LONDON TROPHY FINALS – 2004
by Michael Hill

Queens Club in the late spring; an idyll in west London – but, on this occasion, for bridge, not tennis. The London Trophy, the LMBA competition for sports and social clubs, reached its climax there on Sunday, 23rd May. As usual, the climax consisted of the final of the Trophy itself, the play-off for third place between the losing semi-finalists and the final of the plate competition.

The three matches were:-

This showed an interesting predominance of golf clubs this year, including Farnham who were the trophy winners two years ago.
So often, the main interest is slam hands but, curiously enough, the most interesting hand of the day this time was a humble 1NT contract. This was not so much because of what did happen as because of what might have happened.

Board 14
Dealer East. Love all.

A62 J1043 K86 K104

10753 752 AQ103 J9 K8 KQ6 9754 A763

QJ94 A98 J2 Q852

At every table, South opened 1NT (interesting that none of them were playing a strong no trump) and at five of the tables, this silenced everyone else. The exception was in the plate final where the Coombe Hill East found a double in the pass-out seat – and, instead, this silenced everyone. Every West led a heart but, at five tables it was the three whilst, at the sixth, to maintain the individuality of the plate final, the Shortlands West chose the knave. Every East won and returned a heart, which declarer won to play a diamond. But this was where things began to diverge; the RAC South finessed the D10, the Shortlands South (who was doubled) ran the D9 and the rest finessed the DQ. Running the D9 appears to be the best play for four tricks in the suit – it gains when East has the singleton 6 or 8 – but, when there are only three diamond tricks, as here, the best overall play is less clear. Declarer may well benefit more from an early opportunity to lead a black suit from dummy – in which case, the best line in the diamond suit is to finesse the queen.

The Shortlands South won East’s heart continuation, took another diamond finesse, returned to the CA and then cashed the remaining diamonds. He exited with the CJ, which East won to play the SQ. There were no more tricks available to declarer on this line and he duly conceded one-off, doubled for –100.

South for the RAC also received a heart continuation and took another diamond finesse but he then ran the C9 to West’s 10. After cashing the fourth heart, West was reluctant to lead the suit declarer had played, so exited with a spade, so presenting declarer with his seventh trick.

Of those declarers who finessed the DQ, two tried an immediate spade to the king but were soon writing –50 on their cards. Wimbledon’s South delayed the evil moment; when the DQ held, she cashed the ace, gave up a trick to the king, won the heart continuation and cashed the fourth diamond. Only then did she play a spade to the king – but it made no difference; still –50.

The Old Actonians’ South did better, seeing prospects in the club suit. He led the CJ, covered by the queen and ace, so setting up scope for brilliancies by both declarer and defence. Alas, they were stillborn. He continued with a finesse of the D10, giving East the opportunity to switch to the SQ, leaving him no legitimate chance - but East prolonged the agony by clearing the hearts instead. However, declarer simply cashed his diamonds and played a spade to the king for –50.

So what were the missed brilliancy opportunities? If declarer had won the second round of diamonds (to keep East off lead), then cashed his remaining heart winner before exiting with the third round of diamonds, West would have been end-played. She could have cashed the long heart and the K10 of clubs but would then have had to lead away from the SA in the three-card ending. Except that, had she unblocked one of the big clubs under the ace at trick 4 then, in the above end-position, she could have cashed her remaining top club, killing dummy’s nine and crossed to her partner’s C8 for a spade lead though declarer. I wonder if Zia would have found that one!

Variety is said to be the spice of life, and a later board provided a reminder of that.



Board 20
Dealer West. Game all.

9765 AK97 Q87 32

8 Q53 932 QJ9764 AQJ32 10 AKJ K1085

K104 J8462 10654 A

5C is an excellent contract for North-South (the best line of play being to ruff out the SK which fails only when East has 5+ spades including the king and West has the DQ). The problem is bidding it. In practice, this board produced 5 different contracts and six different results. South opened 1S at every table of course but after that it was mayhem.

At both tables in the Plate, the Norths passed leaving their partners to play in 1S on the lead of the HA. After that, it looks as if South should make 9 tricks but one declarer emerged with ten, whilst the other contrived to hold himself to seven. At the other four tables, North responded 1NT. One South rebid 2S and played there. She, too, received the HA lead but she ended up with 8 tricks. The fourth South tried an adventurous 3NT rebid, which became the final contrace – but East led the obvious small heart and the defence had 5 tricks before declarer’s clubs could be established. The remaining two Souths rebid 3C (probably the text book action) but one North managed to pass that!

The eventual winners of the Trophy were the only ones to bid to 5C, which they did via 1S-1NT-3C-4C-4D-5C. They were not troubled in the play. After leading the HA, West tried to cash the HK, so declarer could in due course pitch the DJ on the HQ and cross-ruff the hand.


Results

Trophy:
RAC 2 bt Royal Wimbledon Golf Club 2 by 1140 aggregate points

Third place play-off:
Old Actonians bt Farnham Golf Club by 620 aggregate points

Plate:
Shortlands Golf Club bt Coombe Hill Golf Club by 330 aggregate points