Walddk

It is to me, playing 2-way check back Stayman. 2♦ is an artificial game force, asking for cheapest information not yet conveyed. So it has higher priority to show 4 hearts before 3 spades. Example: 1♦ - 1♠ 1N - 2♦ 2♥ Opener has 4 hearts and perhaps also 3 spades. If responder is not interested in 4 hearts opposite, but has 5 spades, he will just proceed with 2♠ to see if opener has 3-card support. Remember, 2♦ is game forcing, so you can take it step by step from there. Roland

I stand corrected I consulted some of the suual sources... Looks like 2 way NMF now includes using 2♣ as a puppet. Probably makes MORE sense than the way I'm used to... It does *not* make sense because 2♣ and 2♦ respectively are not always a new minor. 1♣ - 1♥ 1N - 2♣ 1♦ - 1♠ 1N - 2♦ They are not new minors, so it's wrong to include the term "nmf" in this context. Roland

2-way check back is superior to nmf by about 13½ miles. Roland

Hi roland, Reading the notes on BBO advanced, I take this to be the "xyz Convention", where 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦ either as a signoff in ♦ or some kind of game invite. And where 2♦ is game force. But what is there, is what came from the online description of BBO Advanced, and I have been known to mis-intepret. We will surely see what the panel thinks on this quiz. New minor forcing is pretty simple... Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦. Lets assume an auction like 1♦ - 1♠ 1N A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further. Partner should show (in order of priority) 1. A 4 card Hearts suit 2. 3 card support for Spades 3. A club stopper for NT Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦ 2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids. 2♦ promises game forcing values 2♣ shows game invitational values I know all that Richard; my question is which is the one we use in BBO Advanced. 2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid as stated in the notes makes no sense. Do we play nmf or 2-way check Stayman is what it's all about. The reason for my question might be that it's important for me to know before I vote. Roland

You're welcome. It's our pleasure really. Keep asking questions! Roland

Today's good news: We have been able to find and train capable, keen, local young men for the EBL Champions' Cup starting next Thursday in Brussels, Belgium. This event with complete timetable will likely be listed on our vugraph schedule web page some time later today. In the meantime, read about the high quality tournament at: http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05B...ls/Brussels.htm Next week will be extremely busy with broadcasts from Belgium, Brazil, England, Russia and possibly Italy. Brussels missing as I'm writing this post, but you can find the other events at: http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event Roland P.S. The EBL Champions' Cup is also listed now.

I wouldn't double with that hand, simply rebid hearts. Then double is always free to show take-out shape. Roland

I would like to know what 2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to 2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid? The wording as it is now does not make sense to me. Roland

No, still take-out. A good rule of thumb is: A double is for take-out if partner is a passed hand (or didn't bid yet), there are at least 2 unbid suits, and the level is not beyond 4♥. Roland

Take-out, extras, 3523 shape, possibly 4513 with a poor spade suit, or 3514 where a 1♥ overcall is better than double. 13 good to 17 hcp. Roland

Ben actually mentioned that option, but I am happy to see that he didn't go for it. It's 1♣ to me and a 1NT rebid over 1MA by partner. Roland

We are getting closer to reaching a reasonable solution regarding operators in Brussels, but it's still premature to state anything final. If all goes according to plan, we should be able to update you within 2-3 days. As soon as a decision has been made (hopefully a positive one), we will list the event on our vugraph schedule web page. Roland

Agree with the 1NT rebid. Don't agree with North's 2♥. Pass looks pretty clear to me. Roland

I am confused. How come that the TD didn't offer LHO to accept the insufficient bid when he (the TD) stated that the 1♦ call had been made? Failing to do so is against the laws - friendly club or not. Roland

Strong words for a man that sees the best players in the world make atrocious bidding mistakes all the time... Show me a world class player who would overcall 2♥ with that rubbish, at love all, facing a passed partner. Roland

2♥ and 4♥ get -10 points each. 2♥ is atrocious for two reasons: 1. Horrible suit. 2. Passed partner. 2♥ deserves to go for 1100 non vulnerable! 4♥ is inconsistent. Either you bid 4♥ on your first turn, or you keep quiet thereafter if you, reasonably, raise to only 3. Conclusion: neither South nor North can bid, and North can't defend either by the look of it. Roland

Basil: "What's your excuse for not returning a spade"? Manuel: "I am from Barcelona". Basil: "Apology accepted". Manuel: "Que"?

1♦ - 2♦ 3♦ - 4♦ 5♦ - 6♦ sigh "Diamonds are forever". - Marilyn Monroe

I don't recall that you did, Mike, and I never said you did. It takes something special to become insane, and I am not quite there yet. Roland

By all means, that's my name after all (blame it on my parents) ;) I and others were deemed "insane" by one, and yet double was the winning bid. I much prefer to be called Roland than insane. Roland

Add me to the minority then. Too good for 4♠ with 7 likely tricks opposite an opener. 2♠ is fine; spades will win the battle later anyway if you feel like it. Roland

Well, I guess Justin, Alain and I must live with being called insane. I would double too. Too much guesswork as to whether 5♥ or 5♠ will be right (or wrong), so I will go for what I think is the sure plus. Like Justin, looking at my club holding, I think it's unlikely that they will make 5♦. If I really have ♣AQ on my left, it will surely not make the prospect of making 5 of a major any better. Yes, 5♥ and/or 5♠ could be profitable saves, but they might as well be phantom saves. I am a subscriber to Ron Klinger's theory: "The 5-level belongs to the opponents". Roland

Here are some of Alfred Sheinwold's: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself". .... "Since the average person's small supply of politeness must last a lifetime, he can't afford to waste much of it on bridge partners". .... "One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts". .... "There are only two acceptable reasons for not leading partner's suit. 1) Having no cards in the suit - 2) Sudden death".

"If you are accused in a court of law of being able to play bridge, I'll defend you for free". Roland Wald

I disagree that you should bid any higher than the 2-level with only 3-card support. 1♠ - 3♠ (or some kind of Bergen if you prefer) should show 4+ cards. It is my experience that it's much better to temporise with 2♣ if you have 3433 and partner opens 1♠. Roland