We return to the national capital, Canberra, for the Australian Summer Festival. A total of 77 teams lined up at the start of the South-West Pacific Teams, a 12-round Swiss competition. After two days of play, the top eight teams advanced to the quarter-final stage of the National Open Teams. These were the standings at the end of the Swiss stage.

LAZER and MINSK had both won 10 of their 12 matches, whilst the team captained by Jamie Thompson had won only eight, but the top two teams finished well clear of the field, both in VPs and in IMPs gained. The original #1 seeds (HANS) had missed out completely, finishing in 11^th place. The original #3 seeds, captained by Ben Thompson, had just squeaked into the knockout stage in eighth place, but no one wanted to choose them as their quarter-final opponents. The quarter-final line-ups were thus:

Matches are of 64 boards divided into four 16-board segments. As usual, we start with a couple of problems. Firstly, with both sides vulnerable, you are North holding:

What action, if any, do you take?

Next, with both sides vulnerable, you are sitting in the North seat with:

What do you bid?

While you consider those, we start our coverage in the early stages of the match between the Swiss winners, LAZER, and WESTON. A very dull opening stanza finished 16-5 to LAZER. The first significant swing of the match came due a quirk of system. At one table, South opened a 15-17 1NT and North passed with his 3-4-4-2 7-count. That was +180 when the cards lie well for declarer. In the replay, they were playing a weak no-trump, so South opened 1♥. North made a Bergen raise and the cold 4♥ was thus easily reached for 10 IMPs to WESTON. Midway though the set, came this rather curious deal.

You may not agree with any of the bids made by N/S at this table, but it is hard to dispute their success. Neil Ewart’s 1♦ transfer response, showing hearts, left Bruce Neill with a tough decision on the East cards. Most serious partnerships would play a double here as showing diamonds, with a 1♥ cue-bid showing a hand that would have doubled after a natural 1♣-Pass-1♥ start to the auction. With this hand, although clearly not close to a takeout double of the rounded suits, would East not have doubled a natural heart response as he is simply too strong for anything else? Does that mean he should start with a 1♥ cue-bid now?

Rightly or wrongly, Neill doubled 1♦. It is clear that Ron Klinger (left) took the double as showing diamonds, as he competed with a ‘raise’ to 2♦ after South had rebid 1♥ (showing a minimum with three-card heart support). Did Neill now think that his partner was stronger than this for 2♦? Did he think that 2♠ now was forcing? With this dreadful hand, can you blame Klinger for passing 2♠, no matter what his partner thought it was? What other contract was East contemplating? Perhaps a jump to 4♠ at his second turn would have been more pragmatic in what was clearly a murky auction.

That even such experienced players had trouble with what is now a fairly common situation illustrates how tricky competitive bidding can sometimes be.

After the lead of the ♥J, declarer duly made an embarrassing twelve tricks in 2♠: E/W +230. And, yet, that could (and should) have been a winning board for E/W…

I’m sure that Andrew Braithwaite (right) did not expect to end up declaring a major-suit game when he picked up this West hand. South opened a weak 1NT, which was passed around to East. Quite why Arjuna de Livera did not start with a penalty double on his 20-count, is beyond me. I know it is fairly standard to play a double as showing some competitive one- or two-suited hand over a strong 1NT opening, but surely no one plays non-penalty doubles of a weak no-trump opening, do they? Whether he had a penalty double available or not, de Livera chose to come in with 2♣, showing both majors. With six low clubs, no major-suit support, and a 5-count, Braithwaite had an obvious pass on the West, which left David Weston with the first of the problems from the top of this article.

When you saw the problem, you may have wondered why I posed it. Surely, you probably thought, no one would be mad/naïve enough to bid here when you know that the opponents hold both majors and the majority of the high cards. (If they want to play in 2♣, Hooray!)

As you can see from the auction above, you would be wrong. Weston got exactly what his 2♦ deserved, as it let East off the hook for his original failure to start with a penalty double of the weak 1NT opening. De Livera cue-bid with 3♦ when he was given a second chance. Braithwaite gave reluctant preference to spades, and de Livera raised to game.

Braithwaite ruffed the opening diamond lead in dummy and crossed to the ♥A. A trump to dummy then allowed him to ruff a heart with his remaining trump. A club to the ace now enabled declarer to draw trumps and claim 11 tricks when the hearts behaved. A very strange E/W +620 and 9 IMPs to LAZER when it could have been 3 IMPs in the other column.

