Walddk

Very well, this is the correct answer. :ph34r: When this deal was played /playing udca/ south discarded a small club on the fifth diamond, leaving little clue on where his values were. As north, holding [hv=s=sah52dck8]133|100|[/hv] I did not know what to discard on the last diamond. In practice I took the extra chance that declarer did not have the situation clear to him (in excess to partner holding the K♠) and choose to discard a heart on the last diamond. This left declarer with a play toward his king for the game. Partner later excused himself for not reading the situation and dropping the Q♠ to deny any spade values, and at the same time waking me up if I had not noticed that I would be in trouble on the last diamond. Pitching ♠Q is obviously a very clear signal when playing udca, but it really shouldn't be necessary in an experienced partnership. 3, 5, 6, 7 in diamonds will have told the story long before. In a pick-up partnership it is unlikely that North will pay attention to those spot cards, and then it will be necessary to wake partner up by throwing ♠Q. Count in diamonds is no issue here. North couldn't care less about how many diamonds South has. What he wants to know is where partner's values are. Playing the diamonds in the right order (low-high) should get the message across. There are spot cards, and then there are spot cards in the right order. Roland

North may have something like Axx QJ10xx x Kxxx and he may not know what to discard on the 6th diamond in a moment. If he has paid attention to my discard on the 5th diamond, he won't have a problem. I will discourage spades! If I play standard signals, I will pitch the 5, if upside-down the queen. In fact, he should have known long time ago that my values (if I have any) will be in clubs. I have followed to the first 4 diamond tricks with 3, 5, 6, 7 in that order. "In case partner has fallen asleep", I wrote in my first post. It is hardly my fault if he is taking a nap at the table. Roland

Excuse me, but I don't understand the problem. Declarer has 8 top tricks. Either partner has ♠A or he has not. If he has, we have 5 tricks, if he hasn't the contract is a make. If declarer has ♣K, he has 9 top tricks again, so how can it matter what I pitch on the 5th diamond? If you really want me to discard while I am wasting my time, I will let go two spades on the 5th and 6th diamond. I can also pitch one spade and one club, but I will keep two clubs in case partner has fallen asleep and bared his king. Roland

I understand that, but where else in this world can you be entertained for up to 14-16 hours a day for free? My idea is more like that you buy a "ticket" per event and that you come and go as you please. Is that a big obstacle if the entry fee is say 50 cents? Even less will add up in the long run. Roland

Thanks Aba. We enjoy what we are doing; otherwise we couldn't have put all this enthusiasm into it. I respect Fred and Uday's decision not to charge a fee for watching vugraph, although I think it would be fair if they did. Not a big amount, but just enough to sometimes let one or two of our operators be physically present at the venue. That would also ensure high quality broadcasts, because we have a few who are very good at operating. As it is now, we have to give up on a couple of events for financial reasons. Hopefully that will change some day, first of all because we hope to get corporate sponsors. If we do, we may even be able to pay the volunteers a symbolic salary. So the (perhaps controversial and academic) question is: How much would it change spectator-wise if we were to charge a little for watching? My guess is: not a lot, but it's only a guess - and as I said: it may be a pure academic question. At least it is at the moment. Roland

I have read enough to determine that Fred and Uday are on the right track. I am no technician, so as a simple layman I would like to state: Continue as you see fit. I am sure that whatever you do, it will be in the best interest of BBO and its members. There will always be some who don't agree with your decisions, but that applies to anything you will or will not change. Forget about pleasing everybody, perfectionism does not exist. Do what the majority would think is a good idea for as many as possible. I think that this thread has clearly indicated what that majority wants ...... ... and you, Fred and Uday, have clearly told us what will be involved when the changes are implemented. I will not lose any sleep over it. The new look BBO, whenever that may come, will definitely be a place I would want to visit as often as I do now. Who said 24 hours a day? :D Roland

Sorry, don't know why I have it twice. Believe me, it's not because I am trying to overtake Ben as far as posts in the Forums are concerned :D Roland

In the days of Goren: 3NT = 16-18, balanced (because 2NT was game forcing, 13-15). In modern bridge: 3NT = 13-15, balanced, no 4-card major. Diamond suit possible. With the actual West hand, 2♣ is ideal if you play inverted minors (limit or better). If not, I think you must underbid a little and make a limit raise: 3♣. If you prefer to overbid (not my recommendation), then bid 3♦ (splinter). If you play 5-card majors, it is perhaps worth no more than a limit raise. If you play 4-card majors where 1♣ shows 4+, it's a little too good for a limit raise. You really can't do without an inverted minor raise to 2♣ then. South's double is, well, a bit optimistic. Roland

