Spain vs Estonia - Juniors Round 12

Tuesday morning’s vugraph match saw bottom-placed Spain belie their lowly status with a good performance in a convincing win over Estonia, though it was Estonia who struck first on the very first board of the match:

Board 1. Dealer North. None Vul.
	ª J 2 © J 7 6 4 2 ¨ Q 8 § J 9 8 6
ª A K Q 10 5 4 © Q 9 8 ¨ K 6 5 § 10		ª 3 © K 3 ¨ 10 9 3 2 § A K 7 5 4 2
	ª 9 8 7 6 © A 10 5 ¨ A J 7 4 § Q 3

Four Spades appears to be a make because the ace of diamonds is onside and the jack of spades falls. And indeed, in the Open Room Lauri Naber for Estonia found his way home after a heart lead had gone to the ten and queen. Naber returned a heart and South, Loreto Romero De Tejada won and switched to a trump. Naber went up with the ace and drew trumps then cashed dummy’s top clubs and played a diamond to his king for +420.

In the other room, Aivar Tihane led the queen of diamonds and Tanel Targla went up with the ace and returned a low diamond. Obviously, running that to dummy’s ten produces an overtrick, but Jorge Perez feared that the diamond lead was from length, as it well might have been. He rose with the king of diamonds and crossed to dummy to throw his remaining diamond on the second club. Next, Perez played a heart to his queen and a second heart to the queen and ace. Targla played a diamond through and Perez ruffed with the ten. When that was overruffed and a trump returned, Perez not only had two trump losers but also no heart ruff. He was two down for -100 and 11 IMPs to Estonia.

That was a start in keeping with Spain’s position in the table but things went much better for them from now on.

Board 2. Dealer East. N/S Vul.
	ª A 6 4 © K 10 6 5 4 3 ¨ 6 § K 8 6
ª 9 7 © J 9 2 ¨ K Q 10 8 2 § A Q 2		ª K Q J 10 5 3 © Q 7 ¨ 5 § J 9 4 3
	ª 8 2 © A 8 ¨ A J 9 7 4 3 § 10 7

After Santiago Masia had opened with a weak two bid, can either North or South really be crimed for any of their actions? Sure, the combination of their bids took them way too high, but was it not more a case of both taking reasonable pushy decisions that fitted badly together? One can understand Perez’s double of 4¨, but the double of 4© was a bit of a gamble which came off very nicely for him. After East had led his singleton diamond, declarer could not avoid a fifth loser for -500.

In the Open Room, Leo Luks did not open the East hand - though if you think that you are too good for a weak two bid, with which assessment I agree, is there anything wrong with opening 3ª instead? Anyway, at his next turn, Luks was able to use Lebensohl in a slightly unusual situation and got to play 3©. De Tejada led the ace of hearts and Gonzalo Goded discouraged. De Tejada seems to have read a lot into that signal because her next move was to switch to a low diamond. There may be a layout where that is necessary, but if so it is a very specific one and here it proved to be fatal as the fifth defensive winner was lost. Luks made nine tricks for +140 but still 8 IMPs to Spain.

Board 5. Dealer North. N/S Vul.
	ª A Q 9 7 © A 10 9 8 7 6 ¨ J 3 § A
ª 10 8 6 4 © 5 ¨ 6 2 § K 8 7 5 3 2		ª K J 5 2 © J 3 ¨ A Q 8 7 § Q 6 4
	ª 3 © K Q 4 2 ¨ K 10 9 5 4 § J 10 9

I find the Estonian auction in the Closed Room really quite scary. Surely the South hand is worth far more than a simple raise, with or without the intervening double. Even having said that, I am sure that I would have bid on over 2© if holding the North cards. In the other room, De Tejada showed a constructive raise to at least 3© and Goded made a slam try, settling for game when his partner showed no enthusiasm for the enterprise.

In fact, after the take-out double, greatly improving declarer’s chances in the diamond suit, 6© is an excellent contract. Both declarers made 12 tricks and Spain gained 10 IMPs and took the lead in the match.

Board 8. Dealer West. None Vul.
	ª A K 9 8 © 6 4 ¨ K 9 8 3 § Q 6 2
ª J 7 5 © 10 8 2 ¨ J 7 5 § K 10 4 3		ª 10 6 4 2 © K Q 9 7 5 ¨ 10 2 § 8 7
	ª Q 3 © A J 3 ¨ A Q 6 4 § A J 9 5

The overcall makes the prospects in 6¨ quite a bit better than they would otherwise be, but slam is still nothing special. It seems to me that De Tejada can hardly be blamed for driving to slam after her partner had made two constructive noises, 2ª and 4ª. You may have your own ideas about which of the two bids was the main cause of the problem, but certainly the combination looks to be too much on a flat minimum hand. The slam failed by a trick while 3NT made 11 tricks at the other table; 11 IMPs to Estonia.

Board 10. Dealer East. All Vul.
	ª K Q 8 7 2 © J 7 ¨ A K § 10 6 3 2
ª 5 © A 10 9 5 ¨ 9 8 7 4 2 § Q 9 5		ª J 10 9 4 3 © 8 6 4 ¨ Q 5 3 § J 7
	ª A 6 © K Q 3 2 ¨ J 10 6 § A K 8 4

This time it was the Spaniards who stopped safely in 3NT while Estonia bid the slam that needs a miracle in the trump suit. In the Closed Room, North seems to have no excuse for bidding the sixth club; he has poor trumps and two fast losers in a side suit so why should slam be on when partner could not make a slam try?

