Walddk

edmunte1 already answered that question. ♥Q, J and ♣9. If declarer has ♥10, we can't beat it, and if I keep a heart honour I will be endplayed (partner can't afford to overtake when declarer plays low from dummy). Roland

I fail to see why. If EW's agreement is to give count with the 3 from 832, you can't read anything into the 2 next. The 8 as a follow-up is out of the question because that would show an even number of clubs. So if I really *must* give count with 32 from that holding, I shall have to wait until I see partner's second diamond spot. Roland

There is actually a lesson to learn here in my opinion. Intermediates love to add convention upon convention, the more the merrier, one of which is the unusual 2NT. So West knew he could not bid 2NT, and the consequence must "obviously" be 3NT with a 20 count balanced. I wish someone would stop them from adopting all kinds of meaningless conventions. Yes, the textbook is double with West's hand, but I'd much prefer a natural 2NT to an unusual 2NT if 3NT is what you think you must bid with that hand. At least EW would have stopped in 2NT and no-one would have doubled (not that I think South has a double of 3NT either). Roland

No-one said that his card at trick 1 is suit preference, but his second card is. And here I'd like to distinguish between the 3 and the 2. As it was, the 3 followed by the 2 leaves me in the dark because I know that he has one higher (presumably the 8). Roland

This is a situation I should never have been in. By the look of it partner has ♣832 and declarer therefore KQ104. It does not make sense to give count with the 3 from that holding. If he had played the 8 to trick 1, I would know what to discard on the diamonds, depending on whether he returns the 3 or the 2. If he returns the 3, he has a high spade card whereas his high card is in hearts if he returns the deuce. So if the 8 is followed by the 3 I throw my spades, and the 8 followed by the 2 and I will discard my hearts. Now I'm left guessing, and I don't guess better or worse than anyone else. When he failed to play 8x and chose 32 instead, I'm guessing that he's trying to show me ♥A, so I will hang on to my spades, playing declarer for AKx. However, I don't have to commit just yet. I can start by pitching a spade, and partner's diamond pip should tell me which major he guards. Roland

I assume NS play weak NT since South opened 1♣. Anyway, West's 3NT does not show a hand like this. All strong (also balanced) hands start with a double. A 3NT overcall should be something like ♠ Kx ♥ xx ♦ AKQ10xxx ♣ Ax 20 balanced as in your example is no excuse for bidding 3NT. That hand has no source of tricks. My example hand has. Roland

In Scotland I heard "rags" several times. "What did you have in diamonds?" "Four rags." I understand that the meaning is four insignificant small cards, but what is the origin and is it special for Scotland? One further question regarding "small" and "little": "I had three small spades" --> "I had three little spades". Are they both permissible or did some people stay at home when English grammar was the subject at school? :) Roland

Should the World Cup continue after it has been stated that Woolmer was murdered? "Yes" is my answer. It will not help anyone to call it off. All cricket lovers are saddened and disgusted, but the show must go on. Roland

I should have been more specific. http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_conte...&id=4&Itemid=51 USBF Membership All members of ACBL and ABA who are United States citizens are members of USBF. Any of them may become an Active Member of USBF by completing an application form and paying dues. A non-citizen who is a permanent United States Resident may become a Resident Member by completing an application form, being approved by the USBF Board of Directors and paying dues either by credit card online or by check. Active and Resident Members have the right to play in USBF tournaments and to vote in USBF elections.

Most of us have given the ACBL some stick over the years, and rightly so. However, it's getting better in my opinion. The coverage of the Vanderbilt Knockout Teams has been excellent so far. I know, we haven't received as much information as we would have liked and we would no doubt have preferred to have more tables up, but the connection from St. Louis has been flawless, and the operators are very competent. Alerts, explanations and comments from the tables along with results from other matches as soon as they were available. Thanks to Rick Beye, Kevin Perkins, Jan Martel, Catalina Robles and John Schwartz for all their hard work and good luck for the semi-finals and finals. It is not impossible that we will be showing both semi-finals today: Tuszynski vs. O'Rourke and Cayne vs. Henner-Welland. Interestingly, all seven Italians are still in the event: Lauria - Versace, Fantoni - Nunes, Bocchi - Duboin and Sementa ... and only seven native Americans among the 24 players: O'Rourke, Jacobus, Cayne, Seamon, Henner-Welland, Welland and Greco. Roland

Definitely in. How else can they gain experience against the best? Remember Sri Lanka before they got Test status? They got thrashed against the established nations, and more spanking followed for several years thereafter. Look at SL today. Among the very best. They would not have been if they only had opponents like Canada, Kenya, Scotland, Netherlands, etc. (no disrespect). You want cricket to be popular in other than the "Super 8" nations? Then encourage them instead of telling them that they are "not good enough to play against us". I have a great deal of respect for Michael Holding. Great fast bowler he was, an excellent TV commentator he is. But I disagree with him when he says that the small nations should stay at home and play amongst themselves. Roland

Pick a system (well - other than SAYC) Nickell-Freeman aren't that far away from SAYC... Wrong Arend. From their system card: 5 card Majors, Strong NT, 2/1 Forcing to game except when a suit is rebid twice. http://usbf.org/docs/2006usbc/SSF/06nickellfreeman.htm

