Walddk

2NT second in hand after 1 of a suit by RHO is known as "the unusual 2NT". Unusual because it doesn't show 20-21 hcp balanced as is the case if you open 2NT. Maybe we could name 4NT in the same position as "the very unusual 4NT". Expert players all over the world need no agreement regarding 4NT in this context, even if they are not regular partnerships. It will always be interpreted as a two-suited hand, at least 6-5. In another thread we have discussed 4NT. When is it Blackwood and when is it not? Some auctions are clear, others are not. I would regard this as clear: it is not Blackwood. Once in a lifetime you would like to have 4NT as Blackwood second in hand. Something like: x AKQJ10xxx x AKQ A hand like this "never" comes up, so 4NT as very unusual is of better use. Those hands are not frequent, admittedly, but they are more frequent than the one I showed above. Roland

5♣ must be wrong. Read my post above. Another good reason for a direct 4NT is that you don't want to hear any number of majors from LHO. They may have a profitable save in one of them. 4NT obviously gives him less room to manouevre. Roland

You are in the wrong game. 5♣ is down on a diamond lead. If you start by bidding 2NT, you must follow up with 4NT in order to give partner the option of bidding his longer minor. 5♣ now should show 5-6 in the minors. When you don't have a preference (equal length), let partner decide. Roland

There is no scientific way of finding out whether we have a slam on or not, so my choice would be 4NT for the minors. I will pass 5♣ and 5♦. On a very bad day partner goes down in 5mi, but we can't stay lower than that with this hand. Yes, we may miss a slam when partner has ♣K or ♠A, but I don't think we can get there without punting. Roland

Our live vugraph broadcasts from the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup & Seniors Bowl in Estoril, Portugal, will start on Sunday, October 23. Daily time schedule for all 21 matches in the round-robin (23rd through 29th) will be: 05:00 am New York, 11:00 Paris, 10:00 am London, 07:00 pm Sydney 09:00 am New York, 15:00 Paris, 02:00 pm London, 11:00 pm Sydney 12:30 pm New York, 18:30 Paris, 05:30 pm London, 02:30 am Sydney* * = following morning. 20 boards per match in the round-robin. At this point in time we can only guarantee one match per round, but if we manage to get volunteer operators on site, we will obviously offer a choice of matches. No promises though. I will come back to the knockout phase at some stage later. The link to the official web site with lots of useful info is: http://www.worldbridge1.org/tourn/Estoril.05/Estoril.htm Have fun! Roland

Final Sunday (48 boards): Parioli Rome, Italy vs. Schaltz Odense, Denmark Playoff for 3rd place (36 boards): Besiktas Istanbul, Turkey vs. Allegra Torino, Italy 10.00, 13.00, 15.00, and 17.00 Paris time 4:00, 7:00, 9:00, and 11:00 am New York Roland

You seem to have missed that you are in the wrong hand for a spade finesse after trick 1. Roland

Semi-finals Saturday: 1. Parioli Rome, Italy vs. Allegra Torino, Italy 2. Schaltz Odense, Denmark vs. Besiktas Istanbul, Turkey 4 segments of 12 boards. 10.00 Paris, 04:00 am New York: 1. Boards 1-12 13.00 Paris, 07:00 am New York: 2. Boards 13-24 15.15 Paris, 09:15 am New York: To be announced 17.30 Paris, 11:30 am New York: To be announced Roland

Our schedule for Friday: Round 3 at 09.45 Paris, 03:45 am New York: Poland vs. Russia Round 4 at 13.20 Paris, 07:20 am New York: Netherlands vs. Sweden Round 5 at 16.20 Paris, 10:20 am New York: Turkey vs. Belgium For standings after 2 rounds of 5: http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05B...els/Results.htm Roland

Flattery can get you anywhere, but can you come back is the question :D Roland

Is that really necessary? Vogue is obtainable in a tiny country like Denmark (not that I ever buy it of course), so I would be surprised if you were not able to buy it in Germany too. Roland

With 9 opposite 9 hcp and no shortage in either hand they must have been very lucky to make their vulnerable game. I suspect that the contract needed a few finesses and breaks and that they were all on. However, by looking at your description of what happened they did nothing wrong regarding the bridge laws, so the table result must stand. I would not have ruled any differently if this had taken place on BBO. There is no rule, or law, against being lucky, and I do not agree with your statement that they misbehaved. Where did they violate any law? By the look of it they both gambled and won. One has to accept that. Roland

