Those members of the club who came to watch the World Championship final witnessed something highly unusual in our game.

In American football, they call a Hail Mary a move made in desperation, with little chance of success.

After two sets in the final, Rosenthal trailed Fleisher by 69 IMPs. The vugraph commentators thought the match was almost beyond revival. Boye Brogeland had not come to Poland just to give up hope in the final of a World Championship, and he decided on a similar move to try to revive his team’s fortunes.

West had a normal 1 overcall and North’s bid showed a heart raise with some values. East saw the action before him and decided to settle for game in partner’s suit. So the opening was there for a big swing.

In the other room:

With the same idea of going for a swing, Martin Schalz jumped to 7. He received the lead of the 3.

He had a choice of lines: either draw trumps and play three rounds of spades, or play spades before drawing trumps. If North had a small doubleton spade and three trumps, declarer could ruff a spade, return to the A, ruff another spade, draw trumps, return to the K, pitch a heart on the long spade, and take a diamond finesse.

If spades were 3-3, or either hand held Qx, this line would be successful. It would also work with a 4-2 spade break if the K was right. When the Q fell, Schalz was able to claim once trumps broke favourably.

Brogeland’s operation had been a success and was worth 16 IMPs to Rosenthal. The set ended 38-5, and the deficit was now 36 IMPs with 14 boards to play. We now had a bridge match, with the outcome uncertain.

Rosenthal pulled back a further 10 IMPs in the final set, which did offer a couple of opportunities. However, Team Fleisher survived. Brogeland’s effort will be displayed in bridge columns around the world, and perhaps, as well as his silver medal, he should also receive a medal for bravery.

On page 12 of the current issue, Barbara Travis wrote up a lovely 3NT from the VCC, played by her daughter Lauren. (In the magazine, the editor accidentally moved Lauren to the North seat in the bidding diagram, but hopefully readers can tell from the context that she was actually declarer in the South seat.)

Due to lack of space, we were unable to provide a thorough analysis of the hidden twist in this fascinating deal, so we can fill in the gaps here. But first, try playing it yourself. Lauren was in 3NT on a heart lead; she won the first trick with the Q, and the second trick with the Q. Your move...

West led a low heart, the queen winning. The problem with the lead was that it severed communications with dummy. Lauren thought about playing for the singleton king of clubs, but decided to play for Kx onside, so she led the queen – low all round. Now she led a club to the ace, hoping that the ten of diamonds would be tripleton. She cashed the diamond ace - two - low heart - four. Queen of diamonds - king, and West was endplayed:

He led the diamond five to Lauren’s six. Next she led the jack of diamonds and he realised that he should drop the ten to avoid a further endplay, but that was not good enough:

Lauren could now exit with her three of diamonds to his seven, giving up a diamond trick but gaining access to dummy. West had to lead a heart or club, so dummy made the remaining tricks, for +660.

At the end of the hand, West commented that he should have retained his two of diamonds! This would have ensured that West could exit on the fifth round of the suit, leaving South on lead in this ending:

With South on lead, East's spades would have been good enough for three tricks, taking 3NT one off.

The deal has a fascinating twist: if declarer holds on to the ace of diamonds on the first round, instead beginning the suit by playing the queen and jack, then West has no answer.

When declarer started with the ace-then-queen, West could have unblocked the five-seven, leading to this ending:

West
K102

            South
            J963

With South on lead, West is in control. He can win the third and fourth round with the ten and king, then get off lead with the two.

However, if declarer starts with the queen and jack, West must capture one of them. He cannot afford to let declarer win the queen and jack, as she would then cash the ace, and West would have no escape. If he continues unblocking (throwing the five and seven on the queen-jack and then the ten under the ace) he will be left with king-two, and will only take one diamond trick (leaving five for declarer, enough for the contract). However, if West releases the two, then he will have to win the fourth and fifth round, and be endplayed.

So West wins the second round, taking the jack with the king. The new ending, this time with West on lead, is:

West
1072

            South
            A963

Now West cannot avoid the second endplay without sacrificing his second diamond trick. Let's say he leads the seven to the nine; declarer now cashes her carefully-preserved ace, and once again West cannot afford to give up the ten.

It's hard to imagine that it makes a difference whether declarer plays the ace first or the queen first in this suit. Is there anyone reading this article who would have found the accurate play of the queen and jack at the table?

This deal from the first session of the Spingold Knockout Teams was reported by Max Schireson, playing on the Gitelman team (Fred Gitelman, Sheri Winestock, Max Schireson, Christal Henner, Debbie Rosenberg, Uday Ivatury) vs des Jardins (David des Jardins, Andrew Gumperz, Leon Meier, Lysandra Zheng).

Schireson was impressed with Zheng’s defense on Board 30.

West led the K. East overtook with the ace and switched to a low spade! “When I didn’t put up the Q, I lost three spade tricks plus the A for down one,” said Schireson.

On a more routine defense, such as continuing diamonds or leading a trump, once declarer discovers the Q in the West hand, it will be easier to place the AK with East.

“Overtaking the diamond to play a low spade isn’t the only way I can go wrong,” Schireson continued. “If West is left on lead and switches to a spade and a spade is continued, I also have a chance to go wrong.

