Walddk

3♣, wow!! If you think 3♣ is an overbid (I don't because you would bid 2♣ with a spade more and a club less), then by all means bid 2♣. Opener should still bid 2♥, and now responder has an easy 4♥ opposite 4-3-1-5. Roland

Personally, I'd be fairly pleased with myself if I bid the game with no interference at all. Well, is it really that hard? West dealer: 1. 1♣ - 1♥ 2♥ - 4♥ 2. 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ - 3♣ 3♥ - 4♥ After a strong NT by North I don't think you can get there. Roland

4♣, clubs and a major, forcing. 4♦ by advancer asks for the major. No reason not to use leaping Michaels in this situation. I don't want to see 3♣ being passed or double and a 3♠ response. Get both suits across immediately. Roland

What a big loss. Now I will lose some of the sleep I never get ;) I prefer to use 4♣ as either SA Texas, slam invitational or better, or 5-5 in the majors, slam invitational. With 5-5 and just game going I transfer and bid hearts next, if necessary again at the 4-level on this auction: 1N - 2♥ 2♠ - 3♥ 3N - 4♥ If my agreement is that 4♣ is 5-5 in the majors, I use 4♦ to show a slam going 5-5, asking for preference. Anything is possible, Texas included, but like Frances I want 4M as natural to play. Perhaps because I grew up with the weak NT where responder often is stronger than opener. If you play 4M as natural, you can also decide that opener (Jacoby transfer) is better suited as declarer. Roland

Mike, what is .. 1NT - 3♥ 1NT - 3♠ for you? Som use it to show a 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 ... 1-3-4-5 or 1-3-5-4 respectively. Do you? Others use 1NT-3M to show a slammy hand with six cards. Then there is no need to use Texas. If you use that method, it's even better than Texas, because you have more room to investigate. Roland

As expected I got many questions about the Reisinger BAM Teams at the Fall NABC in Boston. I did not know anything definite until today when I was told that we will be broadcasting from the finals next Sunday. Check your bookmarked vugraph schedule web page for times in your area. The organisers talked about the seniors' knockout teams earlier next week, but space is an issue with another big tournament crowd, Rick Beye says. Maybe it's a disappointment that we only get the finals of the Reisinger, but it's still better than nothing. Roland

If you are looking for a link to the Smolen convention, here is one ... http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Smolen.html But as blackshoe points out, your sequence has nothing to do with Smolen. Perhaps you left out a 2♦ response to Stayman by mistake? Roland

As England are hosting the second weekend in the 2009 edition of the Camrose, they get both an England team and an English Bridge Union (EBU) team. Cardiff in Wales is the venue for the first weekend (Jan 9-11, and already listed on our vugraph schedule web page). Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and EBU to make it an even number. Round-robin 2 to be played at Oxford on 6th-8th March. http://www.ebu.co.uk/internationals/openselections.htm Roland

I agree that GIB has improved a lot, but it surprises me that fairly simple card combinations are not handled correctly. An example from today where GIB is in 4♠ with this trump suit ... Q1072 AK954 GIB played a low spade to the queen. It did not matter since the suit broke 2-2, but one would assume that it had been programmed to cater for a 4-0 break by cashing a top honour from hand. Roland

Definitely not, Walddk6 will be by your side :) Many congratulations! Roland

That is correct, but you can still identify him/her. It's trivial with say 2 tables up, and takes a little more work with 12 (as was the case yesterday). Click on Lobby and you get to see all the yellows in the column to the left. All operators have an account with vugraph??? displayed. Move your mouse down the list of operators and find the one who has the same text you see in the vugraph room (marked on the top banner). He/she is the one who operates in your room. Roland

Many questions to be asked and answered: - 1. Was the TD summoned in time? If "no", the case must be dismissed. If "yes", then ... - 2. Did the TD make a ruling? If "yes", both parties have the right to appeal. If "no", then ... - 3. Can the AC take a case without a TD-ruling? If "yes", no further problem. If "no", then ... - 4. Is the AC's decision legal? If "no", there is no longer a case. If "yes", then ... - 5. Was the procedure legal? As I understand it, this is one of the Germans' main concerns. They don't feel that they got a fair "trial", because they did not get the chance to explain in detail. If the procedure is indeed legal, then ... - 6. Is the AC's decision final or can it be appealed to EBL's Appeals Committee? ... So, here we are at the moment. I have just raised the relevant questions. I have no comment at this point. Roland

And the Germans have lodged an official complaint to the Standing Appeals Committee of the European Bridge League. The letter to be found at ... http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/appaeldbv.pdf Roland

