Austria
v Poland – Girls Round 2
I would rate Austria as one of the favourites for the Girls title,
while it would be a major surprise if Poland ever put out a bad
team, so we could hope for a good match on vugraph on Monday morning.
For the purposes of this report, we will concentrate on the vugraph
table itself.
Board 1. None Vul. Dealer North.
|
|
ª 6 3 2
© 10 8 7 5 3
¨ A K 10 8
§ 7 |
ª K
© A K Q 9 4
¨ Q J 5
§ A K Q J |
|
ª 10 9 7 4
© J 6 2
¨ 4 2
§9 6 4 2
|
|
ª A Q J 8 5
© -
¨ 9 7 6 3
§ 10 8 5 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
- |
Pass |
Pass |
2¨ |
Dble |
Pass |
Pass |
2ª |
Dble |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3© |
3ª |
4© |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
5§ |
Pass |
5© |
All Pass |
|
|
Joanna Krawczyk opened with a multi and, when Anna Gogoman doubled,
2¨ came back to her to correct to her major. Gogoman doubled again
and followed up by showing a powerful hand when she next bid her
hearts. Iris Grumm was willing to support the hearts in competition
but now Gogoman took her a little too seriously and asked for key
cards, swiftly signing off when she received a very disappointing
response.
Five Hearts was too high, of course, even before the bad trump
split came to light. Ewa Grabowska cashed the top diamonds then
switched to a spade for the ace and back came the ªQ. Gogo man ruffed
and played a trump, preparing to claim. The five-zero split meant
that was not possible. She seems to have lost concentration now
because the end result was down four, which seems to be one too
many; –200.
In the other room Maj/Zegilewicz only got to 3© on the East/West
cards, down one for –50 but 4 IMPs to Poland.
Board 3. E/W Vul. Dealer South.
|
|
ª 8 7 3
© 9 7 4 2
¨ 10 6
§ J 7 6 2 |
ª A K J 5 2
© A
¨ Q 5 2
§ A K 5 3 |
|
ª Q 10 9 4
© Q 5 3
¨ A K 9 4
§ Q 8 |
|
ª 6
© K J 10 8 6
¨ J 8 7 3
§ 10 9 4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
- |
- |
- |
Pass |
1§ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
2ª |
Pass |
3ª |
Pass |
4§ |
Pass |
4¨ |
Pass |
4© |
Pass |
5¨ |
Pass |
5NT |
Pass |
6§ |
Pass |
6ª |
Pass |
7ª |
All Pass |
One Club was strong and the response showed three controls. Spades
were bid and supported then, after an exchange of cuebids, Gogoman
tried 5NT. Whatever that asked for, she did not like the response,
but Grumm went on to seven anyway on the strength of her queens,
which surely had to be enough if partner was trying for seven; +2210
and a flat board as the same contract was reached in the other room.
Board 7. All Vul. Dealer South.
|
|
ª Q 10 8 5
© K J 3
¨ J 10 5 2
§ 10 9 |
ª 9 3 2
© A Q 7 5 2
¨ A 4
§ A J 7 |
|
ª K 7 6 4
© 6 4
¨ K Q 9 8 3
§ K Q |
|
ª A J
© 10 9 8
¨ 7 6
§ 8 6 5 4 3 2 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
- |
- |
- |
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
2§ |
Pass |
2© |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
|
|
|
Ewa Grabowsa, Poland |
3NT was made at the other table and one can see how that might
be. Here, Grabowska led a low spade and Gogoman played low from
the dummy. Krawczyk took the ªA and returned the jack, overtaken
by the queen. Declarer ducked that and now the ªK was knocked out.
It seems easy from here. Declarer is safe if diamonds are no worse
than four-two simply by playing four rounds of the suit. But Gogoman
cashed one club then three rounds of diamonds. She could still have
recovered by cashing another club then exiting with a diamond to
endplay North, but that wasn't a very likely play. In practice,
she now took the heart finesse and was one down. A poor effort for
down one, –100 and a deserved loss of 12 IMPs.
