% PBN 1.0 % EXPORT % { 12th Cap Gemini World Top Tournament 1998 An Invitational Pairs Tournament of Bridge 15-18 January 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY BULLETIN 2 Editors: Jos Jacobs, Mark Horton, Marco Ex Saturday, 17 January 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STANDINGS AFTER THE FIRST 6 ROUNDS 1 Mahmood - Forrester 364 2 Jansen - Westerhof 360 3 Buratti - Lanzarotti 355 4 Helness - Helgemo 337 5 Chemla - Perron 320 6 Chagas - Branco 319 7 Martens - Szymanowski 318 8 Hackett - Hackett 310 9 Berkowitz - Cohen 307 10 Sun - Wang 301 11 Meckstroth - Rodwell 278 12 Lauria - Versace 269 13 LÈvy - Mari 265 14 Blakset - Christiansen 250 15 Leufkens - Westra 238 16 Berkowitz - Letizia 206 The best score on Friday was recorded by Zia Mahmood and Tony Forrester. They managed 206 and moved to the top of the standings, just 4 VP ahead of Jansen-Westerhof who recovered well after a bad start to score 176. It also was a great day for one of the Italian pairs: Buratti-Lanzarotti posted a score of 195, which might have been enough to win the session, but this time only saw them move from 5th to 3rd. The first day leaders, Helgemo-Helness, mustered only 147 and drop to 4th spot, but they are still very much in contention with this decisive Saturday ahead. Chagas-Branco also managed only 148, going down from 3rd to 6th, just 1 VP ahead of Martens-Szymanowski who with their 185 rose from 12th to 7th. Honourable mention also for Sun-Wang: their 182 saw them rise from 14th to 10th, just 1 VP over average now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yesterday's Results ROUND 4 Lauria-Versace - Sun-Wang 25 - 75 Meckstroth-Rodwell - Berkowitz-Cohen 38 - 62 Berkowitz-Letizia - Helness-Helgemo 35 - 65 Hackett-Hackett - Jansen-Westerhof 65 - 35 Buratti-Lanzarotti - Chagas-Branco 83 - 17 LÈvy-Mari - Martens-Szymanowski 27 - 73 Mahmood-Forrester - Leufkens-Westra 74 - 26 Chemla-Perron - Blakset-Christiansen 64 - 36 Last night's first round was a really remarkable one: all winning pairs scored at least 60, and four winners managed more than 70. The round was easily won by Buratti-Lanzarotti, who beat last year's winners Chagas-Branco 83-17. Sun-Wang staged a come-back with 75 against Lauria-Versace, and Zia-Forrester and Martens-Szymanowski won 74-26 and 73-27 respectively against Leufkens-Westra and LÈvy-Mari. Chemla-Perron were on 80 with two boards to go, but Blakset-Christiansen reduced the margin to only a 64-36 loss. Helness-Helgemo held on with 65, but Jansen-Westerhof lost 35-65 against the Hacketts to drop to fifth place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ROUND 5 Sun-Wang - Martens-Szymanowski 45 - 65 Jansen-Westerhof - Helness-Helgemo 63 - 37 LÈvy-Mari - Lauria-Versace 52 - 48 Chagas-Branco - Blakset-Christiansen 90 - 7 Meckstroth-Rodwell - Mahmood-Forrester 37 - 63 Leufkens-Westra - Berkowitz-Cohen 37 - 63 Berkowitz-Letizia - Hackett-Hackett 33 - 67 Chemla-Perron - Buratti-Lanzarotti 34 - 66 After their setback in the previous round, Chagas-Branco struck back immediately with an over-maximum 90-7 win against poor Blakset-Christiansen. As a result, they rocketed back to 5th spot, having fallen from 3rd to 11th the round before. Jansen-Westerhof staged a recovery, beating the leaders 63-37. With Buratti-Lanzarotti winnng 66-34 against Chemla-Perron, we greeted the Italians as the new leaders. The Hacketts continued to do well with another 67, and both Zia-Forrester and Berkowitz-Cohen merrily marched on with 63 each. Down the table, a gap separated the last three pairs, all under - 50 V.P., from the