hotShot

Good players and bad referees ......

Another epic match Germany - England.

Ghana!!!!!

Spain lost against the Swiss (Ranked 24 IIRC). The FIFA ranking includes results from the last 8 years. (Although older results have less weight) So former good teams are overrated and teams that are getting significantly better are underrated. Of the player in Ghanas team only one is still playing in Ghana, the others are playing in European top teams. Once they get used to being a team ,they should have a ranking somewhere between England and Spain.

53) 1 Netherlands - Slovakia 54) 1 Brazil - Chile 55) 1 Paraguay - Japan 56) 1 Spain - Portugal

This is very unlikely during a KO-phase.

You are wrong! They lost the final at the European Championship 1976.

DEN 0 JPN 2

Anybody guessed: 41) 1 42) 0 ?

Italy 1 Slovakia 3 Good bye former world champion ....

49) 1 Uruguay - Korea Republic 50) 2 United States - Ghana 51) 1 Germany - England 52) 1 Argentina - Mexico

How about using bridge rules for a start. What kind of comment is this? A useful comment. Perhaps I should have elaborated that earlier postings suggested e.g.: -to reach the par contract -to make the most descriptive opening bid -to find the best opening bid opposite partners most likely hands -to limit the number of bidding round -to take the size of the system into account These are all relevant points, but not necessarily achievable at the same time. So I think there is a necessity to define what criteria to take as measure for the quality of a bidding system.

Prior to discussing technical stuff, we should make up our minds about what a good bidding system is. If your side can make e.g. 3♠ are you allowed to stop below that? I see the need to reduce complexity, but you eliminate the preemptive effect when you reduce complexity by looking at uncontested auctions only.

33) 1 Mexico – Uruguay 34) 2 France – South Africa 35) 1 Nigeria – Korea Republic 36) 2 Greece – Argentina 37) 2 Slovenia – England 38) 1 United States – Algeria 39) 2 Ghana – Germany 40) 0 Australia – Serbia 41) 2 Slovakia – Italy 42) 1 Paraguay – New Zealand 43) 1 Denmark – Japan 44) 2 Cameroon – Netherlands 45) 2 Portugal – Brazil 46) 2 Korea DPR – Cote d’Ivoire 47) 2 Chile – Spain 48) 1 Switzerland – Honduras

I suggest B.

Hop Suisse!

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

I think it's subjective. Most games were boring in any WC, but you don't remember the bad games 4 * n years later.

The goal of Vittek!

I don't particularly feel like either goal was offside, but I might not have seen very many replays. Our TV-station here has a 3D-Analysis for offside situations, they could prove that the referee at the side was 2,5 m behind the offside line, from his position he could not see that the player was offside. Edit: The goal of Vittek!

Yeah - while I personally think that this argument is overweighted by some - never the less it is the killer argument for many. Nick Well for us the real killer argument was, that our 4cM/strong NT system was incredibly simple. There are several solution for the problem, but all lead to more complexity. To our surprise we found that switching from 4cM/strong NT to 5cM/strong NT had very little side effects within our simple system.

I have played 4cM "up the line" successfully with both strong and weak NT for years. The reason we switched to 5cM/strong NT was that opener could not make a valid decision to compete in contested auctions like: 1♥ - 1♠/2m - 2♥ - pass/2♠/3m ? Since partner could have gone for a 4-3 fit, you don't know if your fit is 7/8 or (if opener happens to have 5cards) 8/9 cards.

A partner is helpful by simplifying your decisions. Your 1NT bid gave a very complete picture about your hand. He knows that your side has a ♠ fit, because you already showed 2♠ cards with 1NT. He also knows that your side needs a ♥ control to make the slam. I guess you don't splinter with an honor, but over partners 4♣ you could cue 4♥ without promising extras, and bidding slam or even grand should be no problem at all. If you don't have a ♥ cue, partner can stop in 4♠without a problem. Suppose he "invented" a 4th ♦ and bid 3♦. He knows there is no risk, because it's game forcing and he can always switch to ♠. This leaves half of the 3 level and the 4 level for you to describe your hand. I suppose that 3♠ would promise a 3rd ♠ setting trumps allowing for cue bids on the 4 level. His 4♠ bid gave you a complicated decision and remember you should bid in tempo! Your partner has shown a hand with 6+ ♠s , that is not 2 suited and that could not splinter. Most likely his hand is of 6322 shape. From what you know your partner needs to have ♠AK ♦ A or K (to avoid a 2nd ♦ loser, partner should have only 2♣s (or Qxx) so you don't mind a ♥ loser. When you are done with that you will probably find that you can make a move as the 5-level is probably save. But e.g. Blackwood will not help you if partner does not have ♦ A or Q, because he will have to answer 4♥ (2 of 5) and if you ask about kings you will be to high, if partner does not have ♦K. Since Blackwood is no help, you have to cue 5♣. This will help finding the ♦A or K, but you might have problems to find that partner has ♠AK.

This mild slam try just took away the 3-level and the 4-level, disabled our ability to investigate the odds for slam. What would 3♦ have shown, or 4♣? Jilly you from your point of view, you lose 2 top tricks in ♦. Your hand is not good enough to go for slam with the information you got. Change partners ♦A with a small ♦ and give him ♥KJ] to compensate for the points. Would he bid differently? Your partners hand is a little stronger than a mild slam try and the hands fit well. The problem is withing the system or it's your partner, who was not helpful enough.

[edit] although hanp's example seems to kill even that :lol: In hanp's example after every single alerted bid, there would have been a question, this would make the question about the 3♠ bid a lot less meaningful.