mich-b

I bid 2♠ when I held this hand - in our style the 7th ♠ compensates for the general weakness , and the vulnerability. Actually , partner who held ♠KQJx told me later he knew I held a 7 card suit, since I needed a 7th card to bid 2♠ with a weak suit at that vulnerability.

How do those who play this way (2♥ does not promiss ♥s) , sort out things when opener has 4♥s and raises? Would 3♣ in this auction be a "catchall" as well ? Do you tend to bid your better fragment? And if 2♥ is not GF , wouldn't opener bid 3NT with his maximum rather than presumably non forcing 2NT?

Thanks :) This has been a great week for me - first a medal in Ostend , then winning the Prediction Contest... What else can one wish for? :(

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sjxxhkqxxxxdxxcqt]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦-(3♣)-?[/hv] All players are experts. Partner opens 1♦ playing simple 2/1. RHO preempts with 3♣. What now? If you double , what is your plan if partner bids ♠? If you pass , and it goes 4♣ from LHO, PASS, PASS to you - do you take any action?

Didn't Germany win the 3rd place match with a convincing 3-1, in the last World Cup in 2006?

63) Uruguay - Germany 2 64) Netherlands - Spain 1 I have a problem with the Final game: Before the World Cup started I predicted that Netherlands will win. Now I think Spain have a better chance , but I will stay consistent with myself... Unless I change my mind :(

What did you do in the old days with this hand then? I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe. I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands. It has been suggested that in the specific sequence : 1♠ - 2♥ 3♦ - ? it is better to reverse 3♠ and 4♣, so that 3♠ = 4th suit forcing, 4♣ = 3♠s , good hand This avoids the problem of using 4th suit forcing on the 4 level.

One reason why RR is used in the Europeans , is that this championship also determines 6 qualifiers to the Bermuda Bowl. A KO format would have problems to do that fairly.

Hypothetical results with full carryover (I hope I did not make mistakes..) 1. Poland 542 2. Israel 524.5 3. Italy 516 4. Iceland 500 5. Sweden 494 6. Bulgaria 476.5 7-8 Netherlands & Turkey 473 9. Germany 472.5 10. Russia 467 11. France 451.5 12. England 440 13. Norway 431 14. Denmark 428 etc... Personally though , I do not think full carryover would be a good idea. I think the 2 groups were not even strength (especially looking at the bottom half of each group) which would be very crtitical factor if full carryover was used. Also , in the later rounds of the group stage , some teams that lost the chance to qualify, seemed to have lost interested with their performance affected accordingly.

Israel should be Israel......... 22 (3-12-7)

61) 2 Uruguay - Netherlands 62) 2 Germany - Spain

57) 1 Netherlands - Brazil 58) 1 Uruguay - Ghana 59) 2 Argentina - Germany 60) 2 Paraguay - Spain

53) 1 54) 1 55) 1 56) 1

49) 1 50) 1 51) 1 52) 1

33) 0 34) 2 35) 2 36) 0 37) 2 38) 1 39) 2 40) 2 41) 2 42) 1 43) 0 44) 2 45) 0 46) 2 47) 2 48) 1 I may make some changes later , after watching today's and tomorrow games.

I am coming.

(Disclaimer : The following is not how this should be dealt with now. It is how I wish the rules would be dealing with this.) Since NS (a pair with several national titles) have failed to remember (and explain) a conventional bid on the 1st round of the bidding, and by doing so made the board almost unplayable (other than guessing what E or W or South would have done , if South had explained correctly) rule "Convention Disruption" against NS , assign them -3 IMPs (or whatever) , and hope that next time they will be more responsible as to remember their basic agreements and not spoil the game for their opps. Don't you think this is fair, simple, transparent and constructive?

We play that a positive is forcing to 4M. Meaning that 3NT from either side is forcing , leaving room to sort out fits. We can stop in 4NT if we dont find any good fit on the 4 level. 4M though is non-forcing and suggests to play.

17) 0 18) 1 19) 2 20) 1 21) 1 22) 0 23) 1 24) 1 25) 0 26) 2 27) 2 28) 1 29) 1 30) 1 31) 1 32) 1

Did 1♠ show 4+ , or 5+ cards? If you play 4+ , support double shows 3 cards. If you play 5+, you can still play that double shows 3 card raise (and 2♠ shows 4 card raise), or you can play (my preference) that double is "takeout without ♠ support" , normally 2245 or similar.

2NT Leb , intending to play 3♦. I have sympathy for (a courageous?) PASS , especially if it's MP. I don't like 2♠ - that is too likely to get raised , or to be a 3-3 fit.

3NT now. And I think it is wrong not to have a way to bid minor suits as a PH when pd opens 1M. If you need 2m bids for Drury , find some alternatives (3m, 2NT...)

Wasn't 4NT for the minors available on the 1st round ? I guess it was ace asking...otherwise you surely would have used it.... :unsure:

Same as the milkshake. Another "Same as ... "

While I agree that one reason for the new format , is to make the championship a little shorter , another reason was that the top places are to be decided by direct matches between the better teams rather than by the margin of their victories against the weaker teams.