Walddk

Part 3: West pulled to 5♣ with no significant hesitation, and now this happened: 5♠ from LHO, double by partner and redouble to your right. You are in the spotlight again. What is your bid? Roland

Yes, I force you to bid 2♠ whether you like it or not, because otherwise there would have been no known continuation. You might have guessed that we haven't reached the climax yet (sorry in advance if "climax" also is chauvinistic in your world). Roland

???? Must be your imagination. Nothing, absolutely nothing intentional here. West is a fine player! If you get offended on behalf of the women, I recommend that you don't read the posts. Roland

Interesting discussion. Now, let's move on to ...... Part 2: Nice to see that none of you went for the option the Scottish lady in question found at the table: 2♠, a high card raise with club support. The more I look at it, the more I dislike it. However, I force you to bid 2♠ (you are playing in the Scottish women's trials remember), and then the auction proceeds: 3♠ by LHO, 3NT from partner and a loud double to your right. Now what? You brought yourself into this mess, remember. How to get out of it in a graceful way? Your country is relying on you! ;) Roland

Even if I had 4♥ available to show a 2-suiter (5-6 or 6-6), I wouldn't venture it with this anaemic heart suit. The important aspect for me is to make partner understand and evaluate how good her Jxx(x) or Axx(x) in spades are opposite a void. Jxx(x) is great, Axx(x) is not. In my opinion, a fit bid would only be appropriate if the side suit has concentrated values. With the heart suit here, AK with partner is gold, xx is not. How is partner to know if I made a fit bid on Qxxxxx or Axxxx/AKxxx/AQxxx? Roland

Indeed, and isn't that exactly what 4♠ (void) shows? It doesn't take an Einstein for partner to figure out that you are very likely to have a two-suiter, simply because two-suiters are more frequent than three-suiters. Roland

Yes, I would treat 3♥ as a fit jump, but I think it's wrong on this hand for two reasons: 1. LHO will get too much room to bid spades. 2. I don't like the quality of my hearts. I am prepared to forget about hearts at IMPs when I know we have 10+ clubs between us. Besides, if LHO has a big support for spades (which seems likely), we won't buy it in 4♥ anyway. Roland

Not that I disagree with 4♠ (I atually think it's the best available), but to me it would just show a void and not ask for anything. I think it's unsound if a passed hand starts asking for aces opposite the unlimited hand. 5♣ does not give partner a chance to evaluate if she has good or bad cards. 4♠ does. Roland

14-16 NT. Roland

Blame it on me, but I think it's wrong to bid any number of hearts. However, I should have given you the option. Sorry. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=shq87642d10ca108743]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pretend that you are playing in the Scottish trials (women). First in hand, and you pass. LHO passes, and partner opens 1♣ (4+). RHO overcalls 1♠. You? At some stage I will tell you about what actually happened at the table. This hand was quite significant (appeal pending regarding this very board, by the way). Roland

That's a contradiction. If the bad result was not inflicted by NS, it was self-inflicted. No one asked East to double. He did, so he inflicted the result upon himself! Roland

Facts: 1. 2♣ was alerted and explained as forcing. Didn't promise a suit. 2. 3♣ and 4♣ were not alerted. 3. 6NT made 12 tricks on a non-club lead (declarer misguessed diamonds). Considerations: 1. Were NS damaged by the missing alerts? Yes, North had every reason to believe that East had a club suit. Accordingly, a club lead was out of the question. ..... Ruling: An adjustment is called for. If 3♣ and 4♣ had been alerted and subsequently explained on request, North would have found the club lead some of the times. In f2f bridge I would have given a weighted score. X% 6NT-1, X% 6NT= (I haven't made up my mind regarding the percentages). However, there is a problem on the internet, because the software doesn't allow you to give a weighted score. I am not sure what a fair adjustment would be under the circumstances, now that you only have Ave (50%), Ave+ (60%) and Ave- (40%) available. Once I determine what the weighted score should be, I will get an adjusted score, and only then can I compare it to the datum score across the field. This would be much too complicated and time consuming, apart from the fact that I wouldn't be able to give a weighted score anyway. Given that EW are the offending side and NS the non offending side, I think the only option I have is to award 60-40 in favour of NS (Ave+ .. Ave-). Adjusting to 6NT-1 is wrong in my opinion. North would not always have found the club lead, even if he had been alerted properly and got the correct explanations of 3♣ and 4♣. Roland