“But they must make me play spades immediately, and the way East can guarantee that is to play exactly as she did. A club switch through dummy’s king might look attractive to West, but that would be fatal, as would a trump or a second diamond.”

Everyone knows that when your opponent leads towards an ace in dummy, and you are void in the suit, it is usually wrong to ruff in front of the ace. You’d be ruffing a loser, leaving you with one fewer trump while your opponent still has the ace to cash later.

On this deal from the Mutton Cup, a popular Individual tournament in Madrid, Ramon Gomez of Spain faced an unusual variation of that principle:

North leads the singleton club, won by declarer’s ace, and declarer plays two rounds of trumps. In with the K, South switches to a spade.

If declarer ruffs this trick, North will follow low, and the defenders will still have the three top spades. Instead, Gomez discarded a diamond on this trick, letting North win with the queen. North continued with a low spade, and Gomez inserted dummy’s nine, forcing South’s king and promoting dummy’s jack as a stopper.

Declarer ruffed this trick, and now was on track to make an overtrick, with just the J and K to lose. However, not believing that South’s K was a doubleton, declarer made his only two errors of the deal on the next trick: he cashed the queen of trumps, discarding a low diamond from dummy. Now North was threatening to get on lead with the K, cash the top trump, and cash the A for a fifth trick (crucial at Matchpoint scoring).

Declarer recovered the position by giving North a chance to go wrong. He cashed out the clubs, and the fourth round was ruffed and overruffed with the last two trumps, leaving North on lead in this ending:

With a full count on the deal, what would you lead from the North hand now? At the table, North cashed the A, which was his last trick. If he next continued with the K, the West hand would be high, while a low diamond exit would be won with the queen, at which point the East hand is high. Either way, nine tricks.

A better defence from North would have been a low diamond immediately, breaking declarer’s communications. Dummy can take the Q and long club, but then has to concede two spade tricks into North’s ace-ten, for just eight tricks.

Note that declarer could have put North under more pressure by discarding the Q, and keeping a low one. Then he could have won a low diamond exit in hand, and the diamonds would have been high for ten tricks. In that scenario, North would have to cash the A to hold the contract to nine.

North could still have had the last word, though: if he refuses to overruff the club, instead discarding his spade loser, he will be left with one fewer spade and one extra trump in the four-card ending. Now, all declarer can do is cash the A for eight tricks.

As it turns out, making nine tricks was only an average board, while eight tricks would have been just 27%. South’s spade switch at trick four ensured a good score for NS; most declarers made ten tricks when the spade switch was not found.

Having won our first two matches in some comfort, team OzOne (Bobby Richman - Zolly Nagy, Tony Nunn - Sartaj Hans) drew the #3 seed Jacobs in the “round of 32” in the Spingold Knockout Championships at the recent American Summer Nationals in Chicago. It would be a day long match played over four segments of 16 boards each.

Our opponents George Jacobs - Ralph Katz, Zia Mahmood - Michael Rosenberg, Bobby Levin - Steve Weinstein are all veterans of the American circuit and would start as heavy favourites. I can't say we had a team plan although what always seems to work is to “play tough and tight”. Our rough start saw us play Jacobs - Katz, Levin - Weinstein in the first set and get slaughtered 64-17.

Australians have a well-earned reputation for being very aggressive bidders. In fact I recall a conversation with a foreign international player as he was sharing his impressions: “One thing is for sure, no one in Australia seems to know how to bid”, he said. To which I retorted “Perhaps our style is the way of the future which you may appreciate in ten years’ time. Maybe we’ll learn to take some tricks by then and actually be a force.”

Whether that’s true or not, Team Australia was a bunch of wussies on this deal:

Levin made the winning decision to enter the auction after the opponents reached the three level, and Weinstein continued the good work by another aggressive view. Nunn was caught napping for the rest of the auction. A 3 bid by him leads to North-South discovering a profitable save in 4.

In the other room:

South’s eccentric pass of 2 made sure there was no momentum to the auction and East West missed game (3 made an overtrick). The true Australian spirit would have been demonstrated if East had chosen a Michaels cue-bid over 1. Now that would be the real thing!

How do you negotiate the following suit combination for five tricks?

   J4

AK9832

The technically correct play is to cash the ace first. If neither queen nor ten appears then run the jack next. The 3-2 breaks are irrelevant and this play picks up stiff queen or ten either side, and Q10xx onside.

In our match, neither declarer took this line.

Hans - Nunn swear by a hyper aggressive style and the 2 opener was quite normal at this position and vulnerability. The intrusion did pose problems for North-South. Weinstein as North did not take the losing view of bidding 3NT over 3. Then there was ambiguity around the meaning of 4NT in this specific auction. However, the play in 6NT was pinpointed by the auction. Levin accurately played the preemptor for a singleton heart. He won the spade lead in hand and played a heart to the jack to make his contract.

The reckless preemptive style would have to take some flak on this hand. But, hey, aren't we Australians?

In an uncontested auction to 6 in the other room, West led a high spade. Wary of a ruff in a side suit, Richman played hearts from the top. The choice of lines is academic really as down one was always going to be the most likely result at this table.

Try your hand at a defensive problem:

South declares 4 after North showed a limit raise as a passed hand.

