Walddk

That is (almost) correct. It was 22 minutes. Barnet Shenkin tells about the incident (was a match in the Scottish Cup) in his book "Playing with the Bridge Legends." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Bridge-Leg...d/dp/1894154215 Playing from the wrong hand was actually his only chance to make the contract. One could sympathize with a defender who had fallen asleep by then, but he was alert and did not allow it to happen. Roland hmm is bridge not a timed event? How in the world could this be legal or go without penalty. In fact how in the world could the opp allow such a thing to happen? Are there different bridge rules in scottish bridge? In a knockout event played privately you can take all the time you like. That's not unique for Scotland. It happens all over the world, also in the Danish Cup where I have participated on numerous occasions. No other pair will be waiting for you to finish, so you don't ruin any ongoing tournament. It is of course extreme that a player takes 22 minutes to play a card, but cup ties often last longer than other matches. Roland

Actually if what Paul said "I believe Barnet once 'tanked' for about 25 minutes as declarer" about 25 mins covers 22 mins, so I think you are being over picky here Roland Point taken. I should hafe left out "almost". Roland

That is (almost) correct. It was 22 minutes. Barnet Shenkin tells about the incident (was a match in the Scottish Cup) in his book "Playing with the Bridge Legends." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Playing-Bridge-Leg...d/dp/1894154215 Playing from the wrong hand was actually his only chance to make the contract. One could sympathize with a defender who had fallen asleep by then, but he was alert and did not allow it to happen. Roland

Not at all, but it usually a bad idea to "tank" and then pass. That may prevent your partner from taking another call because he has received unauthorized information (UI). He is not allowed to take advantage of the UI. During vugraph presentations I am often asked if a player can think as long as he wants. In theory yes, but they must complete the 16 or 20 boards within the stipulated time, e.g. 2 hours and 20 minutes and 2 hours and 50 minutes respectively, playing with screens. Roland

I think it covers "thinking" and "pausing". A common expression is: "South was tanking (in the tank) for about three minutes before he bid 5x." South had a (bridge related hopefully) problem and needed some time to think it through before he made his call. The same applies for a declarer and defender who sometimes need to think before he plays a card to a trick, current as well as the following trick. I am not aware of "tanking" in any other context. Roland

1) 1♥ 2) 3♠ Partner has shown 5+ diamonds and 4+ spades and a game force when responder bids. 2♠ is a jump shift and confirms that it is a suit because you should not lie about length in a major responder may have support for. It's different after say 1♥ - 1NT where responder can't have four spades. I don't believe in fast arrival on an auction like this, so I would never rebid 4♠. Roland

Being familiar with those conventions is irrelevant since they are not worth explaining. Commentators who don't know them have an edge and spectators would be better off if no one tells them that they exist. I think I know what you are referring to, so let me make it clear by saying that while it's true that F&G are tied 1st, Capp is further down on my list of "Top 10 Useless Conventions." :( Roland

Quite right. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Just drop me a line at roland_wald at hotmail.com Everyone will get a reply and an explanation. The only thing I require is that the criticism is constructive. Rudeness is not appreciated, but no matter what you must trust me to keep your name out of it while I investigate if that is your wish. Vugraph commentary on BBO is far from perfect, but generally speaking I think it's pretty good. I can't always make the best sign up for certain events, but believe me when I say that I try hard. Around 225 potential commentators receive between 80 and 120 e-mails a year! Fred can confirm because he gets a copy every time. Roland

In that case you blow a trick on a layout like this: [hv=n=sq5&w=s742&e=sa1086&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv] Now declarer (East) can develop a second trick if you lead the 9. He can't if you lead the 3. There are other examples where leading the 9 (and the 8 occasionally) may turn out to be costly. Roland

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout: [hv=n=sa62&w=sq85&e=s1074&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv] A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh B) Roland

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC). 72 762 You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards. This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other. Admittedly I have never played it. But my thought was always that you still have to lead high from honor doubleton to avoid blocking suits, so at some point there is a cut-off (maybe it's Tx or 9x?). It seems this could lead to problems. Like do you lead the T from Tx and Txx? Or do you lead low from 9x and find partner with AQJTx and king in dummy (yes I realize this can also happen if you lead low from 9xx like I would, but somehow it seems more important from a doubleton.) High from Hx (T included), yes. Low from any other doubleton unless the auction suggests that it may be better to lead high from 9x, particularly against notrumps. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have agreements. Regarding Txx it's normal procedure to lead the T from T9x and middle from Txx. I have played that method in most of my regular partnerships when I was younger, but I need to add that I also led 4th then. I don't any more if I have a say. I much prefer 3rd and 5th, also vs NT. Speaking of "playing bridge", I assume that no one playing 3rd would lead the 9 from KJ93 or even KJ83. Yes, your agreement is 3rd but certainly not if it can cost a trick. That's what I mean by "you don't stop playing bridge". Roland

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC). 72 762 You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards. This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other. As pointed out by a few, this has nothing to do with UDCA. It's a leading style as per agreement. Roland

What did you have in mind? 200 hours of community service? I agree; his comments were inappropriate, but is a warning really not enough? If you call for severe punishment, I think you overreact. Roland

