Canada's 07 Teams

The final result of the Canada-Mexico playoff for the Bermuda Bowl spot is at: http://www.bridgemontreal.ca/blogs/files/21/File/score(4).txt



Canada's team in the Bermuda Bowl will be: Kamel Fergani - Waldemar Frukacz - Piotr Klimowicz - Nicolas L'Ecuyer - Jeffrey Smith - John Zaluski



NPC is Nader Hanna



Canada's Venice Cup team won their playoff by default - the team is: Sylvia Caley - Francine Cimon - Julie Fajgelzon - Rhoda Habert - Pamela Nisbet - Isabelle Smith



NPC is Mike Gamble

Final Picks

The complete Butlers for the Bermuda Bowl semi-finals have not been posted yet, but they will be at:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/bermudabowl/butler/bermudabowl-semi-final.htm

Only one Italian pair, Lauria-Versace, is finding their form. They also have a 20 IMPs disadvantage due to the USA 1 carry-over from the round robin slaughter . Hamman and Soloway are in fine form, and while Meckwell have struggled a little bit at times, they are super dangerous going down the stretch. So the call should be USA 1. Yet my gut feel is that the Italians, especially Fanunes, will finally rise to the occasion, and find the pizzazz to win to it.

Here are the complete Butlers for the semi-finals of the Venice Cup:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/venicecup/butler/venicecup-semi-final.htm

Not a big surprise here - both Germany and France are doing well. This will be a very close match, and the 16 IMPs carry-over advantage wins it for France.

The Butlers are also ready for the Seniors semi-finals:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/seniorsbowl/butler/seniorsbowl-semi-final.htm

Lasut and Manoppo are running well, and it's their time -> Indonesia wins a tough battle against Rose and the boys, who start with a whole one IMP carry-over.

Hampco vs. Meckwell

Greco-Hampson are playing a very close version of Meckwell Precision, and both pairs were sitting EW for the final segment of the semi-final. On board 2 we had a chance to see how style or judgement can make the difference, as opposed to system
2 ____ K854
West _ J975
NS __ T97
_____ 84
73 ________ QJ962
K _________ Q42
AKQJ65_____ 4
QJ65 ______ AK93
_____ AT
_____ AT863
_____ 832
_____ T72

Both Easts, Greco and Meckstroth opened 1S, and both their partners responded 2D, 2/1 Game Force. Now both Easts rebid 2NT. Rodwell, West at one table, raised to 3NT and there was no way to beat the contract, and it turned out that declarer made five, +460. At the other table, Hampson, West, rebid 3C with a 6-4 shapely hand. East raised to 4C, and they ended in 5C, off 3 top tricks for -50 and 11 IMPS to USA 1. Same system, but different choices.

Meckwellian

Board 3 of the second segment of the USA 1 vs. USA 2 semi-final offered some insights into the Meckwell style.

3 ____ K43
South _ Q63
EW __ A9873
_____ 95
AT9 _______ 875
72 ________ KJT9
J6542______ KQ
A82 _______ KQT6
_____ QJ62
_____ A854
_____ T
_____ J743

In fourth seat Meckstroth, East, opened 1D, since they play 15-17 there and Meckstroth decided not to upgrade vulnerable opposite a passed hand, since little chance of game. Rubin, South, came in with a light takeout double, even for a passed hand, but he was not vulnerable. Rodwell, West bid 1S, which according to their notes is a transfer to notrump (redouble would show hearts, 1H would show spades). Now North, Ekeblad decided to follow the transfer directions, and bid 1NT. Meckstroth doubled this, Rodwell doubled North's runout to two diamonds, and subsequent scrambles to 2H and 2S were also doubled. When it was all done, that was +500 to Meckwell and 9 IMPs.

Trick or Treat: Very costly one level contract lead

Board 10 of the 5th segment of the quarter-finals didn't make Tuesday's bulletin, but perhaps it will sneak into Wednesday's.

