Walddk

It is. 68% (clubs 3-2), but it would be a bit double dummy to get to NT. Roland

I am no doubt the one who gets most private chat messages during vugraph broadcasts. Although I would have liked to, it is just impossible to respond to all of them, no matter how good/bad/relevant the comments and questions are. For the record, I am also one of three (fred and ritong are the other two) who can't avoid private chat messages (because yellows can't), so many specs seem to take advantage of that. Other commentators have the option of not adding +++ to their profiles if they want to be left alone. I have the option of logging in as invisible of course (yellows will also remain invisible in the rooms), but that should not be necessary, and it doesn't really help. Once you have sent a public message in the room, anyone can just click on the username and send a chat message. I hope you understand that with hundreds, sometimes 1500, 1600, spectators in one room there will be almost as many views to express and questions to ask. So ignoring a chat message is not the same as saying that the commentators don't care. A commentator's primary job is to stay focused on the game and concentrate. It's not that easy with loads of private chat messages flying around on one's screen. Roland

When you respond to 4th suit, I am certain that most experts' order of priority is: 1. Secondary support for responder's major. 2. NT with a stopper. 3. Secondary support for responder's minor. 4. Extra length in own second bid suit. 5. Extra length in own first bid suit. 6. "Support" of 4th suit. 7. Lesser lie. Since we can't live up to 1-6 in the example hand I gave you (1. is irrelevant in this case), we must look at 7. and choose one of 2-6 anyway. 6. is interesting in the sense what 3♥ would mean according to your agreement. So the only question is: Which of the above is the lesser lie. Roland

So what do you bid when you actually have a stopper? Do you want partner to guess if you have one or not? Or will he have to understand that your theory is that bridge is not a science, and that you can bid 2NT with any holding? If yes to all those questions: I wish you good luck! Roland

3♠. Let's see if partner is 2-5-5-1 or 1-5-5-2. He may even choose to raise to 4♠ with the latter holding. If he rebids 4♦, I will raise and hope he has x AKxxx AQxxx xx Even with AJ10xx 5♦ has play. Same applies if he has AQxxx in hearts. I don't want to mastermind and pass 4♦ although that could be the last winning spot. Roland

Interesting news. 2♥ as 4th suit, a bid that is not necessarily natural, is not alertable in your world. Roland

Playing 2/1, 3NT would be 15-17. 2NT would be 12-14 or 18-19. Same applies to responder. Don't be so sure about that. Lawrence, Hardy, Kokish and other experts don't all share the same view. As always: It's a matter of agreement. Roland

Oh, you got that completely wrong (I can't say I am surprised). You'd better read the post again. The explanation to partner about why we went down in 3NT is pathetic. But maybe you think it's a good excuse. If you do, then .... oh well. Roland

In most of the high level tournaments we broadcast on BBO screens are in use. As far as the alerting procedure goes, it works in exactly the same way as here. Self-alerting is used. You show your screenmate the alert card or put it on the bid to tell him/her that this is not necessarily a natural bid. Then he can ask for a wrtitten explanation if he wishes. Note written, since talk might be too loud. The 2 players on the other side of the screen are not supposed to hear/see the explanation. When the bidding tray comes back to the other side of the screen, the convential bid will be alerted once again by partner. Then his screenmate can ask for a written explanation if he wants to. Our operators during BBO broadcasts are requested to highlight a bid if it is alerted at the table, but they don't always remember. Then our commentators, in most cases, will tell that this and that call are conventional and explain them to the audience (if a system card is available that is). Even if that is not the case, most commentators can spot when a bid doesn't have its natural meaning. The only difference between alerting in real life with screens and on BBO is that when you self-alert here, both oppenents can see that alert. Therefore, partner will not alert too and only explain if asked. Hops this is clear and makes sense. Roland

Another topic I am going to discuss with Mike Lawrence next week ;) We will get some time after the match when Liz McGowan (CuttySark), one of our regular commentators, is having a reception at the venue in Edinburgh, Scotland. She turns 60. Roland

Happy Birthday to Wayne Burrows (cascade), great teacher, competent commentator, and most importantly: Nice, calm and patient guy who is always there to lend a helping hand. I know Friday is almost over in New Zealand, but nevertheless my best wishes for a wonderful day to you and yours! Roland

1. Society. You really don't want to be in slam. 2. This is a bit better, especially if opps promise not to lead a black suit. South gets all the blame, if their is any to distribute, because he didn't bid 3NT (serious). North has no errand (4♠) when South is not serious about slam (cue bid instead of 3NT). Roland

I am sure partner will be understanding next time we tell him: "OK, I went 2 down in 3NT, but why would I care about stoppers? Our system is not good enough to find out". Pathetic. Roland

Why a balanced hand? He could have anything. Slam interest with 3 spades, 4 diamonds and own (club) suit. He could of course be balanced with or without a heart stopper (maybe too good for 3NT if he has one), or he could be semi-balanced, 2245 and a minimum, where he is looking for NT rather than a diamond game or slam contract. Roland

Without revealing what my choice would be (could be 2NT, who knows), I'd like to ask all the 2NT bidders: In the post-mortem after the opponents have cashed their 5 heart tricks against 3NT, how are you going to explain to your partner that you thought Qx was a stopper? Roland

