Venice Cup Quarter-Final
England 103 - USA I 87 (after 48 boards out of 96)
After 48 boards of the quarter-final, having started the day sixteen IMPs behind (a carry-forward from the match between the two teams in the round-robin phase), we have taken the lead against USA I, 103 - 87 IMPs. Indeed, the 16 IMP advantage had been eradicated after just two boards of the match.
On board one, the Americans tried 6H, which Catherine Draper doubled in the hope of persuading her partner, Fiona Brown, to lead a club. Fiona obliged, Catherine ruffed and 6H X went one down. At the other table, Nicola Smith and Sally Brock bid to the superior contract of 6C, which could not be beaten. This sensational start was followed by 1NT doubled making with two over-tricks on board two - England in the lead!
We extended our lead with some exciting bridge but matters were to get more spicy when the Americans appealed, retrospectively, for an alleged failure to alert a conventional bid. They had suffered an adverse game-swing owing to a misunderstanding, which had become apparent immediately. It was only after the session had ceased that they "remembered" that there had been a failure to alert and that this failure caused the misunderstanding. Although the directors believed that there had been an alert, it was difficult to ascertain the precise sequence of events (no DRS in India!) and, due to a technicality, they ruled in the American's favour. Feeling somewhat aggrieved by this, we are looking forward to the next forty-eight boards with a firm resolve!
England 103 - USA I 87 (after 48 boards out of 96)
After 48 boards of the quarter-final, having started the day sixteen IMPs behind (a carry-forward from the match between the two teams in the round-robin phase), we have taken the lead against USA I, 103 - 87 IMPs. Indeed, the 16 IMP advantage had been eradicated after just two boards of the match.
On board one, the Americans tried 6H, which Catherine Draper doubled in the hope of persuading her partner, Fiona Brown, to lead a club. Fiona obliged, Catherine ruffed and 6H X went one down. At the other table, Nicola Smith and Sally Brock bid to the superior contract of 6C, which could not be beaten. This sensational start was followed by 1NT doubled making with two over-tricks on board two - England in the lead!
We extended our lead with some exciting bridge but matters were to get more spicy when the Americans appealed, retrospectively, for an alleged failure to alert a conventional bid. They had suffered an adverse game-swing owing to a misunderstanding, which had become apparent immediately. It was only after the session had ceased that they "remembered" that there had been a failure to alert and that this failure caused the misunderstanding. Although the directors believed that there had been an alert, it was difficult to ascertain the precise sequence of events (no DRS in India!) and, due to a technicality, they ruled in the American's favour. Feeling somewhat aggrieved by this, we are looking forward to the next forty-eight boards with a firm resolve!
Surely the video feed could confirm whether or not there was an alert?
ReplyDeleteWas there a video feed? Would have loved to watch it...
DeleteThere should have been. They're posted here:
Deletehttp://livebridge.net/youtube/
I couldn't find it. I also looked here http://wbchampbulletin.org/live-matches/ which seems to take me to the same place...
DeleteWe were not playing in the BBO/Vugraph room for that stanza so I believe that there was no camera at the table (having said that, I am not 100% sure). The entire semi-final will be on BBO (and I think, streamed live).
DeleteSomebody emailed me this link
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxZQc1us5jk
don't know which board...
Assuming the US appeal related to Segment 1, the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxZQc1us5jk
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know to which board the appeal related?