1. Double (in an ideal world you have 4 spades. The world is not ideal). 2. Pass. 3. Nothing. Roland

My personal view: I don't think anyone should give unsolicited lessons in English in the Forums. Especially not if one thinks that this is proper English: "We do not have much agreements". Roland

It looks like everyone who has contributed to this thread is supportive of vugraph broadcasts - as many as possible even. Well, hardly a surprise when you look at how many spectators we get. In this context I would like to draw your attention to our new look vugraph schedule page at http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/schedule.php? All times are local for you now, and you can also choose to get the list by event. I like the design very much. Full credit to Gerardo who is the man behind all this. Great job Gerardo! The other day I got an e-mail from one of our members. It read: "I think this is such a great improvement. As a token of my appreciation I have just bought 50 BBO$". That's one way of paying for vugraph. Wayne (sceptic) has a similar way of doing it (playing pay tourneys). I have a 3rd: selling Fred's software at my bridge centre. This is all we can do for the time being, since Fred and Uday want to keep this site, vugraph included, 100% free for all who want it that way. Speaking of sceptic: You may have seen how he, in another thread, volunteered to become a vugraph operator in his country (England). So this is a 4th way of helping BBO. I am sure there are many other ways. Finally, all volunteers are unpaid. We all do it gladly with great enthusiasm. No dollars involved at all. An e-mail from Fred last night was enough to tell me how much our work is appreciated: "Hi Roland. Nice to hear you are going to be in Tenerife. Look forward to seeing you there and I will buy you all the cokes you can drink for the extent of the tournament! Probably take you out for a nice dinner or two also - Regards, Fred". Cokes!! Cheers, Fred! :) :blink: Roland

Versus Michaels: (1mi-2mi) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the majors. 2♥/♠: Stopper in that suit, not in the other. Later bid is forcing with own suit or support for partner's. 2NT: Stoppers in both majors, no interest in a penalty. Support: Relatively weak. Versus 2NT: (1♥-2NT) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with spades. 3♦: Forcing with support for hearts (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. 1♠ - 2NT: Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with hearts. 3♦: Forcing with support for spades (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. The thing to remember: cue bidding clubs shows own suit, cue bidding diamonds shows partner's suit. This is known as the near/far convention in Denmark. Bidding their lower suit (near) is what is nearer to yourself: own suit. Bidding their higher suit is what is further away from you (physically): partner. Something similar can be adopted if the bidding goes 1mi - 2NT if that shows the two lowest unbid suits. There are other metods, but I haven't come across anything better than this. Roland

1. No. 2. No. 3. More than slender. 4. Doesn't matter. One thing is certain: he can't lead them again. Save your lead-directing double of 3NT for October 23, 2009 when you are dealt the jack instead of one of the x's. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj543hqj82dcqj852&w=s109h765d109754c763&e=sak762hk9daqcak104&s=sq8ha1043dkj8632c9]399|300|Scoring: Rubber S: 3H Lead: H7[/hv] You are in 3♥ (East must be disappointed that he ended up defending with that hand). The lead is ♥7. Here is your Easter test: Make the hand on any defence! Looks easy, right? Only 3 losers, but how are you going to get to 9 tricks? Remember that EW will defend the best way possible. Warning: It's very difficult, so you may not be able to make it during your 2½ hour lunch break :) Happy Easter to all! Roland As I have mentioned a few times, 3♥ is a make on the ♥7 lead against any defence. It also is on a spade lead, but it will go down if West leads a minor suit card. But ♥7 it was, so let's go through the play. There are several cute endings depending on how the defence cooperates, but let's do it on best defence (as suggested by Ben): H7 HQ H9 H3 S9 S3 SK S8 ----- 1st trick for the defence ST S4 SA SQ ----- 2nd trick for the defence H5 H2 HK HA C3 CJ CK C9 ----- 3rd trick for the defence The last defensive trick will be taken by West with ♥6 whenever he likes: D4 SJ S7 D2 ----- Believe me, it doesn't help West to ruff with ♥6 now. C6 CQ CA H4 D5 H8 DQ D3 C7 C8 CT HT D7 HJ DA D6 ?? C5 C4 D8 West can win his ♥6 now if he prefers, but then he is a stepping stone to my ♦KJ. He can also wait till trick 12 or 13. Hope you all noticed how HUGE a card ♣5 is! Now, if East covers ♥Q at trick 1, I win and lead another trump to dummy's jack, and now I start setting up clubs by leading the queen. East wins and cashes ♠AK and exits with ♠7. I discard, and West can do whatever he wants. He, or they rather, can't defeat the contract no matter how hard they try. There are several options, depending on what the defence decides, but there is no option that leads to a 5th trick for them. If you don't believe me, I will take you to a teaching table and go through all the possibilities. You may choose the defence, and I will play the hand. Roland

