Round 9 Juniors - Greece
vs Scotland
By Peter Gill
Having held England to a close match in the previous round, last-placed
Scotland fielded the same four players to try to defeat Greece,
and perhaps overtake Greece in the rankings.
Board 7. Dealer South. All Vul.
|
|
ª Q 4 2
© A 10 8 7 2
¨ Q 7
§ 10 8 7 |
ª A K 9 8 2
© Q 6 3
¨ A 8 5
§ 6 4 |
![Bridge deal](../../../graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª -
© K J 5 4
¨ 10 6 3
§ A K Q 9 5 2 |
|
ª J 10 7 5 3
© 9
¨ K J 9 4 2
§ J 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
McCrossan |
Labrou |
Bergson |
Mylona |
|
|
|
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
2§ |
Pass |
2ª |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
|
|
Harold Bergson for Scotland won the heart lead with the queen and
safety-played the clubs by finessing the nine, the expert play just
in case North had five clubs. His virtue was not rewarded on this
occasion, and he had to settle for 600 and a 1 IMP loss.
On vugraph, the Croatian South opened 2ª, Pass by East, 3ª from
North to exert maximum pressure. All normal enough, as an aggressive
style seems to be necessary to perform well in this event, but when
West converted East's take-out double to penalties. Croatia were
in big trouble. Martin Schaltz led ªK and switched to a club. He
over-ruffed ª5 with ª8 on the third round of clubs, and played ace
and another trump. Declarer went after diamonds, but Schaltz won
the second round and was in control, his heart switch holding declarer
to five tricks and 1100, worth 10 IMPs to Denmark.
If West discards a diamond instead of over-ruffing the spade, declarer
appears to make the same number of tricks.
On Board 9, 3NT was played at three other tables, two of which made
it on misdefence.
Would the Greek defence meet the challenge?
Board 9. Dealer North. East/West Vul.
|
|
ª AQ 10 9 6 5 2
© 8 7
¨ 6 5
§ 8 6 |
ª J
© K Q 9 6 2
¨ Q J 7 4
§ Q 10 5 |
![Bridge deal](../../../graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª K 8 3
© 3
¨ A 10 8 3
§ A J 9 7 2 |
|
ª 7 4
© A J 10 5 4
¨ K 9 2
§ K 4 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
McCrossan |
Labrou |
Bergson |
Mylona |
|
3ª |
Pass |
Pass |
Dble |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
Ioanna Mylona led ª7
to the jack and queen (first hurdle over; it is very wrong to
play the ace here). Declarer obviously had to duck ªQ.
Rather than set up a spade winner for declarer or open up the
minor suits, Thanassis Labrou decided to switch to a heart,
which went to Ioanna's ten and dummy's queen. It is not so easy
for Ioanna, who does not know on this defence that declarer
does not have ªA10x
and is thus unaware that the defence has five winners, to know
what the hand is. She ducked DQ on general principles, to damage
declarer's communications on other layouts. |
|
Ioanna Mylona, Greece
|
Next came CQ, which she won with the king, and exited a club. Declarer
won in dummy, and finessed the diamond again to Ioanna's king. There
was no hurry to cash out, as it was perfectly safe to exit safely
with a club, and make the last two tricks. That was the slow careful
way to guarantee five tricks for the defence, a small gain of 4
IMPs when 3ª was
passed out at the other table and failed by a trick.
Board 14. Dealer East. None Vul.
|
|
ª K 9 4 3
© A Q 6
¨ K 5 3
§ A K 10 |
ª 10 6 2
© 8 7 2
¨ J 9 7
§ Q J 9 2 |
![Bridge deal](../../../graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª A Q J 5
© 10
¨ A 10 6 4
§ 8 7 6 4 |
|
ª 8 7
© K J 9 5 4 3
¨ Q 8 2
§ 5 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
McCrossan |
Labrou |
Bergson |
Mylona |
|
|
Pass |
2¨
|
Pass |
2NT |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
4© |
All Pass |
|
2¨ was a Multi Two, 2NT and 3¨ enquired, and 3© showed hearts and
a minimum.
North could have selected 3NT as the final contract, or jumped to
4© over 3§,
but he chivalrously bid in such a way that his partner became declarer.
This was a big winner when §Q
was the opening lead, and Ioanna wrapped up her contract in double
quick time, drawing trumps and repeating the club finesse. At the
other table, 4©
failed on a trump lead, the Scottish declarer preferring to play
for a doubleton diamond honour rather than the double club finesse,
although he could have combined his options better. 10 IMPs to Greece.
3NT would have made, and would be the choice of many expert players
in the North seat, given the lack of ruffing potential in the North
hand.
Board 15 was a lead problem:
West |
North |
East |
South |
McCrossan |
Labrou |
Bergson |
Mylona |
|
|
|
Pass |
2NT |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3ª |
Pass |
3NT |
Pass |
4§ |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5ª |
Pass |
6© |
All Pass |
Your lead from: ª943, ©654, ¨K954, §754? 3¨ was a transfer, 3ª
showed four hearts and spade values, 3NT showed slam interest, waiting,
without §A, 4§ was a cue, 4NT asked and 5ª showed three aces. Ioanna
found a passive trump lead, unsuccessfully as partner had ¨A, both
opponents had doubleton diamonds and declarer can claim 980 on any
non-diamond lead. 11 Imps to Scotland, letting them back into the
match. If one were leading up into the 2NT opener as declarer, then
leading from a king into a potential AQ would be less attractive,
but on the actual hand, leading through strength, most of the leading
players would probably have found the diamond lead.
Board 20. Dealer West. All Vul.
|
|
ª K 9
© A Q 10 9 7 3
¨ J 9 8 7
§ Q |
ª Q J 10 7 5 2
© 6 5 4
¨ K 3
§ 6 5 |
![Bridge deal](../../../graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª A 8 6
© J 2
¨ Q 10 2
§ K 10 9 8 7 |
|
ª 4 3
© K 8
¨ A 6 5 4
§ A J 4 3 2 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
McCrossan |
Labrou |
Bergson |
Mylona |
Pass |
1©
|
Pass |
2§ |
Pass |
2¨ |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
4© |
All Pass |
|
|
|
3©
was a good bid, leading to a good contract. What would you do
on §10 lead?
Should one finesse? Thanassis Labrou knew the answer. The non-spade
lead makes it highly likely that the opening leader has the
ace of spades, so he finessed to the §Q.
©A, a heart
to the king, §A
for a spade discard and a club ruff allowed declarer to draw
the last trump. Thanassis then played the diamonds safely to
guarantee two tricks, running ¨9,
with the intention of ¨8
next. This only fails if West has ¨KQ10x,
which is impossible as then East's opening lead would have been
a diamond. A quarter of the field went down in 4©,
including the other table where a heart was led, so Greece picked
up 12 IMPs, to win the match 22-8.
|
|
Thanassis Lamprou, Greece
|
My impression of the match between the
two bottom-placed teams is that, although the bidding and card play
was of quite a good standard, the players did not pre-empt on rubbish
and put the pressure on by bouncing the auction, especially at favourable
vulnerability, in the way that the top players here do. For example,
on Board 20 in the West seat as dealer, almost all the top players
did open 2ª or something
similar, to put the pressure on.
|