Walddk

Correct, we have excatly 1 major when opps have bid hearts. That is what our negative double shows. Some play that it shows both unbid suits, i.e. spades and clubs. What it does not show, however, is clubs and a fit for diamonds. You are welcome to have that agreement with your partner of course, but then you need another for when you have spades. If you haven't, opener will keep correcting to spades if he has a fit, no matter how hard you try to sign off in diamonds. Roland

All this is fine as long as you have an agreement, but you don't have too many with a pick-up partner. What is forcing for you may not be forcing for him. So if he thought 3♣ was sign off, he had to pass. I think it's a good treatment to let double of 2♦ show a wish to double at least one of their majors, but if you later follow up with 3♣, it should be obvious that you have a different hand. Another option is to bid a direct 3♦ which most people play as forcing. It's always with a bit of risk when you have no agreement. You did not on the actual hand, and the result was pretty depressing. Roland

I had the following incident on BBO. Vul/NV. I hold something like KJxx KQxx QJxxx - LHO opens 3C, partner doubles, RHO passes, I bid 4C. All pass. To add the cherry to the cake partner called me crazy. :) Petko Well, I can only give you one advice: Find a new partner immediately! Even on Mars 4♣ wouldn't be natural (I am told) :) Roland

Is this the way responder will bid with 4-5 in the majors too? Then over your 3♥ (no fit), he bids 3♠ showing 4? Roland

Double should indeed show spades (4 unlimited, 5 with 8-10 hcp). You have many other bids available as natural: 3♠, 3NT, 4♣(F), 4♦ (NF). Your hand is a borderline case. With 2-1 in the majors I would have risked 4♣, but as it was I think pass is best. Your partner needs lots of extras for game to make, and if he has, he will bid again. Then 4NT (longer clubs than diamonds) becomes an option. The same goes for 4NT after LHO raises to 4♥, passed to you. Roland

In a pick-up partnership I would have been worried about bidding 3♣ as forcing, so what about starting with a double? That will not be passed, and then I will think about something intelligent to bid after opps have taken out in one of their majors. Roland

4♥ and respect any decision partner may take after that. I have my bid. Roland

PASS. After I opened 1♣ (agree btw, I always open my longer suit first if it's good enough to rebid) I have no other choice. Partner will probably double, but I am now going to pull to 4NT. No ambiguity here, it shows 5-6 in the minors. I normally dislike when partner pulls my penalty doubles, but there is no rule without exception. Mind you, passing the double may be our last chance to go plus on this deal, but I won't sit for it. Roland

Yes, everything is back to normal now. Thanks square and Gerardo. Roland

Let me add that I have turned down invitations to play in those tourneys on several occasions - just because of that. It's disrespectful to 99.99% of the members. If people really want to cheat, they don't need messengers in spec mode. "It's of course ok if you spec", the message is. That is not good enough. It must be open to everyone. It's the certain death of those pay tourneys if they maintain this "kibitzers disallowed" policy. Roland

Piece of cake (very appropriate!). You just sit down and pretend that you own the table, and your opponents will get intimidated. No skills needed. They will be trembling all over :P Roland

Well, it is highly unlikely, though feasible, that the NT opener (14-16) doesn't have at least one ace outside hearts, so it was a well controlled psyche really. If opener had shown 1 Key Card outside hearts, North would have settled for a safe small slam. Now that South showed ♠A and ♦A (2 Key Cards outside hearts), there was a good chance that West would not lead a heart after North convinced everyone that he was void in hearts. On a non heart lead responder knew that his losing heart would go away on ♦A, so he took a well calculated chance. I am sure he thought about all this before he bid 5♥. It takes a lot of imagination and courage to do it at the table. Easy enough at the desk, but in real life ..... Roland

Since yesterday morning European time I haven't been able to open any site related to www.bridgebaseATetc. If .com I get IMail Server Web Messaging v7.13 PASSWORD: Expire page views Remember userid & password (not recommended if you share this computer) and if I try our VG schedule page I get File Not Found File Not found !! The requested URL was not found on this server. Links: Login If I take the long road through http://online@ I can get to a few pages. Any explanation? Roland

Spades are unlikely to be 4-4 when RHO follows with the 5 at trick 1. ♦J might be tempting, but I will go for the legitimate chance: doubleton ♦Q in either hand (most likely 2 with LHO after the lead) - or 6-1 with the singleton queen. Now let's look at the effect of advancing ♦J. When will West (likely) not cover? Only if he has 4 or more. With Qx or Qxx he will definitely cover, and he might even with Qxxx. The pseudo finesse is no real chance against even average defenders. I am sure they have heard about "honour on honour". Roland

