Welcome back to Marrakech, Morocco, where we have now completed five of the eight days play in the qualifying stage of all four competitions. (If you missed the action from Day 5, follow the link here: Day 5 in Marrakech).

We return today to the Venice Cup. A couple of days ago, we saw Poland, and now we get a look at the other big favourite in action. Coming into today’s encounter, Sweden have begun this tournament with a remarkable 16 consecutive winning matches, and yet they still trail Poland by 4.27 VPs at the top of the Venice Cup leader-board. Those two teams are about 30 VPs ahead of third-placed Turkiye who, in turn, are another 10 VPs clear of fourth-placed Norway.

Whilst the Swedes are cruising into the knockout stage, their opponents in this match are right on the bubble. Israel began today with a big win against New Zealand that moved them up into eighth place, with a 10-VP cushion ahead of ninth-placed China. This is a potential quarter-final preview, so let’s see how the Israeli women stand up against the might of the Swedish juggernaut.

As usual, we start with some problems. With only your side vulnerable, you are South holding:

East’s 2♦ opening shows a weak two in one of the Majors. What action, if any, do you take?

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

What action do you take?

Finally, with only your opponents vulnerable, you hold in the East seat:

South’s 1♣ opening is either natural or various ranges of balance hand without a 5-card major. North’s 1♥ response shows 4+ spades and South’s 1♠ shows 11-14 balanced without four spades. What action, if any, do you take?

The match began with an Israeli pair bidding to a no play game that cost them 6 IMPs. Then both South players had to answer the first of the questions posed above.

The Israeli pair never really got to grips with this combination. Dana Tal started with a 3♣ overcall, and Noga Tal’s 3♦ was alerted although not explained. (This is an auction that regular partnerships should have discussed as, with no obvious cue-bid available, it is not obvious what various bids by North mean.) Dana bid her second suit and now Noga supported clubs. Is it clear that 4♣ is forcing, as North surely intended it as such. South’s raise to 5♣ suggest that she did not think 4♣ was more than a game invitation.

The defenders took the ♥A and a heart ruff: N/S +600.

With a likely weak two in spades on her right, perhaps Emma Ovelius’s 2NT would not be everyone’s choice on this South hand, but it at least had the benefit of getting her strength across. Ida Gronkvist (left) advanced with Puppet Stayman and Ovelius showed a four-card major with 3♦. Gronkvist’s 3♥ said she held four spades and Ovelius denied a fit with 3NT. Gronkvist was thus left with a raise to the no-trump slam on power.

Declarer had 14 winners once the defenders had taken their ace: N/S +1440 and 13 IMPs to Sweden. The juggernaut had opened a 19-0 advantage after just two deals.

The large crowd watching live on BBO VuGraph did not have to wait long for the next significant swing. Board 5 was all about hand evaluation.

Louise Hallqvist (right) started with an artificial 2♣, and her 2NT rebid then showed a balanced 19-21. Ylva Johansson inquired with Muppet Stayman and Hallqvist’s 3♥ denied a 4-card or 5-card major. With her balanced 13-count, Johansson then judged her hand worth a quantitative 4NT. Despite the five-card suit, Hallqvist was at the bottom of her range with poor impletion, so she had a fairly obvious pass.

Slam is about an even proposition. A 3-2 club break gets declarer to eleven tricks, and she would then need one of the major-suit finesses to work or some sort of squeeze position for a twelfth trick. Once clubs failed to behave, declarer’s chances of making twelve tricks were severely reduced. E/W +460.

I have never been a fan of routinely upgrading hands in no-trump ranges. Yes, this East hand has a has a moderate five-card suit, but what else does it have going for it? For me, 18-19 balanced is a perfectly adequate description. When Hila Levi chose to open a 20-22 2NT, there was little for Adi Asulin to do other than raise to slam. The 4-1 club break soon put paid to declarer’s chances. E/W -50 and another 11 IMPs to the fast-mushrooming Swedish lead.

Although it did not generate a swing, Board 11 had points of interest in both the bidding and the play. To start, both North players had to deal with the second of the problems posed earlier.

