PeterGill

Yes they do play bridge there .... but ..... Mongolia took part in a bridge tournament in Australia in 2008, losing virtually every match 0-25. They also played in the first Asia Cup in China in 2010, but withdrew after a series of 0-25 losses. At that time, the people who ran the country wanted to turn Mongolia, with its huge new copper mine and coal mine (amongst the biggest in the world) into a democracy with all sorts of opportunities, and were interested in having their youth and adults trained up at bridge. Then these folk lost power - voted out, I believe. I don't know how the new people who run Mongolia feel about bridge. The people running bridge there in 2008 were at the highest level of government, and Mongolia at that time was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. If you email me privately, I can send you links that might be useful My friends tell me that Ulaan Bator is wonderful, but is very very cold in winter. Peter Gill 909 gm..l

We had dinner tonight at Truva, 60 Andrew Young Intl Blvd, next to the venue, 4045778788 - it was good.

5M4M22. No. Never again. I try to eliminate from my game any bids which in practice repeatedly turn out badly. 6M322 with tenaces in doubletons - maybe. 4441 or 5m431 with singleton king - maybe, especially if singleton king is in spades.

The inventor of Deep Finesse Bill Bailey explains on pages 3 and 4 of http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/09_1%20Sanremo/pdf/Bul_03.pdf with an actual hand that Deep Finesse got wrong (at that time) being on pages 12-13 of http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/09_1%20Sanremo/pdf/Bul_03.pdf. So the answer for the original poster is surely, in 2013: "Nobody knows". Peter.

Overall, my 2nd favorite poster (2nd to Justin Lall) is olegru. I don't know if Olegru made any classic posts in 2012, but this one from 2009 was typical of his standards: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/34142-the-funniest-thing/page__view__findpost__p__394403 I hope the link works.

Partner has not been persistent. Partner's 4H call was a consequence of my 3D call. Partner chose 4H, perhaps by a process of eliminating other bids I might have made (e.g. I could have rebid 4S on my actual hand at my 1st or 2nd call). From partner's trusting (i.e. trusting me) frame of reference, 3D probably implies a top heart, perhaps a bare ace or king. Because I trust partner, I would bid 4S now. I have broken the first of the three essential rules of bidding ("bid your hand"), got lucky because RHO has tipped me off that my partner is trusting my bidding which has been wildly inaccurate, and thus I can bid 4S. Partner might be a bit perplexed by 4S now (why not 4S earlier?). Another possible call is 4NT (to play) but partner will probably not interpret 4NT thus.

Ken, Sartaj Hans and I played Big Club (1D 2+ cards) in the Reisinger Final. Bart Bramley and Lew Stansby played Big Club against us. The previous day, Meckwell played Big Club against us. I can't remember which of the following pairs played Big Club: Greco - Hampson, Diamond - Platnick, Auken - Welland, J. Lall - Hamman, partly because I didn't play against all of them. I can't think of any other pairs who might have been playing Big Club. There were also a few Polish Club pairs (mostly eliminated on Day 2) and one Fantunes pair. Peter Gill

Your logic seems pretty good, but doesn't that idea apply mostly when declarer is likely to have more trouble discarding than partner on the hearts? On this actual hand, partner might need guidance for discarding, and a low spade lead by me will remove one of partner's high spades at Trick 1 and also perhaps guide partner that his spades can be discarded. If I had Jxxx, xx, Jxxxx, xx, my idea would not apply and your heart lead would be more attractive. By leading a low spade, I'm trying to let partner know asap that I can hold onto the spades, without telling declarer that diamonds are onside. On the other hand, if dummy has only one or two heart entries for taking finesses through partner, your lead could easily be the best one. Another thought is that it looks like partner's cards are under declarer's, so declarer's hopes for 12 tricks will meet a friendly layout and succeed, therefore desperate hopes are needed such as an entryless solid heart suit in dummy.

Background Info: Bill O'Reilly was Australia's greatest "spin bowler" at cricket for 5 decades until Shane Warne came along. Not long after my local bridge club celebrated Fred and Nola's 65th wedding anniversary recently, Fred McGuire said to me: "You know, Peter, when I play bridge against you, it reminds me of when I was batting at top level cricket in the 1940s and had to face Bill O'Reilly's bowling. I could handle all the other bowlers, but I just couldn't figure out what to do against his bowling."

