Walddk

I confirm that 2♥ shows 5+ cards. In the rare instance that responder has specifically 3433, it is recommended that you respond 2♣ (alternatively 2♦ if the club suit is very weak). You can always correct to spades later if opener supports the minor. In all other instances, 2♥ definitely shows 5+. If not, the response is wrong, since you would bid 2♣/♦ with 4-4 in hearts and the minor. Roland

I would upgrade it to 1NT, but I do not mind 1♣ followed by 2♣, unless the response is 1♥; then I prefer a raise to 2♥. The previous two hands: 1) 1♣ followed by 3♣ - 2) 1NT. Roland

that should help. Yes, I was wondering what that word meant. Whatever it means, does it guarantee 12 tricks at NT? Roland

Is that a quantitaive (or better) NT raise with a 5-card minor and no 4-card major? Then I agree. I can't imagine that it can be anything else with this hand. Roland

Agree with 2NT. I have a great hand after his 4♣, so it's a clear 4♠ now. Unlike other posters I don't think partner is ?-5-?-5. He has more shape than that. x-6-x-5 is more like it, because he had the option of venturing Michaels, but he did not. Note to Hannie: what does "gotten" mean? Was my English teacher way out when he taught us to inflect "to get" like this: "I get, "I got", I have got"? If yes, I want my school money back! Or is it perhaps another North American attempt of ruining the English language? ;) Roland

Maybe we were too naive in our attempt to strive for perfection (read "high quality"). Maybe one won't realise what quality is until it drops dramatically, if it does. I don't want it to drop; I want it to get even better, but it's a fact that you can't do it with no money. If I understand Uday correctly, he wouldn't mind much if we lost some of the commentators if they decide to charge for their service. There will always be others to take over. I am sure there will, but does that also mean that you keep the quality? Does that not concern you, Uday? I for one think that you should worry about it. There is no substitute for class, and you usually don't get class for nothing. You get what you pay for, and that is perfectly acceptable in all aspects of life. Why would that be any different with vugraph presentations? Roland

Point taken Arend, but how much longer will the commentators we have now donate all their time for free? I can't answer that question myself, but I can tell you and others that several have already aired the view that it's about time that they get a little something for all the hard work. Next question is: Would it be unreasonable if they did? And if they did, should we then just discard them as commentators we don't want and perhaps lose some of the very best? If we do, it will be another example of compromising with quality, would it not? Roland

I agree with Richard, but it's not the BBO policy. Personally, I can't understand why it is ok to charge money for playing in certain tourneys and with GIBs (being introduced in a few days), whereas it is completely free to: 1. Use the BBO software for vugraph purposes. 2. Watch hundreds of hours of vugraph broadcasts every year as a spectator. It makes little sense to me. If vugraph really is the success we all believe it is, then surely no one can expect to get this for nothing until the end of time. Just a thought: Vugraph viewers subscribe for a year at say $10. Then one can come and go as much as one wants. It takes little imagination to comprehend that the revenue for BBO will be enormous. I don't believe that Fred and Uday have never considered the matter. I promise to be the first one to pay the $10, although I will be working with getting the broadcasts together. I predict that thousands of members will be lining up to pay the $10 for watching just the Bermuda Bowl final! Roland

Another aspect I forgot to mention is the need to negotiate with the organizers in order to get the matches that will suit the BBO viewers best. For obvious reasons you can't do that from the distance. Only a BBO co-ordinator on site is in a position to handle this on BBO's behalf. Fred will be there, sure, but it's not his job to do a thing like that. He will and should be busy concentrating on playing bridge and get the best result possible for USA2. Roland

Simon and Garfunkel: "Bridge Over Troubled Waters". Beyond compare as far as this game is concerned, is it not? :D And then of course "Sacrifice". Roland

The word 'might', not "will", in the statement you are referring to, seems to imply the author isn't making an assertation to a fact. "Might" or "will", not significant in this context. We have evidence, so "might" is not needed. Either it will make a difference, or it will not. Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion of course. I think there is a major difference between having a co-ordinator there or not. You don't have to agree, and if "give him a reward" is your approach, I am really not interested. Let me add that one of our competitors, Swan Games, has one co-ordinator, one technical supervisor and two operators there. They still don't make a product that is even half as good as ours, but for several reasons I think it's important that we are present too. At least Fred acknowledges that fact. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if this "might" or "will" be an improvement, since it's BBO's current policy not to pay for vugraph. In other sports it's perfectly normal to have the co-ordinator on site. They don't let him sit in Copenhagen when there is a football match in Lisbon. Simply because it will never be the same for the viewers. To suck in the atmosphere at the venue is an important factor of a successful broadcast in my opinion. Roland