Partner leads the J round to declarer, who wins the ace and finesses a diamond to your king as partner shows three diamonds. Your go?

The hand feels as if it were out of a textbook; declarer has just set up a long suit in dummy and we need to cash our tricks. Partner probably has one sharp card and if that is the K then a low club will do the job and will be admirably necessary if the king is doubleton.

Bobby Richman tried this reasonable play but the hand was:

Declarer won the club switch and played diamonds pitching clubs from hand. The defence can no longer take their two trump tricks and a club.

In the other room, North made a fit showing jump in diamonds leading to the same contract. Weinstein led his doubleton club, which East ducked and declarer had no chance.

So, it was quarter break time and we were stuck 47 imps. The whole team played much tighter in the next segment as we won back 36 of these imps.

The first decent pickup occurred when Zia and Bobby Richman held

RHO opened 1 in third seat against Zia and 1NT against Richman. Zia tried 5, noticed later that he was vulnerable against not, and paid out 500 when doubled. Richman bid a prudent 4 and bought it there for -100.

In the modern age, where everyone has been taught not to bid 5-over-5, there is very little going for jumping unilaterally to the five level. There is a good case for playing a 4 preempt as “Ten years ago, the whole world used to bid 5 on this hand, partner. Visualize accordingly and please raise more aggressively”.

I like to write bridge articles as it gives me a chance to see what action was successful, then spend a paragraph or two articulating a philosophy around it. Perhaps if 5 had made, I would have been writing about the merits of putting the pressure on the opposition, of partner rarely being able to accurately evaluate holdings opposite wild distributional hands, etc.

A discussion took place in our team around the best way to play this slam. Thankfully, it was Rosenberg who had to deal with the problem at the table.

Plan the play on the 2 lead.

Rosenberg played low from dummy at trick one and when that lost to the king and the hearts were 4-1 offside, he was down one. This line appears to be the best percentage action although the winning action was to play for Kxx of diamonds sitting over dummy’s length.

Zia’s hand poses a problem for natural bidders. The hand is too strong for any other course of action and 2NT seems most descriptive in terms of playing strength. Which is fine when the final contract is 3NT. In slam auctions, however, offshape notrumps come a cropper quite often. Here, for example, if Rosenberg’s minors were switched, it would be worthwhile bidding the slam even without the queen of spades. The singleton diamond turns out to be a liability, a liability that the auction was never able to diagnose.

In the other room, Richman - Nagy started with a strong club and stopped short of slam winning us 11 imps. Some more imps came our way with these hands:

Nunn’s accurate evaluation led to a far more respectable contract than 3NT chosen in the other room. Hans won the club, unblocked spades and ditched two clubs on the ace-king of diamonds. Crossing to hand with the other top club, he ruffed his spade in dummy to play the queen of hearts. 4 made in comfort on a club lead despite hearts being 4-1 and the diamonds unfriendly.

Going into the third set, we were down only 11 imps but from now on, only the big four would be playing for them.

We lost ground on a lot of the small swing hands to drop another 10 imps.

The last set, starting with us trailing by 21 imps, featured some opportunities for us to overcome the deficit. However, the score for these 16 boards was tied at 29-29 and our opponents won the match by 161-140.

Losing a match in bridge always leads to “If only I had got this hand right” type reflections. This deal could have won us a vulnerable slam swing:

A well-timed psychic operation by Zia made things difficult for North-South. Hans should have cuebid 3 over the responsive double, got a response and then made a slam try by bidding 4. North will be delighted to accept a slam try as he has a monster, in the context of what he has promised so far.

I am yet to see the likes of Jeff Meckstroth, Alfredo Versace, Lorenzo Lauria or Zia ever pass in third seat at favourable vulnerability with a hand in the 0-5 HCP range. Opposite a passed partner, the opponents are guaranteed to have at least a vulnerable game, and could possibly have a slam. A little operation at the one-level can lead to all sorts of good things, including opposing declarer misguessing the play. Perhaps terming the 1 opening “a well timed operation” is giving Zia too much credit for what is really a “routine” operation.

I’d like to end this article with a defensive exhibit from the last set.

There are a couple of interesting points about handling shapely hands like South. It’s a clear opening bid, as this hand will generate far more tricks for partner than a 4333 12 HCP hand that beginners are taught to open. Having opened it, my plan was to rebid 2 over 2. However, when the auction gets competitive, the concept of minimum-maximum comes way down the priority list. Showing your shape is far more important. I feel my 2 bid is the right action, although not all my fellow 1 openers will agree. About that raise to 5, well, my excuse is that 4 was forcing according to our system (don’t ask me for a copy of the system notes).

Rosenberg led the 2, playing 3rd and 5th leads, to Zia’s king. Zia won and returned a low spade to West’s ace. After a very long huddle when he thought all sorts of things, he returned a heart. 5 now made. We can crime Zia somewhat for not switching to the K (found in the other room) but I am still struggling to find one ounce of sympathy for his partner.

I finish off with this hand as it demonstrates that even this world-class top American partnership can goof up such “baby” hands. There is still hope for all of us!

Tony Rolfe, the president of the Mollymook Bridge Club, played this hand in the qualifying round of his club's Congress Pairs.