At IMPs you hold ♠K10954 ♥Q8 ♦AQJ2 ♣J9 The bidding goes (you first): 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ ?? 2/1 or Standard, doesn't matter. 4th suit is GF according to your agreement. What do you bid now and why? Roland

A trump for me. Partner has all side suits, so it seems best to go passive and let declarer do his own job. Trump leads are neglected far too often. We may even prevent a ruff in dummy. LHO could be 2-5-4-2 Roland

1. Yes. 2. 1NT is played by the "strong" hand. So is a spade contract of course. It's a big advantage to bid a major when you are not going to play there. I don't see any weaknesses. 3. Don't understand the question (the F-word is taboo in my world). 4. 4+ spades and 6+ hcp. Opener proceeds as if responder bid a natural 1♠. 1NT is of course forcing for one round since the hand is unlimited. 5. Dorthe and Peter Schaltz of Denmark among others. I don't think many outside DK know that this gadget was invented by Peter Schaltz and is known as the "Schaltz Relay" in Denmark. 6. I don't know, but I would be surprised if it was. Restrictions are popular in ACBL-land. I will, nice as I am, refrain from commenting on that topic. Roland

Isn't it about time that we get this straight once and for all: A tournament director is not supposed to make bridge judgements at any time. It's actually an insult if any TD (or opponent for that matter) tells you what you should have bid, led, or what your line of play should have been. It is your decision and no one else's. If I judge Jxxx Jxx Qxx Qxx to be an invitational hand opposite a 15-17 NT I will invite, and any suggestion as to what I should have done instead is uncalled for. I will ask for lessons if I think I need them. Unsolicited lessons by a TD are ... well, let me be diplomatic .... inappropriate. If your partner, on the other hand, finds that you are a bit underweight for your invite, you can have an amicable chat about it after the round is over. Not that I approve of that either, by the way. I suggest that you wait with post-mortems and the like until you have a chance to discuss it when no one else is around. Roland

No, what's the point of introducing a new minor when you have support for partner's and no major to show? We can only play in one suit at a time, and I am not inclined to act as an information office assistant to my opponents. Another common mistake is to introduce a new major when you already have a fit for partner's. For example ♠A10853 ♥K984 ♦4 ♣Q74 1♥ - ?? Give him a sound limit raise in hearts right away. Whether that is 3♥, 3♦ (Bergen) or 3♣ (reverse Bergen) doesn't matter, but forget about spades. If you introduce them, partner will never believe that you have four cards when you support hearts later. Roland Agree with roland, you should support with support over majors, theres no need to introduce the spade suit (however I would splinter with his example hand). I would too, Justin, but I just didn't want to make things too complicated. Now that you mention it, my bid is 3♠ showing 9-11 hcp and an unspecified singleton. 3NT asks where if opener is interested at all (4♥ = spades). The good thing about this method is that you don't necessarily reveal where your singleton is. Opener sometimes couldn't care less and just bids 4♥. If you have a void, however, opener should always be interested. Therefore a jump to 4mi will show the same range with a void (3NT = spade void). Yes, I also use it over 1♠, and I am sure you can figure out what the responses (and inquiry) are, but let me tell those of you who might be interested: 3NT = 9-11 hcp, unspecified singleton. 4♣ asks (4♠ = clubs). 4new = 9-11 hcp, void in that suit. Very good method which I can recommend wholeheartedly. Roland

Excuse me Ken, but if just one single person can't see how funny this is, I feel sorry for him/her, because that person has absolutely no sense of one of the most important things in life: humour. I am still laughing :lol: Absolutely wonderful! Roland

No, what's the point of introducing a new minor when you have support for partner's and no major to show? We can only play in one suit at a time, and I am not inclined to act as an information office assistant to my opponents. Another common mistake is to introduce a new major when you already have a fit for partner's. For example ♠A10853 ♥K984 ♦4 ♣Q74 1♥ - ?? Give him a sound limit raise in hearts right away. Whether that is 3♥, 3♦ (Bergen) or 3♣ (reverse Bergen) doesn't matter, but forget about spades. If you introduce them, partner will never believe that you have four cards when you support hearts later. Roland

Your 2♣ is an underbid if you don't play inverted raises. You have plenty for 3♣ (limit). On the other hand, I think you did fine when you splintered in 3♠, catching up when you realised that you had underbid. The only problem with 3♠ is that it may get you too high. I am sure you can see that it's somewhat contradictory to first bid 2♣ that can be passed, and moments later force the partnership to the 4-level. Partner will hopefully not interpret 3♠ as natural (find a new partner). I mean, you didn't bid 1♠ first time around, did you? As to the play, I can't see any reasonable line that will lead to defeat. Roland P.S. I now see that you actually did play inverted raises (your brain storm). In that case I like your bidding a lot.

What is "less mainstream-events"? Who is going to decide what is and what is not? How do you think the organisers will feel about it if they are deemed "less mainstream"? I will object as strongly as possible, but I do not make the final decision. Maybe my opinion will have some weight though. I hope so. Roland

2♣ is is a standard part of EHAA Possibly; if only I knew what that stands for. But Mike says that he played against 2 Europeans, and I would be quite surprised if they play EHAA, whatever it is. Roland