If anyone thinks that this is going to be 2 weeks of holiday for me, it's about time that he/she is brought back to reality. It's 2 weeks of hard work I can assure you, and a few people (Bo, Fred and Marek Wojciechowski of Poland among others) are in a position to verify that. In Malmö, Sweden, during the European Championships in 2004, it was nothing but work from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening for 14 days on the trot. Ask Bo how many times I got a chance to leave the press room. Right, I did sleep occasionally, and I did get my 2 Big Mac's at 9 pm. In Tenerife, during the European Open Championships, I even withdrew from the mixed pairs and open pairs in order to service the BBO members once it became possible for us to broadcast from some of the events there. I was not present in Istanbul for the Olympics last autumn, and allow me to state that the quality of our broadcasts suffered as a result. Reward for my work for BBO for the past 2½ years? I don't see it that way. I have been to more than 60 countries all over the world, and I have been to Estoril before in another capacity (player), so I don't need to be rewarded by playing a tourist wearing sunglasses, and with a camera around my neck. I need to do what I'm best at: working hard for hours to give the BBO members the best service possible. As Clinch rightly points out, it's first of all a question of being in the heat of battle. Among the players, to get inside information you would otherwise not get, and to pass that information on to the vugraph spectators all over the world. No one can do that if that person is 2,500 km away from the venue. Secondly, due to the fact that we get our vugraph schedule very late every day throughout the championships (the on site vugraph commentators understandably want to have a look at the standings before they decide which matches to go for), the co-ordinator will have very little time to notify and get the commentators we need for often up to 6 tables simultaneously. This has special significance regarding languages. We really want to offer as many languages as possible, and if we are to provide English, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, "Indonesian" and "Scandinavian" commentary, it's paramount that the co-ordinator is on site so that he can get in touch with potential commentators all over the world very quickly. This is a very stressful task I can assure you, and I am not sure everybody would be prepared to carry that burden upon his or her shoulders. I am not complaining, because I enjoy it so much. Maybe I'm a masochist, but my enthusiasm and dedication to do this as perfectly as possible are enormous. Hope it shows. I am not saying that it's impossible to have broadcasts on BBO if the co-ordinator is not on site; I am merely saying that the quality of those broadcasts will be compromised, and that is what I don't like. It also strikes me as odd how someone living in New York (no, not you Clinch), and who has not been at the venue during the major championships I mentioned above, can tell how the improvements will be "minor" and the cost "major". I have been there, done that, so I should know what I am talking about. I think it's worth every cent one can provide for this job. Malmö was perhaps the best we ever did. I think everyone who followed this closely will agree. Bo and I were on site. The same goes for The WYTC in Sydney recently. We had Dave Thompson and Nick Fahrer on site as co-ordinators (and operators too for that matter), and it was a tremendous success. I don't get a penny for the work I do, and I am fine with that for the time being, but does anyone really expect that I, on top of this, apart from devoting my time, should pay a large amount in order to earn the right to work around the clock for 2 weeks? If yes, I am sorry to disappoint you. As Fred pointed out in his previous post, I am even prepared to pay one of my assistants at the bridge centre to run my classes while I'm away (around $1,500), but it is hardly fair that I also pay my expenses regarding Estoril (air travel, accomodation and meals). Hervé Lustman (zmud99), one of our most experienced operators, will be there, as Fred wrote earlier, but don't forget that he is hired and paid by the WBF, so he is their man, not BBO's during the two weeks. His job is very stressful too, so one can't expect him to render as much service to the BBO members as would otherwise have been the case. I obviously accept that no corporation, person and organization want to pay because they don't think it's worth it. This is not meant to be a sour comment, but, considering that I have a business to attend to when at home, I cannot commit to more than perhaps 25% of my usual effort in this context, and that's what I think is a shame. I am used to giving 100% when I commit to a task, and I do not like to compromise. I can give 100% if I'm at the venue; I can't when I have 1,000 bridge playing members around me at the centre. I think it's a shame for bridge in general, and for BBO specifically. However, BBO will survive, and so will I. It's not the end of the world that I'm not going, as I have pointed out before. If there is no money for this purpose, there is no money. It's as simple as that. Roland

