Walddk

1. 4♠ is not pretty good. Try to give it three rounds of hearts, a perfectly normal defence, and 4♠ is very bad. 2. A normal raise to 3♣ for me. So those two examples don't show that "game is cold when partner passes 2♣." ... 3. This is a 3♦ rebid, not a 2♦ preference. 4. It's not a pass of 2♣ in my book. With a double fit it's too good to pass. 5. A clear 2♦ preference. You must have seen too many players open 1♦ with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. Roland

I can see many hands where partner will pass 2C and game is cold. Of course if partner got 3H its ugly, but its going to be tough to get a plus score anyway. I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass. Show me the "many hands where partner will pass 2C and game is cold". Show me just 1 or 2. <snip> Even worse, "I also think that partner with 5S and 3H and dead minimum values can pass." Passing a game forcing jump shift? I don't follow; bridge is a partnership game, and you think partner can pass a forcing bid, let alone a GF bid? I am sure that this partnership won't last long. If you at any point must fear that your partner intentionally passes in a situation where he has been asked to bid, that partnership is doomed. Then they don't play the same game; just like you and I don't play the same game. If you are going to pass a game forcing jump shift, I think you should have passed 1♦. Once you decide to keep the auction alive, you simply must obey and bid when asked to. Sometimes you hear "I took a view, partner". That comment gives me goose bumps before I throw up. As Fred said in another thread (I think it was in the thread with the US women in Shanghai): "Nowhere does it say that you must not intentionally throw up at the table, but it is still not allowed". He is right, but it must be the closest you can get to it when your partner passes your jump shift. Goodbye to ♠ AJx ♥ x ♦ AKQxx ♣ AKxx 1♦ - 1♠ 3♣ - pass I don't care if we have a game on or not, but I do care if partner passes 3♣ because he has "a dead minimum with 5 spades and 3 hearts" as you suggest. Roland

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game. Roland

Unplayable in my view. What if your partner has a very weak hand and wants to take out into 2♣ or 2♦? He can't because your strong NT system is on? So I assume that 2♣ is Stayman and 2♦ a transfer. Not a method I would ever agree on. He did not open 1NT and he did not overcall 1NT. He penalised a 12-14 NT. He could have different hand types, not necessarily a strong balanced hand. Roland

3♠. Must be 2-2-5-4 or 2-3-5-3 like here with Hx in spades and no heart stopper. Strong hand of course. With a 3-1-5-4 or 3-2-5-3 shape I would have bid 2♠ over his 2♦ preference. I still claim that 2♣ first is more flexible than 2♥. There is one more instance where a three-card 2♣ suit is the best alternative on a hand that has no ideal rebid: ♠ AQxx ♥ x ♦ Axxxx ♣ KQx 1♦ - 1NT 2♣ You can't rule out that 1NT is the best spot, but more often than not you belong in one of the minors, especially at IMPs. Sometimes you even make game in diamonds or clubs. Roland

Sorry no. Our broadcast will not start until Saturday morning local time. Again it's a question of recruiting operators. We have them for the team events, but they need to practice first to ensure a quality presentation. Roland

I like this cautious bidding, but is there no danger that partner passes holding: AKxxx xx xx Qxxx Surely not; that is an obvious 3♣ (10-12, distributional points included). Then he will get 3♥, and 3♠ will be his next call. So 4♠ it will be on 5-2. Excellent contract. Roland

I would bid 2♣, the most flexible bid in my opinion. It's not quite good enough to force to game (3♣) because xxx in hearts the worst possible. If partner rebids 2♠, I will raise to 3, if I get 2NT it's an easy raise to game, and if he gives preference to diamonds, my plan is to follow up with 2♥. If he can produce a jump preference, I will bid 3♥ next. Then he knows that I was close to a game forcing bid on my 2nd turn, without three spades and not a heart stopper. Finally, if he supports clubs, I still have 3♥ available. Roland

12 top tricks? Yes, if partner's king is in diamonds. What if he has ♣K? Then there is a long journey to 12 tricks. I agree that we are pretty well placed over 4♥. Can you take advantage? Roland

Does the big loss come when declarer is 6-4, partner didn't double because he thought you had a doubleton, and the heart ruff was the only way to beat it? Or does it come when declarer is 6-4, partner doubles thinking you have a singleton, and you don't beat it at all? Hi Johs, I can't speak for Michael, but don't expect to get a reply for at least 3 weeks. As I wrote above, he is on his way to Beijing as I'm writing this and won't return until the 20th. He may have other things on his mind even if he has access to the internet. Roland

Your points make sense, Mike, but to be "fair", I haven't told the whole truth. Whereas it's correct that 3NT showed 5+ spades, it should also show additional values. With no more than 3 controls, responder was supposed to bid 3♠ (second negative). So, in theory, responder has more than ♣AK or ♣A and ♦K, usually one or more queens. Does that make it easier? For a moment, let's pretend that you don't know if 3NT shows extra values or not, could the auction then proceed ... 4♠ - 5♣ 5♦ - 6♣/♦ 6♣ is the worst case scenario. Perhaps dummy is dead (no ♠Q) if they lead a trump, and then you can't even make 6♥. If you get 6♦, however, you must be close to bidding the grand slam, because partner must have a doubleton heart for his preference. Roland