rest of the field ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ROUND 6 Sun-Wang - LÈvy-Mari 58 - 42 Chagas-Branco - Chemla-Perron 41 - 59 Meckstroth-Rodwell - Leufkens-Westra 53 - 47 Mahmood-Forrester - Berkowitz-Cohen 69 - 31 Hackett-Hackett - Helness-Helgemo 55 - 45 Blakset-Christiansen - Buratti-Lanzarotti 54 - 46 Martens-Szymanowski - Lauria-Versace 57 - 43 Berkowitz-Letizia - Jansen-Westerhof 22 - 78 A 78-22 win against Berkowitz-Letizia gave the victory in last night's last round to Jansen-Westerhof who as a result find themselves back in the runner-up position they held when the day started. The second best score of the round was Zia-Forrester's 69-31 against Berkowitz-Cohen. As Buratti-Lanzarotti managed just 46 against Blakset-Christiansen (who badly needed a recovery), we see new leaders again: the familiar figure of Zia Mahmood, this time partnered by Tony Forrester. The Hacketts just had the edge on Helness-Helgemo, Chemla-Perron beat Chagas-Branco and Sun-Wang kept up their previous good work.} {---------------------------------------------------------------------- "BID 'EM UP!" Waiting for the entrance of the gladiators at the start of Round 3, the tables, devoid of players but surrounded by spectators, reminded me of the occasion when England were playing Scotland in an International match. The English Captain told us to go to the Open Room. When we arrived, there were several spectators but no opponents. I innocently enquired: "Which way's North?" and on being pointed in the right direction, duly sat in the South seat. Whereupon a helpful lady advised me: "Oh, you can't sit there, that's where the players sit!" Right, enough attempted humour, on with the bridge. The leaders were playing the fifth placed pair and the match started with a series of deals on which excessive aggression would have paid dividends.} [Event "12th Cap Gemini World Top Tournament 1998"] [Site "Hotel Des IndesÝ- The Hague, Netherlands NLD"] [Date "1998.01.16"] [Board "21"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "N"] [Vulnerable "NS"] [Deal "N:AQ8.Q65.A54.KT62 J97.AK92.J2.AJ75 T3.J743.Q9.Q9843 K6542.T8.KT8763."] { Board 21 \S A Q 8 N/NS \H Q 6 5 \D A 5 4 \C K 10 6 2 \S K 6 5 4 2 \S J 9 7 \H 10 8 \H A K 9 2 \D K 10 8 7 6 3 \D J 2 \C - \C A J 7 5 \S 10 3 \H J 7 4 3 \D Q 9 \C Q 9 8 4 3 } [Declarer "W"] [Contract "2S"] [Result "10"] [Annotator "Jos Jacobs:Mark Horton:Marco Ex"] [Round "3"] [Score "170"] [ScoreIMP "-3"] [Auction "N"] 1NT Pass Pass 2D =1= Pass 2H {Helness contented himself with a simple 2\H} Pass 2S {When his partner showed a two-suiter, he gave some consideration to going on. However he could have been facing a four card suit and it was only a non-vulnerable game.} Pass Pass Pass [Note "1: hearts or spades and a minor; could be quite minimum in this position"] [Play "N"] H5 HA {North led a heart and declarer won,} H3 H8 DA DJ {and played the \DJ, covered all round.} DQ DK HQ HK {Meckstroth continued the heart attack, but declarer was in control.} H4 HT D5 D2 {He won and played a second diamond.} D9 DT {When the nine came up he won,} SQ {North went in with the queen,} S7 S3 S4 {and played a low spade.} H6 {and pressed on with a heart (playing his remaining diamond gets the defence one more trick because of the spade position).} H2 H7 S2 - - - S5 {Now declarer had an easy road to ten tricks, +170. Four pairs made game so that was 3 imps for the Americans.} {It looks as if 4\S can be defeated by repeated club leads, as declarer gets forced. In fact, Jansen- Westerhof defeated the spade game reached by Zia and Forrester, but in a different way. The play went the same way as at the Helgemo-Meckstroth table, but here Jansen went in with the \SQ and returned his last diamond to promote the setting trick in trumps.