Your intention is very good, but the problem is that all federations (NCBOs) are already members of the WBF, and as such they pay an annual membership fee. Then you don't have to be an Einstein to figure out what the NCBOs will reply. Something like: "We already pay lots of money to the WBF, so it must be their job to pay all expenses in this context". Then in turn the WBF will counter with: "We have many other more important things to spend the money on. If BBO wants to broadcast from our events, it is their problem as far as financial matters are concerned". And then, regrettably, we are back to where we are now. No one wants to pay for vugraph. Roland

Good luck Mike. Next time you partner's rebid over 1NT is. 1. 3♠ 2. 4♠ 3. 3♣ How do you like it now? You won't win anything on this auction, and you will certainly not win the post-mortem. Roland

I don't disagree, and then you've got to live with missing the occasional game by passing. Like this hand at my centre yesterday: 7 KJxxx 10xxxx xx Partner opens 1♠. I think pass is the winner in the long run. It wasn't on this occasion when opener held: Qxxxx Axx AK9 AQ The layout was very friendly, and you were cold for 11 tricks in hearts. Roland

You got that wrong, card_judge. There is no fee involved. Any organizer is welcome to use the BBO software for vugraph purposes free of charge. We also provide expert commentary for free. Should there be a fee, you may ask. That's a different question. Roland

Room for more discussion. The EBL certified TD ruled: 4♥ permissible, the raise to 6♣ was not. Result: 5♣ +1 = 620. For the record, 6♣ is down on a diamond lead. West had ♦AK. Responder's hand: AKQJ6 void Q73 K9543 Roland

Yes. 3♣ was not, which is quite common (unless you play MikeH's method). Opener was reluctant to splinter (3♠) or jump to 4♣ at matchpoints. Roland

Different points of view, all is fine, but no one seems to be able to answer the only important question: Who is going to pay for this? Fred says "not us", the WBF says "not us", and strangely enough the vugraph coordinator says "not me". So no one is paying, and therefore nothing is happening. Why do people think that all this can be done for nothing? It's not the end of the world that I (apparently) am not going to Estoril, but I don't agree with Fred when he says that a coordinator is not needed. "Desirable" but not "necessary", he writes. No one is indispensable, but allow me to point out that the success of those broadcasts is not only determined by the quality of the operators. If no one is present to coordinate it all, the quality will not be as it could and should have been. We have seen that on previous occasions. You get what you pay for (and remember that no one working for BBO gets paid one cent), but if everyone keeps claiming no responsibility, you compromise with quality. It's a compromise I will be very reluctant to settle for. We invite all organizers to use the BBO software for free. That's the decision of the BBO management. Fair enough, but why would we also keep offering free coordination and expert commentary? Everything in life has a price; vugraph is no exception. Roland

I overcall 1NT, but I can't see why 1♠ would underbid the strength of the hand. A simple overcall shows something like 8-17 hcp, and if partner can't move over 1♠, we are unlikely to have missed anything. One is allowed to have a maximum on occasions. Overcalls on a 4-card suit are rare exceptions for me, and I wouldn't do it here. Partner should expect 5+ after an overcall. Roland

And its no sacrifice Just a simple word Its two hearts living In two separate worlds But its no sacrifice No sacrifice Its no sacrifice at all The more I think about, the more I am convinced that Elton John had this hand in mind when he decided to compose the music to "Sacrifice". Lyrics written by Bernie Taupin, by the way. That simple word he is referring to must be ......... pass! Roland

1. I suggest that a jump raise shows 10-12 (distributional points included). This hand has 12 hcp and no extra, because you can't count ♥J and the doubleton at the same time. The same applies to Qx. 2. 2♦ is only game forcing if you play 2-over-1. If you play Standard American it is a 1-round force with 10+ hcp. Whether that particular hand is good enough to force to game is a matter of judgement. It's close, but I don't think it's worth more than a limit raise. If you think it's good enough for a game force, you should rather adopt Jacoby 2NT (forcing to game with 4+ spades) than bid 2♦ first. Roland

No, I fancy my chances on defence with that hand. I have both black suits well guarded, and hearts could easily break 4-1 since responder didn't transfer. I know that opener may have 5 of them occasionally (if that is allowed in your methods). "It's no sacrifice, at all", as Elton John so rightly points out in one of his best songs. "Sacrifice" is the title in case some of you didn't know. Maybe he plays bridge too. Roland

Justin seems to have been celebrating prematurely. His last post in "Can you bid on" is virtually unreadable :) Happy Birthday, Justin. Roland

No, it's a very common disease. "The non trump lead syndrome". Not sure what the remedy is. A trump lead is right much more often than one may think, and yet we see it rarely. Roland