The pairings in the Round of 8 (Quarter-Finals) are: Nick Nickell, New York NY; Richard Freeman, Atlanta GA; Paul Soloway, Mill Creek WA; Bob Hamman, Dallas TX; Jeff Meckstroth, Tampa FL; Eric Rodwell, Clearwater Bch FL vs Piotr Tuszynski, Warsaw Poland; Apolinary Kowalski, Warsaw Poland; Farid Assemi, Fresno CA; Ed Wojewoda, Clovis CA; Srikanth Kodayam, Fremont CA; Nick Bykov, Stockton CA .... James Cayne, New York NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Alfredo Versace - Lorenzo Lauria - Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes, Rome Italy vs Ron Rubin, Miami FL; Russ Ekeblad, Providence RI; Chip Martel, Davis CA; Lew Stansby, Castro Valley CA; Brad Moss, New York NY; Fred Gitelman, Las Vegas NV .... Lou Ann O'Rourke, Scottsdale AZ; Marc Jacobus - Geoff Hampson, Las Vegas NV; Eric Greco, Philadelphia PA; Giorgio Duboin, Torino Italy; Norberto Bocchi, Milano Italy vs Rose Meltzer, Los Gatos CA; Kyle Larsen, San Francisco CA; Alan Sontag, Gaithersburg MD; Roger Bates, Mesa AZ; Geir Helgemo, Trondheim Ca Norway; Tor Helness, Oslo Norway .... Christal Henner-Welland - Roy Welland - Bjorn Fallenius, New York NY; Antonio Sementa, Parma Italy; Adam Zmudzinski, Katowice Poland; Cezary Balicki, Wroclaw Poland vs Bart Bramley, Dallas TX; Mark Feldman - Martin Fleisher, New York NY; Michael Kamil, Holmdel NJ .... Promising news might be that the organisers are advertising for volunteer operators in today's bulletin. Are they thinking about broadcasting from two matches later today? Time will tell. Roland

I agree with echo and Frances. North psyched, he struck gold and EW must live with the poor result. However, I am not fond of North's explanation. Perhaps he doesn't like the word "psyche". West could have bid his hand a little better, but I don't think EW would have found their spade game anyway. Roland

It's a matter of style, but I am not going to introduce that spade suit (directly at least). I much prefer to michaels, also if it shows 55. By the way, in Europe it's pretty common to bid Michaels with no more than 54 over 1mi. Over 1MA, however, "we" promise at least 55. Roland

All wishful thinking, guys, fair enough. As usual, we don't decide anything. At this point, 6 hours and 10 minutes before the start, we don't even know how many tables we are getting. As a result, commentators will be assigned on the spot. It would be waste of everybody's time to do anything in advance. However, this time we haven't seen any advertisements for volunteer operators in the daily bulletins, so who knows, maybe the organisers are well covered and perhaps able to broadcast from more than one match. Roland

Wednesday's bulletin is out now: http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2007spring/db6.pdf

You got it wrong, Phil. Partner did not tank; East did before his 6♥ bid. Roland

I don't blame any of you for not getting it right. The full hand: [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sa63h76dk62cqj976&w=sjhaj542daq9875c10&e=sq87hkq1093d43cak4&s=sk109542h8dj10c8532]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Our South also led a passive club and that was all declarer needed. 1430 vs. 650 in the other room where East chose 5♥ after an identical start to the auction. West passed. Some may argue that North should have bid 4♠ over 4♦, but no-one did, probably because they didn't want to reveal overcaller's singleton in case East had some length. East has a tough call in my opinion. West was perhaps a bit light for his leaping Michaels vulnerable, but I guess most of us would bid 4♦ anyway. Anything could be right with East's hand, and I don't think a leap to 6♥ is unreasonable. No matter what, it paid off. Roland

I will double; it's not without risk, but when I have the choice between the active (bidding) and the passive risk (passing) I tend to chose the active one. I don't have a lot of high cards, but I have an ideal shape for a take-out double. If partner leaves it in, I am not unhappy when looking at two aces. Partner should realise that I am under pressure in the balancing seat and must act accordingly. Roland

Sorry, ♣2 has been added. Roland

Miraculously, I agree with everything The Hog is saying! 4♦ is pre-emptive with little defence; that hand is way too good. Roland

From the Danish Team Championships, semifinals, over the weekend: [hv=d=s&v=e&s=sk109542h8dj10c8532]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open a weak 2♠, LHO bids 4♦, leaping Michaels (diamonds and hearts). Partner passes and after a tank for about 5 minutes your RHO comes out with 6♥, all pass. Your lead? Roland

Why are we necessarily down in 4♠ with your hand? And excuse me, anyone who bids anything but 4♠ over a 3♠ rebid needs to attend a course of hand evaluation. Not a single first round control, no shortage. "Pard will certainly shoot for slam". You must be kidding. Roland

Are you sure? ♠ Q ♥ AKxxx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx 10 top tricks. Do you think partner will bid over 2♠? Roland