Walddk

What she said. Regarding i), if your negative double promises four spades, use option ii). For me a negative double just shows cards, a hand that has values for a raise to at least 2NT. An option iii) is 2NT as showing clubs (Rubensohl or Rumpelsohl) followed by 3♥ as stopper asking. The trouble with ii) and iii) is that you can't penalise 2♥ if that is what partner thinks is best. Could well be at this vulnerability and that is why a double would be my first choice. Roland

I don't pick on Rick Beye; I am merely stating the facts. And facts they are because the procedure is the same every time. I also think it's a fair point to bring forward when I write that it's debatable whether this is the best approach. Since nothing has changed in this respect over the years, the ACBL must believe that this is the best way to do it. There is nothing disrespectful, but I can assure you that many ACBL members think that it can and should be done in a different way. And the members who pay their fees can't be ignored. I realise that it's all a matter of priority and resources. From a professional point of view (vugraph coordinator) I prefer the Australian way, and judged by the number of e-mails and questions I get on a daily basis I suspect that our viewers share that opinion. We can all understand that Rick has plenty on his plate as it is, but then it would seem like a good idea to let someone else be in charge of vugraph presentations. I would be surprised if no one would be willing to take on that task. For years this was a labour of love for many of us, but that was never going to work long term, says Nick Fahrer. He is obviously right, so this question must be asked: Is it worth spending money on? If the answer is "no", keep it as it is. If the answer is "yes", change it. The venues for the NABC's (spring, summer, fall) through the fall of 2009 have been picked and hotels booked, and that should give the organisers plenty of time to plan. After San Francisco comes Detroit, MI, in March. Roland

South has the perfect hand for a negative double although ♦Q is almost certainly wasted. A minimum yes, but he knows that they have a fit, perhaps even two. 2♣ is either 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs plus a 4-card major. Many don't play negative doubles this high (fair enough), but that is no excuse for not bidding 5♥ over West's 5♦. The auction has revealed that NS have a double fit, and then it seems wrong, especially at this vulnerability, to defend. North's auction suggests that he is very close to a strong 1♣ opening and that he has a lot of shape (likely 5-6 in hearts and clubs). South can't even be sure that 5♦ goes down when he doubles. If 5♥ doesn't make, 5♦ will, so there is no alternative to bidding 5♥ now. Roland

Seedings for the draw for the 2008 European Championship in Austria and Switzerland: Pot One: Switzerland Austria Greece Netherlands Pot Two: Croatia Italy Czech Republic Sweden Pot Three: Germany Romania Portugal Spain Pot Four: Poland France Turkey Russia

Count me in as dumb then. I would also have bid 6♠ and passed 7♦. West's 6♥ and 7♦ were crazy, but there is no law against being lucky. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s875432hdakq963cj&w=s109hakq765432dc32&e=sjhdj10854cak108754&s=sakq6hj1098d72cq96]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 4♣* -- pass - 6♥ - 6♠ pass - pass - 7♦ - pass pass - ?? Here is the full hand. Phil was the only one who got it right as to the distribution around the table. Our "hero" in the South seat took out insurance, bid 7♠, got doubled and conceded 1100. A pass would have yielded 1000 for down 10. The deal created many different auctions and results as one would imagine. Table results: 7♠X -1100 7♥X +800 6♠X -800 (3 times) 6♥X +200 (2 times) 6♥X +500 6♣X +800 5♥X +200 (2 times) 4♠P -100 Roland

A teaser before I reveal the full hand in a few hours: 2100 points at stake :rolleyes: Roland

Some time Wednesday European time. Roland

Even with that hand ♦K is not necessarily useless. 1. He may not get a spade lead. 2. If he does, dummy can have a doubleton heart and the 3rd is ruffed in dummy. Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs. If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control. Roland Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK. Of course the one control could have been ♣K after 4♣, but the 4♦ cuebid means that opener is not interested in ♣K (he must have it himself). As I said, if he had been looking for ♣K, he would not have bid 4♦. Roland What is your point roland? What would you like partner to bid over 4D with xx xxx xxxx Kxxx? If you claim this is not a possible hand because partner bid 4D, it is certainly possible that if partner has the CK or the SK opener will want to be in slam, but if partner has the DK opener will not want to be in slam, so opener checks which king partner has via 4D. My point is that if 4NT shows ♦K (I agree) and nothing about the rest of the hand, how is responder supposed to tell that he has extras without bypassing 5♣? He can't know if ♦K is a good card for opener, so he is not in a position to bid 6♣ over 4♦. Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs. If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control. Roland Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK. Of course the one control could have been ♣K after 4♣, but the 4♦ cuebid means that opener is not interested in ♣K (he must have it himself). As I said, if he had been looking for ♣K, he would not have bid 4♦. Roland

