In the quarter-finals we played India’s top team MAVERICKS (Maskara - Gupta, Shivdasani - Thakral, Anklesaria - Eide). MAVERICKS had defeated our fellow Ozzies ACEMATES in the round of 16.

Playing against Subhash Gupta had a special significance for me. He was one of my bridge mentors, and I won my first ever bridge tournament playing with him. We had spent a lot of time together in the early days of my bridge career, and now competing as peers was a novel experience. While Subhash is about seventy years in age, his presence at the table is that of a hawk. You feel the energy of his focus; it doesn’t feel like you’re playing against an “old man”.

Subash’s partner Subodh Maskara is a man with a vision. After a successful career in business, he is determined to make a mark on the bridge world. He sponsors the team MAVERICKS and recognizes that to achieve success at the highest levels, he needs to improve his personal level of play to be of an adequate standard. Every day, he and Subash have a two hour window where they practice or discuss bridge. Subodh’s drive is evident, and he has the resources to fund his vision, so it will be interesting watching the performance of MAVERICKS over the coming years.

In the first set, they had this disaster:

4 went down five, vulnerable. Gupta meant his 4 bid as a lead director in clubs. Since he was a passed hand, he figured that Maskara would recognize that such a bid must guarantee diamond support. The disaster occurred because the partners were not on the same page.

Such hands show the importance of partnership history, as this theme certainly doesn’t make the cut for discussion when two players get together for a game of bridge. It is often taken for granted that this is “obvious”. While the mainstream approach is for a bid such as 4 to guarantee diamond support, my partnership has an explicit rule that such sequences are natural and not a 'lead plus fit' bid.

Michael Whibley found a strong psychological play on this deal:

On the Q lead, the natural play is to duck with the aim of shutting out the spades. Whibley saw deeper and recognized that he did not want to be on play after trick two. He would like the defenders to attack hearts. So, he won the A (North unblocked the king) to play another spade to South. South switched to the Q. Declarer won, played a diamond to the jack, and unblocked the J.

Next, he tested clubs by playing the ace and king. When they didn’t split, the full hand was known.

The position was:

Whibs crossed to the Q, cashed the K and played a club. North had to give up another trick for the diamond king. Declarer scored one spade, three hearts, two diamonds and three clubs for a “big bad and beautiful 750.”

Try this opening lead:

J862    10    Q93    97643

Andy led the diabolical 9. This was the deal:

As the cards were, there was no successful line of play for declarer. If the hand were one where declarer needed to guess the entries back to hand while navigating trumps, it is likely he would have gone down.

Virtue is its own reward, they say, but it was still worth highlighting a strong lead. Whibley - Brown had a more controlled auction to the same doomed spot.

This hand featured an instructive tussle between declarer and the defence:

On a spade lead, Jaggy won the ten to duck out the A. Andy found the necessary club shift and declarer won the second round to run his diamonds. Andy pitched two spades and I pitched a spade and a club. This was the ending:

The defence has already taken two tricks and declarer has eight tricks on top. But he is unable to get another one. If he tries to setup spades, we can cash two clubs. If he tries to cash the A and exit a club hoping for an endplay in hearts, South can leave North on play with the J to get a heart through. It was an enjoyable hand with many themes worth studying in strip-squeeze defence – South must void himself in the suit that North holds an ace in; the club honours should be flexible enough so that the defence can take one or two winners, and if declarer had kept all spades in dummy, North needs to keep all three of his hearts.

Two back to back slam swings killed the spirits of the MAVERICKS.

At this stage, I knew Andy’s full hand and bid 6. This highly artificial auction is based on symmetric relay and denial cue bidding. Bruce Neill and the late David Morgan were very helpful to us in setting up our system. While we’ve opted for a relatively simple approach in the warped world of relayers, the memory work and practice required is significant. It is rewarding when the system comes up and is useful at the table. The other table missed the slam so we won 11 imps.

The very next board, we were at it again:

After the 5 bid, South’s exact hand was known and North could bid the grand slam with confidence. Andy won the trump lead, ruffed two spades and discarded a heart on the A for 13 tricks.

At the other table they bid

The 6 bid was lazy. North needs to bid keycard and sort out the thirdround spade control in the South hand to bid the grand slam with certainty.