My favourite is It's a human sign When things go wrong When the scent of her lingers And temptations strong Into the boundary Of each married man Sweet deceit comes calling And negativity lands Cold cold heart Hard done by you Some things look better baby Just passing through And its no sacrifice Just a simple word Its two hearts living In two separate worlds But its no sacrifice No sacrifice Its no sacrifice at all Mutual misunderstanding After the fact Sensitivity builds a prison In the final act We lose direction No stone unturned No tears to damn you When jealousy burns But it's no sacrifice ... (Bernie Taupin)

Michael Askgaard (MFA) and I play it differently so there is evidently not a consensus among experts even in a small country like ours. I know for a fact that two of Michael's team-mates next season play double as take-out. Both approaches are no doubt fine as long as you have a firm agreement. Over the years I have subscribed to a rule that, if nothing else, is easy to remember: Double of low level contracts are for take-out unless it's obvious that the opponents have a misfit, or if preceded by redouble (good hand). It is not clear to me that the opponents have a misfit if the bidding goes ... 1♣ pass pass 1♥ 2♣ Roland

Hmm, how about me then :) ? I make around 30 mistakes / 20 boards, what is my ranking :unsure:? 7+: newbie :) Not sure why we select you to represent Denmark :D Roland

I am pretty sure Fred means "won national events". I agree with you that it's somewhat easier to win a national event in Tibet than in the UK. Roland

I don't know what "real experts" are, but I know how I would describe "experts": Players who make fewer mistakes than novices, beginners, intermediates, advanced ... and more than World Class players. I watch quite a few self-rated expert players on BBO, and they make roughly five errors per board. That has obviously nothing to do with expertise, or being an expert. Apart from the fact that every individual decides what she/he is, it doesn't cost to rate yourself as an expert even if you are not, because most of those "experts" are anonymous. I don't blame them. Roland

I don't know what the ACBL intention is, but regarding "1st discard" it's pretty clear where I live (Denmark). First you are asked what kind of attitude you use, then the same about count, and finally 1st discard. The intention is to make it clear to the opponents whether you use attitude or count for your 1st discard. Example (most common here): Attitude: upside-down. Count: upside-down. 1st discard: attitude. Roland

Back to the topic. I play double as take-out. If I have a penalty of 2x, I must obviously pass, and it's not impossible at all that partner re-opens with a double now that he has shown his long suit already when he bid 1y. Roland

you know... I might just be tempted to butt-in a dbl. There's a lot to be said for taking action as early as possible. Even if it might cost you a crash landing into the 5-2 or 4-2 fit. If you have sub-minimum values for a take-out double, you should at least have an ideal shape. Your example hand is far from ideal. And you can't even venture an Equal Level Conversion (ELC) over a 2♦ response. However, if you have ... xx AQxx Axxxx Jx ... it's more appealing to double, because you can convert to 2♦ over a 2♣ response if ELC is part of your agreements. Roland

If that is what he has for his double, I see no reason why he can't have A QJxx AJ10x J10xx Would anyone pass over 2♠ with that hand? Give him one spade more and one card less in one of the minors and it's still a double. Maybe not in the BBF as a problem, certainly at the table. I like 5♠, but for a different reason. With the hand above I hope he will bid 5NT to tell that ♠A is among two aces altogether. With two outside the spade suit he should bid 6♠. Maybe that is wishful thinking, but worse is a direct 6♠ that commits us to a grand even when we are off one cashing ace. Roland

This upcoming Friday is a special occasion on BBO vugraph. Laila Kuusinen from Salo Bridge Club in Finland turns 100, and we will be showing 8 boards live with the grand old lady in action. I don't know how many 100 year old tournaments players there are around the world, but my guess is that they are few and far between. I have been told that Ms Kuusinen is a capable player with quite a few excellent results to her name. In theory, you can start playing bridge as soon as you can sit on a chair, and you won't have to stop until you can't sit on that chair any more! One of the reasons that makes our game fascinating. Young or old, doesn't matter. You can enjoy the game regardless of age. I vividly recall how one of my sons, when he was 10, sat down to play with an 80 year old. They had a great time. Roland

Yes, Sumo wrestling is my specialty. I am happy to learn that you got women involved in the UK. My only wish is that they are bit slimmer than the guys in Japan. Roland I thought your speciality is the pole vault. Once you said to kibitzers, you achived 1,24 m in pole vault, and that is a great result if we know that the best among the chessplayers jumped world record = only 1,09 m :D :( Robert Oh dear then, one of my regular partners was a pole vaulter in school so he can pole vault about 3 times of 1.24m....sorry to burst your bubble roland! I think slothy forgot to mention that my 1 meter and 24 centimeters was without using a pole, and with a most annoying head wind! Impressed or not? :D Roland

Two things here, Justin: 1. Some play the Mike Lawrence 2/1 approach where responder's rebid of own minor is no longer GF, so they may have to invent a suit if they have game forcing values. 2. You are right about 3♣ followed by 4♣, but then you have bypassed 3NT which is often the right spot. Not so much with a hand as strong as this, but with a GF hand a little weaker. Reversing the 5-5 responses (2♣ rather than 2♦) is not something I invented. Years ago Danish international Stig Werdelin told me about the logic behind it (follow-ups). I thought and still think he is worth listening to considering that he has played around 340 internationals and has a European silver and an Olympic bronze medal to his name. I have followed his advice since he mentioned it, and I have never been disappointed. Finally, I see your point when playing 2/1 game forcing. If you play Standard, Acol, SEF or any other natural system where a 2-over-1 response is not game forcing, I believe that it's better to respond 2♣. Roland