skjaeran

4♠ for now. Over 5♣ p p I'll rebid 5♥.

Hi Han, I received your E-mail, but my response didn't reach you. I don't know if your E-mail adress was incomplete or what. You can call me on +47-95 28 11 47 or E-mail me at harald.skjaran (at) bridge.no.

I'd probably have overcalled 4♦ at the table, but having bid only 3 looks good now. I'll go on with 5♥ now.

This reminds me of a pair here in Oslo playing a (too) complicated relay system a long time ago. Luckily for them they knew this and had added gadgets... Once in a relay auction they explained a 3♣ bid as: Partner, I've forgotten the system, please decide the contract. In another auction they explaind a 3♦ bid as: Partner, YOU have forgotten the system. I'll place the contract next bid. :D

I'd say forcing. I wouldn't make a forcing 3♠ bid and be able to stop in 4♦. I treat 3♠ as GF here. It'd be more interesting playing Rubens advances, where I'd bid 3♥ transfer to 3♠ and be able to make a bid on a weaker hand than I'd need for bidding a natural forcing 3♠.

Standard is to put up your lowest when splitting honours, exactly the same as when you follow 3rd in hand to your partners lead - as opposed to leading and discarding, where you play your highest card from a sequence. Obviously this isn't really good enough, since it's hard for partner to read on quite a few occasions (example: low from three small in dummy, you split honours by going in with the ten, declare plays the king and partner wins the ace - where's the queen? Did you play the ten from JT or QJT?). With my former partner we sloved this just as Trumpace say; playing the highest from two touching cards, lowest from three. In my example I'd play the jack from JT and the ten from QJT, and my partner would know the layout.

Huh? And why is that? I think he's under the misconception that he's defending 3NT, not 1NT.

Pard has a minimum of 3-4 points, with less opps would have at least invited game. (OP said RHO opened a 15-17 NT passed out.) I'd not lead a ♣ - that's the lead most prone to kill one of partner's honours. Leading a ♦ might be both active and passive at the same time. Sure it might blow a trick, but any other suit is more prone to blow a trick. And that trick might easily be returned with interest.

If you're going to play for such a layout, why don't you take the absolutely straightforward line Justin suggested, and shortly lean back to claim ten tricks (if you've guessed the layout right)? You're making 5♥s, 3♣s ♠A and a ruff.

I've been doing the same in several partnerships over the years, for the same reasons.

1. I don't have to like it, but I'll overcall 2♣. I'll reopen with a double over 2♦ whether I overcalled or not. 2. 4♥. 3. 3♠. What else could I reasonably do???

1. ♠8 2. ♦3

I think it is very normal to give count here, not only for the ruff in case partner has a doubleton but also to know whether the ace is cashing. Agree. I've always played that laying down the K with such a dummy is a command to give count. (Of course there's exceptions, like if partner knows this is from a short suit, he'll give suit preference holding the ace to let me know how to put him on lead if the king is a singleton.)

yes absolutely Agree. I very seldom lead from Axxx vs 3NT. I need a good reason to lead from the most certain entry I've got.

If east has 9x of trumps he should cover the eight from dummy. But it does give you an extra chance anyway running the 8, so it's for free. And if west's got KQ9x you'll be going down whatever you do.

Then you'll go down if spades are Ax Kxxx, Kx Axxx or xx AKxx and the player with a doubleton has more than two trumps. The defence after winning the trump king should be quite obvious. declarer could have ♠Kx AJ109xx x xxxx and only a club switch would beat. That's true. That's why many give suit preference when declarer plays trumps.

What's your fee then, Jim? One or two virtual cokes per session? :)

Then you'll go down if spades are Ax Kxxx, Kx Axxx or xx AKxx and the player with a doubleton has more than two trumps. The defence after winning the trump king should be quite obvious.

Quote from the ECats site: I have been asked to withdraw the lists of teams until they have been approved by the Credentials Committee. I will re-post them as soon as possible. ... Almost all of them were there for quite some time, Norway's included. I didn'f find that earlier, since I went to the Players name => Bermuda Bowl page were it said: And the USA1 teams players appers there. B) But thanks for the clarification Roland.

I'm assuming you also cashed your Ace of ♦ at some point during the run of the trumps from the South hand, so is your three card ending then: [hv=n=sh6dcaq&s=s2hdtc4]133|200|[/hv] ?? and now at trick 11, you will play the last trump from the South hand?? I don't know why you assumed that. Make that a 4 card ending including the diamond ace still being in south's hand, and at that point it just matters what everyone has played so far so there is no way to say what I'd do next. Agree with Josh here. I'd also come down to a 4-card ending with the low diamond in dummy and the ace in hand in addition to the above ending. If LHO holds the ♥'s I'll obviously throw the ♥6 from dummy now.

The lead looks like a passive lead from a hand with no good alternatives, probably holding ♠Ax(xx) and ♣Qx(xx) or Jx(xx).

Agree. Doing 4-card overcalls myself on occasion I'd have to say bidding on this north hand wouldn't occur to me. Neither should it to anyone else. If forced to make a call other than pass I'd double, not that it's my style to double on this. The double of 4♥ is pretty looney. As to west's actions I'm speechless.

So I think you are saying (maybe I am wrong) that your 3-card ending is: [hv=n=shq6dcq&s=s2h3dtc]133|200|[/hv] and at trick 11 you cash your last trump and watch West's discard. Is that a correct interpretation? Thus a squeeze against west will work if he holds hearts and either minor suit king and against east holding hearts and the diamond king. Not sure if that's the best line.

I fail to see how this northern part of Iraq, with a majority of Kurds in the northern region could be a peaceful area under Turkish rule, given how the Kurds have been treated by the Turks since the 1923 treaty of Lausanne.

The first match each day will be in the night for europeans, but the two last matches will be in daytime for us. The problem of course is that we're at work during play time five days a week... I'm unable to find team rosters. There's none on WBF's official championship site and USA1 only at Anna Gudge's site. That's strange since I submitted the Norwegian team [brogeland-Sælensminde, Grøtheim-Tundal, Helgemo-Helness, Bjertnes (NPC) and Brekke (coach)] to WBF and Anna Gudge at least a couple of months ago. Hopefully the websites will be updated shortly.