WESTON won the second stanza 38-18 and they thus led by 9 IMPs (43-34) at the midway stage of the match. Only one of the other quarter-finals was close: DALLEY and B. THOMPSON were tied at 59-59. The gaps were more significant in the other two matches, MINSK ahead of ASHTON 87-61 and J. THOMPSON leading by a score of 93-58 against TRAVIS.

There might have been no difference at halftime in the match between DALLEY and J. THOMPSON, but the third set was all one-way traffic.

It is almost impossible to stop out of game with a combined 28-count. N/S had a choice of three game contracts on this early deal, but they could all be beaten. So, perhaps you might have expected this to be a flat board with some game or other going down at both tables. If you want to test your defence, cover all but the East hand at this first table.

We’ll come back to the bidding. After hearing the auction shown, Matthew Thomson started by cashing three high hearts, West signalling a doubleton and then discarding a diamond on the third round. How should East continue at trick four?

Thomson switched to a club. New Zealander Ashley Bach (left) won and now had to guess the trumps to make his contract. Both defenders followed to two rounds and West produced the remaining low spade when the third trump was led from dummy. It’s a close decision. East had begun with five hearts to West’s two, so the vacant spaces argument suggests that West is slightly more likely to hold the ♠J. How highly do you rate the defensive abilities of the player in the East seat? Does the club switch at trick four suggest that trumps are breaking 3-3? Bach eventually went up with the ♠A and thus the contract went down. N/S -100.

Did you spot winning defence? If East continues with a fourth round of hearts, declarer has no answer. It’s a ruff and discard, but he cannot afford to ruff in either hand. If he ruffs in hand, then West has the long trump. If he ruffs with dummy’s low spade, West does not overruff of course, but declarer now has no way to pick up West’s ♠J and the contract must fail.

Let’s go back now to the second of this week’s problems. How North should respond to his partner’s double of 1♥ is an interesting question in itself, with 1♠, 2♣, 2♠ and 3♣ all being viable options. The sequence adopted by Bach above at least landed his side in a contract that had a chance, making whenever spades are 3-3 and on some layouts with a doubleton ♠J too.

Renee Cooper started with a 2♣ response to the takeout double. Here, too, South continued with a 2♥ cue-bid. Cooper’s 2♠ now seems rather timid, although this sequence should show some values as you would have responded 1♠ with a very weak 4-x-x-5 hand. Even so, is this hand not worth a jump to 3♠ on the second round? Having bid only 2♣ initially, how much better can you be?

Ben Thompson (right) corrected to 3♣, and now Cooper advanced with a 3♥ cue-bid, asking for a stopper. Who can blame Thompson for bidding 3NT in the hope that his J-x-x was the half stopper his partner needed opposite something like Q-x. As you can see, the N/S heart stopper here is not as robust as they might like.

I teach my students to lead their partner’s suit unless they have a reason for not doing so. What do you think of the West hand on this deal? Do you find the diamond lead selected by Tony Nunn sufficiently compelling? Declarer certainly did as he happily wrapped up twelve tricks. N/S +690 and 13 IMPs to B. THOMPSON.

Bach opened with a weak 2♠ and Matthew Thomson (left) had a routine natural 2NT overcall. Arlene Dalley did what she could with a competitive raise to the three-level, which left a tricky decision for Peter Newman, a former World junior medallist for Australia. Should he try to get one or more of his suits into the auction, perhaps with a natural 4♣ or via a takeout double of 3♠? Newman’s raise to game in no-trumps was another viable option, and ensured that his side avoided any of the potential pitfalls on this deal.

South led a spade, declarer capturing the ♠K with his ace and advancing the ♣Q, covered by king and ace. Conceding a club trick to South’s jack gave Thomson ten tricks. South’s switch to the ♥J, covered all round, then allowed declarer to establish his eleventh trick by knocking out the ♥10. E/W +660.

Renee Cooper did not open the North hand, so E/W had the auction to themselves. Tony Nunn began with Stayman and then transferred to clubs with his 2NT rebid. Paul Dalley completed the transfer and then supported clubs at the four-level after Nunn’s 3♦. A series of cue bids encouraged Dalley to roll out Blackwood. Despite finding two aces opposite, slam was a lousy proposition. Declarer lost a club and a heart: E/W -100 and another 13 IMPs to B. THOMPSON.