Actually, it is unclear that North should even show his clubs. There is much to be said for just transferring then jumping to 3NT when your second suit is so weak and you are looking for very good hand from partner to make slam. In both rooms, perhaps also South might have bid 3© rather than their actual more committal choices?

Again 3NT made 11 tricks while the slam was down one; 13 IMPs to Spain who retook the lead they had given up two boards earlier.

Board 12. Dealer West. N/S Vul.
	ª K 3 2 © J 8 7 5 ¨ 8 6 2 § K 7 5
ª - © K Q 9 ¨ Q J 10 9 7 3 § Q J 4 2		ª Q J 9 8 7 5 4 © 10 6 4 3 2 ¨ 4 § -
	ª A 10 6 © A ¨ A K 5 § A 10 9 8 6 3

At both tables, North/South were in the middle of a strong auction. Indeed, in the Closed Room 4§ is surely a clearcut slam try. While it was unlucky to find that North held one of the top club honours, why did the two Wests feel so confident of beating 4§, and why not wait anyway until the auction had ended, as surely North was going to bid again in both auctions. Justice was done when 4§ doubled proved to be an easy make; flat at +710.

Board 15. Dealer South. N/S Vul.
	ª J 5 © A 4 ¨ 7 6 4 3 2 § Q 10 7 6
ª Q © J 6 5 3 2 ¨ A K J § A 8 5 2		ª A 9 8 7 6 3 2 © K 9 7 ¨ Q 10 5 § -
	ª K 10 4 © Q 10 8 ¨ 9 8 § K J 9 4 3

It is slightly curious that neither East, particularly in the Open Room, made more effort to play in spades - a suit in which there is no problem in making game as the cards lie. Anyway, 4© was a perfectly reasonable spot.

In the Open Room, Tihane led ace and another heart and Perez won dummy’s king. Declarer could have made an overtrick now by playing ace and ruff a spade, ruff a club, ruff another spade and give up a heart, the ¨Q being an entry to the established spades. He actually muddled the play slightly and held himself to ten tricks but +420 was still a decent-looking result.

In the Closed Room, Goded led a club, a much more threatening start. Naber ruffed in dummy and crossed to hand twice in diamonds to ruff two more clubs, cashing the ace of clubs along the way. Now he tried to get back to hand with a third diamond and De Tejada ruffed. She played the 13th club through and the defence could make their top trumps separately for down one; -50 and 10 IMPs to Spain.

Since it was the play of the 13th club that allowed the defence to come to a fourth trump trick, would declarer have survived had he not cashed the §A when he did? In that case, South could still ruff the third diamond and play a club. Declarer would win the ace and play a trump but South could win and now play the last club to allow her partner to ruff with the ace of trumps and the contract would still have been defeated. And if declarer guessed the diamond split and came to hand with ace of spades and a spade ruff instead of playing the third diamond, South could win the first heart and give his partner a spade ruff.

Board 16. Dealer West. E/W Vul.
	ª 5 3 2 © K 8 3 2 ¨ J § Q 10 7 5 3
ª 9 6 4 © 9 7 5 4 ¨ A 9 7 5 § A 6		ª A K J 8 7 © J ¨ Q 10 6 3 § K 4 2
	ª Q 10 © A Q 10 6 ¨ K 8 4 2 § J 9 8

Would we all double the 1ª opening? Well, in the Open room East/West didn’t compete beyond the two level after Goded’s Lebensohl bid, so there was no danger of North committing an indiscretion. Three Clubs went two down after the defence started with three rounds of trumps.

In the Closed Room, Tihane showed his major suit and Masia made an aggressive game-try double. Looking at his two aces, Perez had no difficulty in bidding game and now Tihane saved in 5§. He was right in so far as 4ª was making - even 12 tricks are possible - but the price was too high. Whether the defence draws trumps as in the open Room, or East plays for a heart ruff, seven tricks are the limit for declarer; -800 and 12 IMPs to Spain.

Board 17. Dealer North. None Vul.
	ª A 8 7 © A 8 7 4 ¨ A Q 10 4 § 10 7
ª J 4 3 2 © K 10 3 2 ¨ 5 3 2 § Q 6		ª K Q 10 5 © 9 ¨ K J 7 § A K 8 5 3
	ª 9 6 © Q J 6 5 ¨ 9 8 6 § J 9 4 2

I prefer Masia’s 2§ overcall to Luks’ take-out double - I really hate take-out doubles with shortages in unbid majors. One would have thought, however, that the double might have worked out rather better on this occasion. With useful values, West does better to respond 1ª to the double, preparing himself to bid a second time - 2© - when the expected diamond competition comes back around to him. As it happens, this brings the spade fit to light immediately and game should then be reached. In fact, Luks showed his good hand with clubs and Naber stayed silent, happy to defend against a heart contract after Goded’s protective double. Two Hearts drifted a couple off for -100.

In the other room, Perez had no reason to respond to Masia’s overcall. However, Tihane had a normal protective double and now East/West did very well to scramble into the spade game. Targla led a diamond to his partner’s ace and back came a second diamond. Masia finessed the jack and played the ªK. That was ducked but Tihane won the second spade and played a third round. Masia ruffed out the clubs and had ten tricks; +420 and 8 IMPs to Spain.

An entertaining match ended in a convincing win for Spain by 71-32 IMPs, 23-7 VPs.