Semifinals - USA1

After the Canada match, we had the evening and night off, so we were treated to a chinese restaurant feast by our NPC. It took some time before we realised that how much we achieved. Everyone was happy but pretty tired by then. It is amazing how much emotional and mental stress there is in this 'game' of bridge.

It wasn't a surprise that the winners of RR, USA1 chose us as opponents. From our point of view, looking at the rest of qualifiers, Poland and Italy, it didn't seem much of a difference, we surely need to play very well to even stay with them.

The format of the semis and playoff is a 4 segments of 16 boards ,total 64 boards match to be held over a day. The finals would be 6 segments of 16 boards, a 96 boards match. Whoever comes out on top at the end of such a long trial would surely deserve their victory. USA1 would have a carry over of 15.5 imps by virtue of their RR win over us, mark this value of 15.5 imps. In the other semifinal , Poland will start with a 1-imp carryover.

For PABF Zone 6, only one team, Thailand have made it to the knockout stages before. There, they finished second in the RR but lost both matches in the knockout to placed fourth overall. Thus, our immediate goal is to win at least one match to grab at least a podium finish. It may seem very superficial now but truthfully, we were all quite exhausted after the long RR and our third pair deserves a run-out after so much rest. Thus, our lineup for the first 2 segments at least, were for our 2 pairs to take turns to rest and we'll react accordingly after that.

Thus we take our seats in the match against USA (Kelvin and Liyu are to rest first):

♠ 9 7 3 2
♥ A K 9
♦ 9 2
♣ K J 5 4


♠ A K J
♥ T 7 5 3 2
♦ A T 8
♣ 9 8

With South's hand opening, where would you play in?

Well, in the 2 semifinal matches, only our opps at the table managed to stay in 3H. When trumps were 4-1, he needed to guess clubs to make 3. That he did and an early 6 imps for USA.

You would expect high quality bridge in the semifinals of a world championships, yet it is sometimes consoling that even world class players can mess up 'simple deals:

♠ K 6 5
♥ A K 8 6
♦ 7 5 4 3
♣ Q 9


♠ A J T 9 2
♥ Q 7 4
♦ A Q T
♣ T 4

At most tables, it is trivial to bid to 4S making on a natural finesse of the S. Grue and Kranyak at the other table settled in 3NT though and escaped a club lead. Still, declarer misguessed the S and went down for another 12 imps to us. After 6 boards, we nearly made up the carry-over deficit leading 16-5 imps.

That was as close as we got, USA began to play well and poured on the imps, winning the first segment 53-23 imps. In the other match, Italy jumped to a 45-26 lead over the Polish.

It was still early in the match and nothing to panic about. We rested for the second segment, which proved to be a good choice as the boards were explosive. A total of 200+ imps exchanged hands in the 2 semifinals, phenomenal! Since I wasn't playing in the segment, I invited Kelvin to narrate on the hands..here is his piece:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having played 11 rounds of round robin under the most nerve wrecking conditions to qualify for the knockouts, I badly needed a break. As I had also not been playing to my best form in the round robin, I could utilize this break from the intense atmosphere in the playing rooms to try finding my form. However, this break was hardly relaxed. Watching our teammates succumb by 30 imps in the first set means I would have another “mountain” to climb when I come on to play again.

Nevertheless, I was raring to go, determined to seek revenge for a terrible set against USA1 in the round robin match on vugraph. And I had a game plan against the Americans this time.

My screen-mate was Joe Grue, the star of this tournament who had been credited for the American comeback in the Finals last year in Sydney. I had been looking forward to playing against these great players and having the chance at the knockout stage was yet another motivation. We started well on the first board when Kranyak chose to X our 4H with his K9752 in trumps, -100 after a misdefence when 5S was cold on their side. 11 imps to us when teammates played in 5SXC.

Board 2:
You hold
973
QJ5
73
A9742

The bidding went 1S 2S 3H 4S. After winning the lead with the Ace of club, what would be your return?

