Walddk

PASS. There comes a day when the green card is more than an option. 8 loser hand, 3343. Count me out, especially at this format. Roland

Some organisers provide system cards, and when they do, we highlight the event on our vugraph schedule page with a direct link. Look at the Swedish Team Trials this weekend for example. When you get to the web site, you will see that system cards are available for all 16 pairs. I wish this would be the rule rather than the exception, but in most cases we do not get that info, and only rarely will we be able to download the convention cards by searching through Google or Yahoo. Having said that, however, it doesn't always happen that commentators download and go through the CCs even if they are available. That is wrong in my opinion, but then this question arises: How much can you expect from people who spend hundreds of hours on this business every year without getting paid? "You get what you pay for", is perhaps appropriate in this context (this is no complaint, and no offence intended dear BBO managers). In fact, I think we get a lot for nothing. Others are of course entitled to having a different opinion. Roland

and Ben. ... and Ben of course. He rarely gets an analysis wrong. My apologies. Roland

What can you say other than spot on Justin! Roland

Your point is definitely valid Steve. That would never be possible in real life bridge with voice commentary, but it is not out of the question on the internet. There is a slight problem though: Commentators usually don't have time for that! A commentator must first of all stay focused on the game: bidding, play and defence, and if he/she gets distracted by having to respond to private chat messages, it is impossible for most people to do what they are there for: commentate! Trust me, we get loads of private chat messages as it is, and we simply can't respond to all of them. I think it's great that you show interest in all the aspects you mention in your post, and we certainly don't intend to offend anybody if they don't get a reply. I wish there would time for everything, but there is not. I sincerely don't think there is a sensible solution at this point, but I and the other commentators are obviously open to suggestions. Roland

After North's 2♣ rebid (where did he get that from?) South has a fairly good hand, and a jump to 3♥ would not have been unreasonable. 2♥ is no error, and North could perhaps have raised to 3. Three card support for a (nearly always) 6-card suit justifies a raise. Game is not that easy to bid if you open 1♠. Weak notrumpers who allow a 5-card major would have an easy ride. 1NT - 4♥ Yes, I do play transfers, but opposite a 12-14 NT I can choose declarer. I don't mind declaring with that hand. In other instances where I have an AQ or KJ combination I will also choose a direct 4♥. With something like Jx AKJxxxx xx xx I would bid 2♦ followed by 4♥ (not slam invitational in my methods). I have no tenaces to protect, whereas partner may have. Roland

It's been a while since we have had suit combinations. Try these, two of my favourites: 65 AK10973 5 tricks .... AJ8 1042 2 tricks Plenty of entries to both hands. Are they too easy? Hidden text will be fine in order to give as many as possible the chance to have a go. Roland

Read my post again. After 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2NT is positive with spades because 2♠ would be second negative! Whether second negative is standard or not I don't know, but if you play 2♦ as automatic, or waiting if you like, responder should surely have a way of showing if he really has something or the usual rubbish. Feel free to play opener's rebids of 3♣/♦ as non-forcing if you like, but I will not play it, and as we have seen already, most people who have contributed to this thread also play these as forcing. If you really have a hand where partner is allowed to pass 3 of the minor, you should not have opened 2♣! It is that simple. In an earlier thread I also wrote the two auctions where you can stop short of game after a 2♣ opening (apart from 2NT which is NF if it shows 22-24 balanced): 1. Opener rebids his major after a 2♦ response. 2. Responder gives preference to opener's first suit at the 3-level after a 2♦ response. 2♣ - 2♦ 3♣ or 2♣ - 2♦ 3♦ as passable will not work in my opinion. Does this mean that opener must jump to the 4-level in order to create a force? That is bad for 2 reasons. You can no longer play in 3NT, and you have ruined everything for your side by taking all the bidding room away from yourselves. 2♣ - 2♦ 4♣ is an ugly auction, isn't it? Roland

You are kidding, are you not? Roland

I don't mind 1NT, but I do mind if opener does not respect my sign off in 3♣ later. Roland

As I pointed out in an earlier post it's dead and buried on any lead, even a low spade! Roland

The 2♣ opening in a natural system is the devil's work. It takes so much bidding room away and should therefore be avoided if there is no excuse whatsoever. If I open 2♣ with a long minor, I like to have very good cards, i.e. virtually game in my own hand. Otherwise I prefer to open 1 of the minor. Consequently, it is not an option to let any rebid except 2NT be non forcing. When opening 2♣ with long clubs or diamonds I think it's best to agree that it forces the partnership to at least 4 of the minor. If opener's cards are not good enough for that opposite a broke or near broke, he should open at the 1-level. If I have agreed on playing 2♦ as waiting, I have 2 sequences where we can stop short of game (except 2NT again). 1. Opener rebids his major after a second negative by responder. 2. Responder gives preference to opener's major at the 3-level after a second negative. I will give you a couple of examples. Please note that cheapest suit is what I use for second negative. 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ *) 3♥ - Responder is allowed to pass. 2♣ - 2♦ 2♠ - 3♣ *) 3♦ - 3♠ Opener is now allowed to pass. *) Second negative. As to my first hand, 2NT would be positive with spades, and in the second example 2NT would be positive with clubs. I think I will treat both your hands as balanced because my singleton is an honour, but they are difficult to handle. I wouldn't be surprised if I decided to open 1♣, especially non vulnerable at IMPs. We may miss the odd game if I do, but it rarely goes 1♣ all pass anyway, so I am not too worried. Roland

