Walddk

Nothing is listed on our vugraph schedule page yet, because we haven't got details from the organisers regarding broadcasts from Atlanta, Georgia (ACBL Summer Nationals from July 21-31). I would be surprised if we don't get the Spingold Knockout Teams this time. In the meantime you can read about the event at: http://www.acbl.com/nabc/Atlanta2005/specialEvents.html Roland

There is obviously more to this case than we know. It would be naive to think that a committee with, among others, Bill Pencharz and Jens Auken (highly esteemed lawyers in London and Copenhagen respectively) would pass a sentence like this if evidence is not at hand. They should know what libel suits would involve. Let me predict: This is the point of no return for Buratti and Lanzarotti. They know it, and the bridge world knows it. Roland

3♣. When I jump in a minor, I like to have 5. Passed or unpassed, makes no difference to me. Roland

No matter who is right or wrong, no matter what is right or wrong, BRIDGE is the loser. Period. Does anyone really think that it would be any different at the bridge table than it is in other sports? If so, dream on! Roland

No control whatsoever. BBO played second fiddle (I would claim third) throughout the pairs final. Before each of the 4 segments, Barry Rigal on behalf of the on site vugraph (read Swan) chose his pairings, then Swan chose theirs, and finally we could choose ours. I wasn't entirely happy about the fact that the order was Swan, Swan .... and then BBO! Even objectively speaking, this was surely the wrong priority if the organisers had paid attention to the interest on the internet bridge sites. At some point BBO had 1650 spectators; at no point did Swan have more than 120! I decided, rightly or wrongly, to go for Meckstroth-Rodwell as often as possible, and we did that in 43 of the 51 rounds. My reasoning was that they were the defending champions, and even if they would not be in contention this time (and they were not as you recall), our members would enjoy watching them anyway. As to your second question: I suppose that this might have been a practical question, because you can only have operators in two corners of one table. A third, let alone a fourth, would have been obstructed by the screens. You and Jeffrey Allerton were very unlucky to miss out on BBO vugraph as you will understand when I add: In 8 of the rounds where we were not able to show Meckwell (taken by one of the others), we had 4 "new" pairs at our table. You did very well, especially in segment 1, and there is every reason to congratulate you on your excellent performance! Roland

By "the Italians" I assume you mean Buratti-Lanzarotti. It is obviously inappropriate to drag any other Italian bridge player into this mess. Roland

3♠ is not a pre-empt. They don't exist after partner's take-out double. If you have nothing you respond 1♠ (roughly 0-8), if you have 9-12 you bid 2♠, and if you are very close to an opener yourself, you go for 3♠. That will often show a 5-card suit. I don't think 3♠ is unreasonable with your hand, although some would leap to game. This is a bit too aggressive to me, since I don't know if we have an 8-card fit or not. Partner could be 3-4-1-5 or 3-4-2-4 as examples. As I understand it, your partner had 14 hcp with 4-card support and a singleton diamond. If that is correct, he should have raised. His hand is worth about 17 points once you have found a fit. Roland

You are right, but it changes nothing. Opener's raise to 2♠ does not establish a game force, so per definition 3NT by responder next is not the "serious 3NT". Feel free to play it lika that if you prefer, but much more often will you need 3NT as a choice of games with something like J953 KJ9 Q43 AQJ If opener is unhappy about NT, he can always correct to 4♠. All you are telling him is that your hand is well suited for a NT contract. Roland

You are of course most welcome to change the definition of when 3NT is the "serious 3NT", but I recommend that you follow the rule regarding the game-forcing auction. A single raise doesn't establish a game force; I am sure we agree on that aspect. To let opener's 3NT rebid be a serious slam try makes little sense. How can an opener who didn't open 2♣ be seriously interested in slam just because responder has shown 6 points (distribution included)? If he really is heading for slam already, there is something basically wrong with his 1♠ opening. Roland