I like all the top Italians, because the best way to learn what they do differently is to watch them. I also like the way Joe Grue usually lands on his feet when he makes a bid that I wouldn't dare to.

I cash the majors, ending up in dummy. Sorry, I thought that went without saying.

1. At IMPS I claim 11 tricks. At match points, I try for 12 tricks of course. My line is a slight variation of Gerben's. I play RHO for DAxxxx and Hxxx or HJxx. Draw trumps ending in dummy. D towards the king. Back to CA for D through the (ducked?) ace, to my jack (the principle is that RHO might play "2nd hand plays low" twice when I lead towards the hidden hand). Now I want to duck a heart to LHO. So low H, duck if Q played, else go up with HA and duck a heart on the way back. LHO might have no diamonds or might exit in C or H not D ---> 12 tricks if H 3-3. 2. Claim is dependent on my knowledge of my opponents (based in part on previous hands against them). If they are novices, I wait until my hand is all high before I claim. Against better players I claim as soon as clubs are seen to be 4-3. 3. I would never ever claim in a dodgy 7NT - too much at stake. Which suit to play first? I think the best play is three rounds of clubs first. Claim if 3-3. Opponents can see the long clubs in dummy, so they would not throw clubs on D's, but might from 4441 with singleton club (or e.g. 3442 shape) pitch a D from say xxxx, xxxx, 9xxx, x. Next I cash the spades, not the hearts, as holding on to 8xxx in spades is unlikely. Then the hearts. Then hope for squeeze or 3-3 D. Unlike Hands (1) and (4), I'm confident that this is the best line of play. 4. At IMPS, I claim 10 tricks, stating how I unblock in clubs. If I'm directing, I would accept any claim without mention of any unblocking statement, as it's obvious to play low to C10 on 3rd club after CJ drops. At match points, I try for 11 tricks of course. I think winning the first spade will make the spade position less clear to the opponents. So I win SA then play C9 and C8 on the first two rounds of clubs, not C6. If RHO has 2 clubs, I cross to C10 so that LHO has to make 4 discards before RHO can make any helpful 2nd discard. If LHO has 2 clubs, I continue the top clubs from dummy, unblocking C10, so that RHO has to make 3 discards before seeing any discard from LHO. They will have many discards to make and I will pitch a H early to maximize the chances of both opponents discarding down to 2 (or 1) hearts, and not keeping enough spades, in order to hang onto their D's. To keep 2 hearts and 3 spades, an opponent will have to void themselves in D. If my concentration is good, I will take in all their discards. If my focus is poor, possibly due to a late night, I will simply count how many spades and hearts each opponents discard, so that after Trick 8 I can deduce the D count. I will keep track of the number of spades each started with (from the pips led and discarded) and of any signalling method they use. I will play as fast and in tempo as possible, so that I pick up any telltale clues from a defensive tank. I expect to make 10 tricks about 80% of the time and 11 tricks occasionally.

BB 1 Italy 2 USA1 3/4 USA2 and Sweden 5/8 Poland, Netherlands, Israel and Australia VC 1 China 2 USA2 3/4 Netherlands and England 5/8 Germany, USA1, France and Poland Seniors 1 USA1 2 Poland 3/4 USA2 and Indonesia 5/8 Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and Bulgaria Peter Gill Australia

Good for bridge

The background to the four famous players moving to Monaco is something like this: Italy's sponsor for many years has been Maria Teresa Lavazza. She has also been sole selector of the National team. That worked very well until this year, when Fantoni - Nunes weren't happy to be dropped from the team in order to, among other things, blood a new young talented player originally from Argentina - Madala. Mme Lavazza pointed out that she could not fit eight great players into a team of six. Although the new look Italy team won the 2010 European Championship without Fantunes, relations between the eight Italian players have not been as good as usual this year. Geir Helgemo was involved in an incident in Norway two years ago. I have read many pages of 2009 material about this incident on Boye Brogeland's Bridge i Norge website and on a Finnish website (you press "Translate" button at the top). My conclusion is that the rumours in the English-speaking world of what Helgemo did are most unfair to Helgemo. Helgemo was not impressed by the way his appeal was handled - nor am I, from my reading of what happened - so he was not keen to play for Norway in the future. Zimmermann and Multon won the World Transnational Teams in Sao Paulo late in 2009 with Helgemo - Helness and Balicki - Zmudzinski (who have never played for Russia, having failed the residency requirement). Earlier in 2009, Helgemo had to sit out events in San Remo and Washington D.C. as well as local Norwegian events, in the aftermath of the incident he was involved in. With B-Z back playing for Poland and this strong Monaco team, Italy will in future have stronger opposition than usual in Europe. I imagine that Fantunes will not sit out against Italy, and H-H will not sit out against Norway.