He was in 2NT from South on the lead of a small heart. He won the lead with the Q, ran the Q and played small to the J, with both opponents playing small both times.

The diamonds were now good so he had his eight tricks but this was pairs so he set about making more.

He led the 10 off table, and when East played low he played the J from hand, which won. Now he had nine tricks but that still wasn't enough.

He exited with a spade from hand. West played the king and East thought for a long time before overtaking with the ace and returning a heart. Tony took a big chance by ducking. If West had shifted to a club Tony would have been back to eight tricks, but West continued hearts. He won the A, pitching a spade from dummy, and ran the diamonds reducing everyone to three cards.

The play so far had given Tony certain indications of who held what. The club play made it clear that East had the king and the spade play suggested that East had started with the queen as well as the ace.

So, after running the diamonds, Tony was sure that this was the position:

In order to keep guard of the black suits East had been forced to give up any heart winners.

So Tony exited with a spade at trick 11 and East was forced to lead back into the clubs to yield ten tricks.

Needless to say, Tony had a top board. This was the full deal:

In the previous issue we covered this year's Gold Coast Open Teams up until the end of the semi-finals. The seemingly unstoppable ASHTON team had finally been stopped by WARE, while CORNELL had dispatched South Africans APTEKER.

We conclude with the final match between WARE and CORNELL.

In what would be the last major event played in Australia for several months due to the coronavirus pandemic, the final of the Gold Coast Open Teams would be contested over four sets of 12 boards on a sunny 'leap day' at the end of February. For their efforts in the qualifying rounds, CORNELL would start with a 0.1 imp tiebreak in their favour.

For CORNELL, Michael Whibley - Matthew Brown play all the boards and employ a hyper-aggressive form of 2/1 with transfer responses to 1 and filthy preempts in most situations. For the rest of their five-man squad, Nabil Edgtton partners either Alex Antonios or Ashley Bach, with both lineups playing a fairly simple 2/1 structure.

For WARE, Michael Ware - Nick Jacob use a Kiwi-themed weak notrump system as well as a 'comic notrump' overcall showing either a weak preemptive hand or a natural 1NT bid. GeO Tislevoll - Terje Lie play a Scandinavian-style 2/1, while Max Henbest - David Wiltshire play a more local-flavoured version of 2/1; both of the latter pairs use transfers over their 1 opening.

On the first board of the match, Brown - Whibley looked like they were on their way to the seven level until Wiltshire doubled 5, asking for a heart lead and sowing some confusion in the ranks:

When Whibley passed, Brown assumed that either the trump queen was missing or there were too many gaps to risk a grand slam. After Henbest's 10 lead, Brown drew trumps, cashed his other top heart honour then took the ruffing finesse through Wiltshire to establish the heart suit: NS +1010.

In the closed room, the Norwegians made short work of this fair grand slam. After confirming that a nine-card fit existed, Lie checked on keycards before blasting to the seven level. 7 is not completely cold, but Antonios' A lead simplified things immensely; +1510 and 11 imps to WARE to open the scoring.

Henbest chose to open the East cards with a weak 2, producing shudders from the audience but fully consistent within the partnership style. Wiltshire raised to 3 and Whibley doubled for takeout from the North seat, happily left in by Brown. After the 3 lead, Whibley cashed the top two clubs which established a discard for one of declarer's losers; when the smoke settled, declarer was three down for NS +500.

At the other table, Tislevoll declared 3NT from North after an artificial overcall:

Which diamond would you lead from the East seat? Seeking to emphasise his extra length, Antonios chose to lead the more encouraging fourth-highest 4 rather than a higher spot card. After dummy's queen was taken by Edgtton's ace (a strong deceptive play), the defence returned a heart to Antonios for the 2 back through dummy. To give himself a chance, Tislevoll had to insert the 7 either on the first trick or now, but when he played the jack Edgtton could win the king he had so carefully concealed and return a diamond to establish the suit.

Declarer's last chance to make his game was to run the J (pinning the 10-9) but he had no reason to play for that and tried to drop the doubleton queen. When this didn't work, Tislevoll attempted to limit the damage to two down by finessing on the third round of spades; this lost as well and the superb defence had the rest for four vulnerable undertricks and NS -400. CORNELL had 14 imps back.

A couple of quieter boards followed, WARE picking up 2 imps for staying a level lower on a hand with bad breaks afoot before both teams stretched to a poor 22-point vulnerable game, both declarers duly failing for a flat board. Then came this high-level decision:

Wiltshire chose not to unilaterally sacrifice after Brown guessed to punt slam. After the K lead, 6 looked doomed from a single-dummy perspective, but Brown brought it home. After winning the lead and crossing to dummy in trumps, he ruffed a small diamond, cashed two more rounds of trumps ending in the dummy, then played the diamond ace hoping for a doubleton king. That wasn't to be, but declarer was still cold when he led the heart off the dummy as East had no spade to return. Declarer could pitch dummy's spade on the K and eventually ruff two losers in the dummy and rely on the ruffing diamond finesse to produce the twelfth trick: NS +1370.

At the other table, Edgtton was convinced by the opponents' bidding into taking a solo dive.

On the A lead, the double dummy line to escape for two down in 6 doubled is to discard a diamond at trick one! Declarer can ruff the next club and take a heart finesse, but the defence has no good options and declarer can eventually establish the spades with some guesswork.