Richard Nixon and Watergate? Perhaps some Americans were not ashamed, but a lot of foreigners think they should have been. Roland

I'm just waiting for David Burn to say "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark". There is, but what is it? B) Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs. If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control. Roland

Definitely. 5♣ would too, so why did he bid 4NT? Roland

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sak65h3da5cakq984]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Another hand from the Danish Premier League. You are dealer and the bidding goes: 2♣ - 2♦ 3♣ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4NT ?? Your 2♣ is strong, 2♦ is 0-1 control and 4♣ is support and shows any 1 control. 4♦ by you is a cue bid. How do you interpret 4NT from partner? Roland

Why would he double 7♦ if he can see it down, with no defence against 7♥? Partner doesn't know anything about your hand since you passed all along. This is the expert forum, so I am sure no one would double a contract they know goes down if they can't double the contract the opponents may retreat to. Roland

Right, and exactly what the USBF BoD did: The USBF Board has dismissed all charges against the players on the Venice Cup team. The players of the USA1 Venice Cup Championship team recognize that it is a legitimate request of the USBF, when sending teams to represent the United States, that all players refrain from using the stage for the Medal Ceremonies as a platform for anything other than receiving their medals. For the future the USBF will make certain that the Guidelines are clearer as to what is expected. So a gentle reprimand, a well hidden apology, and all is well. Sanity prevailed in the end! Roland

I recommended a reprimand and an apology in one of my early posts. Sure, you may call that sanctions. On the other hand, it should be something everyone can live with. Roland

I have, look again. Both.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sakq4hj1098d72cq95]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Danish Premier League over the weekend. The following interesting auction was to be seen at one table: 4♣* -- pass - 6♥ - 6♠ pass - pass - 7♦ - pass pass - ?? * Natural pre-empt All four players are usually sane. What is going on, and what is your call now? Roland

Interesting. I thought I knew the hand from yesterday's 4th segment of the English Open Trials. But that hand was ... ♠ AK8653 ♥ 109875 ♦ 8 ♣ 3 ... so it can't be. Very similar though. With the hand Han posted here I will pass. I will likely also pass the hand Jason Hackett and Gunnar Hallberg had on vugraph. Jason did, Hallberg opened 2♠. Roland

The 2007 Fall NABC will take place in San Francisco from November 22 - December 2. At this point I think it's a good idea to pre-empt the inevitable question: "Are you going to broadcast from the Reisinger BAM Teams on November 30, December 1 and 2?" To be honest with you, we don't know, but I would be surprised if it is not going to happen. Most organisers worldwide plan their vugraph broadcasts well in advance, but the ACBL approach has always been to postpone decisions until the last minute. Whether it's a smart thing to do is debatable, but BBO can't and will not interfere with those decisions. I will keep you posted when/if I get info from Rick Beye. Roland

You contradict yourself here. First you tell us that all people with high master titles are not necessarily great players (I agree), and then you want the same people to post in the advanced/expert forums. Master titles are guidelines, but they do no always reflect the players' skill level. If you play long and often enough, you are almost able to reach the sky. I have a pretty good idea of how many expert players we have among the forum posters (master titles or not), so as far as advanced/expert topics are concerned I tend to pay more attention to what those people write. I think this is the way forward. Time permitting, engage in a debate with views from your peers but don't forget to listen to other people too. Some lesser players do actually have excellent points now and again. And some are even better than they might think they are. Sadly, the opposite is also the case, and way too frequently. Some rate themselves higher than they should; not only on BBO but also in the BBF. There is no law against that, but it would often be a good idea to look in the mirror first. Roland