My partner and I are looking for teammates for a Bracketed KO on the Monday before the Blue Ribbon Pairs, and teammates for either the North American Swiss Teams or the Reisinger at the end of the week. If you or your friend is interested, please email me petergill909 at gmail.com Peter Gill Sydney Australia.

The massive winning margins, the tough draw of having to knock out Lavazza, Zimmerman and Nickell, the Spingold and now the World Championship - is this the beginning of a new era in bridge? Well done by the very popular Diamond team. John Diamond and Brian Platnick are doing well in the Final of the World Pairs too. This is John and Brian's second World Championship - they anchored USA to win the 1991 World Junior Teams Final from Canada's Fred Gitelman and Geoff Hampson.

A few years ago, I recall using symmetric four-colour packs at WBF events. I thought they were awful - the ace of spades and ace of clubs looked almost identical. The four colours - black, off-black, red and orange I think - had nothing helpful about them, relative to normal packs, in my opinion. I think the WBF has switched back to normal packs nowadays.

The main page of the new bridgewinners.com site now has an explanation of how the R64 seedings were done, basically that 1-16 retained their original seeding then it was done by group position I think.

Oops - when I posted, I had looked at only pages 21 and 23 of those regs. Now that I have seen page 22 more closely, about re-seeding being posted on-site, I understand your complaints. Sorry about my error.

I'm astonished that so many intelligent people on BBO don't know that to find the R64 draw, you simply go to the Supplemental Conditions of Contest, freely available under the heading Information on the WBF website for the event, as has been the case for WBF events for at least one decade, to see the whole 64 team draw, published in advance several months ago. Regarding all the other complaints about WBF results, websites and anything else, I can find nothing to say in defense of the WBF except that the WBF is about to have a new President who hopefully might try to head such things in the right direction. Peter Gill

I would assume innocence until proven guilty. Session scores from the club are available online, e.g. http://www.cairnsbridgeclub.org.au/showRes...sults/2010/0215. Being IMO the best player at the club in question (except IMO for the rare occasions when Trevor plays at the club), it is no surprise to me that Ken would win there a lot. That can create jealousy. I wonder what the outcome will be. I live thousands of miles south of Cairns, by the way.

By passing 5C, West is putting all his eggs in one basket, that: - 430 or more is not available - 5C is the best contract, making no more than 11 tricks. That all seems unlikely, which makes passing 5C, as usual as Matchpoints, an inferior choice. West must TRUST his partner. With a weak 6-6 or 6-5 or 5-5, East would rebid 2C, not 3C, to save space in order to bid out his shape. I would bid 5H over 5C. I have a massive hand for my previous bidding. My 2nd choice is 6NT over 5C, hoping that the major aces, if both are missing, are not both cashed. My distant 3rd choice is 5NT over 5C, but I worry that partner might misinterpret that bid, so it's best for me not to add more confusion to the auction.

Agree with Tim. Several previous non-BBO attempts to create Youth Bridge Forums online have failed. What would youths discuss here, that cannot be discussed elsewhere? For example, Aussie Youth Bridge Weekends are arranged via Facebook. I do not understand any logic connect of the original post. To give another example, does the lack of posts on Vugraph Issues BBO forum mean that Vugraph on BBO is dying? Of course not. None of the above means that youth bridge is not dying, of course. Numbers dropped dramatically from 2006 to 2009 in the World Youth Pairs. The speculated 20,000 or so youngsters playing bridge in Georgia USA might be less than 19,000 now [numbers quoted are just my rough guesses]. The lack of attention paid to bridge promotion worldwide might be having some effect. All very hard to assess with any accuracy.

Did Elianna close the thread for anyone whose surname is not Gill? :blink: Say that you deal only one of the 8 boards. It's possible that with less to do than the other three players, you might see the bottom card of a hand, while some cards are put in a slot. Thus one might see a card like DK. This could happen. Or something like that might not have happened. This hand imo is one of those "innocent until proven guilty" scenarios. There is some evidence but not enough evidence.