At the table, Antonios decided to ruff the opening lead and take the heart finesse. When the defence continued with a second club, he realised the danger of losing touch with the dummy and opted to pitch a diamond, but when Tislevoll won the K the roof fell in. After switching to the ace of diamonds, Tislevoll continued with the queen to ruff out declarer's king. The defence was still due another trick and ended up with +800, but that was nevertheless 11 imps to CORNELL after Brown's efforts in the other room.

WARE struck back with modest gains on the next three boards. Whibley - Brown did well to bid a slam, but this was eclipsed by -1100 at the other table when Antonios's seven-card vulnerable weak two was doubled for four down. A sloppy defence costing an undertrick was followed by an Edgtton - Antonios adventure to a 23-point game which was odds against and quickly failed.

Trailing 23-27, WARE won a fortunate swing on the next deal due to systemic differences. Wiltshire was able to make a transfer response to his partner's 1 opening and let Henbest declare the hand in 4, while Edgtton was forced to respond naturally and ended up wrong-siding the same contract. Henbest was never under pressure while Edgtton in the other room had to deal with a challenging lead and finished one down; 12 imps to WARE.

The last three boards of the first set had some exciting moments but only resulted in one more imp being turned over. Antonios and Henbest both replicated a strong technical line in 3NT, while on the next board both Whibley and Tislevoll chose to overcall 1NT opposite a passed hand facing a 1 opening on their right with these cards:

Whibley later came close to putting down the dummy in 2 with a 3-2 fit, but he and his partner were rescued by a double and ended up defending a normal contract for a flat board.

WARE picked up an imp on the last board when Wiltshire made one more trick than Edgtton in 3NT, so WARE had the early lead 36-27. That would be the last we saw of Alex Antonios for the match as he made way for Ashley Bach to partner Edgtton for the remainder of the boards, but Antonios had played a remarkably solid set under immense pressure, given his lack of experience.

In the closed room, Edgtton-Bach had a normal auction to declare 3NT from the West seat. Tislevoll cashed a top club and Lie was forced to discourage, otherwise risking an underlead on the next round. Tislevoll switched to spades but declarer only had eight top tricks, and when Edgtton didn't cash all of those tricks before playing on diamonds he was two down for NS +200.

The weak notrump opening changed the complexion of the hand, not for the last time this match. When Whibley was able to double 2 for the lead, East-West knew there was an issue in the club suit and attempted game in their 4-3 spade fit. After cashing two rounds of clubs, switching to any suit allows declarer the chance to make via the double-dummy play of drawing just two rounds of trumps followed by establishing the diamond suit; dummy's remaining trump guards against the club tap.

In any case, Whibley did not switch. He played a third round of clubs for a ruff and discard and Jacob was in trouble. He attempted to sneak a diamond to the king (if that held, he was home with trumps behaving) but Brown won and found the only card to deliver the knockout blow: a fourth round of clubs. Whichever hand Jacob ruffed in would promote a trump trick. Sparkling defence from the two New Zealanders and NS +100.

Jacob's weak notrump drew blood on the next board when Brown failed to double 1NT for penalties and Whibley - Brown found themselves in the unfamiliar scenario of playing a partscore with 26 points. This lost 6 imps when Lie was able to overcall 1NT at the other table with Brown's hand and quickly reach game. But it would not take long for CORNELL to win back a big swing.

It's rare that you are dealt zero points but you decide the outcome of the hand. What would you lead against 6NT with this hand?

Your opponents, through an inverted minor auction agreeing clubs, describe their hands as 11-14 balanced and a spade control on your right, while dummy's bidding sounds very strong and balanced. What's your choice?

Here's the full deal:

Did you choose the dangerous-looking diamond? If so, four down is your reward. Any other lead gives declarer all the tricks. Tislevoll chose the spade nine and that was NS -1020. It's hard not to have sympathy for his lead, but it would prove to swing a huge number of imps.

At the other table, this was the auction:

For the third board in a row, the weak notrump had a substantial effect on the auction. When Jacob's 3 bid was doubled, the danger of West playing the contract was made clear in a similar way to the first board of the set. After Jacob redoubled, Ware bid 3 and Jacob raised to 4 as an offer to play. When Ware backed into clubs, the only remaining chance to flatten the board was for Jacob to bid 6, but naturally he passed. Jacob missed a big opportunity to right-side clubs by bidding 4 over 3; had he taken that risk, East-West would have had a chance to flatten the slam in style by playing the cold 6 from the East seat. As it was, NS -400 was worth 12 imps to CORNELL.

A normal auction to a poor spot. After Whibley's fruity 6 lead, Brown switched to his singleton diamond and declarer eventually ran into a trump promotion for down three. NS +300.

A less normal auction to a much worse spot. GeO Tislevoll has been around for many years but still manages to play an active 'youthful' style of bridge that puts pressure on his opponents and creates opportunities. After his aggressive 1NT overcall, Bach's actions look completely normal but Bach found himself declaring 2 doubled with a 5-1 break against him. The only lead from South to extract the maximum was the singleton trump, and Lie found it. Tislevoll played trumps every time he got in and Bach made just three trumps and one heart for NS +1100. This body punch swung 13 imps back to WARE. Note that if South leads the A, declarer plays a second round of spades early and North loses touch with South's long suit winners after trumps are drawn; declarer has lots of options at this point and winds up only two down.

