Walddk

Don't you think we will get to 3♥ if you pass? Responder will re-open with double, and then you can bid 3♥. Double does not show a good heart raise as I play it, a free 3♥ does. Double shows spades, and extras. Roland

Did he not have any green cards in his bidding box? 3♥ is just plain wrong! Walddk: Opener could have passed if he is 3433 and weak. If I can't reopen, we haven't missed anything. Roland

More comprehensive? Did you have a close look at our schedule from January 7, 2005? Every single week, and very often more events simultaneously for several days! Did you also notice how much we have in store in the weeks and months to come? All events are not even listed yet of course. It can hardly be more comprehensive than it has been for the past 6 months. We can get better, sure, always room for improvement, but there is a limit regarding how much we can accept at a time. The reason is quite simple. Organisers are not always very good at giving us the notice we require. But they will learn I am sure. Roland

A preliminary schedule is now listed on our vugraph page: http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event To answer a couple of relevant questions you may have in advance: Which match(es)? We don't know yet. Are you sure you will be able to broadcast all this? No, but if not, it's not BBO's fault. We have the staff we need on site. Roland

This may not be the right forum, but I will do it anyway. The EBL (in particular) and the WBF both need a Public Relation Officer, full time even. It's actually not BBO's job to approach them, but their job to approch us before major championships. A missed opportunity to promote bridge I am sorry to say. Why would we not have any broadcast for the first 3 days of this important event: the future of all bridge worldwide? We had to take action when we realised that nothing was done in this respect. We are likely to succeed, but it should not be necessary to make it this complicated for everyone concerned. I have lost count, but believe me when I tell you that I get dozens of private chat messages every day with this question: "Why do we not have broadcasts from the European Youth Championships"? Good question, and I reply politely to all of them by giving them the link to this thread. I would no doubt have received more if I hadn't been invisible most of the time. All other organisers contact Fred and/or me before a local broadcast. Should EBL as far as Italy is concerned (as was the case regarding Tenerife) be an exception? I can't see why. Roland

It's Baldi's (Italian) old programme. Seems to work ok, David Greenwood (jtr) of Ireland tells me. He and Barry Rigal, USA, are the on site commentators. With a little bit of luck we should be able to broadcast from Sunday at 10.00 Paris time, 4:00 am New York, 6:00 pm Sydney. David has arranged a meeting with our operators on Saturday (day off). As to which match(es), we shall have to wait until Barry Rigal selects his for the on site vugraph. David will try to get something out of him before the rest day on Saturday where everyone will be on an outing. Roland

So they found the lead, and ♥J was off side. What does that prove? Right, nothing. Next time West has KQ10xx Kxxx xx xx Sorry, I can't find the heart lead. Can you? Roland

Miraculously, I agree with Luis :-) 3NT in 4th seat can show anything and is obviously alertable with a full explanation if asked. Partner never pulls. If I get doubled (how can they?), I may reconsider. Roland

No, "Standard Bulgarian" is not a sufficient explanation. If this is the reply you get, you just ask another question: "What is 2♦ in Standard Bulgarian"? Now they must tell you what the bid means (full disclosure). Roland

I agree with you wholeheartedly Richie, and I would explain too. But one thing is what you should, another thing is what you must. The player in question did not want to tell, and he did nothing wrong when he declined. However, he should have said "no agreement" and not "ask partner". Roland

The person you asked should have said "no agreement", and that's it. If you want him to tell you how he intended his 2♦ opening, you must change the Laws of Duplicate Bridge first. Sorry, that's how it is, whether you agree or not and has nothing to do with playing bridge on BBO. If we follow the rules (and why would we not?), it's the same everywhere, in real life and on the internet, although I know that a few TDs on the net don't care much about the law. But we have had that discussion before. Roland

I can't remember. Most likely I was drinking (diet coke of course!) and smoking at the same time :-) Seriously, I mean what I wrote. LHO warned me when I signed off in 2♠ - 5♣ is what I think I can make on hand D, so I bid it, just like I would at the table. I was not there when the hand was played, so I am not biased. Roland

I don't buy this. Next time it's your hand, and your partner will take you seriously when you bid 1NT and raise to 3NT. As to the opponents (us in this case), I think it's best to base our approach on the assumption that West has a spade stopper. Roland

Does your partner expect a balanced hand when you rebid 2♠? Roland

Because you have been listening too much to The Beatles: "I'm a Loser" :-) Roland I don't remember a song by The Beatles called that. There's a song by Beck, "Loser". That's a really good song. In that case your memory doesn't serve you correctly. It was even written by Lennon/McCartney. Here is a link: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/b/beatleslyr...oserlyrics.html Roland

Now Henri, this is what you get for bidding 4♠ with a sexy hand :-) Roland P.S. Please explain how you define "sexy" in this context.

