Walddk

Certainly. Do you have time to teach and/or educate them? And if you have, do you think thay can be bothered? The answer is depressing I predict. Roland

More than 90%, Wayne. One has two options: Accept the rulings that are made no matter how horrible they are, or stop playing tourneys if you can't live with the rulings. Roland

I would, because then your NT system is not good enough. Garozzo's is the best and you would not jump to 3NT over a 2♥ response with that hand! 2♠ is the next step, showing 4 spades and asking for shape. Yes, you can show 3-4-2-4 eventually. Roland

Which is quite silly. QJ3 AQ85 74 AKJ6 1♥ - 1♠ ? 1NT I suppose when you play 12-14 NT. You won't have that problem if you open 1♣ even if the response is still 1♠. You just use the 2♦ ambiguous reverse as described by me in another thread some time ago (can't remember when). I think it was named "2D artificial reverse". 1NT is not exactly a great rebid after 1♥ - 1♠ when responder raises to 3NT on AK104 K73 82 Q832 And why would he not? Any other game but 3NT is where you want to be. AK104 K7 862 Q832 You still don't want to be in 3NT that depends on diamonds breaking 4-4. Roland Found my post about the 2♦ reverse now: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8311&hl=

Quite right, we have a very strong team there, and everything is well organised. However, we do not require that our operators are freshly shaven :) Roland

If 2♠ was natural, why did he alert it? Once he did, candybar is entitled to an explanation. Not complicated at all. Maybe the alert was a misclick, well fine, but let candybar know about it if he is interested in the alert. He was it appears. Roland

1. Natural, forcing. We have a double fit, partner. It is unwise to splinter in opener's suit. Responder can easily be 4-5 or 5-5 in hearts and clubs, but only 4 hearts if 2♥ promises 4-card support. If it does not, a 2♠ relay is better. 2. Yes, forcing, 5 hearts and 4 diamonds. If GIB passed 3♦ it needs to be re-programmed. Most people play (I hope) that a new suit by responder at the 3-level is not only forcing, it is game forcing. Roland

1. No 2. 1♦ 3. 4. Yes 5. No Another partner of yours who won his bridge "licence" in the lottery. You really should ask him to give you the numbers for next Saturday. Roland

Spot on K! Everyone is entitled to call the director. That must never lead to procedural penalties. It is much better for a player to call the TD than to try solving the issue among themselves. Roland

No no, you should just have asked him in which lottery he won his bridge licence :D Expert on lottery perhaps, that's not bad at all. Can he give me the numbers for Wednesday next week please? Roland

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what people put on their profiles if I were you. If the double and the raise to 4♠ are expert bidding, I prefer to be a novice. Roland

Fair point, Marc, but a condition must be that you understand the language spoken. Several million people worldwide do not speak one word of English. Many thousand BBO members do not either. Roland

Indeed. Drury may serve as a controlled psyche because you can open 1MA on anything 3rd in hand, knowing that partner can't go bananas if Drury is on the cc. By the way, Drury was banned in Britain for a while. Not sure why they lifted the ban. Roland

Maybe third time lucky if you read on :) Roland

I am a strong believer in opening my longer suit, so 1♣ is clear to me. Automatic 2♠ raise on my next turn. Excellent spot. Roland

Zmey, your basis seems to be that people cheat in your tourneys. May I kindly suggest that you turn this basis around? People do not cheat until proven guilty. Imposing all kinds of restrictions is bad for the game, and it won't help your cause one bit. Long time ago, you and I had a chat about disallowing spectators in your tourneys for example. We did not agree then, and we do not agree now it appears. Fair enough, but don't be surprised if your tourneys don't get a big turnout if you implement all kinds of restrictions. Roland

Yes, you are wrong. There is no reason to believe that a certain bid is based upon a partnership understanding. I think your problem is that you can't distinguish between agreement and understanding. That may very well be a language problem on your part, so it's quite useful that we got it sorted out right here. Roland

Your post makes little sense to me. Why on earth would you penalise anybody when they don't violate any law? Secondly, feel free to state anything you like in your Tournament Rules, but please bear in mind that you just changed the game from bridge to something similar. And lastly: it is plain wrong not to follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in (especially) a pay tourney! Roland

You are wrong again I'm afraid. Opening 1NT on say K A1054 KJ5 AJ742 is not a psyche! It's off-shape, but there is nothing psychic about it. Roland

1. East-West seem to be playing very sound pre-empts. 2. North's double is very aggressive. 3. North's raise to 4♠ is much too aggressive. 4. South is innocent. Roland

You are wrong! I don't have to self-alert anything if I open 1NT with a singleton. I am not supposed to tell my opponents what my holding actually is. I can open 1NT on a 7600 shape if I want, as long as this is not based upon a partnership understanding. We have had this discussion ½ million times already, but it won't help the cause if you claim to know better. If your agreement is that 1NT shows 15-17 hcp balanced, you should not alert it if you are outside the range or unbalanced for that matter. Let's make this clear once and for all. If asked what 1NT shows, you simply tell your opponent(s) this: "15-17 hcp, balanced". This is true, because this is what your agreement with your partner is. The opponents are not entitled to know anything more than that! Roland

Gardener's 1NT is also known as the "Comic 1NT". It's comic if you get away with it I suppose, and it's tragic if it costs 1100! :) Roland

I don't think you know for a fact if spades are 2-5 or 1-6. Could very well be right for West to switch at trick 2 even if has another spade. Roland

Regarding the knock-out stage at the World Youth Team Championship in Sydney, we will go for French and/or Polish at one table, provided that one or both advance to the semi-finals (seems likely at this point). The "worst" scenario will be if the two countries will be facing each other in one semi-final. If so, we will alternate between French and Polish in the closed room. We do not approve of having both languages in the same room simultaneously. That would be chaotic for everyone involved. English is guaranteed at one table no matter what. Roland

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s4haj83dakq1032ca2&s=sj8763hk97d7cj1084]133|200|Scoring: IMP S: 3NT Lead: SQ[/hv] An interesting and crucial hand in the match between Egypt and Israel at the World Youth Team Championship in Sydney. The deal has been rotated for convenience. West passes, and after 1♦ by the Israeli North, East overcalls 1♠. You pass, pass by LHO, and partner re-opens with a double. You decide to bid 1NT and are raised to 3NT (I know perfectly well that North did some daisy-picking before 3NT was reached, but that is beside the point). West leads ♠Q and switches to ♣3 (4th best). You duck in order to get some count. RHO wins the queen and returns ♣7, LHO following with the 5. The moment of truth has arrived (if the hand can be made at all): Do you cash diamonds from the top or do you enter your hand with a heart and finesse ♦10 when West follows small? A priori, going for the drop of ♦J is superior to the finesse. The question is, however, if odds have changed now that you *know* that spades are 2-5 or 1-6? It is also likely that clubs are 4-3. Roland P.S. I was happy to see Israel and Egypt playing against each other. That has not always been possible as you may know. If only this could be achieved at all times for all nations, but sadly we are surrounded by (mostly) non bridge playing politicians. P.P.S. I have no intention of starting a political debate. Thanks.