I will give you the solution(s) late tonight my time (after vugraph) unless one or more of you have solved the puzzle before. No matter how many times Ben says that there is no winning line: It can be made on any defence! Also if East covers ♥Q. Give it another go boys :) Roland

You are indeed! East wins, cashes one more top spade and exits with ♠7. Roland

Let's assume that East doesn't cover ♥Q, and you lead a low spade from dummy. East wins and cashes another top spade. He then exits with ♥K. Roland

4th suit means it's an artificial bid, 1-round forcing and showing invitational or better values. We were playing Walsh, so if responder has spades he also has a game-force, in which case he now bids a natural 2S after 1C-1D-1H. Interesting, I like to reverse the meaning of 1♠ and 2♠. Everything is reversed these days, so why not this too. 1♠ is natural (1 round force), and 2♠ is artificial GF, denying 4 spades. I think it's better to show a natural suit as cheaply as possible. With some partners I play 1♠ as ambiguous: either spades or 4th suit. Opener assumes 4th suit and bids accordingly. So NT now confirms a spade stopper. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj543hqj82dcqj852&w=s109h765d109754c763&e=sak762hk9daqcak104&s=sq8ha1043dkj8632c9]399|300|Scoring: Rubber S: 3H Lead: H7[/hv] You are in 3♥ (East must be disappointed that he ended up defending with that hand). The lead is ♥7. Here is your Easter test: Make the hand on any defence! Looks easy, right? Only 3 losers, but how are you going to get to 9 tricks? Remember that EW will defend the best way possible. Warning: It's very difficult, so you may not be able to make it during your 2½ hour lunch break :) Happy Easter to all! Roland

Don't forget that you always have the option not to see more than 1 hand. Kibitz North, Kibitz East, Kibitz South, Kibitz West, Show all hands, and finally Kibitz partner when dummy. Simply click on yourself and tick the appropriate box. Roland

Well, perhaps you are thinking too much in MP strategy. At pairs I would bid, surely, but I still doubt that it's clearcut to bid at IMPs. Minus 800 points later it's not easy to tell your team-mates: "But I HAD to bid". You will lose the occasional 6 IMPs by passing, I agree, but you don't really have to give 12 away. For the record, I am a subscriber to "rather run the active risk than the passive one", but that is not the same as saying that you are not allowed to take stock and consider the different options. Pass is certainly a reasonable option here. Roland

The hand came up in a strong club in Copenhagen, Denmark, about a week ago. It's not really interesting what was right or wrong, much more interesting that of 8 players with that hand, where the bidding went 1♥ pass 2♥, 5 bid 2♠, 3 doubled and none passed. It's not easy to pass a 14 count I suppose. Roland

Excellent point, nothing more to add. Dummy simply does not claim, ever! Roland

Since I am one of the doublers, if I bid at all, I would like to explain why I think double is better than 2♠: 1. It keeps all unbid suits in play. 2♠ is unilateral. 2. The quality of my spade suit is such that I do not want to insist on spades. I am open to suggestions from partner. 3. As I have pointed out earlier, spades are not necessarily dead and buried even if I double. Partner will often bid a 3-card suit if he is weak, i.e. 3334, 3343, 3244. 4. Opps may even have 9 hearts between them. In that case there is a good chance that partner has 5 in one of the minors if he only has 3 spades. 3253, 3235. If he has less than 3 spades, he has 5+ in a minor as a certainty. .... I am not saying that 2♠ is wrong, I am not even saying that double and/or pass are right. I am trying to argue for the way I look at the problem. I respect your views, Chamaco, and I like the way you are reasoning. Most of us agree that this is a real problem hand. That is what makes bridge so fascinating. There is no obvious solution to all problems. That is basically all we must accept. Taking a view is fine if you have been through all the advantages and disadvantages. It may turn out that one's view didn't work out in real life, but that doesn't make it a wrong view from a subjective perspective; perhaps not even if you look at it as objectively as possible. Roland

It is obviously none of dummy's business to make a claim on declarer's behalf. In real life bridge dummy has a few rights, including conditional rights (claiming is not one of them), but they do not exist in online bridge. In Law 43 it is clearly stated that dummy is not allowed to see the opponents' cards. Consequently, dummy can never claim, which is a good thing. On the internet and on BBO, at least in the Main Bridge Club, dummy can see all 4 hands if he/she wants. That is ok, but it is certainly not ok if he/she makes any comments, including "claim partner". In your case, if the claim was good and the opponents agreed, I would give dummy a warning, tell him/her about the law and ask him/her not to do it again. I would then let the table result stand. It would have been a different story if there had been any chance that declarer did not have the rest under certain circumstances. In that case the score should be adjusted to the best possible result for the non-offending side. We have all seen "claim partner" hundreds of times on BBO. That doesn't make it any better. It's not only a bad habit, but it's also against the laws of bridge. Roland