Walddk

Strange, I find it completely reasonable for BBO to let the stars play without paying. Sure they lose your $1 but you will attract more $$ for them with your presence. If I was able to pay for play I'd certainly prefer a tourney with stars without caring whether they payed or not. Not only would I be able to brag about playing against Roland Wald, but I'd learn more from playing against masters than playing against my peers. Petko Boukov I don't disagree Petko, but my point is that paying $1 shouldn't keep the *Stars* away from the tourneys. Time, not money, is an issue for most I think. Whether it will be easy to attract *Stars* or not I have no way of knowing. I can only speak for myself: I will be happy to play if (1) It generates money for BBO, and (2) Other players will enjoy playing with or against me. I am certain that others feel the same way. *Stars* are usually not as (excuse me) snooty as some may think. If some are, they should read my signature carefully, over and over again until they understand the message. Roland

I think there is a limit as to how much you can and should offer prizewise when you charge a ridiculously small fee. As it is now it costs you ONE US Dollar to be entertained for 90-120 minutes. Where in real life can you get that? Nowhere, at least not in the countries I usually compare Denmark to. Remember that the organisers, reasonably of course, pay a certain % of the revenue to Bridge Base. What I do not understand is that in some tourneys they let *Stars* play for free. Why is that? To attract more customers to tourneys perhaps. I think it's unreasonable, and if I am ever going to play in a pay tourney, I will insist on paying the $1 myself. Finally I would like to be constructive. When Rain suggests different kinds of incitaments to get more people to play in those tourneys, I suggest that the *Stars* who are already privileged by being world class/expert players offer some of their time and play with a winner. I realise that you can't get all the *Stars* you would have wanted to, but I am certain that a fair amount would be willing to do this if that could help BBO making money. I hereby promise (for all it's worth), time permitting of course, not to let any organiser down if asked. Roland

Good point Rebound. If you will go for the drop in diamonds anyway, it is clearly better to stop pulling trumps after 2 rounds and play 3 rounds of diamonds now. Roland

I am not saying that 2♦ is a serious overbid by any means; I am merely trying to argue for why I think 1NT is better. You will not miss a game if partner passes 1NT when you have a 2254 hand and 10 hcp. Having said that, it's important to add that if you do bid 2♦, you have now shown your hand once and for all. It is therefore unreasonable to tell partner that you have extras of some kind by rebidding 2NT. 2♠ stands out a mile after p - 1♠ 2♦ - 2♥ 2♠ If opener can't bid again, we have not missed anything big, and please bear in mind that a 3♥ bid opener now not only shows 5-5, but it also shows extras where I come from. Some may have a different agreement, but I think mine is sounder. Roland

Fair enough, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously. No more comments from me on this topic. Roland

I have read all of them, and every time I replied I have been quoting certain parts of them. To be honest with you: I am not impressed, so let's just agree that we disagree. Finally, although you are entitled to remain anonymous, I think it would have been a good idea to reveal your identity. I even asked you to do that in one of my previous posts. The question is now: Did you read mine? Roland

The problem is, however, that they will now be in a better decision to judge if they should bid 6♠ or not. Your 6♦ call told South that you have a diamond ruff. So South will only pass when it's right - and also only bid 6♠ when that is right. Roland

My intention should be obvious. You seem to think what is right for you is right for everyone. You don't want to listen to people who have more experience than yourself; you want to make your own decisions, because only you can judge what is best. Well, it's your choice of course. I disagree, that is my point. As long as I live I will be prepared to listen to and learn from players who are better than myself. By doing so I became the player I am today, and I am quite happy about it. Roland

Additionally, after South overbid his hand on his first turn, there is no need to do it again. A simple 2♠ preference is plenty. It is hardly a surprise for opener that responder has 10 hcp and a small doubleton spade on that auction. For 2NT to be right, South must be able to visualise a source of tricks. He can't with the hand he has. Give him Hx in spades and there may be a case for rebidding 2NT. Roland

PASS. If South raises to 6♠, I will risk a double, asking for a diamond lead. So there is no reason to bid 6♦ as lead-directing, as long as partner is on the same wavelength. Roland

I am fully aware of the fact that this pair is playing Precision. That makes the 1NT response even more obvious, especially when you have a small doubleton spade, and the same in hearts, which will be the likely rebid if opener has a 2-suiter. Roland

I think 2♦ is an overbid; I would have bid 1NT myself, then give preference to spades over 2♥. In my book 1NT shows 6-10, and not 6-9 as many play it. Looking at the South hand, it doesn't take too much imagination to predict what opener's next bid will be: 2♥ or 2♠. If opener passes 1NT, he has a balanced weak hand. 5332, 5233, 5323, and we haven't missed any game. By the way, if the bidding goes: 1♠ - 1NT 2♥ I recommend that you play 2NT as a sound heart raise, and 3♥ as a weakish raise, catering to opener having a maximum for his 2♥ (17-18, unless you play a strong club system). Playing 2NT as natural has little merit. Notrump produces very few tricks on a misfit. The same applies to any sequence where the auction goes: 1x - 1y 2z Where z is lower ranking than x. Roland