} * {At yet another table, LÈvy-Mari were playing Blakset-Christiansen. The French started the set by making what looked like a highly improbable game when dummy went down. This had been the auction, livened up by the Danish methods:} [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "21"] [West "LÈvy"] [North "Christiansen"] [East "Mari"] [South "Blakset"] [Dealer "N"] [Vulnerable "NS"] [Deal "N:AQ8.Q65.A54.KT62 J97.AK92.J2.AJ75 T3.J743.Q9.Q9843 K6542.T8.KT8763."] [Declarer "W"] [Contract "4S"] [Result "10"] [Round "#"] [Score "420"] [ScoreIMP "4"] [Auction "N"] 1C =1= X 1S =2= X 1NT Pass Pass 3D Pass 3NT {Not surprisingly, LÈvy and Mari had no detailed agreement as to whether 3\D was forcing.} X 4S {When 3NT got doubled they knew to run to the 5-3 fit.} Pass Pass Pass [Note "1:clubs or 15-19 balanced"] [Note "2:0-5 hcp!"] [Play "N"] C6 C5 C8 S2 {On the lead of the \C6 to the seven, eight and a ruff, LÈvy tried a low spade.} S8 SJ {Christiansen ducked, but not smoothly enough to fool LÈvy, who put up the Jack.} S3 S4 DA DJ {Now he led the \DJ, covered all round,} DQ DK CT CA C4 D3 D5 D2 D9 {and the fall of the \D9 made life easy for him.} DT SQ S7 ST {The defence can prevail by winning the \SQ and forcing declarer every time in clubs, then ducking the first round of diamonds to cut communications.} S5 * [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "22"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "E"] [Vulnerable "EW"] [Deal "E:A2.AJT3.QJ975.AQ KQ873..AT6.KJT75 T964.Q874.843.94 J5.K9652.K2.8632"] { Board 22 \S J 5 E/EW \H K 9 6 5 2 \D K 2 \C 8 6 3 2 \S 10 9 6 4 \S A 2 \H Q 8 7 4 \H A J 10 3 \D 8 4 3 \D Q J 9 7 5 \C 9 4 \C A Q \S K Q 8 7 3 \H - \D A 10 6 \C K J 10 7 5 } [Declarer "S"] [Contract "2C"] [Result "11"] [Round "#"] [Score "150"] [ScoreIMP "0"] [Auction "E"] 1D 1S Pass Pass X 2C Pass Pass Pass {Meckstroth was close to a raise, but with only one point in Rodwell's suits he knew the chance of a game was remote.} [Play "W"] D3 DK D5 D6 S4 S5 S2 SK S6 SJ SA S3 D4 D2 DQ DA D8 C2 D7 DT C4 C3 CA C5 H4 H2 HA C7 C9 C6 CQ CK {Of course, the cards were lying perfectly for declarer and eleven tricks were easy. No swing as no one was pushing hard at this early stage.} * [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "23"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "S"] [Vulnerable "All"] [Deal "S:K63.AT3.A65.AJ75 Q.KJ864.K872.832 T98542.95.Q4.KT9 AJ7.Q72.JT93.Q64"] { Board 23 \S 10 9 8 5 4 2 S/ALL \H 9 5 \D Q 4 \C K 10 9 \S Q \S A J 7 \H K J 8 6 4 \H Q 7 2 \D K 8 7 2 \D J 10 9 3 \C 8 3 2 \C Q 6 4 \S K 6 3 \H A 10 3 \D A 6 5 \C A J 7 5 } [Declarer "S"] [Contract "2S"] [Result "11"] [Round "#"] [Score "150"] [ScoreIMP "0"] [Auction "S"] 1NT Pass 2H Pass 2S Pass Pass Pass {I recall reading somewhere that when you have a six-card suit facing a strong no-trump you should try for game. Of course, there was no reason to do that here, but 4\S is not without play.} [Play "W"] C2 {The opening lead of a club did declarer no harm,} C9 CQ CA D7 {Helgemo gave it a look, but played low, so the queen scored.} DQ D3 D6 {and he was in hand at trick two to play a low diamond.} SQ ST S7 SK {Now Rodwell called for the \S10 and when East followed with the seven, he went up with the king. That was eleven tricks, +200 and another imp. USA 4 - Norway 0.