Walddk

What strikes me as odd is that the match referee was satisfied that Harbhajan had used the word "monkey", though neither of the two umpires heard the remark. So it's Ponting's word against Harbhajan's, and yet the Indian player is banned. In other words, there seems to be doubt. Isn't it normal procedure to give the accused the benefit of the doubt if there is nothing conclusive? Unless there is something we don't know. Unlikely given the fact that India have suspended their tour of Australia pending the outcome of an appeal. This appeal is probably going to be as big an issue as the Inzamam-ul-Haq affair at The Oval in 2006, if not bigger. Roland

Quote from the BBC website, just in: India spin bowler Harbhajan Singh has been banned for three Tests for making a racist remark during their defeat by Australia in Sydney. Match referee Mike Procter found him guilty of breaching the players' Code of Conduct after a four-hour hearing. It was alleged that Harbhajan called Australia's Andrew Symonds a "monkey". Procter said he was satisfied Harbhajan had used the word and that "he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin". I don't know what he said or did not say, but I read that Harbhajan denies and that the umpires did not hear anything untoward. No matter what: it's a sad incident for the game some of us love so much. Roland

Matter of style. If you think you can do without 2♦ as natural, by all means go ahead and distinguish between 3 and 4 card support. By using Drury (or Toronto as it's called in some parts of the world) you have already taken one natural bid (2♣) away. I have played both variations in many partnerships, but I can't really tell which is better. 2♦ has the downside that opener can't use it as a "waiting bid", whatever people use that for. As an aside, I have had a look at your template generator (mentioned in your signature). It seems very good and here is my suggestion: Offer it to the BBF by sending an e-mail to uday(at)bridgebase.com I have asked questions about a template a few times and I have made a reference to a Danish bridge web site where they use something similar. We still don't have one here, and I think it's much needed. I often give up on showing a complete auction because the various calls are displayed all over the place. You can't be sure who bid what, or at least it takes some guesswork. Roland

Waiting with a strong hand might not work well if the opponents do not include a strong variant in their 2♦ opening bid, as the bidding might go 2♦-Pass(with strong hand) - Pass!! (with ♦s)-PAss However, when, as in this problem, opener can have a number of very strong hands as well, it will not go pass out in 2♦'s. True Ben, but tell me how many times out of 100 the Multi opener has the strong version? I bet you can count it on one hand's fingers. So assume that he has a weak two in a major and act accordingly. Get in right away if you have cards for it! Same goes for the Polish 1♣ opening. 1) 12-14 balanced - 2) 15+ with clubs - 3) 18+ any shape. Assume that it is 1) because it always almost is. Roland

I do (remember) and I do (prefer Woolsey). All I am saying is that it is not losing to play double as penalties. Since I was young I have always been flexible regarding systems and conventions, so if a partner I care for prefers to let double be for penalties I will comply, happily even, because I think that this could work very well. As most of you know there are conventions I do not play, but they have to be really awful before I say "thanks but no thanks." With a regular partner it's all about compromises, and if you can't get the one you love, you've got to love the one you get. Roland

Nope. I don't understand that, I play double as penalties. It's vital against a 1st or 3rd seat NV 1NT opening, and I don't find I'm losing out against other openings either. I agree with Phil (though I wouldn't state it as fact.) The reason I find it a loser (and that you wouldn't see it) is that the loss is on all the other hands you can no longer show. Whether it's single suited, major and a minor, or whatever, there is simply too much burden on the other bids if you don't have double available to show something, IMO. I don't find it a loser at all. You can bid 2♣ for the majors, 2♦ for one major and 2M for the major and a minor. The only thing you lose is a 4c major with a longer minor (Woolsey). Right, I also lose both minors (in case you play dont), but that does not bother me one bit. Roland

The scheme I use is very different from inquiry's. If nothing else mine is quite simple. Second seat: Dbl: 12-14 balanced or any 17+ (will bid again). 2♥: 4-5 hearts, 11-16. Basically a take-out "double" of a weak 2♠. 2♠: 4-5 spades, 11-16. Basically a take-out "double" of a weak 2♥. 2N: Natural, 15-17, usually stopper in both majors. 3m: Natural, constructive, NF. Roland

It's important that you get in at your first opportunity against the Multi. I agree with Arend. Double for me shows either 12-14 balanced (usually at least 4-3 in the majors) or 17+ any shape (will bid again). If only 17 it it not balanced (1NT). Roland

Since this is posted here, the 2NT bidder or his partner thought that it showed the minors because 1♦ could be short. Just a guess. Some think, for reasons only known to themselves, that it always shows the two lowest suits, unbid or not. So the same would apply after 1♣. Roland

Your analysis is flawed, Ken. You have 12 top tricks provided that spades don't break 4-0 and diamonds 7-0. 6 spades tricks, 5 diamonds and one club. I call that a great slam. Roland

But opener has a second diamond control and he should not deny that by skipping 4♦ over responder's redouble. That could be vital in other instances when responder is looking at say xx or xxx in diamonds. Even your seven seasick sailors who are nursed by seven beautiful nurses will agree :) (I am referring to echognome's Swedish signature which is almost impossible to pronounce for foreigners). Roland

