July 25th, 2012 ~ linda ~
1 Comment 
This is to answer the question: Who plays who after the round robin.
You can read all about the draw at Supplemental Conditions 2012 on ecatsbridge. It is quite complex but involves crossovers between the groups based on their original ranking. It is predetermined except for the Round of 16 where the winners of each group get to pick their opponents from 2,3 and 4th in the opposing group,
Any attempt by me to explain it would be much worse than reading the document. But, to a large extent the pairings are guesswork. You can work some things out. Teams will not be paired against qualifying teams in their group during the Round of 16 or the Round of 8.
There is no carryover in any of the knockout matches.
July 24th, 2012 ~ linda ~
4 Comments
Tomorrow, the World Mind Games Contest will open (check bridgeblogging tomorrow morning for the contest form and all the details). Please join me in guessing the top teams in the Open Series at the World Bridge Games, and compete for great prizes from ebooksbridge.
To kick things off, I am posting my choices for the Open Series of the World Bridge Games. I can’t win of course, but I can still see how I do. Of course, no guarantees that these choices will be the right ones. I’m looking forward to seeing what you all come up with!
To see the list of registered teams in the Open Series click here.
Last week I picked the 16 teams that will qualify for the Open WSMG knockout phase and explained my rationale. You can read that blog post here
My Picks for the Contest
Quarter-finals:
Denmark
Monaco
China
Canada
Norway
Italy
Israel
U.S.A.
Semi-finals:
China
U.S.A.
Monaco
Italy
Finals
Monaco
U.S.A.
Bronze: China
Gold: Monaco
Senior Gold (Tie-breaker): U.S.A.
July 24th, 2012 ~ linda ~
1 Comment
I am starting out by picking the 16 teams that will qualify for the Open WSMG knockout phase. The teams have already been divided into groups. Each group has 16 teams with the top 4 to qualify. While this may seem like a tough task a lot of the teams in each group are there mainly to compete. And it is glorious to compete in an Olympic year. In most groups there are not more than seven to eight (or less) serious contenders for a place in the top 4 in their group.
Conveniently (although this is not stated) it seems that the four groups are in seeding order. So you could start by just picking the top four in each group and you wouldn’t be too far wrong, I am pretty sure. The best place to look for information about the teams is www.ecatsbridge.com.
Follow this link to see the groups.
In order to make my selection I consulted the Oracle. He suggested we look at the finalists in this years European championships. He also wanted to look at the list of players on each team.
Based on this the Oracle (with some discussion with yours truly) picked the top four seeds in group A to qualify: Netherlands, England, Germany and Denmark. Group B was tough. The Oracle liked the first three seeds the USA, Poland and France but was insecure about who would make the final spot. In the end he suggested that since Ireland had a team with several players that had done well in the past he could see green as the last qualifier.
We picked a surprise qualifier in the fourth spot in Group C. We think the Canada team has some strong players and we think that Canada will make it. Italy, Sweden and Russia will be the other qualifiers.
Monaco won the Europeans this year and they have created a team that may become dominant in world bridge. This event will show us if that is so. So mark them down for the final 16 and quite likely at least the final four. We can also pick China as one of the four in Group D. Not all of the players on the Israeli team are familiar. The oracle wonders if they are strong enough to make it. After much debate we picked Israel and Norway. But perhaps Iceland, Turkey or Greece will actually qualify. It might be called the Group of Opportunity.
In the next blog, my entry. The Oracle refuses to help with that so I will be on my own.
July 24th, 2012 ~ linda ~
1 Comment
Perhaps the best two bridge teams in the world battled it out in the final of this year’s Spingold, in what was basically USA versus Monaco. Monaco is of course a new team put together by Pierre Zimmermann from some of the best of European player hosted in Monaco. The final segment of this match saw Rodwell and Meckstroth playing Nunes and Fantoni (formerly of Italy) against Helgemo and Helness (formerly of Norway) playing Weinstein and Levin.
And while Monaco had the best of this last segment picking up 42 imps to nothing (defeating Nickell 143 -101) as far as I am concerned the war is not over. These teams will meet again and the results may be quite different. By the way for those who don’t know a Schneider is a gin rummy term used when one opponent is shutout of the scoring.