MAVERICKS then missed a chance for a sensational score:

When Jaggy bid 3, denying a club stopper, East can envision that West holds high-cards similar to the actual hand. Thakral missed the opportunity to raise three spades to four. Against 4, even the best defence of three rounds of clubs leaves declarer comfortably in control. 5 had no chance as the defence cashed the first three tricks.

In the other room, Matt opened the West hand a 14-16 1NT, which is fairly standard for our teams’ style. Whibley bid stayman then 3NT and that contract failed on a club lead. A normal result for Whibley - Brown but a missed opportunity for Shivdasani - Thakral for a brilliancy.

Try this declarer play problem:

After an aggressive game try for a “Big bad beautiful 620”, I found myself in 3 on the lead of the 8 to the 9 and a switch to the 6. What would you do?

The natural play is to finesse but the expert is always looking for reasons to not take a finesse. With East marked with AKJ109 of hearts, it was clear that he only had room for either the K or the A. If the diamond finesse won, the hand would be something like this:

I could make nine tricks scoring six spades and three diamonds.

On the other hand, if the K was offside the hand could be like this:

Here, after a failing diamond finesse, the defence can continue hearts, cash the A and play hearts for a trump promotion. The defence scores two hearts, one diamond, one club and a trump. On this layout, the successful play is to rise A, pull trumps and lead a club up.

Which one would you choose?

A tool that I learnt from Tony Nunn in such guess-like situations is to play for the layout where the opponents cannot defeat you legitimately. On this hand, however, on both layouts, the opponents can arrange a trump promotion.

I rose the A and soon discovered the actual hand layout to be the first one. Shut your eyes and take a finesse would have worked much better!

To close out the match, Whibley - Brown bid a good slam:

At the other table, clubs were never bid:

It is hard to beat a team that is winning their slam swings. We ended up beating the MAVERICKS 150-75, to move on to the semi-final.

It was not a surprise that the three strong overseas teams that were battling to qualify all found themselves in the semis. We were drawn to play WBT BRIDGE APP while SHOURIE played a surprise Indian team VEDIC (Gower - Malani, Saha - Roy, Mukherjee - Charaborty). SHOURIE squeaked ahead 108-102.

In my early “growing up in bridge” days in India, the teams I would play on would have an aspiration of qualifying for the knockout stages of the tournaments. Sometimes we would make it and usually we would miss out. Playing in the quarter-finals of a tournament, when it happened, was a big thrill. In the evenings, after bridge, there was typically a social scene where I used to hang out with some of my friends and some of the top players. One of them was Guruji, Subhash Gupta. One such tournament, our team failed to qualify and I hung around to watch the knockout matches. On the evening before the final, after a couple of whiskeys, Subhash said, “For me, the tournament begins tomorrow.”

I was so awe struck at this proclamation that it became an aspiration. I recounted this to my teammates and told them we must win the semi-final so I can have the same brag. And win we did, defeating WBT Bridge App 131-92.

This was the biggest swing in the first set:

Andy’s decision to right-side the spades proved crucial. The Q won trick one and the K held at trick two. Declarer played the 10, then the 9, keeping the entries fluid for later plays. When the defence continued spades, he discarded the A on the A, cashed his clubs and exited a diamond. The defence at this point gave up by playing a spade ending in the West hand rather than playing a heart to put declarer to a guess. They scored a trick in each suit and declarer had nine.

In the other room, Whibley - Brown defended strongly:

The 9 (Rusinow, showing the ten) was led to the queen, king and ace. The K held and declarer tried a heart to the queen and king, ducked by Matt as West. Declarer drove out the A as West pitched an encouraging heart. East continued spades and West ensured that he retained the 10 to win the fourth round. Declarer took a club finesse and East won in this position:

When Whibs accurately played the 10, instead of a wooden spade, declarer was down four vulnerable.

Try this bidding problem (nil vul):

QJ    K    765432    AK86

2 forces 2, and 2 is invitational in hearts. Would you contemplate any action in the balancing seat?

How about if the auction instead went like this:

Would you bid now?

