Onno

http://newinbridge.com/news/2013/sep/offer-our-game-wbf Interested in opinions.

Agree with gwnn. The authors seem to have a dislike of aggressive initial action, especially when it doesn't work. This made me laugh: after Marion went for 800 after 1st hand red Multi by Bob on K76532 985 - AQ98. My suggestion would be the opposite: talented young players should actively continue to explore to borders of aggression in this phase of their bridge life.

Do you have a link to that column?

Han and Arend (with Chubukov-Mayefsky) have won their Spingold match against Berg (with the strong Dutch internationals Bertens-Bakkeren and Muller-De Wijs). Go Han!

Hi there, (hi Roland,) Anybody knows the address of the One-Eyed Jacks in Copenhagen? I was supposed to fly home this afternoon with Sterling, but found out today that they don't exist anymore :blink: So I might drop by at the One-Eyed Jacks club (they are playing tonight, according to their website) but the address isn't on their site. Thanks!

The reason: This was not long after the score change, so alhtough it was down 6, the scorer incorrectly counted 1,3,5,7,9,11 --> 1100. Did the score card read "6" or "-6"? The latter is the standard way around here. Your reason is improbable. Tricks and score matched. This is what happened at the table. The players played the hand quite quickly. The scorer was madly scribbling down all the tricks up until the claim. He had no time to count the tricks. He asked the players "How many tricks?" and one of the players responded "Six". The scorer and the opponent then wrote down 6 tricks on their scorecards.

If you play ♦Q declarer knows at once he has two diamond tricks. If you don't he'll have to guess to play the king or possibly endplay West. But that is a bit far-fetched I guess. Just returning ♦Q and hoping partner has two entries must be better. Tough to see my goofs at the table return on the forum :rolleyes: Especially when everybody gets it right.

My recollection of the tempo - reasonable but not excessive pause at trick one, completely in tempo up to the drop of the ♠J, and then the obvious claim. The play to the second round of trumps was quick enough that none of the commentators had a real chance to suggest he could get it right (the possibility of getting it wrong was mentioned). My recollection is that the critical trick was played quickly. Of course there could have been lags in the broadcast that hid the real tempo. Just discussed this hand with West (Simon de Wijs). He got the explanation that Nunes held 19+ so he automatically placed ♦A with declarer. (Of course Nunes' hand is worth 19+ here). Simon took ♠A in tempo. When he played the third heart, Muller threw his highest remaining, signalling ♦A, and it was clear that Nunes noted that. The only explanation Simon could come up with why Nunes dropped ♠J, is that Simon would probably have taken more time to think over the position if he had held ♠AJx. In that case he might have considered that Nunes wouldn't have led ♠K without the ten, and thus that his ♠J was doomed, and thus that ducking ♠A (and then locking him in dummy with a heart ruff) would be an option. You might defend that way with AJx QJxx Qxxx xx for instance. It will take some time. So the fact that Simon took ♠A in tempo might have guided Nunes. Of course he blames himself for not asking Nunes why he played for the drop after the match.

It officially is artificial.

Not entirely correct. Up until now in international competition the 2+ 1♣ opening was treated as conventional. Members of the Dutch team have played Holo-Bolo in all international championships in the last few years. In Holland the 2+ 1♣ is treated as conventional since the nineties; there haven't been any recent changes in that regard. I assume the rule you are referring to ('at least 3 years ago') is an ACBL rule. Brink-Drijver were denied to play any BSC after the committee decided (not unreasonably) that they filed five BSC's instead of maximum 3. They might have decided to ask them to remove 2 of the 5 and file a new cc, but the committee of course took the easiest road. Muller-De Wijs had filed a cc mentioning Holo-Bolo against all <3 1♣ openings. They were allowed to change that and file a new cc with "<3" replaced by "artificial".

Actually De Wijs-Muller play 2♦ Multi and 2♥ 3-suiter short in ♦. They have considered to switch to 2♦ 3-suiter and 2♥ Multi, but they don't like to change their system too much depending on the regulations. Most of the Team Orange players think 2♥ Multi is a profitable weapon, even though the balance for Brink-Drijver (who kept score) over last year is like -30 or so. The negative balance had more to do with discipline than with the convention itself, however. All agree it is dangerous to open 2♥ Multi often on 5crd suits, since most accidents happen when you land in the wrong major.