On board 58 Monaco played notrump in both room. Nunes and Fantoni played 1NT making 2 in the open room. This is the “normal” result. The result in the Closed Room was anything but normal and it probably decided the match. Helgemo and Helness played 1NT redoubled against Weinstein and Levin.
First let’s look at the auction from Levin’s perspective.
Helness opened 1♦ and Levin made a normal looking overcall of 1♠ . West made a negative double (I presume this shows hearts). Weinstein’s redouble showed values. Levin passed the redouble to Helgemo who bid 1NT. This was passed back to Levin.
Is Levin forced here? I am not sure. Normally I would say yes but what does Weinstein have for this bidding? These are my guesses (and I mean guesses). The pass suggest that Weinstein is minimum for his redouble. I think he probably doesn’t have three spades or he would have raised spades at some point. On the other hand I would guess he has a doubleton spade and can stand 2♠ by Levin. The entire auction suggests he doesn’t have a particuarly good suit of his own.
If this is true than the auction really shouldn’t be forcing. I could make an equally good case for the bid being forcing I suppose. What do you think?
In any case Levin is pretty certain that his side has the preponderance of the points since he has 12 and Weinstein has to have at least 10. He made the reasonable call of doubling 1NT. Helgemo redoubles and this is passed out.
Here is the entire auction.
Weinstein is told by Helgemo that the redouble is takeout. The opening lead is the ♠ Q. and Helgemo plays the ♠ K what is your plan? Think about it for a moment.
Helgemo has bid 1NT on three small spades. Weinstein has the Qx of spades. But what it the X? If Weinstein has EXACTLY the Q10 then you can take all five spade tricks as long as Weinstein can get to your hand. Remember Weinstein probably has about 10 points. If he has the ♥ K you have a sure heart entry. In fact you likely have an entry in at least one of the other three suits, you just don’t know which! On the other hand if Weinstein has Q9, Q5 or Q2 of spades then ducking will simplify the defense for the opponents. I suppose you are 3-1 on that Weinstein does not have the ♠ 10. Would you duck? Don’t ask me what is right. Knowing me greedy heart I would probably win the ♠ A but maybe that is why I am not playing in events like this.
Levin ducked. Helgemo now played a diamond from dummy which went to the ♦ 9, the ♦ 10 and the ♦ K. Weinstein returned the ♠ 10. (Rats!) Levin overtakes the ♠ 10 and plays three rounds of spades. On the third spade Weinstein throws the ♣ J. On the fourth spade Helgemo throws the ♣ 5 and Weinstein the ♥ 8, dummy throws a diamond (upside attitude I believe). This is the position at this point from Levin’s perspective.
What do we know? Weinstein seems to have the J10 of clubs (the ♣K as well?), probably not much in hearts and the ♦ K. Could he have something like
This would leave Helgemo with
If so Helgemo has taken one spade, he has a diamond trick and two heart tricks and a club trick already. We have four spades and a diamonds for sure. In order to set up diamonds Helgemo will have to let Levin in again. (Setting up a third heart trick is not enough anyway).
I think that most of us would just cash that last spade and let nature take its course. But you are defending a redoubled contract in the final of an important event. Do you cash the last spade? Can it cost? I may have missed something but in theory I think it is safe. I am not going to be able to work out what Levin’s reasoning was. I may be misunderstanding the carding or missed something else.
In any case Levin did not cash the last spade and that was fatal. Since Weinstein had thrown a heart Helgemo now had four heart tricks two clubs and a spade. Seven tricks. Making 1NT redoubled. The score was -760 for Nickell. That combined with -120 in the Open Room was worth 13 imps to Monaco. Had Nickell defeated 1NT redoubled for two tricks as they might have they would have scored +1000 for a net of +880 or 13 imps to Nickell. This was a swing of 26 imps. That still wouldn’t have been quite enough for Nickell to win.
But who knows. A board like that affects the momentum. It certainly was possible that the overall result would have been different.