10 ___ JT652
East _ ---
All __ AK96
_____ A953
3 __________ AKQ8
AKQ86 _____ 97
T72 ________ Q84
T642 _______ KQJ7
_____ 974
_____ JT5432
_____ J53
_____ 8

3NT was a nice EW landing spot. In the Venice Cup, East opened 1C, West responded 1H, North came in with 1S, East doubled this for business, North redoubled this as something, perhaps doubt or big business, and that was the contract.

So the spotlight shifted to East for the lead. A top spade should result in at least +400, but the actual lead of a top club resulted in two club ruffs in dummy and -1120. So the wrong lead to a one level contract cost 1520.

In the Bermuda Bowl, Egypt reached 4H by West, and since North had shown something in the bidding, South doubled with more trumps than declarer. A, K, and another diamond had the queen winning in dummy. Declarer played the heart nine, which won, and then the heart seven, covered by the ten and then the queen. Declarer played a club, and when North ducked, won in dummy, and discarded two clubs on the top spades. Now any card from dummy allowed declarer to score the heart eight, and that was +790 to Egypt, albeit in a losing cause. After the hand, South walked to a nearby window to look at the view before continuing.

Guessing the Semis

Before I predict/forecast/guess each of the semi-finals, let's take a look at the top ranked Butler pairs:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/bermudabowl/butler/bermudabowl-quarter-final.htm

Bermuda Bowl
1 0.85 Giorgio DUBOIN - Norberto BOCCHI Italy
2 0.70 Johan SYLVAN - Per-Olof SUNDELIN Sweden
3 0.70 Claudio NUNES - Fulvio FANTONI Italy
4 0.62 Nick NICKELL - Dick FREEMAN USA 1
5 0.58 Fredrik NYSTROM - Peter BERTHEAU Sweden
6 0.51 Eric RODWELL - Jeff MECKSTROTH USA 1
7 0.35 Eric GRECO - Geoff HAMPSON USA 2
8 0.32 Magnus LINDKVIST - Peter FREDIN Sweden
9 0.30 Brad MOSS - Fred GITELMAN USA 2
10 0.27 Paul SOLOWAY - Bob HAMMAN USA 1

Recognize any names there?

Italy(+3) vs. Sweden - all carry-overs in parenthesis

So Sweden has three of the top eight pairs, while Italy has two of the top three. Who to pick? I don't think that Sweden can fluster Italy, who, as a team, have less problems with opponents unusual methods than most teams. So Italy in a close match.

USA 1(+5) vs. USA 2

UberMeckwell Greco-Hampson cancels out SuperMeckwell
Moss-Gitelman using 2/1 should be able to outplay Nickell/Freeman, but these two are running hot.
Ekeblad-Rubin with strong club/canape will lose the battle against Soloway/Hamman with strong club/some canape.
However the stretch run will mean Moss-Gitelman needing to outbid/outplay Soloway-Hamman. They are good enough to do this, but Soloway and Hamman are good enough to find another gear, and race it home. So USA 1 in another close match.

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/venicecup/butler/venicecup-quarter-final.htm

Venice Cup
1 1.99 Vanessa REESS - Nathalie FREY France
2 1.07 Sylvie WILLARD - Benedicte CRONIER France
3 0.86 Daniele GAVIARD - Catherine D' OVIDIO France
4 0.85 Joanna STANSBY - Debbie ROSENBERG USA 1
5 0.82 Daniela von ARNIM - Sabine AUKEN Germany
6 0.81 Pony Beate NEHMERT - Barbara STAWOWY - HACKETT Germany
7 0.69 Bep VRIEND - Carla ARNOLDS Netherlands
8 0.68 Irina LEVITINA - Hansa NARASIMHAN USA 1
9 0.38 Jill LEVIN - Sue PICUS USA 1
10 0.35 Ling GU - Yalan ZHANG China

France(+16) vs. USA 1

France has the top three pairs in the Butler, but USA 1 has their three pairs in the top 9. Still, any team that can destroy Canada must be great, so France is the pick.

