The_Badger

I assume you are playing Acol. Partner heard you pass on the first round. 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ are squirming bids in my opinion. It might be a poor hand but it could be even poorer. I wouldn't pass a X on the first round with this rubbish, but I will take my chance this time round. Let the opponents guess next. Partner is over the opener, and you are supplying one trick minimum. I just hope we can scramble six tricks to put it down.

I like this +1, Helene. My thoughts are that if you agree ♠ here, there is a slight chance that you might miss out on a 4-4 ♥ fit. Even though it is TOTALLY unconventional, I like 2♥ here as a reverse force. The reason's for 2♥. 1. It is forcing. 2. ♠ are the top suit so you can always bid them later. 3. You might find that 4-4 ♥ fit, and the presumed 5-4 ♠ fit will allow you to dispose of one your losers. 4. Partner will have another bid to define his hand further 5. Four aces in a trump contract is gold dust. The downsides to 2♥ is that partner might totally misinterpret the bid, think you have ♣s and ♥s, and if you use RKCB after there could be a misunderstanding. Without any firm agreements the sensible bid is 4♠. The trouble with that is as partner is aceless, he might be reluctant to bid RKCB and you need so little for slam to be viable. You need agreements here! lol

Support doubles are here to stay: us Acolites better get used to them. Personally I think they are a great convention. Fills a useful gap in low-level bidding.

With 5-5 ♣s + ♠s I always open 1♣. Archaic I know but that was how I was taught Acol a long, long time ago. As for the actual bidding on the hand beyond that, there's nothing wrong with 4♣. With a 1♣ opening, if West can resist bashing out a 3NT response and can temporise with a 1♦ bid, then the rest of the auction towards slam is easy. For example: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥4th suit gf - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦, etc. leaving loads of room to find the ♣ slam.

The problem here is that West can't bid 3♠ over the 2♠ opening as that would be a Western Cue Bid asking for a stopper in the opponents suit, and can't bid 3♠ next time round after the TOX to show the monster of a hand he has as South has taken his bid away. After West's second double - perhaps not the best action: raising to 4♥ shows extras too - East should double the final contract of 4♠. I don't think it is in any way possible to reach the slam, but collecting a few penalty points above the line on the scorecard does compensate.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj432hk32dakjck2&w=st9876h76dqt9c653&n=saqhaq54d432caqt4&e=s5hjt98d8765cj987]399|300[/hv] I agree. Both menace cards are with North, but East discards after.

Since the opening 1♥/1♠ opening bid with a 5332 hand will be 14+, I've always found that rebidding 2♥/2♠ is the easiest bid to use to describe a 14-17 5332 hand. Responder has to remember that this 2♥/2♠ rebid doesn't promise extra length - a sixth card - but if opener then bids after responder's next bid 3♥/3♠ this then says I have a six card suit minimum. Jumping to 3NT after the auction 1♥/1♠ - 2♣ - 3NT seems to me just a bit too agricultural and un-Fantunes-like with a 15-17 5332, though there will be others who would say that it's a quick fix for such hands.

Gazilli is a great convention as long as you modify it to suit your system. If you are not playing Fantunes, knowing partner is limited, you should have an 'opt-out' clause of declining the relay and bidding 2♥ instead of 2♦. In Fantunes, as I understand, 2♥ shows a 0-5 count. With 6-4 in the reds it is awkward to show the shape using Gazilli. Perhaps having 2♥ showing a six timer in the ♥ suit with 6-9 points would work better.

To me that's illogical. If North's XX is a business redouble, a willingness to play in 3♠XX, how can East's pass show a willingness to accept that as the final contract? Pass is the bid used when there are no other bids available. North's XX could be a bluff, a hand limited in points with good shape and good ♠ support. Remember the OP is playing rubber bridge as opposed to teams or pairs. Except if you have a specific arrangement with your partner - as said previously such agreements are unlikely at rubber bridge -that East's 4♥ bid could be made with nothing, I wonder how you would react with the West hand? That's the crux of the argument: 4♥ by East after the 3♠ redouble without knowing that it may have been bid with nothing, and I bet 99.99% of West's would bid on after the opponents push on to 4♠, especially non-vulnerable and a game against at rubber bridge. As I said previously, this hand is a lot easier to evaluate seeing all four hands. Maybe it could have been presented as a bidding problem (with only one hand in view) from West's perspective instead, when partner does bid 4♥over 3♠XX.

