jikl

Partners don't always play the easiest cards ;) Sean

To increase your chance of one of the opps using a natural trump trick you could cash the ♠A first. Sean

MBC = Main Bridge Club Sean

Trying to think what the 2nd XI would look like... Phil Jaques Simon Katich Brad Hodge Mark Cosgrove Adam Voges Andrew Symonds Brad Haddin Nathan Bracken Shaun Tait Stuart MacGill Mitchell Johnson I am sure others would come up with something else. Most of Australia is in drought at the moment. The Gabba was best chance for rain. Sean

Noone has mentioned Symonds here at all. However, media here has speculated that Lee may be dropped. This would be a weird team. Especially with McGrath and his heel as he would have to bowl a lot of overs. Going through the Australian list, the best batsmen that can bowl a bit, do not any more due to back problems; Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke (who has the extraordinary best bowling figures of 6 for 9 runs against India with his left arm orthodox). Other than that Damien Martyn can sort of bowl, but there would be a lot of balls going over the short sqare of the wicket boundaries if he did. He bowls medium/medium-slow and a lot of them bounce well short of a good length :( Sean Edit: The other possibility is no change if Michael Clarke's back is up to it.

Shane Watson has been ruled out as his hamstring injury is not sufficiently recovered. Sean

OK, the first test has come to an end. Whilst England did fight back and add "some" credibility to the result. Let's be honest, it was a thrashing. So, let's get down to the team changes... Who do we think England will drop? a) Giles for Panesar? B) Jones for Read? c) Anderson for Mahmood? d) a combination of two of the above? e) a b and c? I am sure they will keep Harmison and just hope he remembers how to bowl. Now for the Australian changes. Here things get really complicated. Ponting, McGrath and Watson are all fit. Australia also like to have two spinners in Adelaide. I can't really make this just a list since some of the changes are for three and 4 people. So, will Australia change their team structure to have 5 front line bowlers and bat Gilchrist at 6? (in the process dropping Michael Clarke) Will Stuart Clark and Michael Clarke be dropped for Stuart MacGill and Shane Watson? Or unchanged team? Or something else completely? My suspicion is that it will be the 4-way swap. Sean

I have a feeling that if it had been a penalty double by North and they had the ♥s you would be getting the same complaint, just in reverse. "They didn't alert it was a penalty double! Everyone knows that is takeout!" Sean

I think you'll find you open 1m more than 1M in Acol as 4 card suits are bid up the line. Sean

Upon launch of any new criteria for playing boards and posting on forums, something simple like: If posts>30 then permission to use forums That will cover all regulars that don't play much or use a different name on the forums. Sean

I'd try to get Michael Holding too, there must be some way to claim he is English :rolleyes: Sean

If I was going to go for slam, it gets interesting on whether ot mention ♣s. Do you want to give them a "safe" lead or do you want to put them off leading ♣s? A lot of that depends on what type of player the opening leader is, gambler or safety first? I have a feeling given that I have Gerber available (not that I play it) I might have a try since we are likely to gain a trick on the opening lead on a non-♣ lead. We know mathematically that partner must have 2 aces, the question is whether they have more. We can always stop in 4NT if need be. Sean

I don't know whether you get to see this on the other side of the world, but there is this new "Hot Spot" infrared camera. It will be interesting to see whether it is ever allowed to be used by the 3rd umpire. (With the hot spot camera it is using infrared to determine friction spots which create heat, ie the ball striking the bat or pads or gloves etc) Sean

Uday, I want to congratulate you on such a neutral reply. Many, in your position, would have gone into self-preservation mode, yet you have succinctly given the options and reasons for using each. Sean

Probably getting better reception than me on normal TV :) Sean

The structure I use for shape completion is this: 1x - 1y 2NT - 3♣ ? Features are shown up the line, features being: 3 card support for y 5 card x suit New 4 card suit However, note that the 2NT bid does not deny a major suit higher than y, for instance: 1♣ - 1♦ 2NT This may still have a 4 card ♥ suit or ♠ suit. Sean Edit: Oops, forgot to add that if ♣ is your lowest (only) feature you bid 3NT

How is your internet viewing keylime? Coming through OK? Sean

From memory, these are your 9s and 10s: [hv=s=s10xxxhaj9xdaqxxcx]133|100|[/hv] And yes, the reply was 2♣ :) Sean

I want us to win 5-0 too, but I would prefer they play well :) Sean

Pass here also. Sean

Well, it all starts in less than 40 minutes. I hope it lives up to all the hype. Whilst I want Australia to win, I hope the English do well also. Sean

Same when he scored his 500 or 501, can't remember which. That was all personal glory too. On a different note, heard about the 2 Indian schoolboys that scored a 721 partnership off 40 overs? They broke Sachin Tendulkar's old record. Sean

As Ben said, the ♠ suit in isolation means you should never cover. take these examples: [hv=n=sjx&w=sxx&e=sqxx&s=sakxxxx]399|300|[/hv] By the way you have asked the question you do not hold the 9 or 10 in your hand so you have no possible winning play by covering the J as the suit is now high. If partner had the 10 it is squashed. There is an argument for playing the Q if you hold the 9, it is possible partner has the 10 but highly unlikely. Next example: [hv=n=sjx&w=sxx&e=sqxx&s=sakxxxx]399|300|[/hv] Now you have blown a trick as declarer is VERY likely to rise to drop the Q. Sean

I thought this auction was a perfect example of the "insert politically incorrect term here" cue bid. I have a stopper, do you have a long running minor? B) Sean

Some of this is another problem talked about often in another area of the forums. There are so many directors that will never make adjustments that people live with the fact that there is no point calling the director. Then you have playing TDs, enough said. A further problem is that some directors don't actually know the laws. Take this as an example that someone tried to con a director with when I was declarer: [hv=n=sak102hdc&s=sq98h8dc]133|200|[/hv] I claimed with no line (no trumps were outstanding, neither ♥ or ♠ were trumps). One of the defenders called the TD and said I had claimed with no line, I "didn't know" the ♥8 was high, and I would therefore finesse the ♠. I was actually nearly ruled against! Haven't seen that person TD in a long time which is probably a good thing, not that I even remember his name unless I saw it again. Sean