 6 4 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
♠ 6
♥ J 7 3
♦ K 8 5
♣ A K Q J 5 2 |
|
♠ A K 9
♥ K 9 5 4
♦ 10 6
♣ 10 9 7 3 |
Open Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Herbst |
Goldberg |
Bar |
Goldberg |
|
|
1♣ |
Pass |
Pass |
1♠ |
2♣ |
3♣ |
Pass |
4♠ |
All Pass |
|
Not very exciting, 11 tricks and 450 to Goldberg.
Closed Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Efraimsson |
Van Cleeff |
Svedlund |
Van Ettinger |
|
|
1♣ |
Pass |
1♦ |
1♠ |
3♣ |
3♠ |
Pass |
4♠ |
Pass |
Pass |
5♣ |
Dble |
All Pass |
|
The save was a little too expensive right from the beginning, but by ducking the first round of diamonds declarer would easily have stayed in control to collect nine tricks. When she first cashed the ♦K and then ducked a trick in the suit, she saw the third diamond ruffed away and later lost three more heart tricks as well for an unhappy –1100 and 12 IMPs gone instead of just 2.
Next, an interesting defensive problem came up.
Board 10. Dealer East. All Vul.
|
|
♠ A K Q 10 9 7
♥ K J 5
♦ 7
♣ A 9 2 |
♠ 8 4 2
♥ 10 4 2
♦ A J 10 8 6 4 2
♣ - |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
♠ 5 3
♥ A Q 8
♦ Q 3
♣ 10 7 6 5 4 3 |
|
♠ J 6
♥ 9 7 6 3
♦ K 9 5
♣ K Q J 8 |
Open Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Herbst |
Goldberg |
Bar |
Goldberg |
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
4♠ |
All Pass |
|
East led the ♦Q and partner contributed the two. In view of the fact that West should not hold less than a seven-card suit to open at the four-level, this ♦2 should obviously be read as Lavinthal. In that case, you can return the ♣10 for partner to ruff and the contract will go down three as the ♥AQ provide two entries.
At the table, East continued diamonds so the contract was made in comfort.
Closed Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Efraimsson |
Van Cleeff |
Svedlund |
Van Ettinger |
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
3♦ |
4♠ |
All Pass |
|
At this table too, East led the ♦Q, partner contributing the ♦8 this time. Though this does not look like a suggestion to play a club, the switch duly came; it was a priori a 50% chance anyway. As East led the ♣4 partner safely returned a trump after ruffing, so the contract went exactly one down.
A remarkable way to do it, but Goldberg had scored 12 IMPs on the board.
The halftime score was 46-37 to Goldberg.
The second half was a peaceful affair until board 19 arrived:
Board 19. Dealer South. E/W Vul.
|
|
♠ K Q 10 9 8 7 5
♥ J 9 2
♦ 6
♣ A 5 |
♠ -
♥ 10 4
♦ Q 9 7 4 2
♣ K J 10 9 8 2 |
![Bridge deal](/Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
♠ 4
♥ A K Q 5
♦ A J 10 8 5 3
♣ 7 6 |
|
♠ A J 6 3 2
♥ 8 7 6 3
♦ K
♣ Q 4 3 |
Open Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Van Cleeff |
Goldberg |
Van Ettinger |
Goldberg |
|
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
Dble |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5♦ |
5♠ |
Pass |
Pass |
Dble |
All Pass |
On the actual layout slam can be made by EW, but as this is odds-against they did well by doubling their opponents in 5♠ and defeating it by three tricks. The lead was the ♥A, partner playing the 10, followed by the ♦A and a club! This way the defence collected three hearts, a diamond and a club trick for down three, 500 to Herbst.
Closed Room |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Efraimsson |
Herbst |
Svedlund |
Michielsen |
|
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
All Pass |
|
At the other table, East did not think her card was worth a double, so there it rested. When the club switch was not found in time, the club loser disappeared on the last heart, as West could not ruff this at any stage. So only 50 to Goldberg and 10 IMPs back to Herbst to trail by only 5 now.
Two boards later, an unlucky lead caused a block in the club suit, the only way to let through 3NT, which meant 10 IMPs back to Goldberg. The end then came with a score of 62-51 to Goldberg. It would be Sweden v. Norway in the final.
|