Juniors Round 17 - Norway
v Russia
Both teams are in contention for a medal and to qualify for next
year's World Junior Teams Championship, likely to be held in Beijing
China in early August. This made the match doubly important, as
each VP lost was also gained by a major rival. Russia fielded the
two pairs who are highest in the datums, benching Mikhail Krasnosselski
who is both top of the European Junior Master Point list and a member
of Russia's Open Team.
On Board 3, Norway found a Moysian (4-3 fit) 4ª game which makes
while 3NT fails. On Board 4, Russia had conceded 1100 in 3§ doubled
to gain 8 IMPs when their team-mates bid and played well to make
a vulnerable 6ª. Thus Russia led 14-12 after four boards.
Board 5. Dealer North. North/South Vul.
|
|
ª 8 4 3
© Q 8 7 5
¨ 10
§ K 8 7 5 2 |
ª A J 10 9 7 2
© A 10
¨ 9 6
§ A 9 3 |
|
ª Q 6
© K J 6
¨ A K Q 8 5 4 2
§ 6 |
|
ª K 5
© 9 4 3 2
¨ J 7 3
§ Q J 10 4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Zaitsev |
Harr |
Rudakov |
Sundlakk |
|
Pass |
1¨ |
Pass |
2ª |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3NT |
Pass |
4§ |
Pass |
4¨ |
Pass |
4ª |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
6¨ |
All Pass |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Joerstad |
Romanovitch |
Ellestad |
Andreev |
|
Pass |
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
5¨ |
Pass |
6¨ |
All Pass |
|
|
It might appear that 6ª is cold, but as we will see, 6¨ is superior.
The key bids appear to be Zaitsev's 4¨, Joerstad's 3© and Ellestad's
5¨, all of which led to the best strain being found at the right
level. Andreev's cunning ª5 lead went to the ace, so Russia gained
1IMP.
After the match, I overheard some peopIe chatting about how the
English declarer had gone down in a frigid 6ª. As is often the case,
his line seems to belong in the 'unlucky expert' file:
West |
North |
East |
South |
Hydes |
Mraz |
Gold |
Szegedi |
|
Pass |
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
3¨ |
Pass |
3ª |
Pass |
4ª |
Pass |
6ª |
All Pass |
|
|
Declarer won the club lead with the ace, and was faced with the
problem of having two club losers if ªK was not taken on the first
round. At this level of competition, if declarer crosses to dummy
and runs ªQ, it is routine for North to withhold the king smoothly
from ªKxx, causing serious problems for declarer.
Hydes ruffed a club, crossed to ©A and ruffed another club. Now
he carefully cashed ¨A (this is called 'removing South's flight
card'), played ©K and ruffed a heart before playing ªA then ªJ.
Alas, the player opposite the one with ªK had a singleton diamond,
so down went 6ª. 14 IMPs to Hungary, contributing to their upset
22-8 win over one of the contenders.
If one top diamond were not played, South might have been able to
lock declarer in dummy and receive his won diamond ruff upon winning
ªK.
Phil King (author of an excellent series of amusing bridge books
and English Schools npc), thinks that Hydes' line may be the best
theoretical line of play, but in practice if you play a spade to
the queen at trick two, most Souths will take the king from Kxx,
and that this factor is enough to make the best practical shot a
low spade to the king at trick two. Former World Champion Jason
Hackett (English Junior npc) says he thinks Phil is right.
Ten Junior pairs bid 6ª, all but one making. Chris Karapanagiotis
for Greece followed exactly the same line as Hydes, but when upon
winning ªK, South missed the diamond ruff. For Poland, Adam Skalski
won the heart lead with the jack and played a spade to the ace then
a spade to the queen as a safety play in case spades broke 5-0.
Martin Schaltz for Denmark and Peter Marjai for Hungary received
red suit leads but both played ªQ, having observed that if North
has five spades one can run this, and if South has five spades,
after ªQ to the ace, ª7 is still there for a finesse. At the same
time ªQ increases the chance of the overtrick.
Gonzalo Goded Merino for Spain and Guillaume Grenthe for France
were the two declarers who received a club lead and who made what
is believed to be the best practical play of conceding a spade to
South at trick two.
Five pairs played in 6¨, two in 4ª, two in 3NT and one in 7¨, making.
After three flat boards, Gunnar Harr added some life to the match
with a typical Norwegian adventure:
Board 9. Dealer North. East/West Vul.
|
|
ª 10 8 7
© J 6 2
¨ 10 6
§ K J 9 7 4 |
ª A 9 4 2
© A K Q 8 3
¨ A 7 4
§ 8 |
|
ª Q 6 5
© 7 5
¨ K 9 8
§ A Q 6 5 3 |
|
ª K J 3
© 10 9 4
¨ Q J 5 3 2
§ 10 2 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Zaitsev |
Harr |
Rudakov |
Sundlakk |
|
3§ |
Pass |
Pass |
Dble |
Pass |
3NT |
Pass |
4© |
All Pass |
|
|
At the 1999 World Junior Championships in Florida, a Norwegian
told me that Gunnar Harr is their most solid player. However his
bidding at favourable vulnerability seems to be as aggressive as
anyone, judging from this hand. In 3§ doubled, a heart lead, two
rounds of clubs and another heart forced declarer's trumps, producing
a 1400 penalty. 4© made 11 tricks for 2 IMPs to Russia when 3NT
made nine tricks on ¨Q lead at the other table.
Belgium v Denmark |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Schaltz |
W van Parijs |
Marquardsen |
J van Parijs |
|
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
2§ |
Dble |
Rdbl |
2¨ |
Dble |
All Pass |
|
|
If 2§ redoubled
had have made ten tricks, then the score would have been 1560. By
going for 1400 in 2¨
doubled, Belgium's Jef van Parijs saved 160 points. Dynamite Danish
defence netted 1400, North/South being held to two tricks for the
second time in the match (see article in yesterday's Bulletin called
DOBTO). The Belgians seem to be hoping that there is a good sports
award, as they keep giving us hands where they have had a disaster.
