European Championships … Israel and Poland Ladies Round Robin

June 13th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I just attempted to do commentary on a Ladies round robin match which pitted Israel against Poland.  And the only way I can describe the bridge is in biblical terms … diabolical.  Israel got clobbered.  There was one charming hand where the auction, contract and play to the first five tricks was identical.  Then trick six …

East doubled to show the round suits in fourth chair and then had to decide what to do when 1NT came back to her.

Both East’s doubled although I personally like 2♣ better.  Partner is less likely to have four hearts (she might have bid them over 1NT).  And if partner has to pick a suit with 3-3 (or even 2-3) in clubs and hearts I prefer clubs.  The disadvantage of bidding 2♣ is partner may be able to pass 1NT doubled and that is exactly what happened at both tables.  A club was led at both tables.

East won the ♣10 and proceeded to run the clubs.  In both room South had to make three pitches from hand throwing two hearts and a spade in that order.  In the Open Room where Poland was the declarer West pitched the ♥7 and the ♠2 (using upside down carding) and dummy pitched two spades.  In the Closed Room West pitched the ♥7 and the ♥4 and the ♦2 (playing standard carding I believe).  Dummy threw two hearts and on the last club after West threw a diamond the ♦J.

What now?  

West should have one high card.  From the discards so far (and even from the auction) it seems unlikely that declarer does not have the ♥K.  So that leaves West with either the ♦K or the ♠K.  Imagine that South has the ♠K. South must have three spades (she would pitch a diamond ahead of a spade with Kx of spades) and since partner has thrown one the spades are running.  So this is not a useful option.  So partner has to have the ♠K and everything points to that.  

This is in fact the position at this point in the Open Room with East on lead.  The last club had squeezed declarer who had to unguard something.  She chose to set up a spade position for the defense rather than unguard hearts.  And East did realize that spades were right but she went wrong.  She returned the ♠J into the face of dummy’s A109.  I won’t comment on this play, I will leave it to you to think over.  At least this East worked out that she needed to lead a spade.  In the closed Room a diamond was returned and after that  declarer could just led a heart to the ♥K.

USBF Womens Teams Trials – the last twists (Part 3)

June 8th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

With the slam swing on Board 93 Moss had moved into the lead 213 to 209 with only three boards to go.  

But on Board 94 Sprung took the lead back yet again.  This time they bid a nonvulnerable game which was played in partscore at the other table.

North (Bernstein for Sprung and Campanile for Moss) held:

The auction was identical at both tables until this juncture:

What should North rebid?  North has shown about these values with the redouble.  2♠ by South suggested not only six spades but a hand that was too good for a weak two bid in spades.  (And also one that had an “offensive” stance).  Both North’s planned to raise spades but was the right call 3♠ or 4♠.  

I would always bid 4♠ vulnerable.  The scoring table imps makes it right to bid vulnerable games that are somewhat “odds off.”  But when you are not vulnerable you don’t want to rush into poorish games.  

The case for 3♠:

North had already shown about these values with the redouble.  So bidding 3♠ would let partner decide.  The ♥Q doesn’t look like a great card.  My trump support is helpful but minimum.  The auction suggests that if partner needs to find a club card it will be with West (offside). 

The case for 4♠:

Every time I decide to not count a card as valuable (the ♥Q) on this hand it turns out to be wrong (as on this hand).  So I don’t use that rationale too much any more unless I have reliable evidence that it is not valuable. Is the evidence on this deal is good enough?  You have a full eleven, good spots and a fit with partner.  Partner does not have a subminimum because she likely would have opening with a weak two.  And while a club finesse will probably be off, a diamond finesse is probably on.

Perhaps the best reason to bid 4♠ when all is said and done is that it is much harder to defend than declare, as we shall see in a moment.  In any case Bernstein bid the game and Campanile invited and was passed out in the partscore.  Against 4♠ Deas lead a diamond and the hand was now cold.  

I think a diamond is a perfectly rationale lead.  Suppose you lead the ♥A.  (That was the lead at the other table against 3♠.   Many people would signal count on this card.  And so as happened at the other table you might well continue a heart.  But suppose you were playing that partner played attitude on the ♥A.  Partner plays a card that says that you don’t like hearts.  What would you do?  If you guess to play ace and another club (or just lead a small club) you can defeat the spade game.  Partner will high-low in clubs and you will hope up on the trump ace and give partner a club ruff.  Terrific if it happens.  No surprise that it didn’t at either table.

