Walddk

That was explained by Jan Martel. Because Rozanne will be replacing Livitina on the Narasimhan team. So there we go again: conflict of interest. Roland

Which means that 1♣ is 4+ roughly 95 times out of 100. If you play that (it is Danish Standard as well as Norwegian) every suit becomes a suit all of a sudden. It can't be a bad method given that Helness-Helgemo and Brogeland-Sælensminde play it. Roland

No need to speculate any more. Jan Martel explained why three board members abstained. Roland

Click on yourself, then "Edit my Signature". Erase the text and accept. Go to the thread you want to post in and type. Now you won't see the signature any more. To get it back after you have posted, click on yourself again and start all over if you want to have a signature as before you edited. Perhaps it would be a good idea to copy and paste before you delete it. If it's quite long (as yours is), you may forget some of it when you need to put it back. This won't work. BBF always shows your current signature, regardless of what your signature was when you made a post. I think the answer is it can't be done. I stand corrected. Guess there is nothing you can do unless you make a moderator delete the signature for that particular post. Is that possible I wonder. Roland

Click on yourself, then "Edit my Signature". Erase the text and accept. Go to the thread you want to post in and type. Now you won't see the signature any more. To get it back after you have posted, click on yourself again and start all over if you want to have a signature as before you edited. Perhaps it would be a good idea to copy and paste before you delete it. If it's quite long (as yours is), you may forget some of it when you need to put it back. Roland

Totally agree. You are so to speak in the "yes" and "no" camp at the same time. Conflict of interest, so there is only one sensible thing to do: abstain. Roland

Yes I do, so the the majority decision is 100 for and 99 against. 2 abstain (for whatever reason). None of our business. Just don't vote for her/him next time if you don't like it; that's all you can do for now. Roland

If you think they are idiots, why do you vote at all? You have a right to vote (if you are above a certain age), but you do not have an obligation in a legal sense of the word. Perhaps you feel that you have an obligation from a moral point of view, fair enough, but no one can charge you if you decide to abstain. That has nothing to do with being a coward as I see it. Let me give you a silly example. As a politician, if you don't know if it's good for USA to import oranges from Greenland, you are neither for nor against. So you decide to abstain. That is also a view. "I don't know if it's good for our country or not; therefore I abstain". Roland

But they are politicians, Wayne, bridge politicians, and just like in real life (parliaments) where the members have the right to abstain, the bridge politicans are, and should, be granted the same right. That's how it works in a democracy whether one likes it or not. I like it. Roland

Yes. Four spades and no other four-card suit was the explanation at the table. So 4-3-3-3 it is. Roland

I can't be sure, but I have a feeling that they were emotionally involved because of close relationship(s) with one or more players. If that is correct, I think abstaining is the only sensible option when they decided to attend at all (that would perhaps have been another option). They decided against. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sk952hj73dj52ck97&e=s743h8642daqcq1065]266|200|Scoring: IMP South: 3NT Lead: D9[/hv] It's not often you know declarer's exact shape before the lead. Here is an example from a strong team game on BBO. 1N - 2♠ 3♠ - 3N P 2♠ was a shape and range enquiry, and South showed 4333 and a maximum. Your partner leads ♦9, promising the 10 but denying any of the four top honours. Declarer plays low from dummy, you win the ace and South follows with the 6. What is your move at trick 2 and why? Roland

24 pages. I think we have a hint as to how many approve, disapprove and who don't have strong feelings. Roland

That's the point. Don't pass with four-card support, even with a minimum. I think most people play that pass shows a minimum and exactly three spades. Two good reasons for raising with four-card support: - 1. Even if you have a minimum, you could conceivably have a game on because responder's hand may be worth game, or at least a try, after the support. - 2. If you pass, you make it too easy for LHO to balance. Roland

It didn't even take that long, just a few hours. Thanks to Gerardo for the updates. Roland

" ... violation of Section IV.A.10 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary Procedures (“Actions unbecoming a member...)". What exactly did they violate? I guess you need to be a USBF member to log in and know because it seems impossible for non-members to get to the rules. Maybe I missed something on the USBF web site? Roland

If you take a look at our vugraph schedule web page right now (13:20 GMT Tuesday the 23rd) at ... http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event it will be very anaemic. But wait a day or two and you will see lots more. We are in the process of adding Australia (two), Portugal, Israel, Scotland, Turkey, France, Norway, Poland and Estonia, and we know for a fact that at least England, USA and Norway again will follow suit before the year is over. We have had live broadcasts every week for several months now (often multiple events simultaneously), and it's safe to state that the same will be the case in November and December. Yes, vugraph on BBO is a big hit among organisers and spectators all over the world. Great promotion for the game! Roland

I'll bite as a self identified I player (assuming SA): 5+♥ and 4+♣ with anything from a decent 12 (maybe less if that's your style) to a bad 16. Some possible sample shapes include 1=5=3=4, 1=5=2=5, 2=5=1=4, 1=6=0=5. I agree with the first part (shape), but not with the second. What do you do with a good 16-17, even 18? Jump shift and force to game opposite what may be 5-6 hcp? This is what I hear much too often I'm afraid. "Opener shows a minimum", but that is not correct. He shows a minimum or a medium, so the range is roughly 12-18. Roland

I hope Kathryn won't take offence when I say that this is yet another example of how confusion is a big risk when B/I's add convention upon convention. One person doesn't know what the Unusual 2NT shows (the guy who bid it with 4-5), and the other one thinks that a pull from 3♣ to 3♦ shows the red suits. In my view you are much better off without those "silly" conventions. For the umpteenth time: get the basics right first! Now I have probably offended a bunch of beginners and intermediates, but so be it. I teach hundreds of B/I's week after week in real life. Most of them ask questions about all sorts of conventions to add to their (non-existent) convention card. My reply is nearly always the same: "Let's get back to that when you are ready for it". When explained in a nice way, the players don't get offended. As a teacher I will be much happier when I get the correct answer to this question: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ How many hearts and clubs does opener show, and what is the point range? Roland

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you tell your partner, politely of course, that 2♣ is his call, not 2NT which shows at least 5-5 in the minors. Roland

Not with that hand. It's almost never right to pass an unusual 2NT. Your partner's hand is normally useless in a notrump contract. Pick one of your (his) minors and look happy ;) Roland

From the word go I have said "No signs". How can that be so difficult to understand? Roland

I would try 2♠ unless I play Multi (then 2♦). Roland

It depends on who you ask. In my view there is not a significant difference because no party is big enough to govern on its own. Either it has coalition partners within the government or outside with support from other parties in the parliament. The conclusion is that the party with the prime minister (which has not always been the largest in the parliament) needs to compromise with one or more of the other parties to ensure a majority. Roland

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision. I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"? Roland I'd have to read the letter. "We regret that the sign wasn't bigger, more professional-looking and translated into more languages." While disregarding the offensive nature of your last two lines I would like to add that it would be a hard ask since most North Americans don't speak more than one language. Did you expect the Chinese or the French to help the American women translate? Roland