Germany vs. Netherlands(+16)

This is too close to call, so going with the carry-over I'll pick the Netherlands.


http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/seniorsbowl/butler/seniorsbowl-quarter-final.htm

Senior Bowl
1 0,79 Eddy M F MANOPPO - Henky LASUT Indonesia
2 0,78 Flemming DAHL - Georg NORRIS Denmark
3 0,69 Jens AUKEN - Kirsten Steen MOLLER Denmark
4 0,64 Rose MELTZER - Garey HAYDEN USA 1
5 0,50 Roald RAMER - Nico KLAVER Netherlands
6 0,40 Roger BATES - Lew STANSBY USA 1
7 0,30 Peter LUND - Steen MOLLER Denmark
8 0,27 Munawar SAWIRUDDIN - Denny SACUL Indonesia
9 0,23 Jaap TROUWBORST - Nico DOREMANS Netherlands
10 0,22 Alan SONTAG - Peter WEICHSEL USA 1

Indonesia(10.5) vs. Denmark
This I'll go with the heart and pick Lasut and Manoppo, who I would like to see win this. But the match will be so very close.

USA 1(+11) vs. Netherlands
Yet still another close one, but Sontag-Weichsel can be dominant and can handle the stress, so USA 1 is the pick.

Aces are Not Meant for Taking Tricks?

Round 17, which was a disastrous set for the Candian Seniors and effectively ended their chances of making the playoffs still contained a beautiful partscore hand with an outstanding end position.

North
S: AJ865
H: A75
D: K
C: K832

West ___________ East
S: KT ___________ S: Q973
H: KJ954 ________ H: 32
D: Q982 _________ D: J4
C: Q7 ___________ C: AT964

South
S: 42
H: QT8
D: AT7653
C: J5

With None vulnerable and South the dealer, the following auction occurred:
P = 1H = 1S = 1N
All pass.

The D6 was led to the K and the S5 returned to the T. Declarer now played CQ covered and won in hand, realizing that his communication was now severely compromised. Declarer exited with the DJ to S who accurately played a spade to North's A and a club return to South's J left the following position:

North
S: J86
H: A75
D: -
C: 83

West ___________ East
S: - ____________ S: Q9
H: KJ954 ________ H: 32
D: Q9 ___________ D:
C: - _____________ C: 964

South
S: -
H: QT8
D: T765
C: -

The defense had 3 tricks in to declarer's 3 and thus needed the majority of the remainder. South accurately returned a diamond giving declarer a free finesse and 2 more diamond tricks. The HK (best play) was now led and ducked by North to avoid an end play) giving declarer his sixth trick. The HJ was now led and again ducked by N allowing E to to win the Q. At this point a diamond return allows N to jettison the HA and declarer must return a H to South's 10 who can cash diamonds for down 1. A beautiful ending in which the HA is ducked twice and then jettisoned to beat the contract.

Success for the Graded Grand Slam Force and Multi Loses the Spade Suit

In the Estoril Daily Bulletin from Day 5, Phillip Alder supplies an article entitled "Bidding with Difficulty" in which he discusses the following board 12 from Round 5 of all events.

North (Brown)
S: AKT984
H: QT3
D: 87
C: 92

West____________ East
S: Q5 ___________ S: 6
H: J98654 _______ H: AK72
D: J5 ___________ D: KQT632
C: QT8 __________ C: J6

South (Daigneault)
S: J732
H: -
D: A94
C: AK7543

With N/S vulnerable and West the dealer, at many tables the bidding proceeded:
P = 2S = 3D = 4D
P = 4H* = P = 5N**
P = 6S*** = P = 7S.
* Last Train showing good hand for slam in spades
** Graded Grand Slam Force (Josephine) asking trump quality
*** Showing exactly AK of trumps

This auction was not explained in the Alder article however the combination of last train and fully graded grand slam force led to the good grand which would depend only on partner having third round club control of an even break if partner holds 3 or more clubs. A solid success for the Brown-Diagneault methods.