} H4 S9 SJ S3 D2 D4 DT DA * {Board 24 might be called a routine game. It was missed at only one table, and double-dummy there were always nine top tricks. Jansen-Westerhof had a chance, however, to defeat Forrester, but it turned out to be a position where one defender managed to fool both declarer and his partner simultaneously.} [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "24"] [West "Mahmood"] [North "Jansen"] [East "Forrester"] [South "Westerhof"] [Dealer "W"] [Vulnerable "None"] [Deal "W:T7652.K94.A72.Q5 QJ43.AQT.J63.J43 AK9.632.K8.AK876 8.J875.QT954.T92"] { Board 24 \S Q J 4 3 W/- \H A Q 10 \D J 6 3 \C J 4 3 \S 10 7 6 5 2 \S A K 9 \H K 9 4 \H 6 3 2 \D A 7 2 \D K 8 \C Q 5 \C A K 8 7 6 \S 8 \H J 8 7 5 \D Q 10 9 5 4 \C 10 9 2 } [Declarer "E"] [Contract "3NT"] [Result "9"] [Round "#"] [Score "400"] [ScoreIMP "0"] [Auction "W"] Pass Pass 1C Pass 1S Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass [Play "S"] DT {On a diamond lead 3 NT looks easy enough. (Only Paul Marston, with his theory of Canap leads, would have had a chance here, and one heart lead from down under (South) is not enough). Westerhof led a more normal diamond,} D2 DJ DK S8 S2 S3 SA {and declarer first tested the spades to find the bad news,} D5 S5 S4 SK D4 {then played a third spade, won by Jansen's Jack. Westerhof threw away two diamonds, but Jansen played a diamond nevertheless. At this point Forrester decided that clubs were a favourite to be 4-2 (though the defence might have shifted to a heart if this were the case) so he played a fourth spade. Jansen won as Forrester threw a club, and played a third diamond to his partner, as Forrester threw a heart. Now Westerhof had to decide whether to play his partner for the top clubs or the top hearts, and he thought the suit preference overtones in spades suggested his partner might have club cards. The problem with that is that Forrester's discard of a heart suggests the contrary: and if Jansen had taken the \SQ, perhaps Forrester would just have played on clubs...?} S6 SJ S9 * [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "25"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "N"] [Vulnerable "EW"] [Deal "N:94.A97.QJT65.AJ9 65.KQ432.84.T543 AKQ87.JT86.2.Q82 JT32.5.AK973.K76"] { Board 25 \S 9 4 N/EW \H A 9 7 \D Q J 10 6 5 \C A J 9 \S J 10 3 2 \S 6 5 \H 5 \H K Q 4 3 2 \D A K 9 7 3 \D 8 4 \C K 7 6 \C 10 5 4 3 \S A K Q 8 7 \H J 10 8 6 \D 2 \C Q 8 2 } [Declarer "N"] [Contract "3NT"] [Result "7"] [Round "#"] [Score "-100"] [ScoreIMP "-5"] [Auction "N"] 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2C {Rodwell relayed with 2\C to discover his partner was minimum with a doubleton spade,} Pass 2D Pass 2H {and his 2\H bid was game forcing.} Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass [Play "E"] C4 C2 C6 {East led a club and Helgemo wisely withheld his King,} C9 {declarer winning with the nine.} S5 SA S2 S4 HQ {East won and switched to his remaining spade.} HJ {He crossed to dummy with a spade and ran the \HJ.} H5 H7 S6 SK {Meckstroth won and went for his first shot, spades 3-3, by cashing the \SQ.} S3 S9 H2 SQ ST D5 H3 H6 {No joy, so he tried the second string to his bow, \HQ5 with West, by coming off dummy with the six of hearts.} D3 {When West failed to follow suit he had run out of ammunition and was two down. -100 translated to 5 imps.} HA HK H8 D7 H9 D8 D2 DK D6 D4 S7 SJ DT H4 S8 DA DJ C3 HT D9 DQ C5 C8 C7 CA CT CQ {Helgemo's play of a low club to trick one makes it nearly impossible for declarer to succeed, but on this hand the defence was not always at its best, nor was the declarer play.