We return to the TGR club in north London for the final stage of the trial to select England’s representatives for the Seniors Teams at the European Championships in Herning, Denmark this summer. The two teams in this final are MOSSOP (David Mossop, Gunnar Hallberg, John Holland and Alan Mould) and WARD (Trevor Ward, Rob Cliffe, Pat Shields and Richard Chamberlain).

The format of the final is a 112-board match divided into eight 14-board stanzas. When we left things after our last visit, the match was tied at 107-107 early in the fifth stanza.

As usual, we start with some problems. Firstly, with both sides vulnerable, you are West holding:

What action, if any, do you take?

If you pass, what action, if any, do you then take when North’s raise to 2♠ is passed back to you?

Next, with neither side vulnerable, you are sitting in the North seat with this extraordinary hand:

What do you bid?

Next, with neither side vulnerable, you hold in the South seat:

What action, if any, do you take?

Finally, with only your side vulnerable, you hold in the North seat:

What action, if any, do you take?

While you consider those, we begin late in the fifth stanza, with a deal on which one player seems to have been given a defective bidding box.

Gunnar Hallberg (left) opened a strategic 1♠ in third seat. Even so, I would be afraid to give the first of the problems above to an expert bidding panel, for fear that I would get a unanimous vote for a 2♥ overcall with comments such as “This is a problem?” I can only conclude that Richard Chamberlain had been given a bidding box with only pass cards in it.

The defenders duly came to a spade, a heart and two tricks in each of the minors, but E/W +100 seemed like poor compensation for the vulnerable game bonus that was available.

Perhaps the whole WARD team had been given the same defective bidding boxes, as Rob Cliffe gave his opponents an easier ride with his third-seat pass. John Holland (right) opened 1♥, Alan Mould used 4-card Drury to show a near maximum pass, and Holland jumped to game.

Not that 4♥ is a great contract. There is an unavoidable diamond loser, so declarer needed to find both the ♠A onside and to avoid losing a trick to the ♥J. With trumps 2-2 and the spade finesse working, fortune favoured the brave, as it so often seems to (and quite rightly too). E/W +620 and 11 IMPs to MOSSOP. On the final deal of the fifth set, the North players were dealt a most extraordinary hand, and they both had to answer the second of this week’s problems.

Trevor Ward (left) settled for a sedate 4♠. (Is that perhaps a case of bidding what you think you can make?) Alan Mould, who also held a fairly extraordinary hand, advanced with a 5♠ cue-bid, presumably in the hope that his partner could cue-bid clubs. Holland signed off in 6♥ and Ward understandably took out the insurance in 6♠. Mould accurately decided that he had done enough and doubled.

The defenders cashed the first three diamond tricks and declarer claimed the rest. N/S -300.

David Mossop (right) was a bit more adventurous, and he jumped to 5♠. Pat Shields advanced with 5NT, and I wonder if anyone was sure exactly what that meant in this auction. Offered an alternative strain, perhaps, Richard Chamberlain bid his six-card minor. When Mossop now bid a sixth spade, would Shields be tempted by the seven-level facing a club bid from his partner? No, he too doubled. N/S -300 and an exciting flat board to finish the set.

I wonder if either North considered jumping to 6♠ on the first round. Might East have then been pushed overboard into 7♥? The problem with such a strategy is that, you should beware of what you wish for, as you might get it. It’s a bit like when you pick up pocket kings playing poker. You’re delighted to get such an excellent hand, but it is remarkable how often you get all your chips into the pot only to find that your opponent has been dealt aces. Even if East does overreach and commit to a grand slam, would anyone dare to defend with that North hand? Surely not, so bidding the no play grand on the East cards would surely have gained 5 IMPs.

WARD won the fifth stanza 24-19, so MOSSOP led by 17 IMPs (126-109) with three sets remaining. WARD appeared to be getting the better of the exchanges in the sixth stanza, but then came a deal on which an aggressive pre-empt perhaps made it easier for the opponents to make a winning decision.