As the Alder article indicates this hand also shows some of the dangers of the multi 2D opening bid. In the other room the with Bill (West) and John (East) Bowman holding the cards the auction proceeded:
P = 2D (multi) = 3D = all pass.

South passed expecting his partner to hold hearts and not spades thus allowing his opponents to play quietly in 3D-1 while cold for a grand slam. This swung 19 imps to Canada in their narrow 16-14 VP win over Sweden in Round 5.

Alder's article provides an analysis of the auctions at the other 32 tables in play in the 3 events and is well worth a read. In some cases West also opened a multi-2D which led to some interesting results...

To Lightner or Not to Lightner ?

It has been a view of mine, one that is not broadly shared, that Lightner Doubling (a slam double requesting partner to lead either dummy's first bid suit or a suit in which partner is likely to be void) is overrated, particularly the negative inference that if partner has not Lightner doubled he cannot want dummy's suit led and cannot have a void.

Day 6 provided 2 examples and over 30 imps worth of swing to support a more constrained view of the Lightner Double:

Round 16 Board 3

North
S: T975
H: T
D: AQ7
C: JT853

West ________ East
S: 6 ________ S: AQ2
H: AKJ8 _____ H: Q9742
D: JT864 ____ D: K953
C: AK6 ______C: Q

South
S: KJ843
H: 653
D: 2
C: 9742

With EW vulnerable and South the dealer, at most tables the auction proceeded along the lines of:
P = 1D = P = 1H
P = 3H = P = 4N
X = 5C= P = 6H
P = P = X = all pass

This happened at both tables in the Senior Bowl for a quick -200 after a diamond to the A and a diamond ruff.

Note that East might have realized what was likely to happen given his diamond fit for his partner and could have corrected to 6N taking the now marked finesse for the diamond Q to wrap up 12 tricks in NT and a 14 imp win against staying in 6H. Also note that because of the Blackwood bid by East, North should realize that 2 diamonds will not cash (East is likely to have the K or a stiff) and thus should quietly let his partner lead without allowing the opponents to find their alternate contract.

Unfortunately for the Canadian women their opponents were playing a canapé system (shorter suit first) and thus opened a heart, right-siding 6H and avoiding the diamond ruff on opening lead. Declarer guessed right in the play for a 13-imp loss for Canada.

Example 2

Later the same day, Round 18 Board 14

North
S: QJ2
H: KQJ7
D: K
C: AQT65

West ___________ East
S: T5 ___________ S: 973
H: 9 ____________ H: T8432
D: J986 __________ D: T5432
C: KJ7432 ________ C: -

South
S: AK864
H: A65
D: AQ7
C: 98

With None vulnerable and East the dealer, at many tables the bidding proceeded:
P = 1S = P = 2C
P= 2S = P = 4N
P = 5C = P = 5S
P = 6S = P = 7S
X = P = P = 7N
All pass.

This occurred when the Canadian Seniors played EW against Japan as well as at many tables on the Vugraph including USA 1 (EW-Meckwell) vs Netherlands, where Jeff Meckstroth doubled 7S allowing the runout to 7N for a minimum 17 imp loss. In the Canadian Senior match the Canada NS rested in 6S resulting in a 25 imp swing to Japan as we lost 13 instead of winning 12. With no double (assuming partner is not over reliant on the negative inference) a club lead might ensue with many imps flowing to those who remained silent.

Although the Lightner double can be extremely useful in getting partner off to the right lead these hands would suggest that it should be used more sparingly. It should be used only when no alternate contract is likely to be available, when partner is not likely to find the lead at all, when you are totally unlikely to beat the slam without the requested lead. Finally the negative inferences of not doubling should not be taken as strongly as many expert players view them today...

Guesses for the Quarter-Finals

Here are my guesses - for entertainment value only (do not bet on them!)