♠ AK9 ♥ AKQJ43 ♦ AQ42 ♣ - OK, since Ole seems to have vanished from planet Earth, let me give it a twist. Say you play control responses (as they did in the other room); now the auction is the following ... 2♣ - 2♠* 3♥ - 3N ** 4♦ - 4♥ ?? * 3 controls. ** 5 spades. Rest is natural. How do you proceed? Roland

Excellent points Michael. Let me add that partner did indeed have AJxxx in hearts. Same contract at the two tables, same info at both; no-one doubled and a diamond was led in both rooms. Flat board. And good luck in Beijing! Michael Askgaard is a member of the Danish open team and is leaving tonight European time. 10 hours in the air for him. What a thrill :) Roland

Double in a standard defence to the Multi 2♦ is either 12-14(15) balanced or any 17+ hand (will bid again). Advancer should assume the weaker of the two, so North has an opener himself. A leap to 6NT now seeems reasonable to me, especially opposite a random partner. With my usual partner I might bid 4♦ in order to investigate. We could well have a grand slam. AAKA; perhaps wishful thinking, but it can't cost to look for it. Roland

But declarer bid 4NT, so he must have a spade control of some kind; singleton or the king. Declarer has more than 500 internationals to his name, so he would not use keycard ask without a spade control. Therefore, partner can't have AK or AQ in spades. Roland

No, you're not the only one. 2♠ was natural as a response to a Stayman inquiry. 3♠ by responder next showed 5 hearts (3♥ would have been spade support). Then 3NT showed a doubleton heart.

3♠

I take it that you are implicitly saying that if partner, over 3H, wants to play 5C he had better bid 5C since you will pass 4C. Personally, I'm fine with this. Is it how most would play? I think so. 3♥ must show a great hand with ideal shape. If 4mi is all partner can come up with now, I pass. By the way, I agree that the hand is just too good for a relay-obeying 3♣. Roland

♥9. He has ♥Axxxx and knows I have a singleton because he can count to 13. If he doesn't double, I won't lead a heart. Roland

Clear pass for me. 4♠ is not particularly strong after the pre-empt. A little more than minimum if rather balanced, alternatively a minimum with 4-6 shape. 4♥ would have shown a full value raise to game. Roland

I am often a compelling bidder with 5-5, but not here, and definitely not when vulnerable. 4♠ is no doubt weak, but opener could be pretty strong, and there is no reason to stick my neck out and go for 800-1100 when partner has a natural take-out double. Let him come back with a double and he will get 4NT. Roland

It's a shame that this orthographic delight occurred in the same thread as Frances's omission of an apostrophe. But its a sin to "forget" an apostrophe and a hy-phen. Just ask David Bird. He is ready to flame anyone who doesnt understand the importance of a grammatically correct sentence ... sry sen-tence so that no-one misses the point. He also hates abbreviations and colloquialisms, such as "sry", "u", "wld", "shld" and "me2". Me too. Roland

Time violation is a frequent occurrence, not least in the final stages of a knockout tournament where it matters little for the fixed timetable. Let's take the final as an example where you don't bother other contestants by being late. Penalties are irrelevant if the players claim that they were both at fault for the time violation. On vugraph a couple of days ago from Denmark we witnessed a session 5 where it took one table 1 hour and 45 minutes to complete 8 boards! The allotted time (playing with screens) was 70 minutes. Now, how should you deal with this frequent and very annoying problem? The American way where you take boards away regardless of whether the board has been played in the other room or not? Would that perhaps encourage the leading team to play slowly on purpose? A few weeks ago we saw how boards were taken away in the Buffett Cup in Kentucky. Or should the players be monitored, perhaps using a chess clock, to determine which side spent more time? Then penalise them percentage-wise by deducting IMPs? And at what stage should they be monitored? From the start of a session, or when the TD sees that they are way behind? In that case you wouldn't know who caused the delay earlier. Bridge players are quite clever. They just claim that they have spent the equal amount of time on both sides, knowing that penalising them after that statement is impossible. I mean, it's ridiculous to subtract say 10 IMPs from each team's score. One of the problems with monitoring them is that it takes manpower. That could be a substantial factor if several tables must be monitored. The questions are many, the solutions are not obvious, but it definitely is a problem. Vugraphed matches on the internet attract thousands of spectators. That is of course good for bridge, but it would be a shame if we chase many of them away again by offering them 4 boards in 55 minutes as was the case in the Danish session I mentioned above. Time is of course an important issue in serious tournament bridge. Do you have the 100% flawless solution to this infraction? Roland

You are vulnerable against not with ... ♠ KQ104 ♥ 8 ♦ AKQ10 ♣ AJ85 RHO opens a weak 2♥, you double, LHO passes and your partner responds 2NT (Lebensohl). What is your next bid? Roland

This movement was devised by the Danish engineer K.D. Monrad and initially introduced in chess tournaments, first time for the FIDE Olympics in 1928. Since then it has been used in a variety of sports when the schedule does not allow a complete round-robin. In Denmark it is plainly known as "Monrad", in Sweden "Gröna Hissen" (The Green Elevator) and in most other places just "Danish". As far as I know, the term "Danish" is also used for "pastry" in English speaking countries. I can assure you that the pastry they produce in those countries, and which they name "Danish", has little to do with the real thing you get at the baker's in Denmark. Curiously, "pastry" is named "wienerbrød" (bread from Vienna) in our country. Roland