Walddk

And I thought 3♠ shows a hand with 16+ hcp and no shortage. Is there a thing such as Standard Jacoby I wonder. At least there seems to be lots of variations. Roland

I have a feeling that Justin knows the hand. At this point, just to tease you, I am only going to reveal that it created a 17 IMP swing. Provided that you haven't seen it before, feel free to speculate on how and why :) Roland

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=s764ha72daqcakq94]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Strong hand indeed, but the level is uncomfortably high before it's your turn to bid. 1♠ - pass - 3♦* - ? * Explained as a 'mixed raise' (usually 4-card support). For those of you who are not familiar with the term it means that responder has a hand with both pre-emptive and constructive elements. Now a three-part question: - 1. What is your call? - 2. Let's assume that you don't pass. What would double mean in your methods? - 3. What is your call if RHO had responded 3♠ (limit)? Roland

I believe we had a similar situation, albeit a little more complex, in the Danish playoffs a couple of months ago. Maybe Michael Askgaard (MFA) can shed some light on the issue. Roland

By now everyone has figured out that they reached 7♦ and that it was cold. David Burn said something very interesting. Perhaps you should have written a note to your screenmate after your 6♥ with 'I am going to bid a grand slam no matter how long it takes for the tray to come back' if that is your intention. Again it's hearsay when I write that after the hand the player in question told his LHO that 6♥ was an attempt to get to 7NT if partner could bid 7♣. The director was summoned (a fact), but I do not know the ruling and I do not know if there was an appeal. Roland

I agree that it's normal to bid 5NT when you know that you are in possession of all keycards and trump queen. However, I disagree that that 'grand slam try' is misleading. If you can bid keycards opposite a hand that could be considerably weaker than this one, and you get a 5♠ response, a subsequent 5NT is obviously a grand slam try. And yes, there was a huddle for a couple of minutes before the tray came back with 6NT ... unless the operator had fallen asleep for some reason. That I can't rule out, as is the case with the validity of the explanation at the table. It's all hearsay; I wasn't at the playing site. I was merely watching a vugraph presentation along with 2,000 other spectators. I still believe that my interpretation of what I saw is descriptive. Roland

Double. I can't have a more suitable hand in context. For all I know, we could still have a game on. Partner should not double 1NT with a random, balanced 14 or 15 count. Roland

Well, according to the operator 5NT was explained as a grand slam try. What right do we have to question their methods whether we like them or not? You are entitled to disagree, but I feel that my way of describing the auction is fair. I do not comment on what 5NT is or is not. Just like I refrain from commenting on 6♥. This hand is posted to let the members judge based on the facts. Roland

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saxxhkxdkq10xxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] A deal from the US Open Trials yesterday. Since we still can't get access to the vugraph archives, I can't give you the spot cards, but they are irrelevant anyway. Your partner opens a natural 1♣, RHO overcalls 2♥ (natural, weak), you bid 3♦ and lefty makes some noise with 3♥. Next comes 4NT by partner, RKC for diamonds. 5♠ by you (two KC's and ♦Q). Now 5NT from partner, grand slam try. Perhaps you think you have enough to bid the grand slam now, but you decide to bid 6♥ instead. The tray comes back to you with 6NT. What do you do now? Pass or 7♦? Roland

Above average club game. 8 results. 2 x 680 4 x 1430 1 x 2210 1 x -100 I take it that it was matchpointed, then Sorry, yes.

Above average club game. 8 results. 2 x 680 4 x 1430 1 x 2210 1 x -100

Part one is indeed relevant to B/I'ers. Perhaps the matchpoint aspect should have been somewhere else. Roland

I think you forgot Kxx - J KJ - xx I know I agree with Justin's lines although he didn't state any .... well, he did between the lines (pun intended). Roland

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saq10764hk92d8caq4&s=s532haq5dak65ck103]133|200|S: 6S Lead: DQ[/hv] First, please note that this is a topic in the B/I forum, so if you are advanced or better, either refrain from replying or do it with hidden text. South opens 1NT and through a transfer sequence he arrives in the excellent 6♠. West leads ♦Q. Plan the play ... 1. In a team match. 2. At matchpoints. Roland