Bermuda Bowl

A) Italy vs. India (+2.3 IMPs)

Lorenzo LAURIA and Alfredo VERSACE were arguing the weekend before the Bermuda Bowl.
Norberto BOCCHI and Giorgio DUBOIN were arguing after this board against Canada:

10 ___ J6
East _ AQ98742
All __ Q9
_____ 98
107542 ______K983
63 _________ ---
AJ42 _______ K10763
K2 ____ ____ Q543
_____ AQ
_____ KJ105
_____ 85
_____ AJT76

South opened 1C, North bid 4C (not described on their cc) but presumably he thought it was a transfer in Hs. South bid 5C to play and that was -300 and -14 IMPs.
After this there was the bloodbath against US 1. So the Italians can get flustered and out of their A game. However India is not the team to fluster them. Italy wins.

B) USA 1 (+9 IMPs) vs. Brazil
USA 1 is older and not as swift as they once were. However their will to win is stronger than ever, and Brazil is no match for them.

C) USA 2 vs. Argentina (+4)
UberMeckwell, HAMPSON-GRECO are unstoppable.

D) Egypt vs. Sweden (+16)
Egypt has relied a lot on 2 partnerships, with 3 superstar players. At some point they will get tired but not yet.

Venice Cup

A) France (15.5) is likely to take it but we will support Canada

B) The Netherlands does not have a dike that can stop the tide of China (16)

C) SMITH-DHONDY vs. AUKEN-VonARNIM - England (3.7) will not find it a cup of tea, but will squeak by Germany

D) USA 1 (9 IMPs) vs. USA 2 - Team America - Rosenberg/Levin/Stansby - with names like that you can't lose, at least not yet.

Seniors Bowl

A) USA 1 (+11) vs France - Rose's team is the team to beat.

B) Indonesia (+16) vs Portugal - Indonesia over the host country.

C) USA 2 (+16) vs. Netherlands - All stars win for USA.

D) Denmark (+16) vs. Israel - Danish victory here.

Quarter-finals match-ups

Carry-overs in brackets (e.g. India has 2.3 IMPs on Italy to start the match)

Bermuda Bowl:
Italy v India (2.3), USA1 (9) v Brazil, USA2 v Argentina (4), Egypt v Sweden (16).

Venice Cup:
France (15.5) v Canada, China (16) v Netherlands, Germany v England (3.7), USA1 (9) v USA2.

Seniors Bowl:
USA1 (11) v France, Indonesia (16) v Portugal, USA2 (16) v Netherlands, Denmark (16) v Israel.

Later tonight I'll attempt to forecast/guess to result of each match.

Looking at the Butler Scores

The final Butler scores are up at:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/bermudabowl/butler/bermudabowl-qualifying.htm

These scores compare each pair by matching their result with the result of each other pair who was playing at the same time. Thus it is not dependent on their teammates, except for this one exception: Teams tend to play their best pairs in the tougher matches, so some pairs have worse scoring due to facing tough opposition all the time, while others have inflated scores from easier opponents. That said, the Butler scores are still a reasonable measure of performance of a pair.

Let's look at the top ten Bermuda Bowl (open) pairs:

1 0.56 Geoff HAMPSON - Eric GRECO USA 2
2 0.49 Waleed El AHMADI Egypt
3 0.47 Martin REID - Peter NEWELL New Zealand
4 0.46 Alfredo VERSACE - Lorenzo LAURIA Italy
5 0.43 Tarek SADEK Egypt
6 0.43 Fredrik NYSTROM - Peter BERTHEAU
7 0.40 Norberto BOCCHI - Giorgio DUBOIN Italy
8 0.40 Bachiraju SATYANARAYANA - Kiran NADAR India
9 0.38 Tony NUNN - Sartaj HANS Australia
10 0.36 Lixin YANG - Jianming DAI China
11 0.36 Yoshiyuki NAKAMURA - Yasuhiro SHIMIZU Japan

The Egypt pair is split into two entries (2 and 5), as they played briefly with others.