CORNELL won back 4 imps after a 'comic notrump' by Ware was punished for 300, before this difference in opinions on opening bid:

What would you choose to open at favourable vulnerability in third seat after two passes to you? Edgtton opened 4, was doubled and played there, making easily when partner turned up with a very suitable dummy. At the other table, Ware opened 1 which gave the opponents plenty of room to find their spade fit, eventually selling out to 4. That was the right decision when 4 failed by a trick but was still worth 10 imps to CORNELL.

Three flat boards followed: both EW bid to a normal but poor vulnerable game and failed by two tricks, before also flattening a sub-50% grand slam that was optimistically bid and made in both rooms. A normal game was another push before Edgtton - Bach had a strange-looking auction to reach the five-level off three top tricks while looking for slam. Lie found the winning lead, so that was a painless 12 imps back to WARE. An overtrick imp to WARE followed, before this final board of the set:

Bach opened 2NT in third position and declared 3NT after a Stayman auction. Lie led a spade and was eventually triple squeezed, the defence just scoring one club for NS -490.

At the other table, there was considerably more action:

Both Brown and Whibley amped up the aggression in typical fashion here, particularly Whibley's free bid of 3 after Ware had taken North-South off the hook. For some reason Ware was not interested in playing for a penalty. Had Jacob been allowed to defend 3 doubled and lead out four rounds of trumps, best defence would hold declarer to just two tricks for -1700. There may have been some doubt in Ware's mind about whether his partner was doubling for takeout or penalties; whatever the reason, he eventually removed the opponents from the bloodbath in 3 doubled and played in the normal game. I will leave you with one of the vugraph comments: "If there is a way to destroy the vugraph records of this hand, it would probably be a good idea."

Jacob made eleven tricks in 3NT, so that was 1 imp to CORNELL instead of 15 the other way. Nevertheless, WARE had won 8 imps on the set and extended their lead to 17 imps with the halftime scoreboard 71-54.

CORNELL opened the scoring on the first board of the set when Whibley pre-empted a level higher than Wiltshire. Both held this hand, dealer at nil vulnerable:

Wiltshire opened 2, 7-10 with a six-card suit. With a lot of shape and a big spade fit, his opponents got to 4 easily and never looked for slam: NS -450. At the other table, Whibley opened 3 and was raised to 4 by Brown. This succeeded in pushing Ware - Jacob into investigating slam and both took aggressive actions under pressure to reach a very poor 6; 11 imps to CORNELL.

Revenge came quickly. On the next board, Jacob and Bach picked up this hand, dealer at favourable:

Bach opened a weak 2 and was raised to 3. After Wiltshire - Henbest investigated fits in the majors, they settled in 4 going one down. At the other table, Jacob opened 3 and his opponents had the same competitive auction except a level higher. Ware found a well-judged tight double of 5 and was rewarded with +500 and 9 imps back to his side.

6 imps went to CORNELL on the next board when Wiltshire bid 5 over 4 with a strong balanced hand while Whibley opted to pass and defend: 5 went one down while 4 went two down. 14 more imps followed when Brown, with

insisted on playing in 4 opposite an opening bid with both minors, making easily, while Henbest allowed his partner to declare 3NT after bidding his spades three times. 3NT had chances to make but when Wiltshire tried a finesse in the endgame to make his contract, it failed and he wound up down three vulnerable.

Now trailing by 5 imps, Wiltshire and Henbest bid very well on the next hand:

Whibley - Brown had a simple auction to the inferior game contract of 4. On a heart lead, Whibley needed to play double-dummy to make his contract, but eventually lost two trumps and two diamonds for NS -100. At the other table, Wiltshire was able to show his short clubs, logically suggesting a diamond suit given his failure to bid hearts:

When Henbest offered 3NT, Wiltshire was happy to pass having given a good description of his hand. He was hopeful diamonds would provide a good source of tricks in 3NT and that the weak spades might cause issues if they were trumps.

Henbest received a heart lead and opted to win on the dummy and take the club finesse. Edgtton continued with a second heart, and Henbest cashed two clubs before hooking diamonds around to the queen. With the South hand now stranded, if Bach returned a heart Henbest would be forced to play for the defender with the ace of diamonds to have short hearts which would succeed. Instead, Bach switched to spades. Henbest took the king with dummy's ace, played a diamond from dummy (holding the trick), then led a spade towards his hand to establish his ninth winner. That was worth NS +600 and 12 imps to WARE, now back in the lead.

A rare flat board in a partscore followed before WARE extended their lead when Jacob drove his side to slam missing an ace plus the queen of trumps in a nine-card fit. He played Brown for the trump queen after seeing him lead out his ace and duly racked up 1430, while Edgtton-Bach never looked at slam. That was 13 more to WARE.