} CK {When Mari led a low club against S¯ren Christiansen's 3 NT, declarer put up dummy's Queen as he badly wanted to be in dummy to play hearts. It is doubtful, however, if this is the correct line of play. At the table, LÈvy covered the \CQ with the King, so Christiansen had to win his ace. He continued a spade to dummy and ran the \H10, losing to Mari's Queen. A spade came back, disrupting the entries. Christiansen cashed the third spade and then played a diamond towards his hand. LÈvy stepped up with the \DK to lead a club through the J9, and that was one down.} {When Chagas-Branco were defending against Lauria- Versace, Alfredo ducked the low club lead round to the King and his ace, then led a low heart from hand and retained complete control of the hand, making nine tricks without difficulty as the cards lay. Still, this is not a 100 130844398ne - in fact it is difficult to find one. Maybe, ducking a spade at trick two is reasonable, but the defence can counter that by shifting to a heart on some lies of the cards.} CJ [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "26"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "E"] [Vulnerable "All"] [Deal "E:96.J2.AJT9742.63 J82.Q84.865.AK94 Q75.AK963.KQ.T52 AKT43.T75.3.QJ87"] { Board 26 \S A K 10 4 3 E/ALL \H 10 7 5 \D 3 \C Q J 8 7 \S Q 7 5 \S 9 6 \H A K 9 6 3 \H J 2 \D K Q \D A J 10 9 7 4 2 \C 10 5 2 \C 6 3 \S J 8 2 \H Q 8 4 \D 8 6 5 \C A K 9 4 } [Declarer "N"] [Contract "4S"] [Result "9"] [Round "#"] [Score "-100"] [ScoreIMP "0"] [Auction "E"] 3D Pass Pass X Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass [Play "E"] C6 CA C5 C7 S6 SJ SQ SA S9 S2 S5 SK D2 S8 S7 S4 C3 CK C2 C8 D4 C4 CT CQ H2 HQ HK H5 D7 D5 DK D3 D9 D6 DQ S3 HJ H4 {Declarer could not avoid the loss of three hearts and a club and there was no swing. The real interest in this deal lay at another table.} H3 H7 * [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "26"] [West "Westra"] [North "Hackett"] [East "Leufkens"] [South "Hackett"] [Dealer "E"] [Vulnerable "All"] [Deal "E:96.J2.AJT9742.63 J82.Q84.865.AK94 Q75.AK963.KQ.T52 AKT43.T75.3.QJ87"] [Declarer "W"] [Contract "4H"] [Result "12"] [Round "#"] [Score "680"] [ScoreIMP "11"] [Auction "E"] 3D Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass [Play "N"] SK S6 S2 S7 H5 H2 H8 H9 H7 HJ H4 HA HT D2 HQ {Since we have no desire to make anyone appear foolish (and having already received a suitable amount!) we will only say that J. Hackett led the \SK and switched to the \H5! Twelve tricks and +680 cost the British boys 11 imps.} HK * {There was only one more swing in our featured match and again it went to the Norwegians.} [Event "#"] [Site "#"] [Date "#"] [Board "27"] [West "Helgemo"] [North "Meckstroth"] [East "Helness"] [South "Rodwell"] [Dealer "S"] [Vulnerable "None"] [Deal "S:2.KT875.KQJ.KJ87 9864.Q64.T954.A3 A3.A32.A8732.Q62 KQJT75.J9.6.T954"] { Board 27 \S A 3 S/- \H A 3 2 \D A 8 7 3 2 \C Q 6 2 \S 9 8 6 4 \S K Q J 10 7 5 \H Q 6 4 \H J 9 \D 10 9 5 4 \D 6 \C A 3 \C 10 9 5 4 \S 2 \H K 10 8 7 5 \D K Q J \C K J 8 7 } [Declarer "N"] [Contract "6D"] [Result "11"] [Round "#"] [Score "-50"] [ScoreIMP "-9"] [Auction "S"] 1H Pass 2D =1= 3S {But Helness took away his opponents' room to manoeuvre with his leap to 3\S.} 4D 4S {Things got worse when Helgemo raised the ante.} X Pass 5C Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass {It wasn't easy for the Americans to evaluate their assets and they ended up in a slam that required a lot of good things to happen.} [Note "1:2D was game forcing"] [Play "E"] SK S2 S4 SA S5 DJ S6 S3 D6 DQ D4 D2 S7 DK D5 D3 - C7 {They didn't and declarer finished up one down for -50 and a loss of 9 imps, making the final score 60-40 to the Norwegians.} CA - *