What about 2nd glance? It's against the laws of bridge to steal one of the cards the opponents have. Roland

Hjerteligt til lykke med fødselsdagen! Roland

It wasn't a bad idea (see above), it turned out to be a great move! It also fooled you, like it fooled Jason Hackett and all others (except Luis who remembered the hand). Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skqj98hqdcakq8765&w=s104haj108652d932c3&e=s532h974dkj1084c94&s=sa76hk3daq765cj102]399|300|Scoring: IMP S: 7C Lead: ?[/hv] Well remembered Luis! I have now rotated the hand to show you how it was played in real life. The poor player in the West seat who faced this problem was Jason Hackett of England in the China Cup a few years back. Jason considered the bidding and finally led ........ a diamond! So the "impossible" grand slam rolled in. I haven't asked Jason's twin brother, Justin, if he was amused. No one on earth can blame Jason Hackett for not leading ♥A. He believed what he saw in the bidding. Wouldn't we all have? Now, why do I bring this impossible lead problem at all you may ask. Because, in another thread, we have been discussing psychs. North psyched on this deal by pretending that he was void in hearts. He was a liar, but an honest liar if you see what I mean. He did not violate any bridge law. So now I have this question for those of you who are against psyches: Should the score have been adjusted to 7♣ -1, or should the inspired North who took a chance and who was successful have been reprimanded? It's a rhetorical question of course. North (name unknown) did great. He gambled, and his gamble paid off. The only thing you can actually do is congratulate him, also if you are one of his opponents. In fact, I know that Jason did! If this North player ever makes his way to BBO, I think it would be shame to bar him from taking part in certain tourneys! MY view; you are all entitled to yours. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s104haj108652d932c3]133|100|Scoring: IMP E: 7C Lead: ?[/hv] You are playing in a major international tournament against good opponents. You are South, and your RHO opens a 14-16 NT. Your methods allow you to overcall 2♥, and West bids 2NT (transfer to clubs). The rest of the auction is 3♣1) - 5♥ 2) 6♣3) - 7♣ p 1. Forced. 2. Exclusion Roman Key Card Blackwood, showing a heart void. 3. 2 Key Cards outside hearts. What do you lead and why? Roland

Excellent job! So declarer opted for the close 2nd best line when he pulled all trumps and went for the drop in diamonds. Impossible to work out at the table. Only plan B would have been successful. RHO had Jxxx in diamonds. For the record, I think your addition in Option B is inaccurate. I make it roughly 43.78%. Not a big deal; the finesse is by far the inferior line. Winning on the actual layout, yes, but not the plan you should select in the long run. Only Deep Finesse (DF) would have made the grand slam. Roland

We have done that on rare occasions. The problem is that we get most of the appropriate links very late, sometimes not at all. If only we had the links when we post the tournaments on the vugraph schedule page, it would not be a problem (read: extra work), but it is if we have to do this every time a new web site becomes available. I know what I am talking about. Have a look at http://www.bridgebase.com/online/vg.html Only a few hours I ago did I learn that Australia and Finland also would like to be squeezed in from the 22nd to the 25th March. 4 major events in April are not listed yet either. Do you believe me when I tell you that we have a lot to do as it is without having to add even more? Roland

Run your tourneys as you see fit. People who don't like psyches will come to your tourneys, those who think psyches should be allowed will not come. Quite simple. Roland

Excellent point Petko, and surely also one of the reasons why you can't tempt all *Stars* to play for free. Many contribute to the BBO community already by devoting some of their time as vugraph commentators - without pay! I am privileged I suppose. I run a bridge centre with about 1,000 members, where I teach and direct. That's how I make my living. In my spare time I am happy to help at BBO without getting paid (vugraph, playing, teaching, directing). I realise that not many are in the same situation. Roland

I like your suggestion Brendal. This is a guess, but I think most beginners, intermediates and advanced players will be reluctant to invite a *Star*, because they don't like the idea of being turned down. No one likes defeats, and some will see this as such if the answer is "No thanks". Is it just my imagination? Roland

I agree with all you are saying, except this. ty or typ when dummy comes down is fine, but why dummy must say glp I can't understand. In real life bridge you say thanks or something similar when declarer sees dummy, but dummy never says good luck partner. Why should it be different on the internet? I don't think it's impolite not to wish partner good luck. I think it's just fine to do the same as you do at the table with an ftf partner. Roland