Maybe it's worth considering. At least she could guide me through the jungle of very quick sentences by VERY slow Spanish waiters in Tenerife :D They've got to be the slowest on earth. If you are lucky you will get lunch served by dinner time! Roland

Yes indeed. I would pass 2♠ with a hand like x AKJx xxx AKQxx Roland

You are absolutely right. There will not be a unanimous decision among the panelists either. Roland

A little bit. Opposite Qxxxx Jx Qxxxx x even 4♠ is in jeopardy. I don't think anyone would pass 1♣ with that hand. Roland

We seem to have Dutch card codes in the Forums now. Let me guess: V = Queen B = Jack I believe A and K are the same. Here you have them in Danish: E = Ace K = King D = Queen B = Jack Language lesson free of charge :rolleyes: Roland

Second seat pre-empts should first of all show a strong suit. This is not close to being strong. You may pursuade me to open 3♥ if I have nothing else or very litle on the side, but 4♥ is not on no matter what you give me in the side suits. Either I open 1♥ (I have AQ in spades or diamonds as an example), or 3♥ (I don't have enough for a 1-level opening). Roland

Please read what I wrote. Since the system operates with weak jump shifts, and since responder's 2♠ rebid is passable, how else can he show an invitational+ (note the +) hand without jumping to 3♠? That is not a game try, that is a game force opposite a reverse. My reverses are always sound, and they have to be if 3♠ is game forcing (roughly 8-11 with a goodish 6-card suit if only invitational). Logically, 2♠ is a weak hand with exactly 5 spades, conceivably a 6-card suit, but unlikely since he didn't jump to 2♠ over 1♣. 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♠ is different in the sense that responder doesn't have to jump any more. There is no reverse, so 2♠ becomes invitational, and 3♠ will be game forcing. 2♠ on the above auction shows a game invitational hand with 6 spades. That is the whole idea of playing WJS. Roland

If only it was as easy as that. You can't do that I'm afraid. You will have to make a sufficient call, unless LHO accepts 1♠. If LHO doesn't accept, 1NT is not an option. Anything sufficient is (pass included), but then you are back at the 2-level. Roland

Very close between pass and 2NT. Pass may very well be the winner. I don't like 32, 32, 32 much, but you will probably see that when Ben decides to publish the panel's votes. Roland

Yes, welcome. It will only take you 24 hours a day for 10 years to overtake Ben! :P Roland

I had a bigger problem, because I got that hand with the wrong format. Looked to me that the vulnerability was reversed. My vote would not have been the same non vulnerable against vul. Roland

No, it should not. I had a post about exactly that some time ago. An artificial 2♦ reverse after 1♣ - 1MA. 2♦ can even be a singleton as I showed. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8311 At the same time Richie pointed out that on an auction like 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ Opener does not promise 4 hearts. Roland

Right, but 3♣ itself is not a cue bid. I would have bid 3♣ myself, and then perhaps my partner would wake up and recover (4♥) after his serious underbid on his first turn. That hand is much too good for a single raise. Roland

Let's get this straight here. 3NT is only the "serious 3NT" when one side is in an uncontested game-forcing auction. Since 2♠ does not establish a game-force, 3NT has nothing to do with the serious 3NT Eric Rodwell invented (popularized). 3NT is merely a choice of game with around 19 and a 5332 shape of some kind with scattered values. Could be 4333 if you play 4-card majors. To Blofeld: 3 of a new suit is not a cue bid. It's either natural or a game trial bid, depending on agreement. Cue bids start at the 4-level when spades are set, in 3♠ if hearts are agreed. Roland

The problem would have been tougher with ♠72 ♥AQT54 ♦KQJ9 ♣J4 Now I think it's better to bid 4♠ than 4♦. Not ideal with two small admittedly, but the best there is in my opinion. Roland

4♦, no other option. Bidding 3NT is gambling, and that's a completely different ballgame. I have hearts and diamonds, so when my partner forces me to bid again, I will show him my second suit. If 3NT is the spot, responder should have thought a litle longer before he bid 3♠. Roland