MFA

Only one 120. Its teams. I would pass at MPs. Sorry. Actually, what I meant was that there are many layouts out there that will lead to 120. I did notice the form of scoring. :P

I 100% agree. I wouldn't dream of apologizing if I pass a forcing bid, bid NT without a stopper, jump to slam without 2 aces etc., and my decision backfires. Let alone all the ordinary decisions that might go wrong. I trust partner to know that I always do my best when I play. Even when I have done something that is just a very silly mistake. It's a part of the game to make mistakes. It's the same I'm hoping for with my partner. That he does his best. If he apologizes all the time, I'm just thinking that he is saying that he isn't trying as hard as he should. I can use that to nothing other than getting annoyed.

Pass. The right evaluation imo. There will a lot of 120's out there, so 2NT is ok.

The battle for the 6 spots is quite tough. Look at the finish in Pau for instance. With just one match to play, Italy was struggling big time on 7th and they had to face the leaders from Germany in the last match. In the end they managed a big win to secure the samba tickets as 5th. The Netherlands were also in problems at the end. They were 6th before last match which gave a tie against Israel. They then needed reasonably favourable results in some other matches to make it and got them.

I find it problematic that we have a formal alert procedure (with screens) which oneone at all uses. In fact I have never even seen someone alert correctly behind screens! One is supposed to place the alert card on the opponent's bidding tray and let him hand it back to you. Obviously that is a very annoying procedure, so I understand why it's unpopular. In practice everybody either points at the bid or waves the alert card - I prefer the latter (unless the card is missing, which is too often the case). In my experience an opponent overlooks my alert on very rare occasions from time to time. The funny thing is that it seems almost unrelated to the effort of the alert, unless I go really out of my way to get eye contact and all. A couple of times I have really thought "WTF?" when someone claims he didn't see an alert. I guess some players are just completely "absent" once in a while when not active in the bidding. Ok, but if one can't tell from their appearance then it's kind of hard. :) I would love to see an improvement in the alert procedure with screens. Meanwhile I don't think that ruling automatically in the favour of the opponent who didn't see an alert is fair. I have great respect for a TD who dares to rule with the (disputed) alerter.

Pass but I really hate it. Off course if one expects partner to have a solid opening hand, then fine, but I don't - see below. Double of 2♦ should be a power double, not just diamonds (very important to bid constructively against a weak NT). So P+D is a limited, shape-T/O. D+D is T/O strong D+P is bal, something like 14+ with 'wrong' shape.

1) Abstain. No idea what this system is. 2) Abstain. 3♣ is very silly with 6-5. It's 4 or 5 the first time. Bidding 3 and then act in front of partner should be a crime. 3) 3♣. Not forcing of course or we would need a system talk. 4) 4♠. I can see the point of bidding just three. 5) 3NT. Who cares about stoppers. 6) Pass wtp?

Nothing much.

Balicki-Zmudzinski were deemed ineligible for Russia for the 2008 European Championships. Perhaps the Russian team then made an agreement to stay as a team for the Bermuda Bowl, should they qualify. It would be a reasonable demand if the pair that played in Pau instead of the Z-men back then had insisted on also getting to play in Sao Paulo. Just speculating. Anyway, I don't know what deals those two would get on the Gromov team, but I think it's quite likely that they actually prefer to play on the Zimmerman team for the transnationals instead for financial reasons.

Yes 6♠, but I would have slightly prefered to raise spades immediately, since I don't mind a spade lead. Showing clubs is more urgent with ♠xxx or something.

I would surely bid 6♠ over 6♥ later. Less clear if I should bid 5♠ over 5♥, but I think I would. So 4♠ then 5♠ then 6♠. Support with support. :D

X then pass is way too wimpish with this 6-5.

I agree with Fluffy's 1NT. Passing could easily be right, but it's a big gamble that could lead to a quick 0.

So the defense is, in principle, required to produce and disclose a NT defense against every single possible definition of 1NT (including "psyching" frequencies) in every seat and every position? So that the 1NT opener can choose freely? Backwards for sure. And not even possible. And the loop could still be there, if we go deeper ("our defense depends on your defense to our defense - do you play lebensohl etc.?", and so on). The only sensible thing IMO is to insist that bids are declared in 'chronological' order.

A heart to dummy's Q would be very strange. For a start it's only the 8th trick. Also, if it loses to north's K there will be 0,00% chance of not getting a spade shift. No, I think it's quite obvious for declarer to try for his legitimate chance of ♣ to the T.

I'm really looking forward to some good bridge. What teams do people fancy? I think Netherlands will be new world champions, with the USA 1&2 and Italy in the semifinals. I have a feeling that Bulgaria, India and perhaps Brazil on home ground might well surprise. On the other hand I think that Germany, Egypt and Norway might disappoint (although I'm rooting 100% for Norway - prove me wrong Harald!). I have not much idea what to expect from NZ and Australia. But in principle that goes for many of the teams - the above are just my hunches.

Competitve and non-forcing. X would be take-out. I'm more used to 12-14NT's, but I would prefer the same after a strong notrump. Being able to get suits in is crucial for good competitive results. Similarly I play responder's balances at the 2- or 3-level in a new suit after an opening bid of 1 of a suit as nonforcing. Works great.

I believe it's right to have an encouraging signal available even when dummy or declarer is known to be able to ruff the second round of the suit. The force is very often the right defense and also it gives much more legitimicy to a signal for a switch. Since declarer is marked with 5+♣, I would be very worried that a trump shift will not do the job. If his clubs are as good as QTxxx, we need to force or he could easily cash the whole suit.

Did 2♥ show 4 (with support X)? I would have bid 4♦ instead of 4♥. It would let partner bid 5 over 4♠ with a singleton spade and concentrated red values, which is what we want him to do. I play here: ♥2 encouraging (low card, UDCA) ♥J discouraging + signal for diamonds (high odd) ♥9 discouraging + signal for clubs (high even, but in absence of such a card, a lower high odd would be that signal). Since partner (with 4 hearts as I assume we play it) knows exactly what heart spots I have, he will always be able to read my signal. I'm not going to signal for clubs. With my diamond support strangely hidden, partner will surely underlead his ace in a flash. Which is just about the only defense that seems to let the game through if declarer has something like xxxx, x, Qxxx, QTxxx. A trump would also be fatal. I don't think it's realistic to get him to lay down the ♣A. Ok, Fluffy's ♥K might work but then he really should have the brilliancy prize for himself :-)

What is a DSIP double?

@ nigel1 On the other side, not having adequate standards of ethics will soon get people to talk. This is much worse to most players than recieving some formal penalty.

Actually, being a passed hand, wouldnt also 5♣ and 5♦ show heart support? Yes I agree (although I'm generally cautious of that principle, since I often hold a suit worth showing later but not adequate for a preempt. Some of us do have standards, Ole :)). 5m would not be a slam try as such, as I see it, more like a raise with a good suit on the side.

:) Pass to 2♦?? :) His being a passed hand is no excuse for not supporting him. I would bid 2♥ and hope to get to 3NT or perhaps 4♠ on a very good day. At least he will know I have a strong hand and perhaps be able to do the right thing if he has good shape. I'll try 3NT now. But maybe I should just abstain.

I would take-out double 3♠. 4♥ seems unacceptable to me with a thin suit and good minor alternatives. I can correct partner's response to 4♥ to show a flexible hand. 5♥ is ok, I like to support in such situations. 6♥ seems to be too wild a gamble. Partner had available 4NT T/O followed by 5♥ to show a good 5♥.

Did anyone actually make an analysis of this or is it just a hunch that they do well on the last boards?