Board 8. None Vul. Dealer West.
|
|
ª 9 8
© A Q 10 5 3
¨ 8 5 3
§ A 10 9 |
ª A 10
© K J 9 7
¨ K J 4
§ Q 5 4 2 |
|
ª K Q 3
© 8 6 2
¨ A 10 7 2
§ J 7 3 |
|
ª J 7 6 5 4 2
© 4
¨ Q 9 6
§ K 8 6 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
1© |
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
Pass |
2© |
Dble |
2ª |
Pass |
Pass |
Dble |
All Pass |
In the other room the Polish East/West pair bid freely to 3NT,
which failed by two tricks for –100.
Here, the 1© opening could have been canape, and Grabowska balanced
with 2© as North. Looking at a maximum for her 1NT response, Grumm
started doubling and doubled again when 2ª came around, ending the
auction. Krawczyk finessed on the heart lead so could pitch a diamond
loser on the ©A before playing a trump, but that still left her
with three spades, two diamonds and an eventual club to lose; down
one for –100 and 5 IMPs to Austria.
Board 9. E/W Vul. Dealer North.
|
|
ª 10 7 6 5
© 10
¨ A K Q 9 8 7
§ 9 4 |
ª 2
© A Q J 6 2
¨ 6 4
§ Q J 10 3 2 |
|
ª J 9 8
© K 9 7
¨ J 10
§ A K 8 6 5 |
|
ª A K Q 4 3
© 8 5 4 3
¨ 5 3 2
§ 7 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
- |
Pass |
1¨ |
1ª |
2© |
4ª |
5© |
Pass |
Pass |
5ª |
Dble |
All Pass |
Opening 1¨ on hands like this one is part of the price one pays
for playing a strong club system. Grumm bid a very aggressive 5©
over 4ª with what was essentially a weak no trump hand, then doubled
when Grabowska took the push to 5ª. The opening bid now cost the
overtrick as Gogoman led a diamond, allowing declarer to win, draw
trumps and cash the diamonds for +750. However, as the contract
in the other room was 4ª doubled, making eleven tricks for +690,
that was worth just 2 IMPs to Poland.
Board 11. None Vul. Dealer South.
|
|
ª K J 10 7
© K J 8 4
¨ 8 6 5
§ A 4 |
ª A 9 8 4
© A Q 10 7 3
¨ K 10
§ J 9 |
|
ª Q 6 3 2
© 6 2
¨ A Q
§ K Q 7 6 2 |
|
ª 5
© 9 5
¨ J 9 7 4 3 2
§ 10 8 5 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
- |
- |
- |
Pass |
1ª |
Dble |
2NT |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
4ª |
All Pass |
Gogoman's 1ª opening was canape in normal Blue Club style, and
she got the hearts into the game at her next turn as a game try,
accepted by Grumm.
Grabowska cashed the ace of clubs and switched to a diamond, won
with the queen. Gogoman played a spade to the ace and a second spade
to Grabowska's king. She returned the ªJ to dummy's queen but Gogoman
simply unblocked the clubs, crossed to dummy with the ¨A, and ran
reverted to clubs. Grabowska was powerless. Her take-out double
had marked the position of the king of hearts so there was no way
to avoid an eventual endplay; ten tricks for +420.
In the other room Poland in 3NT, failing by three tricks for –150
and that was 11 IMPs to Austria.
Board 16. E/W Vul. Dealer West.
|
|
ª J 9 7
© 10 9 7 4
¨ K 10 7 6
§ 10 5 |
ª A 10 8 5 4
© A Q 6
¨ 8
§ A K Q 2 |
|
ª 2
© K 3 2
¨ Q 9 5 3 2
§ J 9 7 6 |
|
ª K Q 6 3
© J 8 5
¨ A J 4
§ 8 4 3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Gogoman |
Grabowska |
Grumm |
Krawczyk |
1§ |
Pass |
1¨ |
Pass |
1ª |
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
2§ |
Pass |
3§ |
Pass |
3© |
Pass |
5§ |
All Pass |
The strong club showed to good effect on this one. After Grumm
had shown a negative with her first response, Gogoman could bid
out her shape very economically, enabling Grumm to value her hand
well for the jump to 5§.
Even after the good trump lead, declarer could ruff three spades
in dummy then give up a diamond, win the return and draw trumps
for twelve tricks; +620.
In the other room, Poland played 3NT, as did many pairs around
the room, and that contract was a trick short; –100 and 12
IMPs to Austria.
The match result was 43-28 IMPs to Austria, converting to 18-12
VPs, a decent result against what i suspect will prove to be one
of the better teams in the tournament.
|