{"id":372,"date":"2010-11-08T08:00:27","date_gmt":"2010-11-08T08:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bridgehands.com\/bridgeblog\/?p=372"},"modified":"2010-11-22T03:23:34","modified_gmt":"2010-11-22T03:23:34","slug":"5th-world-university-bridge-championship-%e2%80%93-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bridgehands.com\/bridgeblog\/?p=372","title":{"rendered":"5th World University Bridge Championship \u2013 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Continuing on our review of the exciting 5th World University Bridge Championship, round three reviewed more insights into the abilities, cunning, and tournament team competition.\u00a0 As play continues day after day, regardless of ones age the intensity of competition can take its toll on a player.\u00a0 Okay, let’s head for the tables and kibitz a few boards. <\/strong>See here for Round 1<\/strong><\/a> and Round 2<\/a>. Board 1 started off peacefully enough with our players in a Diamond part score.\u00a0 But then came boards 2-4, most in 3 Notrump contracts with dramatic results!\u00a0
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

See hand records here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Board 2 – see details here<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Dealer: E
\nVul: N\/S<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\"\" 2<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" 10 3 2<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" A K 9 8<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" J 8 7 6 5<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\"\" 8 6 3<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" A J 7 6<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" Q J 10<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" A Q 9<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\"\"<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\"\" A Q J 10 4<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" 8 4<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" 7 6 4 3<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" K 2<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\"\" K 9 7 5<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" K Q 9 5<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" 5 2<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\"\" T 4 3<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

After West opens a minor, responder East bids 1 Spade and opener rebids 1 Notrump (with a few weak Notrump openers having a different auction).\u00a0 For the Notrump rebidders, one wonders if a fair number of players do not play a checkback mechanism (New Minor Force<\/a>, etc) to find a 5-3 Spade fit on this hand.\u00a0 Or do you think that perhaps responder East didn’t value the hand as and invitation hand with 11 distribution points (one extra for the good 5 card spade suit)?\u00a0 Well, as luck would have it, the 3 Notrump contract rolls home nicely while those in a Spade game find themselves short two tricks.\u00a0 What do you suppose is going on here? Perhaps some of our cunning West players denied showing three card suit, eh?\u00a0 Taking a closer look a West’s hand, with 3=4=3=3 holding, the shapeless hand has no ruffing values.\u00a0 And with the soft Diamond Q-J-10 holding those slow trick suggest, if not beg, a Notrump game.\u00a0 So those in 3 Notrump game picked up\u00a0 close to 10 IMPs.\u00a0 And one of the North\/South teams – best to remain nameless, figured vulnerability must be for sissies.\u00a0 While competing in part score has its time and place, the mystery pair bid-em-up to a remarkable 3 Heart contract in the South, going down four <\/strong>doubled for<\/strong><\/strong> a painful 1100 points.\u00a0 Ouch.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Players were asked about special habits before the game:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\t\t