Walddk

I'm not against opening off-shape 1NTs as such, as long as they are parts of your partnership agreements. Let me use the Italian top pair Fantoni-Nunes as an example. Playing 12-14 NT and playing 1 of a minor as 14+ hcp, they simply have to open 1NT on 2254, 2245, 2362, 2326, 3262 and 3226 when they are in the 12-13 hcp range. That's fine, because they can control the subsequent auction. However, I doubt that the average tournament player can, and that's why I think the off-shape NTs should be avoided. Even a world class pair like the Yadlin brothers were not able to get to the slam most people would bid if they opened a natural 1♦ with 2254. At the other table Zmudzinski opened 1♦ and after a 1♠ overcall, Balicki simply bid 4NT. Bridge is difficult enough as it is; there is no reason to make it even more complicated. Roland

Please tell your friend, or whoever it is who has this theory, that she should read your signature very carefully :) Roland

I think most of us, for more reasons than one, would like to open 1NT as often as possible. Opener's shape is revealed in one bid, and the subsequent auction is a lot easier than after 1 of a suit, because most established partnerships have the necessary tools to get to the right contract. As to the off-shape 1NT (5422 and 6322), it cuts both ways. You mention Doron Yadlin's 1NT in the NEC Cup Final with 2254. That didn't impress me much, since the Israelis missed a laydown 6♦. I can't understand why one would open 1NT when one has no rebid problem after 1♦-1major. 2245 with 15-16 is a different story. Roland

The suggested new URL is not working for me. I got access through http://70.84.141.4/forums Roland

You contradict yourself and violate the laws of bridge. Bid 2♦ at every level when partner bids clubs. xxx xxx x AKQxxx So now I have to guess whether partner really has a take-out double or an equal level conversion? So I must bid 2♣ with that hand just in case? Because I don't want to hear 3♦ if I jump to 3♣, do I? Excuse me, but then bridge becomes too difficult. I fully agree with Bob. The hand is no take-out double by 10 miles. It's a simple 2♦ overcall (or 3♦ if you are so inclined). If you have a preference, bid your suit, if you do not have a preference, let partner decide and make a take-out double. You have a clear preference with a hand like this. Roland

It's even worse than that Gerben. 12:59 pm is also earlier than 1:00 pm! Some time ago I invented "Freddish". I will leave to you to figure out what that stands for. All I can say is that there is plenty of room for error when one has to convert 11:45 am Brisbane time to New York, London, Paris and Sydney times. I don't know who invented GMT, UTC, EST, PST, CET, MST, CEST, AEST, IST etc., but it sure is confusing. Long live The World Clock - Time Zones! http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ Roland

Yes Tim. Midnight in Europe is 00:00 or 24:00, noon is 12:00. Again, no ambiguity. Roland

Excellent idea Ben. So your civilized world refers to Europe I take it. 7:13, 9:59, 12:11, 16:01, 20:48, 23:31, 24:06, 1:17, etc. Then there is no ambiguity! But can North Americans get used to this is the question. Roland

I was looking at that page when I found: 12 AM NY, 6 Paris. Yes, Paris is six hours ahead of NY, so that might have meant noon in NY and 6 PM in Paris. No Tim, 12 noon in New York would be 12:00 PM. That is how it's witten. I know this for a fact although I am not from or don't live in an English speaking country where AM's and PM's flourish. Furthermore, 06:00 in Paris can only be in the morning. 6 in the evening is 18.00 in European terminology. Roland

Midnight Eastern Standard Time (EST), 6 in the morning Central European Time (CET). Paris is 6 hours ahead of New York. The most significant problem arises when we have a vugraph broadcast starting on say February 11 at 8:00 pm New York time. That will be 02.00 in Paris, BUT on February 12. Generally speaking, I am referring to our session starting times on our vugraph schedule web page at http://www.bridgebase.com/online/vg.html There is no ideal solution to this "problem", but I think our members know what we mean. The thing is, however, that many are too lazy to look it up. That's why I get bombarded with questions as to when the next broadcast begins. It's easier to ask me I suppose. Roland

Let's face it. Most tournament directors (TDs) at BBO know nothing or little about Laws of Duplicate Bridge. We have all witnessed or heard about appalling rulings; sadly they are not few and far between. Consequently, this question arises: Do we need an Appeals Committee at BBO? I am referring to bridge related issues only. Abuse or any other kind of misbehaviour should still be dealt with by abuse@ As it is now, most of the rulings are random. The ACBL directors are certified and very good at what they do. Others know what to do too, but an enormous percentage is more or less clueless. No offence intended, but most TDs and hosts are nothing but nursery assistants. Subbing disconnected players, adjusting scores when time runs out, issuing warnings for foul language, urging players to alert and explain, etc. What do you think? Should we have an AC, or should it perhaps only be in force as far as pay and/or masterpoints tourneys are concerned and let the rest be run as they are now? Or is it good enough as it is? Roland Wald Certified director

The correct play is low to the queen. If it loses, finesse the 10 next. If the opponent sitting under the queen rises with the king on the first round, cash the queen and ace hoping for the jack to drop. The chance of getting 3 tricks is not great, less than a third of the times as far as I recall. Roland