2♣ - 2♦ 2NT Better than a 3♣ rebid although that would be forcing. If partner passes 2NT, game is not likely. Our normal 2NT system is on now. Roland

1. Yes. 2. No *) 3. Yes. 4. Yes, because I play this as "second negative" (0-3). 5. No, I may have a solid minor with stoppers in the other suits. 6. Rarely. I try not to make major adjustments to my game whether it's IMP or MP. But there are instances where especially NT looks very attractive at matchpoints. *) With one partner it is forcing, showing 25+ balanced. We have 22-24 balanced among the options in our 2♦ opening. Roland

3NT. "If 3NT is an option .....". Plusschreiben und gewinnen. Roland

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately Fred has very little time to commentate these days. He would be my first pick every time, because he is the best commentator we have (no offence intended fellow commentators). It's a fact that when Fred, on rare occasions, commentates he attracts more specs to that particular table regardless of who the players are. That says it all. Roland

Nothing new. This is exactly what one would expect from Fred, and characteristic of the very best players: They never call attention to their achievements. So let me do it. Judge for yourselves. Fred GITELMAN • Playing Record (Team Events) 1991 3rd WORLD YOUTH TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP Ann Arbor, MI 1991 - Junior Teams 2 CANADA 1994 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS Albuquerque, NM 1994 - Open Teams 17 1995 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Beijing 1995 - Open Teams 2 CANADA 1996 10th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD Rhodes 1996 - Open Teams 27 CANADA 1997 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Tunisia 1997 - Transnational Teams 10 MILNER 1998 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS Lille 1998 - Open Teams 33 MITTELMAN 2000 1999 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Bermuda 2000 - Transnational Teams 2 MILNER 2000 1999 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Bermuda 2000 - Open Teams 9 CANADA 2002 4th IOC GRAND PRIX SaltLakeCity 2002 - Open Teams 1 CANADA 2002 WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS Montreal 2002 - Open Teams 65 WELLAND Open team * And as a coach/npc: 1997 6th WORLD YOUTH TEAMS CHAMPIONSHIP Hamilton 1997 - Junior Teams 4 npc of CANADA RED 2001 WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Paris 2001 - Open Teams 1 coach of USA 2 2004 12th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD Istanbul 2004 - Open Teams 9 coach of U.S.A. ....... Roland

Anything is possible, but I will have to make a decision, and mine is to let them guess at the 6-level. I may even get it for 6♦X. If they decide to bid 6♥ I will defend and hope that we have 2 club tricks or 1 club and a slow trick in a major. Even 7 could be on for them. I will not give them another chance by bidding 6 first and then one more for the road. 5♦ could work equally well, but once I have made one bid, I will stay out of it. If I bid 6♦ I will surely be on lead if they take over, so I don't need 6♣ as lead-directing Roland

One round force for me, 10+. Responder is allowed to pass a rebid he doesn't like. I have a super max, so I will co-operate with 3♣, denying 3 hearts and a club stopper. If my 1NT could be with or without 4 spades, 3♣ also denies 4 spades. Roland

Upside down world. I agree with The Hog! 6♦ is my bid. Let the opponents make the last guess, but don't give them more than one chance. My intention is not to save over 6 of a major. When I bid 6♦ I have decided that I will defend and hope that opps guessed wrong if/when they bid 6♥. Roland

Yes, the contract makes on any lead. Both opponents will be squeezed in turn. On the run of the trumps West must keep Qxx spades and Qx clubs, so he will have to bare his ♦J. Then it's East's turn to squirm. He must keep Qxx diamonds and Ax clubs, but when I cash dummy's ♠A, East must come down to a singleton ♣A. I now lead a diamond to my ace and lead a club to East. He is now endplayed to give dummy the last two tricks with ♦K9. Before all that I have taken the spade finesse and pitched ♦10 on ♠A. East's gets squeezed when the ace of spades is cashed. So this is a combination of different squeezes: guard against West, endplay against East. Squeezes without rectifying the count first are pretty rare. Roland

If The Hog had read all my posts, he might stop laughing before all his laughter kills him. In the thread "What is your rebid", I wrote (quote): "I think it's fine to bypass a major in order to show a balanced hand, and I do that with other partners. Not that this method doesn't have a downside too: missing a major partscore when responder is weak". As a consequence of the above, 1♣ - 1red ; 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand in my methods with these partners. I even pointed out that I'm flexible and can/will play what partner prefers. The Hog on the other hand is not flexible. Only The Hog way is the truth to him. I don't think this has brought or will bring him any laurels at the table. But I could be wrong. Maybe he really has achieved something. I am dying to know. Roland

Agree with Wayne (Cascade). Passing 4♠X is definitely a logical alternative, since you already showed your hand by bidding 4♣. The problem is not that you got UI when your partner did not alert 4♣, the issue is that you used the UI. Given the missing alert it is more attractive for you to bid 5♥ now. That is against the law. I would adjust the score to 4♠X with a ? number of tricks, depending on what I see when I look at all hands. Roland

I would bid 2NT over 1NT, but only because of the good intermediates, especially ♣10. 1NT tends to show some kind of club fit. Often 4. Over 1♠ I have an easy 3♠ rebid. Doesn't that show 16-18, distributional points included? That's what I have. So no, I won't miss any games if I open 1♣, and I very much doubt that the majority would open 1NT with that hand. Roland

Give him 28 hours a day <_< And while we are at it: I could do with 27½ myself. Then I will get at least 2½ hours of sleep. Roland