The player (as did the one at the other table) bid 3NT. Indeed, but the auction was different. North opened a Multi 2♦, East passed, and South bid 2♠ (to play opposite a weak two in spades). Versace entered with a natural 2NT and was raised to 3NT. Roland

Regarding Iceland I assume you mean 1991 in Yokohama, Japan, but that's a minor issue. The issue is that they are pros too! The Icelanders were sponsored in 1991 (as are all top Icelandic teams today actually), and so are the Norwegians. Helness, Helgemo, Brogeland and many others have bridge as their living. Roland

The idea behind opening 4-card suits up the line is that you will discover any fit, major as well as minor. That is not always the case if you open 1M. 1♥ - 2♣ 3♣ I can't live with the raise if it doesn't also show five hearts. And if you claim that it does and you can just rebid 2NT with 4-4 in hearts and clubs, then I can't accept that either. Why conceal that you have support for partner's suit, even though it's a minor? 3♣ might make her hand so much better. Roland

No. Let the contestants play whatever they like and change the format. Let them play longer matches against each other and make the HUM and BSC pairs send their convention cards to their opponents well in advance. If you don't get used to playing against such methods in domestic tournaments, you will never be able to cope with them at major championships. "Practice makes perfect" applies here too. Roland

Standard in Norway is 15-17. Norwegian Standard is also Danish Standard (5 spades, 4 hearts). The chance that 1♣ is only three cards (4333) is roughly 5%. 3343 is opened 1♦, not 1♣. Students are taught to treat 1♣ as 4+ and support accordingly. Don't know about 1♥ being only 4 (3433, 4432, 4423). Some mathematician will likely calculate it for us. Roland

An Appeals Committee (AC) is no different from a Court of Justice. The AC-members are the judges, the tournament director (TD) states the facts as presented to him at the table, why he has made the ruling he has (referring to various laws), and in turn the two parties get the chance to express themselves. The "judges" will often ask questions in order to get clarification regarding issues they need to know before a decision (verdict) is made. When there are no more questions, both sides will be asked if they have anything further to add. Then they leave the room and the deliberation among the AC-members begins. At some point a verdict has been reached, and the TD is informed. He will then pass that ruling to the team captains. Roland

♣x

The upcoming weekend will set a new record as far as simultaneous broadcasts are concerned. Norway, England, Germany, France, Russia and India. Never before did we have six nations at a time. Since five of the six are located in Europe, it's easy to imagine that we will have many overlapping sessions. 12 tables altogether, 10 of which will have English commentary. One room will have German and one French. It's almost like rugby. I think they have a competition named Six Nations. Good thing we don't have scrums in bridge :rolleyes: Roland

I can see a strong reason to take the diamond finesse at trick 2. ♠Q is definitely a singleton, so my problem is that I can't afford to let East in to give partner a ruff. Can I be certain that East has one of the aces? No, but it's very likely. The reason is that West, if a competent player, would not lead his singleton if he had both aces. It would then be unlikely that he can get his partner on lead in time for the ruff. A better chance would then be to hope for a scoring trick with ♠Q via an unsuccessful finesse by declarer. So, rightly or wrongly, I would finesse diamonds to get rid of my heart loser, and perhaps go one more down. Roland

Hello, on blml they are trying to gather the facts. A fair recap of an email of Michael Gromöller can be found at http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043859.html The position of Ton Kooyman ( I don't know bout his function at the venue) in answer to a not perfect recap by another poster can be found at http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043841.html of course you can read and follow the whole discussion in the archives of http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml (go to november 2008 sorted by date) It seems likely that Michael Gromöller will post there too in the near fture, ciao stefan Interesting reading. Facts regarding the 3rd (and decisive) appeal seem to be disputed, but if the Germans have not been heard before the AC's ruling, I think they have been hard done by. If I understand it correctly, the TD decided not to give a ruling and that the case went straight to the AC. Apparently, the reason for the TD's non-ruling was that no matter what he ruled, there would be an appeal. My question is then: what do we need a TD for if he declines to give a ruling? Is that not one of his/her duties when appropriate? Grattan Endicott of England, one of the leading experts on the laws, is concerned: "I do think the organizers have landed themselves in a mess, and I am concerned about a situation in which a contestant that has lost two appeals then appears to find grounds for a third that was not on the table at the start", he writes. Roland

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sa1096432h843dq52c&w=sk8haq1062dk8cqj63&e=sq5h9daj10964ck942&s=sj7hkj75d73ca10875]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

5♦ might have been the right call actually, because it takes a club lead to defeat it from Jx KJxx xx A10xxx Roland