From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars.Andersson)
Subject: Re: More risks when vulnerable
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.173952.11617@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>The following boards gave Iceland much of its lead that it would need
>to hold on and defeat Sweden in the Semifinals of the 1991 Bermuda Bowl:
>The common theme seems to be aggressive action by the Swedes when
>vulnerable leading to major losses.
>(Source: World Championship Book 1991)
>
>Sweden was leading 74-69 before this board: 
>Board 45
>Vul:Both   AK
>Dlr:N      AT64
>           AQ93
>           Q43
>T8542               QJ976
>J952                K83
>-                   K642
>J972                K
>           3
>           Q7
>           JT875
>           AT865
>
>Open Room
>West        North        East       South     (i) 17+ or a mini no trump
>Jorgensen   Gulberg      Baldursson Sundelin  (ii) Pre-empt
>-           1C(i)        1S         P         (iii) Take-out
>3S(ii)      x(iii)       P          4S
>P           5D           All Pass             
>Result: NS -100

Good bidding by Gullberg-Sundelin. 5D looks like the par contract. An
unluckylie of the cards and it's one down. There might even be a make
somewhere, no don't think so.

>
>Closed Room
>West        North        East       South     (i) Pre-empt
>Fallenius   Jonsson      Nilsland   Arnarson
>-           1D           1S         3D(i)
>3S          3NT          P          P
>4S          x            All Pass

Here the Icelanders reached 3N, an inferior contract, but were
saved by an extremely undisciplined auction by Fallenius.
If he thought his cards were worth 4S, why not bid it immediately!?

>Result: EW -500, 12 IMPs to Iceland.  Sweden now trailed 74-81, lost a
>few more IMPs, and finished Segment Three (Boards 33-48) trailing 74-91.
>
>Sweden was trailing 74-93 before this board:
>Board 51
>Vul:EW     T
>Dlr:S      AQ42
>           KQJ76
>           KQ9
>8653                AKJ94
>J73                 K8
>A9                  42
>J532                AT87
>           Q72
>           T965
>           T853
>           64
>
>Open Room
>West        North        East       South     
>Arnarson    Morath       Jonsson    Bjerregard 
>-           -            -          P
>P           1D           1S         P
>2S          x            3C         P
>4S          All Pass
>Result: EW -100

Perhaps a bit aggressive by West, but it was probably their style.
>
>Closed Room
>West        North        East       South     (i) good suit somewhere
>Fallenius   Baldursson   Nilsland   Jorgensen (ii) relay
>-           -            -          P         (iii) good hand
>P           1C*          1S(i)      P
>1NT(ii)     x            P(iii)     P
>xx          All Pass
>Result: EW -400, 7 IMPs to Iceland
>

Nilsland got to use one of the most stupid conventions invented by
man. What`s wrong with playing natural overcalls (1S looks OK) or
pass followed by 1S (good hand in my methods...).

There is no(?) theoretical value in 1S as a good suit somewhere, only
confusion value. Well this time the confusion was Nilslands...

>Sweden was trailing 79-100 before this board:
>Board 55
>Vul:Both   87
>Dlr:S      A98
>           AKQT8
>           Q52
>6                   AT532
>Q                   KJ7652
>976                 J3
>AKJT9864            -
>           KQJ94
>           T43
>           542
>           73
>
>Open Room
>West        North        East       South     (i) minor suit four bid
>Fallenius   Baldursson   Nilsland   Jorgensen
>-           -            -          P        
>3NT(i)      P            4C         All Pass

Actually, Fallenius hand is much too good for 3N. He should have held
something like: x/Q/xxx/DJTxxxxx

--lars
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge