|
Bols Tip (7) Per Olov Sundelin |
|
Per Olov Sundelin is one of the Swedish bridge players who have brought their country to the front rank, reviving the days when Kock-Werner, Lilliehöök-Anulf and, later, Wohlin, were the best in Europe.
Sundelin has represented his country consistently since 1963, captaining the team in 1972 and 1973. Having knocked on the door several times, Sweden won the 1977 European Championship in Denmark by a clear margin. The team was disappointed by its performance in the World Teams Championship (contesting the Bermuda Bowl) later, where it finished third to the U.S.A. and Italy. But that year was the start of a long (it spans almost half a century so far) and distinguished career (mostly in team events though: apparently Sundelin is more inclined to IMP than MP play). His most notable results are:
- European Teams Championships: gold twice (1977, 1987), silver twice (1991, 2004) and bronze once (1989).
- World Teams Championship (contesting the Bermuda Bowl): three times bronze (1977, 1987, 1991), only narrowly missing a fourth time as late as 2005.
Furthermore he was in Swedish teams who took bronze in the 1988 Olympiad and silver in the Philip Morris European Cup 1988 and the European Champions' Cup 2005.
On top of that he has been or still is active as a Daily Bulletin editor and journalist, VuGraph commentator, Appeals Committee Member and member of the WBF (World Bridge Federation) Systems Committee.
A system analyst by profession, Per Olov is a great party man and speaks English so well that he makes clever puns in the language! The deals he describes below are not inventions – they represent his own experiences in the 1976 Monte Carlo Olympiad, where Sweden achieved another good result: 5th.
His tip, which begins on similar lines to that of Charles Goren (to read that, click: Bridge Tip Charles Goren), is entitled: 'Be bold when you are defending.' Sundelin's Bridge Tip: If you can’t see yourself beating the contract by winning the trick, DUCK IT – even at the cost of a trick. |
|
Read on
|
|
Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't - Exercise 3 |
|
This is the last of three exercises following the article 'Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't ***, which has been published earlier.
To read that article, click Ruffing at bridge play.
For exercise 1, click: Ruffing at bridge play- Exercise 1.
For exercise 2, click: Ruffing at bridge play- Exercise 2. | S/All | ♠ | Q 10 8 | | | | ♥ | 8 5 4 | | ♦ | Q 7 6 5 2 | | ♣ | 10 3 | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | ♠ | A K J 9 5 | | | ♥ | A 3 2 | | ♦ | A K 10 8 | | ♣ | A |
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| — | —
| — | 2♣1 | | pass | 2♦2 | pass | 2♠ | | pass | 4♠3 | pass | 6♠4 | pass
| pass
| pass
| |
1 Game forcing
2 Relay
3 Weak, but not North's weakest possible bid, since instead of 4♠ he could have bid 3♣ (second negative), raising to 4♠ next: this way he would have promised a bust
4 See 3: North shows some strength, so South takes the plunge
West leads the ♣K.
How should South play? |
|
Solution
|
|
Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't - Exercise 2 |
|
This is the second of three exercises following the article 'Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't ***, which has been published earlier.
To read that article, click Ruffing at bridge play.
For exercise 1, click: Ruffing at bridge play- Exercise 1. | E/All | ♠ | 6 5 4 | | | | ♥ | A 8 5 4 | | ♦ | A J 7 6 4 3 | | ♣ | —
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ♠ | A J 7 | | | ♥ | 9 | | ♦ | K Q 10 9 8 5 | | ♣ | Q J 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| — | —
| pass | 1♦ | | pass | 1♥ | pass
| 2♦ | | pass | 4♣1 | pass | 4♥2 | | pass | 5♦3 | pass | 6♦4 | | pass | pass | pass | |
1 Splinter: singleton or void in clubs; diamond fit; slam invitational
2 Control showing (a dangerous bid, since most pairs would consider this 4♥ bid to show a playable spot; meaning South tells North he may pass if his — North's — slam try was a minimal one; North would then be expecting something like ♥Kxx in South. This NS-pair, however, has agreed that 4♣ rules out hearts as trumps)
3 I've done enough
4 North has shown willingness to play 6♦ but has denied a spade control; since South has the ♠A and a very good hand (in view of his 2♦ bid) he surely must bid the slam
Perhaps North was a bit too eager, for this slam is too ambitious.
West leads the ♣3. How should South play? |
|
Solution
|
|
|
Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't - Exercise 1 |
|
This is the first of three exercises following the article 'Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't ***, which has been published earlier.
To read that article, click Ruffing at bridge play. | N/All | ♠ | J | | | | ♥ | J 8 2 | | ♦ | 9 7 5 4 3 | | ♣ | A 8 7 3 | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | ♠ | A K Q 7 6 5 4 | | | ♥ | 7 6 | | ♦ | A K | | ♣ | 6 4 |
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| — | pass
| 1♥ | 4♠ | | pass | pass | pass | |
West leads the ♥9 to East's ♥Q. East continues with the ♥K (West contributing the ♥3) and the ♥A.
How should South play? |
|
Solution
|
|
Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't |
|
This article contains a piece of theory, in this case about 'Ruffing: sometimes it's good... but sometimes it isn't', followed by some examples.
During November 2010 three exercises will follow, one in each of the next three weeks. Click 'Varia***' to read them or click the link below this article to read the first one. We establish a suit as trump suit because we have more cards in that suit than the opponents (if the bidding has been good, that is). That way our side is in control; we can compensate for our weaknesses with trumps, for instance by ruffing a suit played by the defenders.
Still, many situations occur in which we should refrain from ruffing. There can be many different reasons for not ruffing: preserving an entry, preventing an overruff or losing trump control.
Three examples from IMP play: |
|
Read on
|
|
In the Daily Bulletin of the Bridge World Series 2010 (the combined World Championships for Pairs and Open World Championships for teams), played in Philadelphia in October, Zia Mahmood offered an unusual quiz. It featured a deal from the individual round of the recently concluded 2010 Buffett Cup, which was played in Wales. It was the third time that this biennial clash — similar to the Ryder Cup in golf — between Europe and the USA took place.
To set the scene, here is the dummy and declarer's hand (rotated from the original positions): | | ♠ | 10 7 5
| | | | ♥ | A 9 6 3
| | ♦ | J 5 2
| | ♣ | 8 7 2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ♠ | A K Q 9
| | | ♥ | K 7 5
| | ♦ | K 9 7 3
| | ♣ | J 4
|
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| — | — | — | 1NT | pass
| pass | pass | |
West led the ♠3.
Zia reports that four different declarers played the ♠10 at trick one. When it held, each of the four took a different line of play, as follows: Declarer A played a low club to the ♣J and West's ♣K. The deception was not effective, however, and declarer finished three down. Declarer B played a low diamond to his ♦K. When that lost, he too was three down. Declarer C played a second spade to hand, noting East's discard of a low club, and exited with a low diamond from hand. Declarer C made 1NT, later guessing to play East for the ♦10. Declarer D also played a second spade, and East at this table also discarded a low club. A third round of spades brought another club discard from East, after which declarer D exited with a low club. He also made 1NT. The full deal: | | ♠ | 10 7 5
| | | | ♥ | A 9 6 3
| | ♦ | J 5 2
| | ♣ | 8 7 2
| | ♠ | J 8 6 3 2
| | ♠ | 4
| | ♥ | Q J
| ♥ | 10 8 4 2
| | ♦ | A 8 4
| ♦ | Q 10 6
| | ♣ | K 9 6
| ♣ | A Q 10 5 3
| | | ♠ | A K Q 9
| | | ♥ | K 7 5
| | ♦ | K 9 7 3
| | ♣ | J 4
|
The quiz that Zia has put forth is regarding the four declarers: himself, Bob Hamman, Boye Brogeland and Antonio Sementa. See if you can match the name to the line of play. |
|
Solution
|
|