Another couple of imps went to Sprung on Board 95 and we came to the last board with Sprung leading by 4.

A slam could be made on the last board if reached.  But it was a thin slam.  North-South has 30 high card points between them but no particular fit.  They have a seven card fit in diamonds, clubs and hearts.  Diamonds (5-2) is the best fit because you are only missing the 10 while in Clubs (5-2) you are missing the jack.  And the only slam that does make is 6♦ with 6NT failing on a likely spade lead.

In the Open Room  Bernstein-Wheeler played in the 4-3 heart fit.  In the Closed Room the spectators (but not the players) knew that  Stansby and Campanile did bid a slam after Campanile opened the North hand.  And more importantly they bid the right slam.

Wow!  Joy and heartbreak, all on the final board.  A fine match.  An exciting match.  Nobody deserved to lose.  So congratulations to both the winners and the losers.

The USBF Womens Trials Part 2

June 7th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

By Board 93 of 96 Sprung’s lead had been reduced to 8 imps and I think by now we all realized that there were going to be more twists and turns in this exciting finale.  

Strong two club auctions can be challenging.  One way of responding to this opening is to show controls.   It worked really well for Moss on this deal.

Open Room

Radin opened 2♣ in second chair and Deas responded 2♠ which  apparently showed exactly two kings in their methods.  Radin rebid 2NT showing a strong balanced hand.  If partner was interested in major suits she could certainly find out about them.  But Deas with a 4-3-3-3 seven count just bid 3NT.   Radin now surprised me by carrying on with 4♠.  She was trying to suggest to partner that she had a good hand for the auction with a good spade suit.

I suppose that knowing partner has those two kings Radin really doesn’t need much more to make 6♠.   It must have seemed like it was worth a try in case partner had something more.  The only thing Deas had “extra” was three spades but with 4-3-3-3 she had shown all she had.  4NT seemed the best contract from her hand.

If Deas had the same hand with the ♥J replacing the ♥2 then slam has decent chances.  Assuming the spades aren’t terrible you have eleven tricks once you concede the ♥A.  You have quite a good chance of bringing in a third heart trick.  You  have the diamond finesse to fall back on and in a spade contract there is a chance of ruffing out the club queen and jack.  Would Deas have continued on with that ♥J?  Perhaps.  Deas and Radin did very well to both explore for slam and reject it.  Radin had no trouble making ten tricks.

Closed Room

In the Closed Room Sprung opened 2♣ and when Glasson bid 2♦, game forcing, she decided to show her spade suit.  There is something “suity” about this hand with two doubletons and I understand why she did this.  It seems to me you may lose a possible heart fit though.  I understand that a 2NT response can lead to different problems though.  

Glasson raised spades showing some cards.  While she didn’t have a complete minimum for her 3♠ bid, she also didn’t have much in reserve.  At this stage it is hard for the partnership to work out if they have enough extra to make slam.

Maybe the serious or not serious 3NT should apply to this auction.  3NT is not really a possible contract so with a minimum for the auction so far Sprung could bid 3NT (not serious) and Glasson would have easily signed off in the spade game.  I hadn’t thought about this auction before but it does seem like a good use of this gadget.  What do you think?  

Sprung cuebid 4♣ and Glasson 4♦ and then came Blackwood.  Maybe another choice was for Sprung to bid 4♥ over 4♦ assuming it shows a heart control (rather than asking for one).  If she does and Glasson bids 4♠ she can honor the signoff.

The problem here is that slam is really quite close and it is very hard to know if Glasson has the right stuff or not.

How good is slam?  Ignoring the low risk of a problem in the spade suit you need the ♥A onside and you still have to dispose of the fourth heart though there are several possibilities for that.  On a good day you make it (and probably end up on a plane to Lille).

6♠ down 1 was a loss of 12 imps.  Had the heart suit worked for Sprung it would have been a gain of about 13 imps.  A 25 imp swing.  Of course the odds were for the Moss team to gain imps since slam was less than 50% but … in close matches for big prizes Lady Luck does have her sway.

An Exciting Finale … US Womens Team Trials Final (Part 1)

June 6th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

The US women’s team trials ended last night with an exciting final board finish. But this close match swung back and forth more times than Barry Bonds’ bat. (Maybe you can think of a better metaphor.)