It can't be put any clearer than that. Rain's statement "I saw it as East deliberately attempting to sabotage the board with a psyche" is not valid in the context of the laws of bridge. She needs to prove that East violated a law. There is no such evidence and therefore no cause for adjustment. I wish that people who are to make decisions like this one were certified directors, because if they were there would not have been such a ruling. It is nowhere to be found that East had been abusive and therefore subject to a procedural penalty. He may have bid badly, but there is no law against bidding badly, and there is certainly no evidence of intent. Roland

I am sorry, but although your calculations are very interesting and accurate, they are also pretty useless in this context. Who cares about a priori probabilities when the auction has told us that those figures are no longer valid? Everything is not equal here. West pre-empted with 3♥. You seem to forget that. By the way, a priori it's just as good to finesse the jack on the first round than cashing the ace first. Roland

No, the contract can't be made on best defence, but it's a defence I predict that no one will find at the table. West must lead his singleton heart, or ♠A and switch to a heart! Say he leads a heart. Declarer must duck, and East switches to a spade to West's ace. Now we abandon that suit as well and return the ♦9! One way or another the defence will now come to 5 tricks. If you find that defence, I would rather not play against you. By the way, I won't have to, will I? You are surely on your way to Estoril to take part in the Bermuda Bowl starting next week, are you not? Roland

Could well be true, but no one approached me about it, so my guess is that it's being taken care of by ritong (Henri), zmud99 (Hervé) and patapon (Bénédicte). To be honest with you, I hope they will do it themselves. I had plenty to do with getting commentators for Belgium, England and Russia. 47 commentators signed up for those 3 events; what an enthusiasm! We need all of them in order to cover all those sessions. Roland

Now that you did insert the 9, I win the club return in hand like you did and lead a heart up. How good is my RHO? When LHO returned a heart, do I "know" that hearts are 7-2? I mean, would RHO always give honest count? I need to know my opponents first. Everything being equal I will go for the 2722 shape with LHO and tackle trumps the way I did in my first post. Roland

Declarer erred at trick 1 by not inserting a high club from dummy. Now East can duck all he likes, because now I have the legitimate chance of Qxx in spades on side. When declarer played small from dummy East could indeed have defeated the contract by ducking. As it went, there is nothing more the defence can do if I (can) guess correctly. You write that West could have beaten the contract by switching to a diamond when in with ♥A. That's not true. I will win the ace and do the same as I would have done on a heart return (see later). I must guess if West is 2722 or 3622 with no ♠Q. I will go for 2722 although I know that he could easily have pre-empted with only 6 hearts non vulnerable against vulnerable. The only 2-4 trump break I can pick up (apart from the very unlikely Q10 doubleton with West) is xx opposite Q10xx. 10x and Qx with West won't help me. So I will win the heart (or diamond) return and finesse ♠9. Back to dummy with a diamond (or heart if West switched to a diamond) and finesse ♠J next. If all goes well, I draw the last trumps and discard one of my diamond losers on dummy's 4th club. Roland

No need to adjust anything. No one violated any bridge law. Roland

I can't see why it wouldn't apply in this auction :) Because it's more important to get to the right contract. How do you know, if partner must bid 3♣ and you are 5-5 in the minors? Roland

Some play their best bridge while being watched, others hate it and play awfully, and the rest doesn't care/mind. When your team is on vugraph you have no choice, and that's how it should be. Take it or leave it. Roland

Can't see how Lebensohl applies in this auction. 2NT is for the minors, but I would be reluctant to do that opposite a pick-up partner from the United Nations. He may think it's natural (competitive). Roland

Let me guess: because there are 10 variants of the F-convention? Close. 7 variations of F and 3 of Capp. G is a clear #11. Well, in fact 1-11 are more or less equally bad in my opinion. Roland

5♣ is clubs, maybe too simple, sorry about that. How many ace asking bids do you need? I am completely lost if you can't bid clubs if you have them. Why do you think that the G-convention is #11 on my list of the 10 conventions I dislike the most? Roland

Let me repeat the excellent rule of thumb for doubles of low level contracts. Doubles are for take-out, unless: 1) It's obvious that the opponents have a misfit. 2) Preceded by a redouble. In all other cases double is for take-out. 2) Applies here, so it's a penalty double. Roland