The US team in Lille will be a bit different but I believe that in the near future these two identical teams will meet again. It will be great bridge. It will be exciting. And either team might win.
July 23rd, 2012 ~ linda ~
4 Comments
I was born on July 24 1947, exactly 65 years ago. I was one of the first of the huge post-war baby boom. My mom and dad had married on May 1st 1945 just before VE day (victory in Europe). My dad was on leave from the air force where he was a radio operator instructor. My sister Geraldine was born 20 months later and she and I grew up as almost twins. She was a normal size for her age and I was a peanut so we were often mistaken for twins. I have always been a story teller and I used to tell Geraldine stories when we were in bed supposed to be sleeping.
Geraldine is now an Ontario judge. She is a strong supporter of the hurt, the needy. My parents had three more children, a brother and two sisters. Most of my family have been overachievers one way or another. There has been a lot of discussion today about upward mobility. Why some families raise successful children and others don’t. My parents were not always that involved with us. For one thing, with five children there is only so much time and attention to go around. But they were always very demanding. I know that making them proud was always important to all of us. I know that they were very proud of any success I had at bridge and in my technology career.
My dad and mom both played bridge and I started to play by reading a book by Charles Goren when I was in high school. The year was 1964. Charles Goren’s Championship Bridge was still on television that year (and many more in reruns).
My partner was the boy next door, Mark Cosman. All the children on our street played together and grew up together. Sometimes I miss those days. We had no idea what we were doing but we did have fun. Soon there was a regular game at Mark’s house. I was the only girl. I didn’t notice or care. We played as late as we could until we were shooed out of the house.
I went to the University of Toronto when I graduated from high school. At our orientation I noticed a bunch of young men playing card games in the “refectory”. It was a lounge cum cafeteria. I started out working on the newspaper (the Varsity), bowling and actually going to classes. It wasn’t long before I spent all my time in the refectory. It took a while but I gradually got admitted to the bridge games.
I was not allowed to play bridge in the University bridge club at Hart House. It was restricted to men. I could however play at the major Toronto bridge club of the era, Kate Buckman’s.
Kate was our grandmother. She took care of all of us. She gave some of us jobs. She made us dress nicely if we wanted to hand out at the club. And we did. There were a few young women, like Margaret Lerner who is still one of my best friends and still loves bridge. But mostly it was young men. There were middle aged or elderly ladies but the young people were mostly male. I loved the competition, I loved the camaderie, I loved the game. The evening game would end quite late and then we would all go to a nearby restaurant for a burger and a drink and a lot of discussion about that night’s game.
I remember playing with my friend Andy Altay. I knew Andy from high school. I remember visiting his home and being impressed with the Rudyard Kipling poem “If’” which was posted on his wall. Andy had come to Canada from Hungary in the turbulent times in that country. Andy came to a birthday party I held five years ago with a newspaper picture of us (and others) when we graduated with special honors from high school.
Andy was quite a wonderful partner. One time I played in a grand slam missing the trump king. I led a trump towards dummy planning to finesse and was upset when my left hand opponent showed out. I shrugged my shoulders and played low from dummy. What I failed to notice was that the only trump missing was the king. I had twelve trump. Andy just smiled and said not a word. As it turned out the board was a push when our opponents did exactly the same thing! I don’t think I fully appreciated just how special Andy was.
Ray Lee, a young university chemistry professor, showed up one day at Kate Buckman’s. I already had a boyfriend but Ray let me know he wanted to date. It was several years later that I took him up on that. One of the first time we were together he had won a bottle of rum at a club game (yes, they did give alcohol prizes then). I had a lot to drink and spent the night in Ray’s bathroom. What bothered Ray more was that I then went and played the Women’s Pairs at the Toronto Regional with Irene Hodgson and won it. While Ray struggled along, exhausted, in the Open.
Ray was the bridge columnist for a major local paper, the Toronto Star. There are many stories of my exploits (and our exploits) in those columns along with many other local players. We have managed to collect many of these columns from the paper’s archives in recent years. When I read them today it seems like another world entirely.