A weak 2 is not alertable, and even if it was, the opponents are not exempts from protecting themselves just because there is no alert. It's a common misconception that defenders can claim "damage" and get an adjusted score because an alertable bid was not alerted. There must have been *damage* for an adjustment to be considered, and players who did not ask what the bid meant will get no adjustment by any certified director. A simple question would have avoided any possible damage. If the defenders decide to appeal the TD's ruling, I am sure that it will be deemed an appeal without merit (frivolous is another term), and the deposit forfeited. Roland Wald Certified TD

In another thread, "Friends of Fred", we saw how Fred just hates to be in the limelight. Fortunately Fred can't decide EVERYTHING regarding BBO, so I will use one adjective that can't be translated into any other language I know of. Fred is bionic! Can it be put any better than the quote I use for my signature? That sums it up as far as Fred is concerned, doesn't it? So what else is there to say but ...... Til lykke med fødselsdagen gamle dreng! (I'll leave to you to figure out what *that* means). Roland

Isn't a table in the Main Bridge Club at BBO the perfect place for a practise then? Why would we have to play tourneys if the lesser player gets intimidated and the experts are bored? Roland

Quite right Nick. If I have a choice, I try to take that into consideration when I schedule commentators for our broadcasts. Some talk all the time and others don't talk much. That's why it's so difficult to determine the "right" number of commentators. 3-4 is the closest we can get to the truth I think. I'd love to please everybody in this regard, but after 2 years in my position as the coordinator I have realised that there is no such thing as perfection. To those who think there is: dream on. The world isn't perfect, is it? Roland

I am sure you have a valid point there Winston, and it's a shame really. Most experts seem to forget how they developed into what they are today when they were newish to the game: By playing with people who were better than themselves! In my opinion experts have an obligation to play with lesser players more frequently. Some don't do it at all, some do it rarely, but most never do. How can beginners, intermediates and advanced improve if they don't have the chance to learn? You don't learn much by playing with the same intermediate players constantly. I suspect that many want it this way. They are not really interested in learning too many new aspects of the game, but I am also pretty certain that we, on BBO as well as in real life, have many players who are dying to play with really good players. Many times every day do I get private chat messages from intermediates who ask for a game. I may not be like the rest in my league, but I feel honoured, and time permitting I am happy to accept the requests. Many more should follow that example! Keep asking, the worst scenario is "Sorry no", and that is not the end of the world for any of you. Roland

There is no secret to the so called coded 9's and 10's really. If you play standard leads, the 10 could be from an interior sequence like for example K109 (xx), whereas the 9 is used by players who play 3rd and 5th leads. The 9 promises none or two cards higher. In other words: 9x or H109 (not the jack though). The same goes for the 10 if you lead 3rd and 5th. Again it will be from either 10x (109x possible) or HJ10 (not the queen though). None or two higher. If you play standard the 10 is revealing in the sense that you can only have one card higher if it's from an interior sequence. I have no strong preference, but I usually play 3rd and 5th leads, also against NT. Roland

In another thread I wrote that 3-4 commentators at a time would be ideal. Less will be boring, and more than 4 often chaotic. We are not far from agreeing Ben, but I still claim that two will be at least one too few - simply because it will put too much pressure on the two commentators. They will have to type almost constantly, and no one can do that for a session of say 16 boards. Roland

No, a kibitzer can't chat to the room or to fellow kibitzers except for private chat messages. Whether that is on Fred's list of improvements I don't know. We will probably hear from him within long. Personally I don't think it's a good idea. The screen will be cluttered with messages, and spectators who are interested in following the comments by the commentators will get a hard time. An on/off button may be an option, however. That will be up to Fred and Uday to decide. Roland

January was overwhelming, but you may be interested to know that we have an even busier vugraph schedule in February. 18 of 28 days with live broadcasts! Yet another BBO record. Have a look at http://www.bridgebase.com/online/vg.html Broadcasts from 7 nations of which 2 are brand new: Russia and Iceland. We hope you appreciate the efforts we put into this. There is a mountain to climb before it becomes perfect (if ever), but we won't stop trying. Constructive suggestions are always welcome. Fred and I promise to consider any constribution you can offer in order to make our presentations even more successful. Roland Wald Vugraph Coordinator

From nowhere, but believe me, I have been in worse games than this (35.5%). Besides, we may still get to a making 4S. Roland

Excuse me. You would bid 2D now, and presumably the same with x xxx QJxxxx Jxx How on earth is partner to know which of the two hands you've got? He might be interested in learning that you have an excellent hand for your 1D response. That is why I suggest 3D. 2C would be my second choice, but I am reluctant to use an unassuming cue bid when I have a natural bid available. Roland

I do not agree that you can't bid 3D with only 5. For all partner knows 1D could have been on 5432 and 0 hcp. NT is out of the question with no club stopper. Partner may take me seriously! Roland

3D would be my call. I showed 0-8 hcp by responding 1D, and now my partner has shown a hand too strong for a 1S overcall (18-21 roughly). I have a super max for my initial response, and 3D should get that message across. Will pass 3NT and raise 3S to 4. By the way, I might have considered jumping to 2D on my first turn with the nice diamond suit. Roland