I would like to congratulate both teams for putting on such a wonderful display of solid women’s bridge. Sprung (Joann Sprung, Joann Glasson, Cindy Bernstein, Sally Wheeler, Georgiana Gates and Pat Norman) and Moss (Sylvia Moss, Judy Radin, Lynn Deas, Migry Zur Campanile, Joann Stansby).

Going into the last segment Sprung had a 4 imp lead over Moss and through a series of imps here and there that lead had grown to 6 by Board 88, the first swing board of this segment. Radin-Deas got to a decent non-vulnerable game missed by Glasson-Sprung, which had the virtue of being cold on the lie of the cards.

This brought us to Board 89 all tied up.  In the Open Room there was a fair bit of tension during the auction when Radin took a long time to decide what this auction means. 

2♦ was a weak two in a major (I don’t think it included a strong option).  Normally 2♠ is pass or correct.  Usually you have a better hand for hearts than spades.  If partner has hearts you are willing to play in 3♥ or even 4♥ but if partner has spades you would rather be lower.  But here when Radin corrected to hearts Deas jumped to 4♠.  What did that mean?  Did she have spade shortness and a super hand for hearts?  Was this some kind of slam try?  Or was this to play?  I usually play that a jump to game over this kind of multi 2♦ that four of either major is to play, regardless of what suit opener has.  But maybe that bid wasn’t available to this pair.  In any case Radin did pass and all was well.  They got to the right game.

Now it was up to the North’s Bernstein and Campanile to find the lead that defeats the contract and in mind this is mostly luck.

For practical purposes in both auctions East showed a weak two in hearts and West jumped to game in spades.  What do you lead?  (A vulnerable game is at stake so take your time).

Did you pick a diamond – unlucky!  You have to lead a club.  The club is the entry to the East hand for the heart suit.

After winning a club lead you have the risk of three diamond losers and a heart.  Even double dummy, if you start by leading a heart from dummy than South can win and simply return a heart so that can’t work.  You could try a diamond and see what happens.  The defense wins and returns a trump.  Another diamond will meet the same fate.  In the end after a club lead you are going to have to rely on the heart finesse or be very lucky in diamonds.

At the table Deas after the club lead tried a diamond off dummy.  She won the spade return and in a variation tried the heart finesse losing.  When Wheeler returned another heart, she still had no play. 

A diamond lead was another story. Campanile led a diamond against   Glasson and it proved fatal to the defense who could not BOTH take out the club entry to the hearts and prevent a diamond ruff.  12 imps to Spring who now led 209 to 198.

(to be continued)

The Power of Shape – Last Segment USBF Womens Semifinals

June 5th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

When Board 93 came up Westheimer (Valerie Westheimer, Disa Eythorsdottir (henceforth referred to as Disa), Jenny Wolpert, Mildred Breed) trailed Moss (Sylvia Moss, Judy Radin, Lynn Deas, Migry Zur Campanile, Joanna Stansby) by 19 imps and this board featured a 16 imps swing.  However the swing was in favor of the leaders,  thus effectively ending Westheimer’s chances.  Everybody was vulnerable and North at both tables opened 1♦.  East held

Are you a bidder or a passer?

Arguments for passing:  You are vulnerable and you have a “lousy” six card club suit headed by the jack.  

Arguments for bidding: Are you kidding 6-5 come alive – you are 6-6 baby.  It is not the time for the faint of heart.

I confess I would have bid as I look at the cards although maybe at the table in a long tense match I would pass. Nah!

At the table Radin bid 2♣.  The auction continued as follows

Are you going to defend 4♠.  I think not.  Once partner supported clubs I think you have to bid here.  You might try 4NT.  Surely that would suggest diamonds and clubs.  But it might also provide a lot of information to your opponents.  Radin chose 5♣ and she was awarded big time.  5♣ was passed around to Disa who doubled.This was the whole hand.

Making 5♣ doubled was worth +750 when Rading decided not to take any chances and after ruffing the opening spade lead did not finesse clubs.  Looking at all four hands you may not like the decisions North-South made.  I believe that 4♣ (which was alerted) was a serious slam try and Disa’s 4♦ cuebid  was pretty much forced.  Wolpert’s pass of the 5♣ “save” was forcing and therefore forward going.  Disa really had no reason to pull.  But then again I know we don’t have a slogan for 7-4 (go for more?) but maybe …  If North-South had gone on to 5♠ (which can make and will on a revealing auction) would East-West have bid 6♣ (which does make)?