A common theme of this match was how high to preempt with shapely hands. This was yet another hand where opinions differed. Edgtton opened 3 and was raised to 4 after Wiltshire's takeout double. Both North and South must have considered acting further, but they eventually passed the contract out. Edgtton played 4 nicely after a spade lead: he won in dummy, trumped a spade and led a club towards the king. After Wiltshire won his ace, the only card to defeat the contract was the K which would allow the defence to draw two rounds of trumps; a very difficult play to find. After Wiltshire's club return was ruffed by Henbest, declarer was in control and he was able to establish the club suit, losing two trumps and a club.

At the other table Ware made up for his lack of preempting in the previous set by opening with a pushy 4. After Whibley doubled and Brown bid 4, Jacob decided to compete to 5; perhaps a good decision, as 4 by South is likely to come home, but given the result at the other table merely reducing the damage. 5 was doubled and Whibley led spades. Ware won on the dummy and instead of working on his side suit, he tried a heart to the nine and king. Brown was later able to ruff a club and play a second round of trumps which reduced dummy's ruffing power, so Ware finished down two for NS +300 and 12 imps back to CORNELL.

On the next board, both East-Wests missed an excellent 31-point slam which was difficult to find given the presence of some key minor honours in the weaker hand of the partnership. Less forgivable was each East-West's failure to bid a 27-point game on the deal after; Edgtton-Bach had a system mix-up, while Ware took a very conservative view at the other table and played in 2 making eleven tricks.

Polish world champion Jacek Kalita has said about top matches, "I don't think that high-level bridge is super scientific. Especially the late knockout stages resemble a heavyweight fight where the most important skill is to stay alive." Each side is unwilling to pack up shop too soon, but any poorly timed lunge or glancing blow can be punished by the other side.

Holding this hand, would you keep the auction open or let it go?

Ware and Edgtton each heard a weak 2 opening on their right, doubled and raised to 3. After two passes, Ware passed out the hand and defended; Edgtton opted to double again.

At Ware's table, double-dummy defence could have defeated 3 but making 9 tricks was a normal result; NS +140. After Edgtton's second double, Bach bid 4 and was doubled there by Wiltshire. Wiltshire followed up his ballsy double with excellent defence and soon collected +500 for his efforts to win 8 imps for WARE.

On the last board of the stanza, Brown - Whibley appeared to have a system misunderstanding and overreached to 3NT with inadequate values while Henbest-Wiltshire stopped in a partscore in the other room for 7 more imps in the plus column. Winning the volatile set by 7 imps, WARE led 121-97.

Having picked up imps in every set so far, Tislevoll-Lie saw no reason to change a winning formula and opted to sit out the deciding stanza. Likewise, Antonios remained on the bench for CORNELL, so it would be the same line-ups for each team sitting in the same seats for the last twelve boards.

The action started on the first board:

A wild swing by Jacob landed flush, sowing enough confusion that NS missed their cold slam. With such a strong hand, Ware was confident that his partner held the weak variety and chose to pass 3, leaving Whibley to start his slam try at the four level. Both Whibley and Brown had a little in reserve for their bidding but neither were confident enough to risk bidding slam: NS +620.

Edgtton opted not to overcall 1NT in fourth seat; if he had, the auction would have been much more difficult. With the bidding to themselves, Wiltshire - Henbest made it look easy. The key bid was Henbest's splinter; the double fit and club void convinced him to show his shape despite his weak values. After partner's splinter, Wiltshire would have been thinking of grand slam but had to be content with just six after finding out that a keycard was missing. Twelve tricks were easy; +1430 and 13 imps to WARE, now leading by 37 imps.

CORNELL started to claw back the difference immediately. First, they won 4 imps when an aggressive takeout double from Whibley pushed his opponents a level higher in a partscore, failing by a trick, then another imp when Edgtton found a nice technical line to bring home 5 when Ware was only in 4 in the other room, just making.

The fourth board of the set was an exciting partscore deal which CORNELL managed to declare in both rooms. The play was interesting at each table and both defending pairs had opportunities to take their opponents down, but both declarers ended up making for 6 more imps to CORNELL.

The same team would win their first double-digit swing of the set when Bach and Jacob each held:

Jacob's auction started 1 on his right which he chose to double for takeout. After an artificial 1 response on his left denying a major suit, Ware doubled and Jacob passed. When Brown on his left retreated to 1NT, Ware doubled again and Jacob passed again. 1NTx would have been down one on some leads but made on the normal lead for NS 180.

Bach's auction began:

He chose to bid 2 rather than pass, and after a mix-up in the subsequent competition where his opponents chose to play in the wrong minor suit, Bach was able to double 3 for penalties. Despite dropping a trick in the endgame, Bach still collected +500 and 12 imps for CORNELL, reducing the deficit to just 14 imps.

 

Halfway through the set, both Norths chose to bid notrumps without a spade stopper, and neither received a spade lead with both Easts trusting the sound of the bidding. On a diamond lead, Wiltshire simply won and played club king, club ace, club queen and claimed nine tricks when the suit broke 3-3 for NS +600.

At the other table, Jacob led a heart to the 10, queen and king. When Whibley cashed two rounds of diamonds, Jacob pitched a spade, so it was now safe for declarer to lead a spade and hope for one of several good things to happen. On Whibley's spade lead, Jacob put in the 9 which held the trick, and the defence continued with a second spade to Ware's ace. Ware returned the 9, covered by Jacob's J, and Whibley was forced to win the trick in the dummy leaving this ending:

Whibley knew that East's shape was either 5-3-1-4 or 5-4-1-3. When he cashed dummy's diamond queen, Jacob threw the spade queen and we had reached the moment of truth. Eventually, Whibley decided that Jacob would not have opened 2 with four hearts on the side, and played a heart; that was NS -100 and 12 crucial imps to WARE in one of the most intriguing cardplay hands of the match.

On the next board, Whibley speculated with a penalty double of a game which was in reality cold for at least one overtrick. Ware just made his game, but that was another 4 imps in the bank. This left WARE 30 imps in front with five to go, and after two flat boards followed it seemed like the match was over.

But it wasn't over yet.

These were the final three boards:

Ware - Jacob were playing Acol in an occasional partnership, and Jacob was under the impression that 2 was non-forcing and hence limited his strength. Opposite a 4 slam try, Jacob was happy to reveal his club support and try for a slam believing that he had extras in context. Ware, on the other hand, believed that 2 was simply showing the sixth spade and made no statement about strength; under those assumptions he was too strong to just bid game. 6 had no real play and finished down two: NS +200.

Playing two-over-one game forcing, 2 contained no information about strength. After Edgtton's raise to 3, Bach's 4 cuebid was a non-serious cue bid by agreement, cooperating with the slam try but showing minimum strength. Edgtton considered the range of various hands that partner could have and eventually decided slam was doubtful; signing off in 4 saved the board. Well done. Bach made 11 tricks in 4 for NS -650 and 13 imps to CORNELL. The margin was back to 17 imps with two boards to play, doable in theory but still unlikely in practice.

Ware's decision to bid a mere 3 is right on points, but these ten-card fits do make a lot of tricks, especially when there is shape about. This hand is a prime example: NS and EW both make the same number of tricks in their major suit fit despite NS having 24 points and EW having only 16. Ware could have saved the day on the next round by bidding 4 as a two-way shot over 4, but he took his chances on defence and they turned out to be poor. EW could only take three diamond tricks; NS 620.

Edgtton had no doubt about jumping to 4 after discovering the ten-card fit. Opposite the right hand 4 could very well make, and meanwhile the opponents were still in the auction and might have something on their way. This time both of those things were true. Wiltshire opted to pass, worried that if he doubled for takeout a second time his partner would bid a failing five-level contract while 4 seemed likely to go down with his hand, but 4 posed no difficulties in the play: NS -620 and that was a double game swing for 15 imps to CORNELL.

All of a sudden, the margin was a mere 2 imps to WARE with one board left.

This looked like a flattish slam board. With North having fantastic shape and South having a club fit and sound values, it was hard to imagine either pair missing 6. Facing spirited competition, Brown tested the grand slam waters with a 5 try, but Whibley had done enough and signed off in 6: NS +920. Whibley later told me that even if 5 was keycard in clubs as he suspected, responding 6 would be safe as this would theoretically show two keycards without the queen; Brown would be unlikely to risk a grand slam off the queen of trumps.

The open room finished the set first, so all eyes were on the other table with WARE needing to flatten the slam to clinch the title.

Wiltshire - Henbest had the auction to themselves with Bach seeing no reason to overcall on the East cards. Up to 4, the auction seemed normal: NS used fourth suit forcing then presumably agreed the trump suit. After a series of cuebids, Henbest used keycard and discovered partner had one plus the queen of trumps. His 6 was an attempt to play there, but in a dramatic turn of events, Wiltshire bid on to grand slam.

Why did Wiltshire bid 7? Assuming clubs were trumps, 5 was asking for the queen, but this bid also committed the partnership to at least 6; hence, grand slam must also be in the picture with 5 guaranteeing all the keycards. With running diamonds, Wiltshire's hand was good enough to have a go at 13 tricks. Henbest, on the other hand, was apparently interested in 6NT as a contract and believed they had an agreement that this auction did not guarantee all the keycards.

Whatever the reason, North-South were not on the same page and reached a doomed contract. The match wasn't over yet, though. 7 was far from no play with East on lead; in fact, it was cold on any lead but a heart.

Edgtton was still awake and happy to double 7, Lightner, asking for an unusual lead of dummy's first bid suit. Time stood still as Bach considered his options. Eventually he led… the 3. The failing grand slam was worth 14 imps to CORNELL, their third double digit swing in as many boards and a 'comfortable' 162.1-150 win of the 2020 Gold Coast Open Teams.

For those watching, this was the moment when shock set in. Three boards ago, the match had been over and WARE had won. But CORNELL had somehow managed to pull the match back at the last possible moment. "It's not over until it's over" had never been truer.

The WARE team were truly unlucky to have things go their way for much of the day only to have the roof cave in at the very end in a cruel twist of fate. To CORNELL, we can only raise our glasses and congratulate them on a feat of perseverance and patience. After the match, Nabil Edgtton said, "This match was just a lesson in focus. For me, the entire finals were a war of attrition. Nothing was really ever going well at my table and it was actually pretty tough at times to keep sitting there grinding and not doing anything wild or swingy. But sometimes your teammates have you covered."

You are South, declaring 3NT on the lead of the Q. Try playing the deal before reading the article on page 29 of the August issue.