Join Bridge Winners
BB SF FRANCE vs. NEW ZEALAND Session 1
(Page of 5)

The first set of the Bermuda Bowl semifinal betweenFRANCEandNEW ZEALAND saw Lorenzini-Quantin NS vs. Bach-Cornell EW in one room and Tislevoll-Ware NS vs. Combescure-Rombaut EW in the other. The Kiwis, fresh off their upset ofTHE NETHERLANDS, had a rough start to the semifinals.

On the first board, the New Zealand NS bida questionable game:

West
10873
843
Q94
J87
North
AK965
AK10
853
43
East
QJ4
QJ5
K
AKQ1095
South
2
9762
AJ10762
62
W
N
E
S
1NT
X
3
P
3NT
P
P
P
D
1
3NT North
NS: 0 EW: 0
K
2
J
3
2
0
1
A
6
8
4
2
0
2
9
2
7
5
2
0
3
Q
6
3
6
2
0
4
10
2
3
9
2
0
5
5
6
4
10
2
0
6
Q
2
7
A
1
1
6
3
K
A
4
3
2
6
J
6 tricks claimed
N/S -150
9

Double showed shortness in a minor. It's not clear whether 3 was forcing or not. Either way, someone got overboard. At the other table, North opened 1 and N-S played 3 making 4. 7 IMPs to FRANCE.

On board 2, an offshape mini notrump kept both sides from discovering their fits:

West
Q864
643
6
AK1084
North
A10
Q10875
AK973
J
East
KJ97
KJ2
4
Q9763
South
532
A9
QJ10852
52
W
N
E
S
1NT
P
P
2
P
P
P
D
2
2 North
NS: 0 EW: 0
3
2
K
J
0
0
1
6
K
4
2
1
1
1
5
2
A
3
3
2
1
9
4
Q
K
2
2
2
9
5
A
7
1
3
2
A
9
5
6
0
3
3
4
A
7
2
1
4
3
9
6
8
8
1
5
3
7
7
10
4
3
6
3
J
8
3
J
2
6
4
K
8 tricks claimed
N/S +110
11

In the other room, a 1 opening helped both sides find their fits, and N-S ended up bidding 5 over 4. Down 1, 5 IMPs toNEW ZEALAND.These were the only IMPs they would manage during the set.

What contract would you choose here single-dummy?

North
AJ865
1075
AK53
5
South
Q7
KQ9
10
AK76432

West
K943
432
8742
109
North
AJ865
1075
AK53
5
East
102
AJ86
QJ96
QJ8
South
Q7
KQ9
10
AK76432
W
N
E
S
 
1
P
1
P
3
P
3
P
3
P
3
P
4
P
P
P
D
3
4 North
NS: 0 EW: 0
Q
10
8
A
1
1
0
3
6
7
2
3
2
0
Q
3
5
2
3
3
0
A
9
5
8
3
4
0
K
10
5
J
3
5
0
2
4
6
Q
1
6
0
A
10
3
4
1
7
0
5
A
9
2
2
7
1
9
4
7
K
1
8
1
7
6
K
3
3
9
1
6
9
J
8
1
10
1
10
J
Q
K
0
10
2
4
8
J
7
1
11
2
N/S +450
13

The French pair reached 4, the Kiwis 3NT. Both contracts made 10 tricks, so it was a push.

This tricky defensive position caused a swing in a 1NT contract:

West
102
Q832
K74
A632
North
K76
A7
Q9852
984
East
AQ853
94
J63
KJ10
South
J94
KJ1065
A10
Q75
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
P
1NT
P
P
P
D
4
1NT West
NS: 0 EW: 0
2
3
A
4
3
1
0
10
7
Q
6
1
2
0
9
J
5
K
0
2
1
2
7
Q
4
2
2
2
J
7
2
9
2
2
3
K
5
3
4
2
2
4
10
Q
A
8
0
2
5
6
7 tricks claimed
E/W +90
8

South needed to cover the J to block the club suit. In the other room, perhaps anticipating this position and expecting South to cover, declarer finessed clubs the other way, ending up down 2. 7 IMPs toFRANCE.

What's your call here?

South
K
K9753
Q986
KQ8
W
N
E
S
P
1
?

Ware passed, Quantin doubled. Both resulted in E-W playing a spade partial, though the double kept them a level lower. A slight divergence in the play gaveovertrick IMP toFRANCE.

West
653
AQJ102
742
J5
North
J872
64
KJ10
10643
East
AQ1094
8
A53
A972
South
K
K9753
Q986
KQ8
W
N
E
S
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
3
P
3
P
P
P
D
5
3 East
NS: 0 EW: 0
8
2
K
A
2
0
1
8
9
A
4
0
0
2
Q
6
3
K
3
1
2
Q
4
10
5
3
2
2
6
7
J
4
2
2
3
A
8
5
3
2
2
4
9
Q
J
4
3
3
4
9
3
8
10
2
3
5
7
K
5
6
0
3
6
J
7
9
3
2
3
7
2
5
6
10
0
3
8
2
2
Q
7
2
3
9
A
K
10
J
2
3
10
E/W +170
13

A choice of games and imperfect defense led to a big swing on board 6:

West
J8
AQ86
1093
Q985
North
A64
943
AKQ85
A6
East
KQ9732
102
2
J1072
South
105
KJ75
J764
K43
W
N
E
S
 
2
P
2
X
P
3
P
3
P
4
P
4
P
P
P
D
6
4 South
NS: 0 EW: 0
J
4
Q
5
2
0
1
2
4
9
A
1
1
1
3
2
K
A
0
1
2
10
K
10
6
2
1
3
J
K
9
6
3
2
3
J
3
Q
2
1
3
3
9
3
5
Q
0
3
4
5
A
2
3
1
4
4
8
7
7
6
0
4
5
8
4
8 tricks claimed
N/S -100
10

The 3 hedge looks a bit timid, and led to an inferior 4 contract, which drifted off 2. In the other room the auction started the same, but over 3 North bid 3NT. A club switch at trick 2 could set 3NT, but that's hardly obvious. 11 IMPs toFRANCE.


Board 7 was a push in 4 making 5. Board 8 was also a push, when both E-W pairs were able to stop in 2 despite East's holding this monster: AQ973 A7 AT AQ85

Board 9 saw a game swing to France when Cornell-Bach missed a cold 4:

West
K7
K9
A10
KQJ9643
North
J92
QJ654
974
85
East
AQ10853
1082
J82
2
South
64
A73
KQ653
A107
W
N
E
S
P
2
X
2NT
P
3
P
P
P
D
9
3 East
NS: 0 EW: 0
K
A
4
2
0
0
1
K
8
2
A
3
1
1
6
7
J
A
2
1
2
3
4
K
2
0
1
3
Q
5
2
7
0
1
4
J
9
10
10
2
1
5
8
A
9
4
3
2
5
Q
10
7
8
3
3
5
10 tricks claimed
E/W +170
8

3 apparently showed a maximum with spades, and West inexplicable didn't bid game. 10 IMPs toFRANCE.


Board 10 was a push in 3NT. FRANCEgained 5 IMPs on board 11 making partscores in both rooms.

West
J2
AQ3
K1082
J952
North
AK643
108
QJ75
87
East
Q109
KJ92
643
AQ10
South
875
7654
A9
K643
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
P
2
P
P
P
D
11
2 North
NS: 0 EW: 0
3
9
K
5
0
0
1
3
10
J
4
2
0
2
2
5
A
8
0
0
3
Q
3
9
6
1
1
3
A
9
5
2
1
2
3
K
10
7
J
1
3
3
7
6
A
2
3
4
3
7
2
6
K
1
5
3
Q
4
3
8
1
6
3
J
10
4
10
1
7
3
4
Q
8
5
2
7
4
Q
K
9
7
3
8
4
6
J
8
A
2
8
5
N/S +110
13

In the other room West opened a mini 1NT and stole the pot.

A preempt problem:

North
K7
93
6
AKJ109643
W
N
E
S
P
?

Tislevoll opened 5 and played there. With a diamond finesse winning at trick 1 it looked like he had a chance, but the club split meant he was fated for 1 down. Lorenzini opened 1, letting Cornell overcall with a gadget: 1 showing either spades or hearts and diamonds. Lorenzini rebid 5, so the final contract was the same at both tables. Cornell led the Aand got an upside-down 5 from partner. Faced with a brutal guess, he switched to diamonds at trick 2, so just another push.

West
J53
A852
J8
Q752
North
K7
93
6
AKJ109643
East
A92
KJ64
K10543
8
South
Q10864
Q107
AQ972
W
N
E
S
P
1
1
X
1
5
P
P
P
D
12
5 North
NS: 0 EW: 0
A
4
5
7
2
0
1
5
Q
8
6
3
1
1
A
J
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
4
1
3
1
A
8
7
2
1
4
1
K
4
9
5
1
5
1
J
2
6
Q
0
5
2
3
K
9
8
1
6
2
10
10
10
7
1
7
2
9
K
7
5
2
7
3
10 tricks claimed
N/S -100
10

Both E-W pairs had no problem getting to 4 with 21 HCP on board 13 with these cards:

West
QJ104
9754
A84
J6
East
A975
8
K962
AQ93
W
N
E
S
P
1
1
X
2
3
P
4
P
P
P

With a favorable lie both declarers made 12 tricks.


Board 14 was another push in 4.

What would you do with this hand over 2, showing a weak 2 in either major?

West
A
Q7
AK976
AJ732
W
N
E
S
2
?

Bach chose to bid 3, then he bid 4 over partner's 3NT, getting E-W to 5.

West
A
Q7
AK976
AJ732
North
K87653
82
J4
964
East
QJ42
A63
Q1082
108
South
109
KJ10954
53
KQ5
W
N
E
S
 
2
3
P
3N
P
4
P
4
P
4
P
5
P
P
P
D
15
5 West
NS: 0 EW: 0
8
3
K
7
3
1
0
K
A
4
8
0
1
1
K
4
2
3
0
1
2
11 tricks claimed
E/W +400
3

6 can make from the East side. In the other room, South opened 2, West bid 3, then raised his partner's 3NT to 4NT, which was passed. 1 IMP toFRANCE.


Board 16 saw both E-W pairs bid 3NT on these cards:

West
J109
95
K10754
AK5
East
AKQ4
108
A92
Q1073

N-S ran 5 hearts, down 1.

In the end, it was a rough set for NEW ZEALAND, andFRANCE took the set 44-5.

8 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top