Alan Mould’s 1NT overcall left Richard Chamberlain (left) with the third of this week’s problems, and finding the winning action is not at all easy. Indeed, this is not an easy hand to bid whatever system you are playing. Consider the South hand if the auction had started Pass-1NT-Double-? where the opening 1NT is weak (12-14) and the double for penalties. Again, it is tough to jump to 4♥.

The defenders could only ever make two tricks against 3♥. N/S +200.

Attentive readers may have noted that John Holland did not open the West hand, which is hardly a surprise, as the one word that accurately describes John’s bidding is ‘sound’. Trevor Ward had no such qualms about unleashing his inner-junior…

Ward opened the ‘obvious’ weak 2♦, and Rob Cliffe (right) jumped to 3NT to leave Gunnar Hallberg in one of those “you do or you don’t” situations. Never one to take a back seat, Hallberg waded in with 4♥, which Cliffe was probably quite happy to double.

The club lead went to the queen and king, and Hallberg crossed to the ♠A to lead the ♥J, covered by queen and ace. Cliffe won the second round of hearts with the king and returned a club to dummy’s ace. A diamond ruff enabled declarer to draw the last trump and a third round of clubs now established the thirteenth card in that suit for a spade discard. N/S +690 and 10 IMPs to MOSSOP.

WARD won the stanza 23-21, so the MOSSOP lead was down to 15 IMPs (147-132) going into the penultimate set. Early in the seventh stanza, both North players had to answer a variant on the last of this week’s problems.

Having just seen a deal on which responder held a decent seven-card major but had to deal with a 1NT overcall, like London buses, another one came along right behind it. David Mossop judged to jump to 3♠ and heard Pat Shields (left) bid 4♣ on his left.

As a general principle, it is usually good for your side when the opponents play in a minor at the four-level in a competitive auction. However, holding this North hand, might East’s 4♣ bid not persuade you that partner is less likely to hold wasted values opposite your void? If partner has the right minimum, you could have a cold vulnerable game, so are you willing to defend 4♣?

David Mossop wasn’t. Richard Chamberlain’s double was his first clue that he had done the wrong thing. The second, and even bigger clue, was the sight of dummy.

However, the play’s the thing. Shields led a heart, Chamberlain winning with the ace and declarer following with the ♥Q. A second round of hearts was won with the ♥J, and Mossop led dummy’s trump, correctly rising with the king to spear East’s jack. A second round of trumps went to West’s queen and now Chamberlain made sure of beating the contract by cashing the ♦A before exiting with a third round of hearts. Presumably, he was concerned that declarer might hold a singleton diamond and a doubleton ♣K, but giving up an extra doubled, vulnerable undertrick to guard against an unlikely position (remembering East’s 4♣ bid) seems to me like too high a price to pay.

The defence ended with only two trump winners and two red aces. However, remember that N/S could have gone plus by defending 4♣? (Declarer loses two trumps and two hearts.) So, which side was the happier with E/W +200?

After an identical start to the auction, Alan Mould (right) was even more bullish on the East cards, bidding 3NT over North’s jump to 3♠. North’s decision is perhaps tougher here. The stakes are higher, as the opponents may be making 3NT. However, bidding is perhaps more dangerous. Does the fact that partner’s 1♦ opening is Precision-style make a difference? Probably not, as you can be fairly sure that he has a minimum opening bid anyway.

Like Mossop, Ward also decided on the hero or zero action. John Holland doubled and Mould made sure that there would be no accidents at this table by leading the ♦6. The defenders quickly took their two diamond winners and a diamond ruff. Holland still had the ♥A and two trump winners to come, so that was three down without the option. E/W +800 and 12 IMP to MOSSOP.

We are three boards into the seventh stanza, so there are 25 deals remaining in the match, and the MOSSOP lead now stands at 31 IMPs, 164-133.

We will be back soon with the conclusion of what has so far been an enthralling contest.