The match may have been tied at the mid-point break, but it had quickly become a one-sided affair. B. THOMPSON won the third stanza 60-1 and thus led by 59 IMPs with one set to play. Elsewhere, ASHTON regained only 3 IMPs in the third stanza, so they still trailed MINSK, by 93-126. WESTON added another 3 IMPs to their advantage in the lowest-scoring match, and now led the Swiss winners, LAZER, 61-52. The final encounter had become tight again, TRAVIS winning the third stanza 57-25 and they now trailed J. THOMPSON by only 3 IMPs, 115-118. Let’s take a look at the fourth-set action from that final match.

The match score had advanced to 127-122 when Board 22 arrived at the tables.

Robert Fruewirth’s 2♣ overcall got things going for the defensive bidders. Both players showed good appreciation for their playing strength, enabling Jamie Thompson (right) to suggest game in no-trumps.

Joachim Haffer opened the ♥3 but, with plenty of other chances available, Thompson was not prepared to put all of his eggs into the heart finesse basket. Winning with the ♥A, Thompson rattled off six club tricks. East had to find four discards, and threw two hearts, one diamond and one spade. One winning option now is to exit with a heart. Winning with the now-bare ♥K, East would be forced either to lead away from the ♠A or into declarer’s diamond tenace. At the table, Thompson knew enough to play a diamond. Even if the finesse lost, East would be able to cash the ♥K but would then be endplayed. With West holding the ♦K, declarer had nine easy tricks. N/S +400.

At this table, Michael Whibley got things rolling at the two-level, his 2♦ opening showing 6-10 HCP and at least 5-4 either way round in the Majors. Brad Coles, the Editor of the International Bridge Press Association Bulletin, was not prepared to go quietly, and entered with a 3♣ overcall. Mindful of Marty Bergen’s observation that “Colours are for Children”, one surely has to be a little circumspect at red. With an ill-fitting 6-count facing at most a 10-count, I have to question the wisdom of Tony Leibowitz’s decision to try even to compete the partscore. Such bids so often hand the opponents something akin to fielder’s choice at baseball. If they think they can make a game they are going to bid it anyway. If they don’t, they simply collect a decent penalty from doubling you. However, on this layout, the 3♥ bid did present a problem for Leibowitz’s opponents.

In theory, David Appleton (left) could have bid 3NT now, likely flattening the board, but that was hardly obvious looking at two low hearts. Appleton therefore advanced by showing something in spades in the hope that his partner could bid game from his side. Now N/S were in trouble. Coles would probably have bid 3NT with his good hearts, and that would have given Leibowitz a chance to beat game with the ♠Q lead. The same lead would also have been a winner had N/S instead opted for game in their long minor.

With his opening bid and his partner’s dubious action having created the chance for a game swing in his side’s favour, Whibley then undid all his side’s good work by taking another bid. I don’t know the ins and outs of their system, but was West’s 3♥ really invitational in this auction? If that is the partnership agreement, then West’s 3♥ bid is clearly absurd. Much more likely is that Leibowitz intended 3♥ as just an obstructive increase to the pre-empt, and Whibley had no real excuse for bidding again. Whatever the reasoning, East’s 4♥ left Coles with the easiest of doubles. Rather than collecting a plus score and +10 IMPs by beating 3NT played from the wrong side, East had willingly put his head into the noose and jumped off the platform. The defenders made no mistake, holding declarer to just seven tricks. N/S +800 and 9 IMPs to TRAVIS.

TRAVIS won the final stanza 37-14 and the match by 20 IMPs (152-132). If the rest of the set had remained exactly the same, then the 19 IMPs thrown away on Board 22 would not have been quite enough to turn the result around. Who knows, though, perhaps they could have found that odd 1 IMP on a later board.

Remarkably, only one of the teams leading at the start of the last stanza held on to win. That was B. THOMPSON, who added to their advantage in the final set to win 152-76. The winners of the Swiss qualifier earlier in the week won the final stanza of their match by 30-7, thus overturning a 9-IMP deficit to win by 14 IMPs, 82-68 in a very low-scoring match. The biggest comeback was produced by ASHTON, who had trailed by 33 IMPs going into the final stanza. They won the set 60-15 to eke out a 12-IMP win, 153-141.

In the semi-finals, it will be LAZER v ASHTON and B. THOMPSON v TRAVIS.

We will be back soon with the highlights from those two semi-finals.