The finals - 4 boards - part III

This is the third of four posts about swing hands in the second set of England-Italy. The first set Italy won by 16 IMPs (60-44), the third set Italy lost by 13 IMPs (17-30), and it was the second set (46-4) that gave them most of their 45 IMPs lead (123-78). We will look at four boards that delivered a total of 41 IMPs to Italy.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Hacketts tend to open and respond light, a proven successful style. Here they don't get to the great 6H contract. South opens 1H and hears brother bid 2H. South makes a slam try with 3S, showing shortness, and then gives up over 4H. The problem here is that North does not know how little South needs to make slam - since 2H ranges up to just below a limit raise, North will not know that very little is needed for slam - the 3S slam try is usually hunting for more useful values in the North hand than just a king outside the short suit.

Since the Hacketts play short suit game tries over 1H-2H, I think South should have started with one. If North had then rebid 3H (short suit was nice, but little values), now South can make a slam try that North can cuebid in reply, since he already denied a good hand with 3H. Thus the sequence could be 1H-2H;-2S(or whatever the short suit spade game try is)-3H;-3S-4D;-etc.

In the other room South, Nunes opened 1H, 5+Hs forcing (14+, or 11-13 Hs & Ss). North, Fantoni, forced to bid, responded 2H, a 0-6 raise. South, needing very little, tried for slam with 3S, a short suit slam try like the other room, and North with a decent 0-6 hand, then cuebid 4D to show the ace or king, and 6H was reached for 11 more IMPs to Italy.