Netherlands seems to be their main competition, but I don't think
there is any such award.
Schaltz/Marquardsen had a good set for Denmark, their plus scores
of 2220, 1700, 1400, 1010 and 800 (and only one minus 1510) contributing
to their 25-5 win.
On Board 11, you deal and open 1ª, none vulnerable, on ªAK10873
©A8 ¨- §Q9865. LHO bids 5¨, passed to you. What would you call?
Sundlakk chose to double, minus 650 when LHO had ª- ©KJ ¨AK10987543
§72, dummy providing a highly suitable §A and ¨QJ for the pre-empter.
There are nine diamonds in that suit. Andreev bid 5ª, conceding
300 to a 5-0 spade break, but gaining 8 IMPs.
Of the twenty Junior tables, sixteen faced the same decision, seven
bidding 5ª, seven doubling, and two passing. One player when doubled
ran to 6§, against which good German defence netted 500, although
on different defence it may even have made.
As is often the case, the odd man out was from Netherlands, the
only one to go minus on the nine card suit. He overcalled 2¨. His
partner replied 2NT and the opener bid 3§. Now the Flying Dutchman
bid 6¨, one off undoubled. It seems that he thought that a nine
card suit demanded originality, but the idea of not removing their
bidding space, then punting wildly once the opponents have had time
to diagnose their combined assets, is almost always losing tactics.
The talent in the Dutch team must be enormous if they can win a
match (as they did, 16-14) with players bidding like that. The 2NT
bidder had ªQJ652 ©9753 ¨QJ §AJ, so even 4NT was cold if the Dutchman
really wanted to do something different.
On Board 17, the opponents are in 4© and you hold ©A842. Partner
wins an early trick with his singleton king of hearts, and you have
§AQJ104 over the top of the king. Whioch heart pip do you play?
This was easy for the growing band of top players who give suit
preference signals in the trump suit, as ©2 requests a club from
partner. Admittedly, every table in the Juniors got this right,
and only one slipped up in the Schools, as the club switch was fairly
obvious anyway.
The next hand features complex card play. The Norwegians' attention
to detail in the card play was impressive:
Board 19. Dealer South. East-West Vul.
|
|
ª A Q J 8 7 4
© -
¨ K J 8
§ K 8 6 5 |
ª 10 3
© K Q 10 5 2
¨ 10 4 3
§ Q J 2 |
|
ª 9
© 8 7 6
¨ A Q 9 7 6 5
§ A 10 3 |
|
ª K 6 5 2
© A J 9 4 3
¨ 2
§ 9 7 4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Joerstad |
Romanovitch |
Ellestad |
Andreev |
|
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
1ª |
3¨ |
4ª |
All Pass |
|
|
|
The 3¨ weak jump overcall made it quite likely that §A was onside.
©6 was led to the ten, ruffed with ª4. Leonid Romanovitch cashed
ªA and ªQ, then exited with ¨K to the ace. East played another heart,
which declarer won in dummy (discarding a club) and ruffed a heart.
A diamond ruff and another heart ruff was followed by ¨J, covered
by the queen. If declarer had have discarded a club, Olav Ellesatd
would have safely given away a ruff and discard by playing another
diamond, stranding declarer with a heart loser at trick thirteen,
©5 having been just high enough to prevent declarer setting up a
heart winner in dummy. Thus Romanovitch simply played for §A onside
by ruffing the diamond and leading a club up, so the contract failed.
It seems to me that he could not have made it, but someone out there
with the Deep Finesse computer software may prove me wrong.
West |
North |
East |
South |
Zaitsev |
Harr |
Rudakov |
Sundlakk |
|
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
1ª |
2¨ |
3¨ |
Pass |
4ª |
All Pass |
|
The decision to overcall 2¨ rather than 3¨ allowed declarer to
place the ace of clubs with more accuracy than at the other table.
Gunnar Harr ruffed the ©7 lead to ©10 with ª7, just in case ª4 was
needed later as access to dummy. Harr then played a careful ª8 to
the king, and a diamond to the jack and queen. Another heart came
back, won in dummy pitching a club from hand, a heart was ruffed,
a diamond ruffed and another heart ruffed. By leaving one trump
outstanding, Harr had given himself extra chances of defensive error,
and this came to pass when Harr exited with ¨J, discarding a club
from dummy. Evgeni Rudakov did well to realise that declarer had
§K so that a diamond was his only safe exit, but when a club was
discarded from dummy on East's diamond play, West was perhaps uncertain
of the exact layout because 2¨ had promised only five diamonds,
so he ruffed with ª10, over-ruffed. Now declarer had enough trumps;
effectively he had drawn West's last trump without using up a trump
in dummy. Plus 420 and 10 IMPs to Norway.
On Board 20, the dealer holds ªQ97 ©A98 ¨AK82 §A83 opposite ªAK1042
©K ¨QJ10 §K752. With everything friendly, a flat 2220 in 7NT on
combined assets of 33 HCP and just one five card suit was the impressive
result. Of the twenty Junior tables, six reached 2NT, five in 7ª,
two in 6NT, five in 6ª, one in 4ª and one in 3NT. In the Schools,
there were two 7NT, two 7ª, two 6NT, seven 6ª and one 4NT contract.
One inexperienced team did exceptionally well to bid to 7NT, but
went down when declarer pitched a diamond on the spades.
Russia won 35-26 IMPs, 17-13 in VPs to halve
the gap by which they trail Norway in the vital battle for European
places in the World Championship field.
|