At the end of this period I played at Saint Agathe in the first Canada women’s team trials. I think we might have won but my partner ran into some problems with medicine. The rest is better left unsaid. But it was a lot of fun and I still have a picture of the four of us in “uniform” enjoying the weather in Quebec. One of my problems then and now was that competing in something that mattered made me very nervous. I didn’t get nervous when I had to speak to several thousand people in a giant hall. But I do get nervous when I play serious bridge. I love being part of a team, I love solving the problems that each deal presents but I am not happy about how I feel especially in that time when you are waiting for it all to start.
Not much after all of that I retired from bridge, more or less. I had very demanding and interesting jobs with a lot of travel and two young children.
I played an occasional game of bridge with a group of Toronto women. There was
Despina H. Georgas (modern picture) and Margaret Lerner but I can’t quite remember all of the group. Anyway, they kicked me out because I missed games or forgot about them. Once the game was at my house and I had completely forgotten. I scrambled to look as if I was expecting them and the game went ahead without problems. I managed to find enough refreshments – BUT THEY KNEW.
Eventually I did come back to bridge. My kids were grown up. I met a bridge player called Linda Waldman when we both were on a jury for an armed robbery trial. I was rather surprised when they called Linda Waldman from the jury panel because that was my maiden name. We became friends and I started to play bridge with her. She also gave me a rather good recipe for Passover Gefilte Fish which I still use.
Ray and I started to play together again and we did rather well. One highlight was coming in second in the National Mixed Pairs. Ray, however, has retired. I can’t even convince him to play with me online very often. I miss playing with him.
My son Colin started to play Junior Bridge, really getting into bridge at the University of Waterloo. It was a proud moment to watch him play on Vugraph at the Junior Championship in Hamilton. (It was hard, too).
I have enjoyed many things in bridge. The travel, winning the Canadin Women’s Team Championship with Irene Hodgson (a story of its own), being part of Master Point Press, working with the American Bridge Teachers Association, mentoring on BBO and so many many more things. Bridge has certainly given me and Ray a lot and we do try to give a little back.
To celebrate Linda’s milestone we’re offering free downloads on eBooksBridge.com until July 26th, 2012.
July 19th, 2012 ~ linda ~
1 Comment
This year I am going to try to review a lot of sites. This is because there is such a wealth of bridge sites available. As such, most reviews will be short. However, I do take the time to have a good look at each site. I am going to rate sites as follows:
- Don’t miss this. Lots of useful content (5 stars)
- Good site. Useful content (4 stars)
- Worth a look if you are interested in the topics on the site (3 stars)
- Limited interest (2 stars)
- Needs work (1 star or less)
Sites will be tagged with one or more tags (most websites will have more than one). Tags will relate to the nature and level of the content.
Sites reviewed in this post:
Site Review: Bridge Bum ( a reference site)
Rating:
Bridge Bum is a personal website authored by Jeff Tang. The website was begun in 1999 with the idea of describing bridge conventions and included bridge articles and interviews.
Appearance: I like the look, it is a nice clean modern look with lots of buttons to allow you to easily navigate the website.
Content: A long list of conventions. Each one is clearly described with examples. I especially like the See Also section which shows you similar alternative conventions. I chose to look up the Staveley Wriggle (A new one for me!) It is one of the many conventions used as a runout when the opponents double 1NT for penalty. I like the idea that pass is natural (and weak?) and that redouble is strong and for play. You can read about the rest of the convention on his website. A “wriggle” in the UK means an escape or runout.
Under the bidding principles heading: CRIFS (from Larry Cohen) which is a method of making a borderline decision about when to open on a borderline hand in fourth seat. If you want to know more you will have to look–but I will say that if I am ever playing against Larry and he has to make a fourth chair decision about whether to open or not, I will discover if Larry has overestimated me or underestimated me.
Bridge Bum features articles on a variety of topics including a small number of interviews. Read the article “If Chess Was Played Like Bridge” to find some thoughts on why bridge is dying in America.