Looking at just the N/S hands, you can see that you want to play in 3NT, which has the benefit of ten top tricks. The alternative game, 5♣, essentially needs to find the ♥K onside.

Can it cost for North to start with a double of 3♠? On this deal, is South not very likely to bid 3NT? If partner bids either 4♦ or 4♥ in response to your double, you can then bid 5♣, which is effectively what you are doing by bidding 4♣ on the first round.

Then there is the play. East led the ♠10 against Noga Tal’s 5♣. Declarer won, rumbled some trumps, and eventually played the ♥A and a second heart towards the queen. East held the king, so Tal was able to claim eleven tricks. N/S +400.

The auction began the same way here, and Ida Gronqvist also committed her partnership to the minor-suit game. Serious partnerships might be interested to see the meaning of the 4♣/4♥ bids switched even at this high level. There is no great benefit when responder holds clubs, but there are significant advantages to being able to bid 4♣ to show a game-forcing hand with hearts.

Emma Ovelius (left) played 5♣ from the short hand on the lead of the ♠K, but her play was much more considered. She won with the ♠A and led a low club to the ace. Then came a diamond to the ace and a diamond ruff, followed by exiting with the ♠J. West won, and would have been endplayed if she started with something like KQxxxxx/Kxx/Qx/x. As the cards lie, it made no difference, but it was still a thoughtful line of play to provide an extra chance. N/S +400 and a push.

Emma Ovelius opened with a multi-purpose 1♣, which was either natural or various ranges of balance hand without a 5-card major. North’s 1♥ response showed 4+ spades and South’s 1♠ showed 11-14 balanced without four spades. When North retreated to 1NT, it is reasonable to assume that the auction was about to end. Hila Levi was thus left with the last of today’s problems. Would you come in on that East hand?

When the opponents find a fit, it is a fairly safe bet that your side will also have a fit somewhere. However, there is a corollary to that – when the opponents have not found a fit, your side will often not have one either. The odds are also that the opponents, with both of them bidding, are likely to hold the balance of the high cards. I’ve heard all the theories about not allowing the opponents to play 1NT, but it is still a mystery to me why East would want to get her side into the auction at the two-level with less than half of the points and probably no fit.

Perhaps West might have considered passing the double on the basis that doing so may be the cheapest evil. Adi Asulin bid a reluctant 2♦ and Ida Gronkvist doubled to show a maximum with an interest in competing. Ovelius knew exactly what to do with that.

Gronkvist got off to a good start, opening the ♦A. A heart switch would then have paved the way for +800. When she instead switched to a club, declarer was able to engineer a club ruff in her hand, and South eventually got endplayed to give declarer a trick with the ♥K. N/S +500 on a deal they were going to play in 1NT still looked like a good result for the Swedes.

Dana Tal (right) rebid an 11-14 1NT. 2♣ was a puppet to 2♦ and 2NT was then an invitational raise. With 10 HCP facing 13, this was an optimistic auction but the fate of the IMPs came down to Ylva Johansson, on lead with the West cards. Essentially, the defenders need to remove the ♦A from dummy before the clubs are established. A diamond lead, or a spade lead enabling East to win and switch would both defeat the contract.

When Johansson led a heart, declarer was home. By knocking out the ♣A, declarer had four clubs, three hearts and two diamonds: N/S +600 and 3 IMPs to Israel.

The final deal of the match was a complete mess in both rooms, and the actual details are too scary for us to print in a family publication. E/W could make 6♣ (although only one Venice Cup pair, the Chinese, managed to get there). In our match, both E/W pairs played 4♠ on a 4-3 fit. In both rooms, it turned out to be one of those hands on which declarer could always make the contract, then they gave the defenders a chance, but the defenders handed the contract back, etc. In the end, it was the Swedes who blinked, making the last mistake at both tables. Thus, the Israeli West emerged with ten tricks while the Swedish declarer finished with only eight. 13 IMPs to Israel reduced the margin of the Swedish victory to 38-28. That is now 17 consecutive wins and still counting. Will they ever lose?

We will be back soon as the qualifying stage nears the end and teams battle for those priceless quarter-final places.

To see the action from Day 7 follow this link.