Dummy
K82
K63
QJT86
J5

I could return D seeking a ruff to defeat the contract or I could also return the Q of H to establish the H tricks if declarer’s H holdings are weak. Having no clue, I chose the latter line which turned out to be wrong and 4S was made. 6 imps away when our teammates settled in 2S making 4.

On board 4, 12 imps were lost when our teammates were doubled in an overly optimistic 4S after a light support was made to the 1S opening bid.

On Board 5,
Grue opened 1NT(13-15) and Liyu doubled to show any opening+ hand. Kranyak took out a 4D texas transfer and the tray came to me. I decided to take a gamble and bid the risky 4S bid looking confidently in the hope of attracting a sacrifice at this unfavourable vulnerability. It worked spectacularly when Grue went to 5H, promptly doubled by me. This phantom sac went 2 down for +300 and 13 imps to us when our teammates managed to make 4H+1 on the D lead away from the K. It was satisfying when Grue smiled at me knowingly for my “gross” overbid had led him into the phantom sacrifice.

A further 12 imps were dropped on Board 7 when our teammates lost their way, ending up in 4S with

AK974
T7
JT854
K

Opposite
3
A9542
AQ9
AJT7

after a 1H opening by the opponents. Grue and Kranyak made 3NT easily at our table and this result was duplicated in the other semi final.


At the halfway stage, it certainly felt like we are having a rejuvenated for the knockouts and things are certainly looking better. On the subsequent board, I opened weak 1NT with
♠ K T 7 3
♥ A 6 3
♦ A Q T 4
♣ 4 3
Playing in 3NTX on the 4 of spade lead after my LHO had overcalled in Spades, it was unlikely that this contract would succeed unless it was played double dummy. (I only had a chance at double dummy if I took the triple finesse against my LHO in diamonds). However the bold playing style of Joe is illustrated when at this point in time,
♠ A 8
♥ J 8 4
♦ 8 7 6 3
♣ A J 9 2

at the 4 card ending, I had already garnered 2 spade tricks, 2 club tricks, 3 diamond tricks. When I exited the 4th diamond to Kranyak, Grue could have discard a spade and wait for partner’s heart return for a sure down 1. However, he boldly discarded the heart, leaving his Q bare. When Kranyak returned a heart, I wondered if there was an endplay position in which Kranyak had to lead away from his Q, which was possible if he began with QTxx of Hearts. Besides, which player would bare his heart honour and risk giving me a chance to make when keeping the H honour protected would be a sure defeat of the contract? So I played small from hand, staring in amazement when the bare Q won the trick and Grue claiming the rest of the tricks. I was hence down 2 instead of 1 in this doubled contract. I was outfoxed by the defending champion on this hand. Well deserved imps by my opponents!

The end position (with East still to discard):

♠ T
♥ A 6
♦ 4
♣
----------------♠ Q 9
----------------♥ Q 9
----------------♦
----------------♣ T

♠
♥ J 8
♦ 3
♣ 9

Grue returned his second knowing smile.
The next board proved to be another opportunity for fireworks.
LHO opened 4H and my partner doubles. You hold

♠ Q 8 2
♥ A 5 3 2
♦ K 6
♣ T 8 4 2

What would u bid?
I believe the expert opinion might be to pass on this distribution, however I felt my heart pips indicate that 4H if it was down would not be down much. I ventured a 4S bid which was doubled by Kranyak on my right. I gleefully ran to 5C which was also doubled by RHO but imagine his horror when dummy came down with

♠ A K 6 4
♥ 6
♦ 5 2
♣ A Q J 9 6 5

5CX was made easily, losing 1 D and the K of clubs. Grue gave me his third knowing smile.

Luck was further on our side when we stayed out of slam on board 13 when both black Kings were offside. Slam rates to make as long as one of them was onside.

It felt that we had a pretty good set and thought the deficit must be narrowed after this set. This high scoring set turned out to be 64-56 in our favour. We are playing our best foursome in the next segment and with new found confidence, there was hope to mount a comeback.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So , at the halfway stage, we pulled back a few imps but still were 124.5-87 (inclusive of carryover) behind in imps. For the next segment, we went back into the fray, a move that may not be too wise...