It is interesting that Hampson-Greco playing a version of the Meckwell system, finished first, while Meckwell finished 18th, even after they killed the Italians in the last round (for an IMPs per board score of 2.12).

Let's look at the Canadian performance, starting with the Bermuda Bowl:

41 0.01 Arno HOBART - George MITTELMAN Canada
43 0.00 John CARRUTHERS - Joseph SILVER Canada
52 -0.20 Allan GRAVES - Boris BARAN Canada

Two of the pairs were just about average, while the other one was negative, but not in a really big way.

The top five pairs in the Venice Cup are all great pairs:

1 0.84 Nicola SMITH - Heather DHONDY England
2 0.84 Vanessa REESS - Nathalie FREY France
3 0.80 Sylvie WILLARD - Benedicte CRONIER France
4 0.71 Sabine AUKEN - Daniela von ARNIM Germany
5 0.65 Joanna STANSBY - Debbie ROSENBERG USA 1

See:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/venicecup/butler/venicecup-qualifying.htm

For Canada:

18 0.25 Francine CIMON - Linda LEE Canada
26 0.08 Beverly KRAFT - Dianna GORDON Canada
59 -0.35 Barb CLINTON - Joan EATON Canada

One quite above average pair, one above average pair, and one quite below average pair - however for the below average pair their results are quite mixed - some really good sets and some bad ones. Thus the team captain will have to consider that in deciding which pairs play when in the playoffs

The Seniors results are at:

http://www.brenning.se/results/2005/seniorsbowl/butler/seniorsbowl-qualifying.htm

Canada's three pairs:

35 0.02 Michael CUMMINGS - David LINDOP Canada
42 -0.03 John BOWMAN - Bill BOWMAN Canada
53 -0.20 Pierre DAIGNEAULT - Stephen BROWN Canada

End of the Round Robin - The Women Pull it Out on the Last Board

The Canadian Women pulled out a spot in the quarterfinals on the last board of the event as the round robin drew to a close.

Needing to stay ahead of Austria for the eight and final playoff position the women fell behind early and were trailing 314 to 308 VPs for much of the final set as all of us watched the vugraph in the on-site auditorium. However the Austrians fell back and the Canadians pulled ahead 312 to 311 with 3 boards to go and the Austrians finished. By the last board the Women had again fallen back and trailed 311 to 308. However on the last board 3N= by our team and 3N-3 in the other room meant 14 imps and 4 victory points and the women were in to the quarters by 2 Victory Points.

Interestingly the last qualifying score in the Open and Senior Round Robin were right around 335 as expected, however in the Women's event 312 managed to qualify due to the very high scores put up by the top 7 women's team.

A new event starts tomorrow, so logon to the swangames.com for the real-time scoring and watch the Women take on their tba quarterfinal opponents.

The Open and Senior teams finished out their runs earlier in the day with effectively no shot for the Seniors at the start of the day and the Open team finding themselves in a similar position after the first match. Watch their progress in the Transnational teams next week along with at least 2 more primarily Canadian teams:

The Captain's Team
Marc Lachapelle
Mike Gamble
David Willis
Vince Oddy
Mike Yuen
John Gowdy will be added if the Women fail to make the expected run to the Venice Cup Final

The Retek/Deri Team
George and Mari Retek
Tom and Eva Deri

Points Schmoints - 17 and not a Strong Club ??

An interesting example for Marty Bergen's "Points Schmoints" theory came up on Board 10 of Round 13.

North
S: 976
H: 9753
D: A987
C: 32

West _________ East
S: AKJ53 _____ S: T842
H: 64 ________ H: AT2
D: 653 _______ D: T
C: A74 _______ C: QJT98

South
S: Q
H: KQJ8
D: KQJ42
C: K65

With All vulnerable and East the dealer the bidding went:
P = 1C (Precision) = 1S = P
4S = P = P = X
P = 5D = X = all pass.