In my opinion this is an easier hand to comment on seeing all four hands as opposed to just one or two. In the absence of specific partnership agreements - something rubber bridge rarely has - I feel that East is 'fixed' after the XX of 3♠. Bidding 4♥ would have been automatic without the XX. The last thing that East wants to do is encourage partner to bid on holding a near Yarborough, and bidding 4♥ would be seen as a positive move, I feel. West can double 3♠ without genuine support for ♥s. What does he bid with 1♠3♥4♦5♣ shape over 3♠? At least after the XX, East can pass showing genuine disinterest, and then West can bid 3NT showing two places to play. The bad bid in my opinion is 4♦ by West showing a hand that he hasn't got. After East passes the XX, West than bid 3NT (see above) and E/W arrive in 4♥. After the XX of 4♠ I am unsure what the best bid for East is playing rubber. I would after West's bad bid of 4♦ probably bid...check my bank balance.

So 2NT was an attempt at a balancing bid? Ah, it all makes sense now. Balancing bids against the Multi: I'd rather go shark fishing without the cage.

I respect what you have to say, Rainer. As you rightly say, there are differences between the allegations against Reese/Shapiro and Fantoni/Nunes. I have also heard from another (now deceased) player who shares your view that Truscott was slightly biased. His view was as Truscott wasn't part of the British team, it was Truscott's own way of getting his own back by proving that Reese/Shapiro cheated. However, Truscott had moved to New York the year before. However, there is the obvious similarity that both sets of allegations have been levelled against the world's top bridge players of this and that era, and have fizzled out because actually proving these allegations is more difficult than it seems. If the bridge world generally cannot respond adequately to these incidences of alleged cheating, what does the future hold for when it happens again, as invariably it will do.

I agree. The bidding doesn't look quite right. Players who play the Multi will usually want to make life difficult for their opponents (by pre-empting) by offering partner a choice at the three level with major suit support. But if they don't have major suit support, then they will have cards in the minors which patently they cannot have if partner's 2NT is unusual for the minors. I'll probably wouldn't bid 3NT though as if partner had a balanced 17-20 count he could have bid 2NT on the previous round - if that is how you deal with the Multi. I'm more inclined to bid a straightforward 4♣. Even if partner has the minors, let him decide whether you have enough for game. The double fit is good but it doesn't mean you have 11 tricks between the two hands.

Raising to 3♦ with 4432 shape and a ♠ stop doesn't quite look right. Right side the anticipated 3NT contract immediately by rebidding 2NT. That's my view.

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/ev-eng/fantoni-nunes-acquitted-by-figb.html This has echoes of what happened in Buenos Aires in 1965. http://www.shenkinbridge.com/entertainment/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=94 I know how I felt about the scandal in 1965, not least as I corresponded with the late Alan Truscott, the British-American bridge player and bridge correspondent of The New York Times. At the time I was considering writing a screenplay. Given that I believe in free speech and democracy, what does this latest acquittal say about the bridge world generally? Back in 1965 there was no video evidence as there is today, but the evidence accrued by the American team back in 1965 was concrete proof, in my opinion, that something was untoward. And how exactly will the bridge world respond if Fantoni and Nunes are allowed to carry on playing bridge? Players refusing to play against them? I also believe in innocence before being proved guilty, but this acquittal has undermined all the hard work by bridge players the world over to rid the game of players that on the balance of probability have used illegal methods to convey information.

At matchpoints at least you have the luxury of experimentation (if your partner allows). Chasing a few tops I would just bash out 6NT with the South hand in response to a weak NT. And yes, you may be missing an ace and a king off the top and go down, but the opponents have to find the killing lead first. Many a slam has been made missing two setting tricks on a lead. Scientific bidding is great, but it doesn't always produce the top results. And it also provides lots of information to the opponents too. At IMPs in a team match you have to be more cautious as a bad result can produce a massive swing.