Boye Brogeland, on the latter auction, found the inspired action of 2NT. Despite East opening a natural diamond, he made a takeout bid for the minors. Cosmetically, this appears dangerous but nil vul is a forgiving vulnerability. The cost of being wrong is lower yet the reward of being right is the same. When both 3 and 2 made, Boye’s action won 5 imps as I passed on the first auction.

The next hand featured an elegant push in the best grand slam:

If spades were 4-1, it would be important to play in clubs, so we were pleased with our auction. At the other table, Boye - Bakke managed to achieve the same outcome in a natural based system:

In Boye’s words, “6 confirmed all the keycards and showed some interest in a grand slam. So I pictured him with the A, A and the K. And if worst came to worst and partner didn’t have the king of clubs, it would be close to a 50% grand slam.”

Then came a big, bad and beautiful 620:

Matt won the A at trick one and continued a diamond. North played the third round as South pitched two clubs. Declarer ruffed this, took a heart finesse and drove out the J. When South had the A, declarer had his contract.

There was more action at the other table:

Looking at this hand objectively, my double of 4 seems insane. At the table, however, things were going well for us and declarer had gone down in a difficult 4 game two hands before. Suspecting he might be rattled, my action raised the stakes. When such things work, we call them 'inspired' or 'street smart'. When they don’t, we use other adjectives. As it was, we luckily displaced them from their best spot to an inferior one. When declarer misread the ending, he was down three instead of down one and our team won 16 imps.

At favourable vulnerabilty, playing Precision, you hold

Q    Q10763    97532    86

Partner opens 1, you respond 1NT and alert it as 0-12 (not forcing).

Your LHO asks a question, ponders his bid and finally passes. You suspect he has the goods.

Partner now rebids 2. What now?

It looked like LHO had been scared by our actions. I didn’t want to pass 2, as that would give West another chance to enter the auction. Trying to keep the situation murky, I elected to bid 2, false preference.

West reluctantly passed again and the full hand was:

2 went down three non vulnerable and it rated to be an easy win against the expected vulnerable 3NT at the other table. However, Boye Brogeland tried his own brand of trickery:

At favourable vulnerability, no top pair lets their opponents have an easy ride. 3 doubled went down three so we won 8 imps.

Try this defensive problem:

Partner leads the 5 to your ace as declarer plays the 3. Partner likely has led a singleton. Which suit do you suit preference for?

Bakke suit preferenced for diamonds, which I initially categorized as an error. The natural play is to ask for a club continuation so you can give partner another spade ruff and set the contract. The diamond continuation appears to setup the fourth trick in diamonds while we still have the A. But declarer’s hand could be

KJ9x    AKxxxx    Ax    x

in which case he can pull trumps and discard his diamond loser on the fourth round of spades. On further contemplation, I realized that a club ask is not safe either as declarer can have something like

KJxx    AJ10xxx    Axx    –

On this layout, a club is a disaster as the diamonds disappear on the established club winners. Similarly if partner shows up with an unexpected Kxx of spades, giving declarer

Jx    AKJ109x    Axx    xx

a diamond is required.

While I initially categorized the diamond ask as a mistake now I’m not so sure. Perhaps one can reason that the first hand might get upgraded into a strong club so the second one is more likely.

As it was, neither “ask” mattered as declarer had no play in either case:

In the other room, Whibs found himself in an awkward OBAR (Opponents Bid And Raise) situation.

Partner would not expect such a strong hand for an OBAR 2 so he started with a double. At trick two, he asked for a club but Matt saw no reason for following that command as he would be ruffing with a natural trump trick. He played a diamond so that was +500 for another 7 imps to WHAM.

This hand featured another elegant push in a grand slam:

Bakke rebid his clubs (2 was game forcing) and when Boye raised with Qx, East was able to ask for keycard in clubs. When all the keycards were confirmed, he noted Boye’s encouraging 5NT bid over the redouble. 6 would have shown no interest in grand slam. The K gave him the confidence of 13 winners and he backed his view with a 7NT bid.

At the other table:

We moved forward with a 131-92 win. Our opponents in the final would be Shourie (Rajath Shourie, Gavin Wolpert, Vincent Demuy, John Kranyak, Kevin Bathurst, John Hurd) who had a narrow 108-102 win in their semi-final. The report on the final appears on page 18 of the February issue of Australian Bridge.