The Indonesian South opened 1C Precision on one of the worst looking 17 points with short spades we have seen. A nightmare scenario ensued with the spade overcall, weak pass from partner and raise to the 4S (which is cold). South did well to pass and when his partner doubled correctly evaluated the defensive weakness of his hand and landed in 5DX for -500. Unfortunately at the other table we were not so lucky:

The bidding went:
P = 1D = 1S = X
4S = X = all pass.
After the negative double South expected more defense and was quickly chalking up -990 for a 10 imp loss. The good news was that the team was much better on the other boards and went on to beat Indonesia 22-8.

The Beagles Steal Two Matches

John and Billy Bowman are affectionately referred to as the Beagle Boys in honor of the thieves in the Scrooge McDuck cartoons. This reference is based on both their similarity in appearance and on their consistent ability to thieve at the bridge table.

With the Senior team in tough yesterday and needing some big wins the Beagles pulled out 2 sizable victories on the last hands of Round 14 and 15.

Round 14 Board 16

North
S: A
H: KQ
D: JT74
C: AKT542

West (Billy) _____ East (John)
S: 98754 _______ S: KQT6
H: T762 _______ H: AJ984
D: - ___________ D: KQ8
C: 9863 ________ C: Q

South
S: J32
H: 53
D: A96532
C: J7

With EW vulnerable and West the dealer the bidding went:
P = 1C = X = 2D
P = 5D = all pass

After the preemptive 2D followed by 5D John managed to go quietly in the bidding. Billy led the H2 to the A and John smoothly shifted to the CQ. Declarer now worried about the potential club ruff played a diamond to the A and had to go down one losing the KQ of diamonds. With their teamates making 3D+2 in the other room, the Beagles had a 5 imp pickup instead of a 6 imp loss en route to a 19-11 win over Morocco.

Round 15 Board 16

North
S: QJ
H: Q62
D: AKQ9762
C: 9

West (Billy) ___ East (John)
S: KT8432 ____ S: 97
H: AJ ________ H: KT985
D: 85 ________ D: T43
C: 743 _______ C: T62

South
S: A65
H: 743
D: J
C: AKQJ85

With EW vulnerable and West the dealer the bidding went:
P = 1D = P = 2C
P = 3D = P = 3S
X = P = P = XX
P = 3N = P = 4N
P = 5S = P = 6C
P = 6D = P = 7N
X = all pass

After Billy doubled for a spade lead at the 3-level, the Polish squad promptly rolled into 7NT which as can be seen has 13 tricks on any lead but a heart. Billy was in there with a second double to announce that he was kidding about the spade lead and that something else was required. John led the heart ten for a quick down 2 and a win of 13 imps, with their teammates in 3N+4, en route to an 18-12 win over Poland on the last board of the day.

On the same hand in the Open event Joey Silver, West, led a spade against 3N and declarer quickly made 13 tricks. Joey, always the comedian, promptly told his partner, John Carruthers that he should have led the HA from his AJx allowing John to stew over the potential beat for the rest of the evening. It was only later in the evening at Busby's that he the joke was discovered...

Cardoso's Revenge??

The Senior team played without Steve Brown and Pierre Daigneault yesterday as Steve had come down with some type of one day bug and spent much of the day doing what you do in such circumstances. Today, Day 6, we will be without Captain, Marc Lachapelle, who seems to have come down with the same thing over night...

We are wondering whether this is Cardoso's Revenge for the invasion of bridge players that has descended on Estoril. Cardoso lived from 1880 to 1950 and put Estoril on the map through the construction of the Casino that is adjacent to the playing site in the early 20th century. He also built the 5 star Palacio Hotel and a number of other hotels along with the train line to Lisbon to bring the people to his casino and house him while they were there. A man before his times or at least 80 years ahead of Canadian governments who seem to be building casinos wherever they can...