Things were quieter in the Open Room.   East-West never entered the auction.  

4♠ making was worth 620 and 16 big imps.

I am now thinking of slogans for 6-6 ..”Get in your licks”  “Have your kicks” “It really clicks”  Oh well I can’t think of anything really good.

The Last Segment of the Senior Match Moss versus Schwartz

June 4th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Moss: Michael Moss, Mark Lair, Fred Hamilton, Arnold Fisher, Dan Morse and Bobby Wolff entered the last segment of the Round of 8 in the Seniors Trials with a small lead over Schwartz: Richie Schwartz, Neil Chambers, John Schermer, Stever Landen, Sam Lev     181 to 167.

There really weren’t a lot of imps in the first twelve of the last fifteen boards in the final segment.  But it was enough to give Schwartz an eight imp lead as they outscored Moss 21 to 4.

Board 88 (of 90) was exciting.  Looking at all four hands we could see North-South could make a non-vulnerable club slam and East-West was going to lose 800 if they saved over this is six diamonds.

In the Closed Room Schwartz had already scored +420 in the club game.  Could Moss get to the slam?  The slam bonus would put Moss in the lead.  Even if Schwartz saved over this is diamonds Moss would win 380 a gain of nine imps and a one imp lead for Moss.

Look at the whole hand and think about how you would have handled the North cards.  Nobody is vulnerable and West is the dealer.  West starts with a pass.  Would you open with the North hand in second chair with any bid?

In the Closed Room Lev had passed but in the Open Room Fisher opened 3♣.  It really seemed like Fisher-Hamilton had a good shot at getting to the slam.  This preempt may not be your cup of tea.  You are in second chair which means that your side is somewhat more likely to have the majority of the high cards and you have a four card major and only six clubs.  

East passed and it was up to Hamilton.  He had no easy way to find out if North had a diamond control but if Fisher did and he had good clubs then you could almost count twelve tricks.  What would you do with the South hand?  Three spades? or do you like keycard?  Hamilton took the chance and bid 4♦ keycard (Redwood).  Moss fans were getting excited.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the club slam.  West, Schermer now made the third off-center bid of the auction.  He doubled four diamonds.  I am not sure how he knew he wanted a diamond lead (as opposed to a heart) but he knew he didn’t want a black lead.  

In your system do you have a way to show a diamond singleton and a keycard!  Fisher-Hamilton didn’t.  Fisher, might I supposed might have just bid slam but he was short a club, I suppose.  He just answered keycard with 4♠.  East take the dive in 5♦ and it was up to Hamilton.  A pass here would surely have been forcing and suggest a slam – is it clearly asking about a diamond control?  I think it is but it is not clear.  If he passed would Fisher have bid the slam.  We will never know because Hamilton just doubled five diamonds.  Their result was +500.  2 imps for Moss bringing their deficit to just 6 imps. 

There was no room for a pickup on the next board when both sides did well to bid a grand slam in notrump.  So we came to the last board of the set with Fisher needing 6 imps and Schwartz had a bit of a soft result on Board 90, the last board.  As it turned out Fisher-Hamilton got to a better partscore and did have a small chance of making six imps but things didn’t work out that way.

So in the end Schwartz won the right to move on and Moss has retired.  I confess I am sorry to see Wolff-Morse out of the trials.  I admit my bias.  But good luck to Schwartz as they continue on to the semifinals.

Is this really that hard to bid? (from the Senior Camrose)

May 20th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I was watching a bit of the Senior Camrose: Great Britain versus Scotland.  (Scotland hasn’t left Great Britain yet, has it?)  I know that sadly, bidding is most of the game these days.  And 22 of Great Britain’s 45 imps in this match was all about bidding two slam hands.  Have a look at this one.  In your methods can you reach the grand slam (hearts or notrump whatever you want) and KNOW you had 13 tricks.  Guessing doesn’t count.  You are not vulnerable against vulnerable.  North passes in opening chair and the opponents are silent throughout – you have a few rein.

Ray and I play Namyats so an opening four clubs bid with the East hand shows eight to about nine tricks with hearts as trump.  But I might stretch to it at this vulnerability (does Qxx count as a trick?)  If I do that we will get there in very few bids.  Ray transfers back to hearts (four diamonds) and then bids keycard.  And thinking I really do have eight tricks he can count thirteen tricks.

The Great Britain auction was similar.  East opened 3NT showing a solid suit and after a few bids once West knew that all the keycards were accounted for the slam was bid.  So there you have it, a grand is easy to bid.  But ..

The auction got more challenging in the Open Room. East opened one heart.  I am not sure of their methods but it appears that East showed a solid suit and all the keycards.  But West still couldn’t count thirteen tricks.  So let’s you and I try it playing two over one methods.

I open one heart and you bid two clubs.  I bid three hearts showing a solid suit (at least six) and establishes hearts as trump.  Suppose you bid keycard sometime soon and I show all of the missing ones.  You might take the position that if all I had was a bunch of hearts say seven to the AKQ I would have preempted four hearts and play me for some loose queens.  What do you think?  I am not sure of the Scottish methods but I believe they reached this point and the Scottish West did not take that inference.

It is awfully scary to bid a grand slam hoping your partner wouldn’t open at the one level with seven solid hearts and out but even then you do have twelve top tricks and as a lover of squeezes I go with the old saw “where there is twelve tricks, there must be a thirteenth somewhere.”  If you take that approach you would have won (or saved) eleven imps.

Open US Team Trials: Nickell goes to the World Mind Games

May 7th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

USA had to pick one team this year, not the two they chose in the Bermuda Bowl.  18 teams started and in the end to the original top seeds:

Nickell,Katz, Hamman-Mahmood, Meckstroth-Rodwell playing Diamond,  Platnick,Greco-Hampson, Moss-Gitelman.  

There is a story here.  Diamond, the team that has just not quite been able to win a team trials and Nickell, with Hamman perhaps coming near the end of his incredible bridge playing career.

We all knew that the bridge would be interesting and fun and good and we all wondered if Diamond could break the curse of the bridesmaid.  The last segment of the Final started with Nickell having a 30 imp lead against Diamond 240-210.  

The first two boards presenting some bidding challenges and the two teams traded double digit swings.   Board 2 shows what happens when a psyche goes bad in an interesting way.

Dealer: Vul:	Rodwell/Moss ♠ AQ865   ♥ 6532   ♦ A962   ♣ –
Hampson/Zia  ♠ J9   ♥ 94   ♦ Q543   ♣ 98532		Greco/Hamman ♠ K73   ♥ AK10   ♦ 107   ♣ AJ1076
	Meckstroth/Gitelman ♠ 1042   ♥ QJ87   ♦ KJ8   ♣ KQ4

 With North-South vulnerable Hampson was in first chair and he took advantage of the vulnerability to open one spade.  Greco bid two clubs, game forcing and when this was passed back to Rodwell it was obvious what was going on.  Rodwell picked double as his most flexible choice.  Now what do you think Meck should do?  He does have 12 high card points.   Have they ever discussed this situation!  Anyway he bid two hearts.  Rodwell might have given this a bump but he passed it.  So there they were in two hearts when they almost certainly would have been higher without the pysche.

At the other table they had a more normal auction passed, Moss opened one spade and Hamman ventured one notrump.  Gitelman doubled and Zia redoubled for rescue.  Hamman pulled to two clubs and Gitelman just bid 3NT.  The auction had made it quite easy for Zia to play a club and now when Gitelman made the obvious diamond play 3NT went down three.  At the other table Meckstroth did make two uptricks in two hearts but only because Greco defending the partscore did not give Hampson a ruff.  So Nickell won ten imps on the board because Hampson’s pysche had keep them out of game which did not make.

The last hurrah for Diamond came on the second last board.  Down by 14 imps, iin the Closed Room, Nickell had gone down 200 in a vulnerable slam.  If Hampson-Greco avoided the slam it would narrow the margin to about an imp with one board to play.

Dealer: South Vul: Both	Rodwell ♠ 97   ♥ 109762   ♦ 108762   ♣ 8
Hampson ♠ AJ   ♥ QJ3   ♦ AK9   ♣ J7653		Greco ♠ KQ10   ♥ AK5   ♦ Q543    ♣ A94
	Meckstroth ♠ 865432   ♥ 84   ♦ J   ♣ KQ012

Meckstroth, South passed.  Hampson opened 1NT, 14-16.  Greco bid four spades which was a mild slam try, described as weaker than 4NT.  This was a conservative position probably influenced by his 4-3-3-3 shape.  But Hampson who had a fill 16 with a five card suit could not be blamed for bidding a slam.  He bid six clubs along the way to give Greco a choice of slams and this was converted to 6NT.  As it turned out there is no play for 6NT and this ended Diamond’s chances.  There was some discussion during the bidding about whether Hampson might take a swing by not bidding the slam.  But even if her had been inclined to do that he could not have had any idea about where they stood in a match that was as close as this one.