Tags: Bidding, Conventions, Personal Website, Interviews, Card Play, Ethics
Level: Advanced, Expert but something for students at lower levels
Site Review: Mr. Bridge (a commercial website, primarily)
Rating:
This UK based site sells books and videos (mostly their own, written by Bernard McGee, the son of the owner) and bridge holidays. There is a free online newsletter, Bridge Weekly, with minimum content. But the gems are the last 30 back issues of his monthly magazine. There’s a lot of advertising, but the ads are clumped together so you can move quickly to some good articles with topics such as: Heather Dhondy on preempting; a quiz (and lots of articles) by Julian Pottage; questions and answers on laws and ethics; and so on. If you live in the U.K., you could order this magazine. It is nice that it is now available for the rest of us.
Topics: Card Play, Ethics, Current topics, Problems, Magazine
Level: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced (somewhat for Experts)
Rating:
While not strictly a “bridge” website, this is a work of love for Alexander Sukhorukov of Moscow. Alexander has been a Russian bridge player since 1975 and was publisher of Bridge in Russia until 2008. Now he has devoted all his time to this wonderful collection of cards. All the cards are for sale or trade and other collectors can list their trade for free on the site.
The design of this site is not that great but the collection of cards is huge. You can’t imagine the size, scope and depth of this collection. I would have liked a bit more explanation but I enjoyed looking at many of the cards anyway.
Tag: Playing Cards
Level: Mainly interesting to playing card collectors
Site Review: Clairebridge (personal website of Claire Martel)
Rating:
Note: Clairebridge can be viewed in French or English
I believe this is the third time I have reviewed this website and readers will know I think it is terrific. There is a lot of content. Much of this content is links to documents, websites, interviews, and so on, carefully organized by Claire with lots of pictures. The site covers a lot of territory including bidding practice, laws, conventions to declarer, bridge players and stars, bridge teaching, articles and more. I was surprised to find a number of links to my own blogs on some of the pages (naturally I clicked on them and quite enjoyed reading them)! Some highlights for me included: a heated debate between two top players on whether women are as good at bridge as men (from English bridge 2010); an interesting utility to generate bridge hands, and a great list of new bridge blogs to read. It’s all here. Clairebridge is visual, it is amusing, but most of all, it is a gateway to the world of bridge on the web. I love it.
Tags: Links, Photographs, Articles, Bidding Systems, Blogroll, People, Psychology, Ethics, Bridge Books
Level: All
Uncategorized,
Website Reviews | tags:
Advanced,
Articles,
Beginner,
Bidding,
Bidding Systems,
Bridge Books,
Card Play,
Conventions,
Current topics,
Ethics,
Intermediate,
Interviews,
Links,
Magazine,
People,
Personal Website,
Photographs,
Playing Cards,
Problems,
Psychology
July 16th, 2012 ~ linda ~
1 Comment
Going into Board 64 of the Grand National Teams Flight A Lilenstein (Jared Lilienstein – Sam Lev – John Hurd – Michael Polowan – Brian Glubok, New York NY; Joel Wooldridge, Astoria NY) was leading Spector (Warren Spector, Palm Beach FL; Michael Becker – David Berkowitz, Boca Raton FL; Gary Cohler, Miami FL; Jeff Meckstroth – Eric Rodwell, Clearwater Beach FL) by 4 imps. Board 64 was an exciting deal. North-South have a decent small slam in hearts. However on the lie of the cards a grand slam in hearts can be made if the defenders do not take the cashing ace of clubs on the opening lead. When Cohler-Berkowitz got to this grand slam AND made it the lead changed and Lilenstein was the winner. I am sure others will write about Board 64.
I want to write about Board 61. At the start of Board 61 Lilenstein led 111 to 95. With only four boards to go Spector, down by 26 imps had to make a big move soon. North was the dealer with both vulnerable. This was the auction in both Rooms.
At both tables West led a top diamond and saw this dummy.
At both tables partner signaled to show an odd count in diamonds. What now?
It appears that you have two diamond tricks. Your only other tricks can come from trump or clubs. The only way you can have two trump tricks is if partner has the ace and queen of hearts. The other hope is to play partner for one heart winner and the CK. So let’s give partner the ♥ A and the ♣ K.
You still have to decide whether you have to cash another diamond immediately. A diamond loser could go away on the top spades in dummy.