It'll probably stop the opponents taking the first five tricks in a 3NT contract reversing with a weak suit. The hand is technically strong enough for a reverse, but I do like my second suit to have some substance, perhaps a 10 as opposed to 98 :)

I'll let my other bridge friends answer this comprehensively, but I'm sure with the 2/1 system there's a two-way 2NT rebid either showing a minimum hand or a hand in the range 17-18 or 18-19*. Whether you can play it after 4th suit forcing I really don't know. As other commentators have said raising 3NT to 4NT effectively shows extras, and that would not confuse partner if there was an agreement as above*

I would have bashed out 4♥ on the first round, even with the 5 card ♠ suit. Trying to be scientific when there are so many cards missing in the minors is not my style. And yes, we could miss a slam but from a offensive-defensive perspective, there's little in the way of defence, and the hand should produce eight tricks barring horrible breaks, so let partner know what sort of hand you have. Opening 1♥ is not unreasonable too if you want to try to find some ♠ fit but expect the opponents to compete heavily in the minors at this vulnerability (as they did on the full auction).

+1 for your honesty, Peter. I'm sure other players would have taken advantage of the situation.

In terms of trick-taking potential the hand is strong enough to reverse BUT I feel you shouldn't reverse on these distributional hands as partner will be expecting so much more in terms of controls generally than this two-suited powerhouse. Personally, I don't understand partner's bidding. XX followed by 4♠ is so unconstructive. You have reversed here, he has XXed, so anything other than 4♠ will be forcing. Your bid now? Pass or 5♦. Lucky dip.

Ok, sfi, I concede that my estimate was perhaps wrong. But I do bet that many of the bridge professionals that earn a living today have spent many years not earning a living from the game. It's only their knowledge and experience after so many years of playing and participating in the game that enable them to now earn a living from bridge. And I would also bet that plenty of these professionals have other streams of income available to them. There's scraping a living from doing what you enjoy, and making a reasonable income to support a growing family, etc. I spoke to an French international chess player years ago who loved playing chess so much that he sofa-surfed, slept in a van, did agency work, but earned less than 50% of what I was earning in a conventional job.

That's a fair point, Diana. I think it is possible to make a decent second income from bridge, but as for making a living exclusively from bridge that's a different matter.

The simple answer is "No" Vampyr has covered most of the bases in her reply, and the reality of the situation is a lot more grim than that. Admittedly, a number of top players can earn a living from the game. But their numbers are few. My estimate: probably no more than 100 worldwide. You only have to look at what happened to Omar Sharif, the film star and international bridge player to realise that playing for high stakes rubber bridge can be very dicey. The reality of the situation is that, unlike football that has worldwide sponsorship and television rights, bridge has very little funding. I know of a young international British bridge player who I used to chat to on here - name withheld - who won a Junior World Championship, but was so disillusioned that there was no sponsorship he gave up the game. But maybe, the easiest way to look at bridge, is that it is a valuable social asset and you can meet likeminded people through this game. It's not always about the money. I won a number of prizes when I was a junior playing both chess and bridge. I won a local chess tournament and won £100, and a few other cash prizes. I came second in a regional bridge tournament, and I won a bottle of wine, and a naff one at that :(

In your dreams...England are far too creative for the Swedes. That game against Colombia and the penalty shootout lifted our spirits immensely. I have high hopes of England in the final now. We have played good football so far and we have a young team with nothing to lose. As for the fairness of the penalty shootout as the OP questioned, well I personally don't agree with your husband's suggestion. As sfi indicated, there have various other methods tried to resolve a football game that has ended in stalemate. The only thing that I would add that I would increase the number of penalty shooters to seven, as with just five it is invariably just one player who is made the scapegoat for the loss of a match due to penalties. As a football fan, I think a penalty shootout is a brilliant climax to a match, and it really supercharges the emotions of the players and the fans. And as other football fans will know, England have lost several until last night's triumph so as an Englishman I should be biased against penalty shootouts.