Who said: "Support with support, especially a major". Good rule. 2♣ is so space consuming that in the long run it will pay off to support opener's major at your first opportunity. 3♠ or 4♣, depends on agreement. Roland

Roland, I think you should not bid by your method, you are expected to bid by BBO advanced. Otherwise, any bid could be right in one or another's method. Regards Hongjun And what (where) does BBO Advanced say anything anout the requirements for a splinter on this auction? Roland

Because you have been listening too much to The Beatles: "I'm a Loser" :-) Roland

Good thinking. If 3♦ gets a vote among the panelists I would be very surprised. It must be between 3♠ and 4♣ (splinter). It's too good for a splinter in my methods, because it denies any keycard. Roland

Here is a man who knows what he is talking about. Bart Bramley from USA is one of the world's best analysts. This is what he wrote, when I asked him about the probablities in the diamond suit: ..... Hi Roland, The a priori chance for each more evenly divided case is higher than the a priori chance for each less evenly divided case. Mike has correctly enumerated each of the cases in the diamond suit alone, but he ignores the other 22 cards. There are more ways to divide those cards 11-11 than 12-10, and 13-9 is fewest of all. Thus, each of the 6 ways for East to hold 2 of the missing 4 diamonds is slightly more likely than each of the 8 ways that he can hold 1 or 3 diamonds, and even more likely than each of the two ways he can hold 0 or 4 diamonds. In real life the a priori probabilities are just a guideline, because some of the wilder distributions can be eliminated from the defenders failure to bid, although when the defenders have very few high cards this adjustment will be small. Also, East should not be void in a side suit (no double), eliminating a few more wild layouts. Therefore, as most players know instinctively, suits are more likely to split well when the opponents don't bid. However, I think that these effects do not change the overall odds by very much in general, and even less in the case at hand. Here is a link to a web site that calculates each distribution in a straighforward way: http://www.durangobill.com/BrSplitStats.html NOTE: Don't go to the latest edition of the ACBL Bridge Encyclopedia. It has several ERRORS in its split probability tables! Here is my own take on the analysis. Banging out the top diamonds wins about 53.1% a priori. Running the jack wins about 39.0% IF EAST NEVER COVERS, and even less if East covers sometimes and declarer then misguesses. (Proper strategy for both players is a game theoretical issue for another time.) However, if declarer assumes that East definitely has the queen (perhaps from a legitimate table inference, like West's purported questioning before leading to trick 2), then the odds change. The only diamond distributions that matter are for the remaining 3 cards ("the suit of low diamonds"), which will divide 3-0 22% of the time (11% each way), and 2-1 78% of the time (39% each way). Cashing the AK picks up 3-0 and 2-1 but not 0-3 or 1-2 = 11% + 39% = 50%. Running the jack picks up neither 3-0 nor 0-3, but picks up both 2-1 and 1-2 IF EAST NEVER COVERS = 78%! Even if East ALWAYS covers with Q107, Q106, Q7 and Q6, and declarer guesses right only HALF of the time, declarer still wins 52% of the time (Q76, Q10, and half of the rest). Your figures may differ slightly, but clearly running the jack has a lot more going for it if you KNOW that East has the queen, and it could well be the right play. This is the argument that I myself would have used, but, of course, if I made that play then it would have been my actual reason, not a cover story. Bart

No it's not. Why would he make a free 3♥ bid with only 3? With the hand you suggest, and extras, he has double available to show four spades. Roland

North's double could perhaps have been on 3 hearts, but only if he had three spades and a good hand, given his initial pass. However, 2NT must deny three spades, and therefore it is obvious that he has four hearts. North bid his hand well in my opinion; South on the other hand made it too difficult for his partner. 3♣ denies four hearts in my methods. It sounds more like a 5314 hand where 2♥ looked reasonable. Roland

More good news. We will have two laptops in Riccione from Saturday and enough operators it seems (one from Sweden, two from Netherlands). Diane and David Greenwood from Ireland will also be there to render practical help. Where there's a will, there's a way. Roland

Interesting. Some envisage slam, others pass. Is it a 3 or 6 hand then? I don't think so, but you will see in due time. Roland