I always meet dozens of BBO members for the first time at major tournaments. I have no idea who most of these people are, but it is always nice to hear their (mostly positive!) comments about BBO. I occasionally meet someone who I have previously met online and, strangely, they are almost always completely different from what I had been expecting.
Near the end of the Dallas tournament, a young lady who I had never seen before came up to me and told me she was a BBO member. I immediately guessed that she was Elianna, a regular poster to forums. I knew this, not only because I knew that Elianna was a young lady who was going to be in Dallas, but because the same enthusiasm and good nature that is so evident in her posts was also immediately evident when we met in person.
Nice to meet you Elianna
On Friday and Saturday, the last 2 rounds of the Vanderbilt were broadcast as BBO vugraph. I was playing (unfortunately not in the Vanderbilt!) on those days, but after the evening session I went to the bar (as usual!) and was happy to see that there were several "stations" where people had set up laptops and were watching BBO vugraph! People were crowded around each of these computers. There were at least 100 people in the bar watching vugraph, most of them glued to the various monitors during the dramatic endings of these matches. Adam Wildavsky was providing commentary to the BBO audience through one of these computers while several other leading American players were (verbally) helping him with the analysis. Several of the world's top stars (including Tor Helness, Alfredo Versace, and Bob Hamman) were watching from a different station.
I thought all of this was pretty cool
Now for the hand...
This hand occurred during the first session of one of the big pairs events. During the first round of the 2nd session, Michael Rosenberg played at my table and told me "Deep Finesse was finally wrong!".
I have heard this before from other people. Generally I ignore such comments as I believe that DF (and GIB) are 100% accurate in their double dummy analysis. However, Michael Rosenberg is about the closest thing we have to a human version of DF. I looked at the hand for about a minute (it did not appear to be a very complicated hand) and it really seemed that Michael was right!
A few hours later I had a chance to think about the hand some more and I found that play sequence that Michael had missed and DF had seen. The hand (but not the answer) follows.
Of course any of you can use DF or GIB to figure out the answer, but I suggest you try to work it out yourself first. If you do use a program to find the answer then please do not post what you have learned!
DF says that South can make only 2NT, but at first glance Michael and I both thought that 3NT was a make.
Can you see how the defense can hold declarer to 8 tricks?
This hand also made me think: Is A10 opposite 76xx the weakest 4-2 fit in which declarer can win 2 tricks on power (if KQJxx are onside and 98 are offside)?
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Help