I need more info. What is 2♣ forcing 0/+ C Do you mean 0+ clubs and just a game forcing relay? Also, did East not alert either of his club bids? 2♣, 3♣, 4♣? Roland

Good points Ben. As a commentator it is definitely more exciting when you can have a live dialogue with the operator about various aspects while it's happening, here and now, and not 5, 10, 15 minutes later! It's also better for the audience when the commentators have time to comment on possible bids, play and defence while a player is in the tank. What is going through his mind now? Why is it likely that he will choose this option rather than another? Pauses are part of the game, and they should surely be "shown" too. I don't know about you, but I have a vivid picture of how the players are feeling after a hand. The joy, the agony, all the emotions although you are not physically present. In a way I feel I am even if I am 6,000 miles away from the venue. It would not be the same if I knew there was a delay. All that and much more will be taken away if we were to show a hand that has been played already. It spoils the fun, and that would be a shame. Most of the times I share the views of the Bridge World editor; this time I do not, and I doubt that he will have much support among the vugraph spectators worldwide. Roland

The damage was self-inflicted and not caused by a missing alert. East took a chance and was punished. He's got to live with that. Roland

Would you choose it? Only if Fred would phrase it: "LOL or Worse". Then I promise to be the first one to choose it :rolleyes: Roland

By the way, I think we should blame it on Fred. Why "LOL" is not an option among "skill level" in one's profile is beyond me! :rolleyes: Roland

Which is the corresponding word for stupid male players? I've seen a lot of them during my bridge life as well as really good female players! Caren Well, there is a nice story written by Harison-Gray, were he tells about a tournament encounter with a LOL. After this encounter he gave a new translation for LOL Laughing Old Lady. With kind regards Marlowe And the story was that Harrison-Gray and his partner bid to a grand slam off the ace of trumps. Down 1. After the hand the LOL with the ace was asked why she hadn't doubled. Her reply was: "You don't know Harrison-Gray, it seems. He would just redouble"! Roland

What's a 'LOL'? Loser OnLine? :rolleyes: Little Old Lady. Roland

1♦ response: 1. Negative: 0–8 HCP. In the 7–8 HCP range, responder should not have a 4-card major (the response of one of a major is 7+HCP, the 1NT response is 9–11 HCP). 2. 9–11 unbalanced; either both minors (5-4), or one poor minor. The hand does not qualify for any of the responses: 1NT, 2 in a minor, 3 in a minor. 3. 12–16 HCP balanced without a 4-card major. The hand is not suitable for declaring no trumps. 1♥/1♠ responses: 7+HCP, 4+ cards, can have longer minor if less than GF. 1NT response: 9–11 HCP, no 4-card major. 2♣/2♦ responses: 5+ cards, GF, can have 4-card major. 2♥/2♠ responses: Strong jump shift (semi-solid suit). 2NT response: 12+ HCP, GF no 4-card major. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"Same procedure as last year, James". Alert or not, does not matter. What matters is: has East been damaged by the missing alert? The answer is a clear no. Table result stands, period. And furthermore, North should not alert if he thinks that 1♣ is the right bid with that hand and the partnership has no specific agreement. Maybe someone (a mentor!) needs to tell him, politely of course, that 1♠ is quite normal with his hand, but's that a different story. By the way, a tournament director is not supposed to make bridge related judgements. Whether 2♣ is a good/bad bid is not for the TD to decide. Players are entitled to bid as badly as they like. Roland

May I draw your attention to the editorial in the October issue of Bridge World. As one way to avoid cheating the editor writes: "We highly approve of the availability of contemporaneous displays of important events, but we'd like them even better if the public did not see a deal until it had been completed at all active tables; surely that small delay is a pittance to pay compared to the risks run by literally real-time presentation". I strongly disagree. The risk of cheating is tiny and well worth risking in order to get a real-time broadcast. It's so much more exciting when you know that this is happening right now! I much prefer a live broadcast of whichever sports event that's on offer, rather than watching a recorded broadcast, regardless of how small or large the delay is. What do you think? Roland

Agreed, but don't be too hopeful. It is rarely a concern the organisers have until it's too late! Some of them tend to forget that we live in 2005 (2006 soon) and that the internet is there to stay. Roland

As so many others, Geir Helgemo has been dedicated to poker of late; combined with the fact that a girlfriend takes a lot of this time (nothing new there :unsure: ). That explains why you don't see him at the bridge table as much as before. By the way, I would like to add a pair to the European line-up: Jan Jansma - Louk Verhees, Netherlands Roland