To Russia Without Love

Sydney Morning Herald

Wednesday June 28, 2006

Ron Klinger

In the semi-finals of the 2005 Bermuda Bowl in Estoril, USA2 trailled USA1 by 18 Imps

with 16 boards to go. This was the first deal of the last session:

North dealer: Nil vulnerable

Declarer went four down, 200, a good result in theory if East-West managed to find

5D, played by West, at the other table. This was not to be, for the bidding went:

West North East South Hampson Hamman Greco Soloway

South unblocked the HQ and North continued with a low heart. Declarer managed to come to seven tricks before letting North in with the DA. That was +100 and +7 Imps to North-South en route to winning the semi-final.

Souths psyche did not work on the previous deal and the East-West barrage did

not damage North-South on this deal from the final of the 2004 Womens Teams Olympiad:

(see next column)

When Russia sat N-S the auction went:

Wests 2H was weak and only a 5-card suit because of the favourable vulnerability.

Norths double showed 8+ points and East increased the stakes to 4H. What action

should South take?

Answer to yesterdays problem:

In a competitive auction 4NT is frequently used to show a two-suiter. When the

preceding opposition bid is 4H, the assumption is that 4NT shows both minors.

North opted for 5C and South raised to 6C, thumbing her nose at the opposition?s

intervention.

At the other table, with the USA North- South, the bidding went:

The lead was the HK at both tables.

Declarer took the HA, finessed diamonds and then finessed spades. Both made twelve tricks and that was 13 Imps to Russia.

Let one who is without fault write the first bridge column. Insist on that and there

would be no bridge columns.

Tomorrows problem:

East dealer : East-West vulnerable

What would you do next as North, holding:

© 2006 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home