The halfway mark … US Team Trials

May 6th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

For one reason or another I haven’t seen much of the US Team Trials,   This year the US gets to send only one team so it would seem the competition would be more intense.  In the end though the top two seeds: Nickell and Diamond are playing the final.

At the halfway point it is close with Diamond just 9 imps ahead of Nickell 145-136.  But a lot of Nickell’s imps came in the fourth quarter where the two teams top lineups faced each other.

One deal I found was interesting was Board 54.  If you play 2/1 you will have noticed that the diamond suit is a particular problem.  You can often have short diamonds for your opening and the auction one diamond-two clubs is problematic.    

Board 54 was a diamond/club hand.  In the Open Room Hamman-Zia had one of those 1♦ -2♣  auctions and they ended in a great spot.

Zia opened with one diamond and Hamman bid two clubs.  Zia bid 2NT and Hamman bid three diamonds showing his diamond-club hand.  Now Zia bid 3NT.  What do you do now?

You have a great hand, all controls.  It just feels like this hand belongs in slam somewhere.  The ruffing value in hearts might be very important.  But on this auction you might only be on a 4-3 fit.  A bit of a tough call.  Hammon put out his oar with four diamonds and they soon were in six diamonds.  

Dealer: Vul:	Hamman ♠ K85   ♥ 5   ♦ AK63   ♣ AK1043
Hampson ♠   ♥   ♦   ♣		Greco ♠   ♥   ♦   ♣
	Zia ♠ A732   ♥ AJ104   ♦ QJ8   ♣ Q5

Six diamonds requires careful play.  Hampson led the spade jack and Greco deposited the spade queen on it as Zia won the spade ace.  If clubs work you have twelve tricks assuming diamonds are no worse than 4-2.  What if clubs are 4-2 and the club jack is in the long hand.  If you have to ruff clubs high you are going to need a 3-3 diamond break.  One of the problems is you won’t necessarily know how each suit is splitting.

Does the spade queen provide any hints?  If you believe spades are 5-1 does that suggest anything? 

There was some discussion amongst the experts on the panel but it seemed to them and to me that the right line is to draw trump and then play on clubs looking for other chances along the way.  Zia agreed and drew trump in three rounds ending in dummy.  This was the position.

North ♠ K8  ♥ 5 ♦ A ♣ AK1043

South ♠ 732   ♥ AJ104   ♦  – ♣ Q5

Now Zia made an interesting play.  He led a heart to the heart jack.  Of course if clubs work this doesn’t cost anything.  It doesn’t work to give up a club if they don’t work.  A heart return would disconnect the North-South hands with only eleven tricks.  On the hand the heart jack held.  Now he was up to eleven top tricks.  He led a spade from hand and Hampson had to split.  The long spade provided his slam going trick.  Sweet.  This was the whole hand.

Dealer:  Vul:	Hamman ♠ K85   ♥ 5   ♦ AK63   ♣ AK1043
Hampson ♠ J10964    ♥ 632   ♦ 975   ♣ 97		Greco ♠ Q   ♥ KQ987  ♦ 1042   ♣ J862
	Zia ♠ A732   ♥ AJ104   ♦ QJ8   ♣ Q5

 Over in the Closed Room Moss was North and Gitelman was South.  When Gitelman opened one diamond, Moss made a forcing raise of diamonds. Gitelman rebid 2NT which  at least suggested three diamonds and Moss bid four diamonds key card for diamonds.  The five club response showed two aces and the diamond queen.  Moss now bid six clubs with the North hand.  I am not sure what this meant but it sounded to Gitelman like a grand slam try and he bid the diamond grand slam.  Gitelman gave it a try playing for clubs to come home and diamonds to break.  He reversed the dummy by ruffing two hearts.  But when the clubs did not break he was down one.

I sometimes point out challenging hands and errors but very interesting good bridge is being played.  I love watching it and I wish both teams good luck today.