I voted 4♠ because opener did not give partner the opportunity to show 1st round control in clubs (redouble). Some play that his 4♠ shows 2nd round control, but I doubt that you have that agreement when he actually signed off. After responder's redouble opener can safely bid 4♦ to show the next control in diamonds. Could be the king, could be the singleton ace. It can't be a void because opener had the opportunity to splinter over 2♠. Now responder is in a position to count lots of diamond tricks and his only concern is number of keycards and the trump queen. RKCB can take care of that (followed by trump queen ask). Roland

Why must we "obviously accept that"? Should we passively accept all irrational decisions made by bridge administrators or should we seek to lobby and persuade such individuals to change their point of view? Yes David, we must accept it because we have no right to interfere with a decision local organisers make. At least that is the BBO policy for now. With this said, I agree with you that we should try to convince organisers who are not already "reformed" that perhaps it's not such a good idea to cancel a broadcast. Not if their aim is to promote bridge in their countries, and I strongly believe that all bridge politicians want that. It's disappointing that this happened, not least for our contacts in India, Buddy Shah and Mahesh Rohera, who have put so much effort into the preparations. Waste of their time and goodwill, sadly; waste of my time too but that's a minor issue. This was a last minute decision after the organisers approved about two months ago. "We tried our best and even offered that the boards will be duplicated in the presence of anyone the committee approves and that the boards can be kept in their custody", Mahesh wrote earlier today. No luck, the broadcast is off. In an e-mail to Buddy and Mahesh I have expressed our support and that we, as far as future broadcasts are concerned, should try to convince the organisers that they made a mistake. I have also assured our contacts that they are most welcome to use our software free of charge whenever they get an opportunity to show high quality bridge from India. Roland

I'm not sure who you have in mind when you say this. Most of the top players in England now play a strong notrump, whereas a weak notrump is still common amongst the hoi polloi - in other words, the opposite of what Gerben describes as happening in Germany. Oh, I meant bidding theory as a whole. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with either approach (weak or strong NT), but it the Acol concept I am referring to. That's a system of the past which still more players at top level seem to have realised. I am not so sure when it comes to club level. Roland

Clubs I guess. A hand that wasn't strong enough to come in over 1♦. Q xxx xxx AQJxxx 2♣ is not a great contract (virtually hopeless), but pass I will now. Roland

Agreed, although Hedy Grey, during a vugraph broadcast the other day, said that for her the range is 17-19. I confess that I have not seen that concept before. Roland Well I suppose that she plays 1NT 10-14 X and then 1NT 15-17- 2NT : 17-19- X and then 2NT 19+-21 Most likely, but she will not always be in a position to rebid 1NT. 1♥ pass pass double Now, if the response is 2mi the rebid is 2NT to show 15-16 and that is not sound opposite what may well be a weak hand. Neither is it a splendid idea to let a direct 2NT show 17-19. 17 opposite nothing perhaps? Sorry for being a bit off-topic here. Roland

Agreed, although Hedy Grey, during a vugraph broadcast the other day, said that for her the range is 17-19. I confess that I have not seen that concept before. Roland

Our vugraph broadcasts from the CNFC Winter Nationals in India have been cancelled because the organisers are concerned about security. We must obviously accept that. Would you believe that this will be the first time for 27 weeks where there is no vugraph over a weekend (we had one week off in the summer). So vugraph freaks must be patient and wait for stage 1 of the Camrose Trophy 2008 from Northern Ireland on January 11-13. Roland

Indeed it is, and I can't rule out that it will work beautifully opposite certain hands. However, as I can't be sure that the 5-level is safe, I think it's wiser to bid a splinter below game. ♠ xx ♥ KQJxx ♦ AQx ♣ xxx I assume that this hand meets your requirements for a 2♥ response. The 5-level is not safe. Roland

Clubs and hearts, at least 5-5. With clubs and spades I bid 1♠, with both majors 2♦. I don't like a jump to the three-level to show two specific suits (Ghestem for example). 1. I would probably forget. 2. I like the three-level for one-suited pre-empts. Roland

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course. But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light :P Roland

Indeed, and you would not if you bid 2♣? Roland

And what is 2♦ supposed to mean? I believe that most people play that as a sound spade raise; others as a transfer advance (5+ hearts). If 2♦ can be this hand too, it seems like a call that says "I have something, I am not sure what it is." They exist I guess, but they don't help partner a lot. Roland

That's the price you pay for playing Lebensohl. You don't get any convention without giving up on the natural meaning of the call. Although I agree with David that one defender has announced that he has something (12-14 hcp) when opening 1NT and that a weak two hand has less, it is not entirely true that third hand is very weak when he takes out into his 5 card major. He could be weak, but he could also have up to 9-10 hcp. Same applies after a sequence like 2♥ pass pass. Third hand could be very strong (up to 15-16 hcp with a misfit for hearts). David has, intentionally I assume, given us the only shape, 3433, that creates a problem when 2NT is not natural. Right, it is a problem which you must live with if Lebensohl is what you think is best in these situations. I think it is in the long run. Roland

I don't, and I don't think Gerben does either. I read his comment as strong players in his area play two-way Stayman and no transfers over a weak NT. He is not saying anything about what they do in California. There are upsides and downsides attached to both treatments. I have always felt that no one is entitled to say "this is right and that is wrong." Roland