If declarer is 0-6-2-5 and is missing the ♥ A and the ♣ K if you don’t cash the second diamond declarer could discard a diamond on the top spade and you will not defeat the contract. Cashing the second diamond works because three spade pitches are not enough for declarer. But that means that partner has an even number of diamonds.
But if declarer is 0-6-3-4 (as suggested by partner’s signal) declarer could get rid of their presumed club loser by discarding them away on the spades. Still there is hope. In this scenario declarer has three diamonds and in fact the third diamond will still be a loser. This is the actual deal.
Here a club lead at trick two defeats the contract. If Glubok wins and discards clubs he has no way to get rid of the third diamond. He could try leading a diamond at trick six but you win and return a trump. Suppose instead he discard diamonds planning to give up one diamond, one trump and one club. Then when Rodwell is in on the trump ace he will cash the ♣ K and give Meckstroth a club ruff. Even if Glubok is 1-6-3-3 a club lead is required.
The answer to “Do I have to cash a second diamond now?” is “no”. If partner has shown an odd number of diamonds than there is no rush to cash the second diamond and in fact, as on this deal, it may be fatal. Switching to a club at trick two was worth 12 imps.
My congratulations to both teams.
July 10th, 2012 ~ linda ~
2 Comments
Master Point Press sponsors the International Bridge Press Association Book of the Year. But the nomination and selection process is completely independent so it is always fun to find out if we have any books nominated. It was particularly fun when my revision of Bridge Squeezes Complete was nominated! And it was great when Eric Rodwell/Mark Horton won for “The Rodwell Files” last year.
This year three Master Point Press books have been nominated.
The first is Bridge at the Edge: Boye Brogeland and David Bird.
I remember when Ray and I met with Brogeland to discuss this book. Any woman who looks at the cover will know where my eyes were during that dinner. I also rather liked a discussion Ray and I had about Brogeland’s comments about playing for overtricks at imps. Is it ever right to risk your contract (even when the odds are very low) for that overtrick? Brogeland’s views on the subject and his subsequent experience when he put his ideas into practice are interesting and funny. I never pass up an opportunity to read new fresh ideas about the game from a young star.
The second is The Contested Auction: Roy Hughes
Roy found some time away from his young family to do this thorough and comprehensive book about the most complex part of bidding – competitive auctions. It always seems strange to me that partnerships work so hard on their constructive bidding, plotting out many levels of auction and then as an afterthought discuss how to compete in an auction and how to handle interference. I have watched a lot of high level bridge and it seems to me that most of the time in expert partnership the disasters happen in competitive auctions. Twice recently in the final stages of major competitions I saw two expert partnerships get completely confused after Keycard was doubled.
Clearly this is a part of bidding that needs more attention. It is well worth the time (which will be considerable) to work through Roy’s book.
The third nominated book is Defend or Declare: Julian Pottage.
Julian never fails to produce interesting deals. A long time ago I was involved in a pioneer book with Andrew Diosy where together we came up with a novel idea. We presented deals for users to analyze where they could see all four hands. Then we gave them a solution in two parts. Part one of the solution moved them in the right direction. Part two was the final solution. I have always liked this approach. It is a way to help people to “see” the answer and learn the concept.
We were happy to see Julian bring back this approach using his own special hands.
Other nominated books include: The Amazing Queen – Winning with Your Queens: Clement Wong and It’s All in the Game: Bob Ewen and Jeff Rubens.
Jeff Rubens is the editor of a bridge magazine I read every month and one readers know I love: Bridge World. My copies of bridge world will never be sold because I admit that they are all a little bit wet. That is because I reread them over and over usually while in the bathtub! The subtitle of their book is The Fun Side of Winning Bridge. I haven’t seen this book yet but I intend to. Apparently they tell some very funny bridge stories involving some great players.
Congratulations to all the nominees and look for a promotion in August on ebooksbridge of our nominated books.
July 5th, 2012 ~ linda ~
No Comments
It is that time again. I am preparing to do another review of all things bridge on the web. It does takes some mental preparation because it is quite a bit of effort to find and then walk through many websites and then discuss them as fairly as I can. And I am going to rate them which will reflect my own likes and dislikes. But I am thinking of doing the ratings more systematically this time.