As long as you feel comfortable about this, it's none of other people's business, except for your partner(s) of course. Did your judgements bring you success in major events? You seem to do a lot of reading. Have you been able to translate the theory into action at the table? Maybe you will be kind enough to tell the rest of us how we may become better players if we follow your example? In your opinion, 90%+ of us don't read enough. Are we hopeless cases then? Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj652haj943dk5cq6&s=sakq104hdaq1042ca72]133|200|Scoring: IMP S: 7S Lead: S3[/hv] 1♠ - 2NT 7♠!? Perhaps not an auction of beauty, but at least it was short. The deal is from the Danish teams championships last weekend. 2NT was limit or better with support, and South gambled on the grand. We have all been in worse contracts (I have been in much worse). In fact, declarer got lucky. The contract actually has some play. Our only problem now is to make it. RHO follows to trick 1, but when you cash a second round of trumps RHO shows out. You may just as well pull the last trump. Let's take stock. 5 trump tricks, 1 heart and 1 club. The diamond suit must now produce 5 tricks, and that along with a club ruff will see you home. To find a singleton ♣K is not even worth thinking about. So ♦K (all follow small) and a low, RHO following with the 9. What now? Go for the drop or finesse the 10? Do you know your odds? Roland

I didn't say that. I said the opposite: it's easier to remember 3H as invitational. Please read what I wrote; You said the same, not the opposite. I didn't ask you to repeat what I said, I merely asked for an explanation as to why one of the two would be easier to remember than the other. For you perhaps, but why for everyone else? Roland

. You still owe me a reply regarding 2NT. You bid 2NT with 10-12 and 2 hearts whether you have a spade stopper or not? And if yes, how does your partner know if he can take your NT suggestion seriously or not? Finally, if opener happens to have the spade stopper you may not have, do you agree that the NT contract is likely to be wrong-sided? I honestly don't think you can find many who would bid 2NT without a spade stopper. Consequently, you must bid 2♥ with only 2 and 10-12, and therefore 3♥ becomes invitational with 3. This is all very logical for the big majority. Your method is not in my opinion, but as long as you are happy, all is fine. Just one final point: Why it would be easier to remember that 3♥ is invitational rather than game forcing as stated by you in a previous post is beyond me. Please explain. I obviously need to be enlightened. Roland P.S. I have now sent an e-mail to 5 Portuguese experts and asked them what is considered standard in Portugal. I will come back when I have received their responses.

So the country you live in accounts for 10% of Europe's population? That's interesting, since NO country does! Let me go a wee bit further and claim that much less than 10% of tournament players in your country (wherever that is) play it like you do: 1♥ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2NT 10-12 with or without a spade stopper according to you. 1♥ - 2♣ 2♦ - 3♥ Game forcing, again according to your statement. Finally, it would be nice to know your full name and which country you live in. Then I promise to get an expert from that country to tell the members what is standard there. Roland P.S. I now see that you are from Portugal. Let me ask one of our Portuguese expert vugraph commentators what he/she thinks.

Sorry, that point is not valid. You can only bid 2NT with a doubleton heart if you also have a spade stopper. That has nothing to do with where on this planet you live. As to your remark that a jump to 3♥ will be forcing in Europe, I must try to stop your delusion. That is definitely not the case in the European countries I have played in, and I have been around a bit. I just finished counting: 21 European nations I have been to for international tournaments. I have even played in most countries on several occasions. Roland

I think responder's hand qualifies for a mild slam invite with 3-card heart support (don't count too much for the diamond void after it has been bid by opener), so I suggest the following auction: 1♥ - 2♣ *) 2♦ - 2♠ 3♣ - 4♥ 5♣ - 6♥ pass *) I believe in bidding your longer suit first if you are strong enough to force to game. With a different hand (no heart support) I can always bid spades later if the bidding goes: 1♥ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ As to Steve's example, I think it's safe to bid 6♥ over 5♣. Opener is apparently interested opposite a mild slam try, although he has no spade control, so he should have 3 aces. Roland

I am not an expert on Standard American, but I doubt that 3♥ on this auction shows 15+. I would interpret the bid as showing 10-12 with exactly 3 hearts, whereas 2♥ would show the same range with a doubleton. With 13-15 you jump to 4♥, and with a stronger hand you go through 4th suit first before supporting hearts. Now 3♥ is a stronger slam invite than 4♥ would be (the principle of slow and fast arrival). Example: 1♥ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♠ 2NT - 3♥/4♥ 3♥ is now 18+ and 4♥ 16-17 (mild slam invite). I am willing to learn if SA experts can convince me that I am wrong. Roland

If your partner does not overbid his hand, there is a good chance. That hand is nothing more than a 3♥ raise for me. 16-18, 16-17 if semi-balanced, 18 if balanced. Unbalanced (singleton diamond) not possible (no 3♦ bid = mini-splinter). Roland

You talk almost as if you have some sort of advanced business degree! My English does not suffice here. It is arguably due to my inadvertent conduct in the 5th grade of the local village school. Or maybe it was my English teacher's lack of ability to teach the incomprehensible substance of real English. I want my school money back! Roland

This is actually (at least in one way) possible by going to our Vugraph archives. We have almost all segments stored there, and now even with the commentary attached, word by word as they appeared during the live broadcast. I like this opportunity a lot, although I will always prefer to watch it live. Football, hockey, bridge, whatever. The feeling of "being" in Melbourne right now, although you are in fact in Chicago physically, adds to the excitement in my opinion. Roland

2♥ is also forcing in (modern) Acol. Those days are gone when you responded 2-o-1 with 8+ hcp. I have been playing Acol for 35 years and still do with certain partners (so help me G-d). Roland

"MASTER Bridge" is the title, and the author's name is now Nicola Smith. But Denis is right; it was Nicola Gardener then, and that name is what appears on the front page. Roland