We have a complete timetable now. I have set it up the way we do it on our vugraph schedule web page. All times are GMT. Add 1 hour for London, 2 hours for Paris and 10 hours for Sydney. Subtract 4 hours for New York and 7 hours for Los Angeles. 49th European Bridge Team Championships 2008 http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/08Pau/Information.htm 2008-06-15 08:30 Open Teams, Qualifying 1 2008-06-15 12:15 Open Teams, Qualifying 2 2008-06-15 15:35 Open Teams, Qualifying 3 2008-06-16 08:30 Open Teams, Qualifying 4 2008-06-16 12:15 Open Teams, Qualifying 5 2008-06-16 15:35 Open Teams, Qualifying 6 2008-06-17 08:30 Open Teams, Qualifying 7 2008-06-17 12:15 Open Teams, Qualifying 8 2008-06-17 15:35 Open Teams, Qualifying 9 2008-06-18 08:30 Open Teams, Qualifying 10 2008-06-18 12:15 Open Teams, Qualifying 11 2008-06-18 15:35 Open Teams, Qualifying 12 2008-06-19 08:30 Open Qualifying 13, Women RR 1 2008-06-19 12:15 Open Qualifying 14, Women RR 2 2008-06-19 15:35 Open Qualifying 15, Women RR 3 2008-06-20 08:30 Open Qualifying 16, Women RR 4 2008-06-20 12:15 Open Qualifying 17, Women RR 5 2008-06-20 15:35 Open Qualifying 18, Women RR 6 2008-06-21 08:30 Open Qualifying 19 2008-06-21 12:15 Women RR 7, Seniors RR 1 2008-06-21 15:35 Women RR 8, Seniors RR 2 2008-06-22 08:30 Open Finals R 1, Women RR 9, Seniors RR 3 2008-06-22 12:15 Open Finals R 2, Women RR 10, Seniors RR 4 2008-06-22 15:35 Women RR 11, Seniors RR 5 2008-06-23 08:30 Open Finals R 3, Women RR 12, Seniors RR 6 2008-06-23 12:15 Open Finals R 4, Women RR 13, Seniors RR 7 2008-06-23 15:35 Open Finals R 5, Women RR 14, Seniors RR 8 2008-06-24 08:30 Open Finals R 6, Women RR 15, Seniors RR 9 2008-06-24 12:15 Open Finals R 7, Women RR 16, Seniors RR 10 2008-06-25 08:30 Open Finals R 8, Women RR 17, Seniors RR 11 2008-06-25 12:15 Open Finals R 9, Women RR 18, Seniors RR 12 2008-06-25 15:35 Open Finals R 10, Women RR 19, Seniors RR 13 2008-06-26 08:30 Open Finals R 11, Women RR 20, Seniors RR 14 2008-06-26 12:15 Open Finals R 12, Women RR 21, Seniors RR 15 2008-06-26 15:35 Open Finals R 13, Women RR 22, Seniors RR 16 2008-06-27 08:30 Open Finals R 14, Women RR 23, Seniors RR 17 2008-06-27 12:15 Open Finals R 15, Women RR 24, Seniors RR 18 2008-06-27 15:35 Open Finals R 16, Women RR 25, Seniors RR 19 2008-06-28 08:30 Open Finals, Round 17 20 boards per session in all series. We will be broadcasting from 10 - 20 tables in every session, depending on schedule. Overwhelming? Yes. Software issue? No; we can accommodate up to 32 tables at a time. Roland

Bidding the suit won't help you here because 4♣ is explained as non-leaping Michaels. So do you suggest 5♣ if you don't pass? Roland

Correct, LHO will likely lead small because he is the one on lead ;) Having said that, I also think it's practical bridge to bid 3NT. With the second example hand I double. Yes, I don't like a 4♥ response, but I may get lucky and see 3NT instead. Roland

I merely want to keep the structure with regard to notrump responses after a take-out double. It's completely different as far as suit responses are concerned because the lower limit is ZERO, whereas it's 5-6 when responding to 1x. Roland

I see your point, Josh, but if I understand this correctly the consequence is that you must invite (2NT) with 12-13 and only jump to 3NT with 14 or more. I don't think that it is mainstream to have as many as 13 hcp for an invite. Roland

If this hand is not close to being a 1NT response, how would you teach your students? Are we totally out of line when we tell them 6-9(10), (10)11-12 and 13-15 for 1, 2 and 3NT respectively? I am not saying that my range is the only truth, but it is certainly easier for the students to comprehend, because we use the same when responding to 1x by opener. In effect, partner did open 1x when he doubled. In my experience, after close to 40 years in business, it complicates things if you introduce too many exceptions to rules of thumb. No matter what, the only thing that is out of line in my view is Art's 'wtp' cliché. OP's question is very good, and this is the right forum for it. Roland

Your are lucky to have 6-9(10) hcp and a spade stopper, the range for a 1NT response to a take-out double. ♠ xxxx ♥ Jxx ♦ Jxx ♣ Qxx This is much tougher. My choice would now be 2♣ which sounds less encouraging than 2♥. The hand is no longer suited for a 1NT response because, apart from showing a spade stop, it is constructive, as opposed to a response in a suit as cheaply as possible. Roland

Double. Some very good players subscribe to the theory that one should not double with a void. Although it would be nice to have one to shoot through declarer at some point, my philosophy is: 'The fewer I have, the more partner has if he passes.' Roland

Norwegian Summer Festival at Lillehammer, courtesy of Paal Fondevik. Not the first time the Norwegians have introduced new features. Not only are they great players, they also have brilliant programmers. Another is Per Nordland. Not bad for a country with a population of just 4.5 million, less than the state of Michigan. At least Michigan can be proud of the Detroit Red Wings. They will go all the way now! Roland

In bridge this is pretty new. Until recently Great Brittain could send only one team to the European Championships. The first time England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales could enter their own teams was in 2003. In football (soccer :lol: ) it's a different story. Not quite correct, Harald. First time we saw England, Scotland and Wales as separate entities was in year 2000 (Olympiad in Maastricht, Netherlands). Then we had the same three (bridge) nations at the European Team Championships in 2001 (Tenerife, Spain) and 2002 (Salsomaggiore, Italy). As an aside, Italy Open fielded the exact same team in Salso and won. Team photo here ... http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/02S...lsomaggiore.htm Roland This is not correct. Irish teams, ( Open and Women's) have played in European Championships for 60 years. Who wrote anything about Ireland? skaeran mentioned Great Britain, then England, Scotland and Wales. Not a word about Ireland, not by me either. The Republic of Ireland is not part of Great Britain. In the Camrose Trophy (open) and Lady Milne (women), the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland play as separate entities, unlike other international competitions where the Irish Bridge Union sends one team to represent the island of Ireland. That's how it has always been. Nothing new there. Roland

I am sure Kitty does a fine job with Bridgemate, but it is hardly a triumph that the USBF uses the device three years after it was first introduced at the 1st European Open Bridge Championships in Tenerife, Spain, in June 2005. It was a success from the word go, so why it has taken this long is difficult to understand. And as Richard (hrothgar) points out, we haven't seen anything of the kind in ACBL events yet. Whether it will take 20 years (as he predicts) or not remains to be seen. Roland