If you have a website or know of a bridge website that should be included then leave a comment or send me an email … linda@masterpointpress.com
To get me in the mood I was looking at a rather amusing and esoteric website called Bridge Fantasia (by Thomas Andrew).
This website is not beautifully designed but it has lots of interesting things if you like to explore the edges of the game. I do.
Would you like to see a constructive deal where EVERYBODY can make 3NT. I am going to present the deal which is as you will see symmetrical. But visit “Everybody Makes”
Lots more of this type of thing. I know I have mentioned this website in previous evaluation. It hasn’t changed as far as I can see. But I couldn’t resist this fantasy deal as a way of introduction to the ever growing “bridge on the web’.
June 20th, 2012 ~ linda ~
No Comments
If you haven’t been closely following the European Open Team Trials (selecting teams for the 2013 Bermuda Bowl), the teams were divided into two groups. The top nine in each group proceeded to a section stage where they are playing nine more match, one against each of the top nine in the other group. There scores (first round and second round) against all the final seventeen other teams in the competition will produce their score and final ranking.
So we already have the first eight scores for each team (their score against the other finalist in their group) and the teams are now playing their remaining nine matches.
At the end of “Round 19” with seven matches to go the top five finishers in the combined group are: Monaco (the new powerhouse of Europe), England, Germany, Italy and Israel in that order.
I found Board 5 an interesting deal. The East-West pair has 27 high card points, yet no game is certain. They have to answer the question, “What denomination?”
Looking at only the East-West hand what is the best contract? If hearts break 4-4 or if the heart suit blocks 3NT does have nine top tricks. Depending on your auction there is at least a small chance you won’t get a heart lead.
A spade game is possible. If spades break 4-3 then you are pretty much home. If spades are 5-2 you still have chances if the hand with long spades has no more than three hearts or if there is no heart lead. You will need to find a tenth trick in a minor suit (a 3-2diamond break perhaps?)
What about 5♦ ? If diamonds are 3-2 then you have five diamond tricks (counting a heart ruff) and you can make four spades and two clubs without sweating.
So what is the best contract? (Technical-type answer later).
But of course East-West are not examining 26 cards when they select the contact and I would expect 3NT might be a top choice.
As it turns out the only contract that doesn’t make is 5♦ ! This was the whole deal
With hearts breaking 4-4 3NT makes on any lead. With spades 4-3 and nothing wacky happening 4♠ makes. But with diamonds 4-1 there are three top losers in a diamond contact on a normal heart lead, a trump and two hearts.
So once more it is right to avoid that most hated of all game contracts, five of a minor.
In the Russia-Sweden match Dubinin-Gromob for Russia played in 4♠ making five losing an imp to Sweden when Slyvan-Wrang played in 3NT making 6 on a diamond lead.
In the England-Germany match both pairs went down 1 in 5♦ (so nobody was punished for getting to what I thinking is technically the superior contract). Likewise in the Greece-Romania match.
When the leaders Monaco played Turkey both pairs arrived in the spade game. And in the Iceland-Ireland match Hanlon-Mcgann for Ireland won an imp when they made 13 tricks on a club lead in 3NT and Einarsson-Adalsteinn made only 12 tricks in 4♠ .
In fact this board was only a significant swing in the Bulgaria-Poland and the Switzerland-Israel match where Poland and Switzerland were punished for playing in 5♦ . The most popular contract (about half of all chances) was the spade game and oddly the least popular was 3NT.
Now the technical answer: 4♠ : Missing seven in spade: a 4-3 spade break is about 62 percent with some slight extra chances when spades are 5-2. 3NT: MIssing eight hearts the chance that hearts will NOT break 4-4 are 68 percent but there are a few cases where hearts might block and sometimes a heart may not be lead. So 3NT is somewhat more than 32 percent. 5♦ : Holding 8 diamonds the chance of a 3-2 break is 68%.
So it would seem that the most likely contract is the only one that doesn’t make.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related