Walddk

North's double is for take-out, so South should have taken it out. Perhaps he thought that opener had a stack of spades when he looked at his own void. No excuse though. North might have tried 3NT or 4♥ instead, but he can't be blamed for doubling. So South gets all of it for committing one of the biggest sins in the game: passing a take-out double. Roland

Unanimous. I would even raise with a heart less and one more diamond. The 3rd trump is a very good card, combined with three controls (great for high level suit contracts). And who knows, I might even have a ruffing value! ♠ AQxx ♥ AKQxxx ♦ Qx ♣ x Roland

That view may well be right, and if we miss a game, at least it's non vulnerable. What do we know about partner's shape? As we haven't heard from the opponents (spades), partner will likely be 4441 or 4432, conceivably 3-4-5-1. I like (1) and (3) better than (2) of course. We would be a bit unlucky to go down in 3♥ no matter what and that is why I make a trial bid. The important issue from my viewpoint is that we have nine hearts and not eight. Roland

What makes you think that you will get another bite of the cherry? Roland

I do not agree that 2♥ shows extras. Any time opener has four hearts he should raise. Pass would show three and a minimum. Anyway, knowing that we have nine hearts between us, I would bid on, preferably 2♠ (Garozzo relay asking for more info). If I don't have that tool available, I would bid 3♣, values in clubs, as a game try, or 3♦ asking for help in that suit. 3♥ is a terror bid. How is partner supposed to know if he has the right values or not? As 2♠ is what I would bid with this hand because it's on my CC with many partners, I have voted "Other". Roland

4♠; anything less would be wimpish. Roland

Please tell how 4♥X goes 3 down (500) non vulnerable on any defence? EW can take a spade ruff, but then they won't get a diamond trick, or they can set up a diamond trick and the spade ruff vanishes. Down 2. Roland

You must have got the vulnerability wrong, or if you didn't your partner's reasoning is even more bizarre. He invented a non-existent double without telling you and on top of that he suggested that the double was for take-out! East's 3NT was somewhat ambitious but he struck gold. He can't have been happy when he saw the double. The fact is that your partner's hand was too good. Give him a small club instead of the queen (you have Qxx now) and 3NT goes for a phone number on a heart lead. You take the double out and your partner will tell you that you're a fool. This is all sheer nonsense in my view. Roland P.S.: I now see that you changed the vulnerability (you had NS vul first). It doesn't change my view though. The double is ridiculous and the explanation afterwards makes absolutely no sense.

I have never been in this situation and I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen. I don't know what the double asks for or forbids, but I do know that the double is crazy. Why is it that my feeling tells me it doesn't matter what I lead? Either the contract is down regardless or it's a make even if I find a ¤"¤ among my 13 cards. That double simply doesn't exist, at least not for me. Next board ... with a new partner, preferably one who plays bridge and refrains from inventing ridiculous doubles. I'm in MikeH's camp. Roland

On a high spade lead, can't declarer score 6 hearts, 2 diamonds, 1 spade and 1 club for 10 tricks? Not quite. Six hearts and one club yes, but you can't get two diamonds and one spade. Either you get one in each suit or two diamonds. Your best chance is to cover ♠Q. Then East must defend very well by returning a low club. You win the king and play a spade won by West's jack. West exits with ♣J and the defence can defeat you in a couple of ways. 1. East lets ♣J hold and West plays a spade. You can get your spade trick but you can't get two diamonds before you have promoted a trick to ♥9. 2. East overtakes ♣J with the queen and plays ♣A! forcing you to ruff in the dummy. Again West's ♥9 will be promoted and the defence will get four tricks before you have ten. I confess that you have a good chance of making 4♥ if you cover at trick one. It takes a double dummy defence to beat you from there. Roland

I dare say. All of Denmark has a population around half of New York City's (5 million ... 9 million). Roland

What strikes me as odd is that for some time the United States Bridge Federation (USBF) and Jan Martel have realised how important the internet is, whereas the ACBL apparently regards live internet broadcasts as a minor issue. Everything is decided at the last minute, and as Denis points out, the ACBL adverstises for volunteer operators in the Daily Bulletins on site. That is much too late in my view. Outside Memphis organisers plan and test this weeks before. There is a reason why we write the following in our vugraph guidelines: "The most critical factor in determining the success of these broadcasts is the quality of the operators. It is vital that these people become familiar with the software before the actual broadcast takes place. The software is easy to learn and it is subsequently easy to use, but operators should spend at least a couple of hours practicing before the actual event." All of us know that this does not always happen in real life, but to be fair not only in USA. We always get accurate info from the USBF well in advance. That is not the case as far as the ACBL is concerned. All ACBL members are also automatic members of the USBF, so one would assume that both federations are interested in serving their members as well as possible. I recall the headline "Reisinger Fiasco" in this forum; I suppose most of you do. I would just hate to see "Vanderbilt Fiasco" next. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sk9754hkdaqj85c52&w=sqj6h9654dk1042cj4&e=sa83h103d763caq963&s=s102haqj872d9ck1087]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The Yeh Bros Cup in Shenzhen, China, is followed by a practice match between China and France (women) at the same venue. BBO has been broadcasting the first three of the six segments and will continue later today (tomorrow in some places). This is a deal from segment two and one of the prettiest I have seen in a long time. Table 1: Sylvie Willard opened a weak 2♥ passed to East who reopened with a double. West tried 3♦, and Bénédicte Cronier (Patapon) doubled. Down 4, 800 to France. Table 2: Zhang Yu opened 1♥ and Wang bid her spades and diamonds before South ended up in 4♥. Now Zhang needed to make it in order to limit the damage, and she can't if West leads a spade honour, a trump or a low diamond. However, not unreasonably Gaviard led ♣J from the only unbid suit. This was the end of the defence. D'Ovidio won the ace (ducking won't help) and continued clubs to Zhang's 10. Next came a trump to dummy, ♦A and a diamond ruff. Zhang now cashed all her trumps. This was the 5 card ending: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sk9754hkdaqj85c52&w=sqj6h9654dk1042cj4&e=sa83h103d763caq963&s=s102haqj872d9ck1087]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] ♥8 squeezed East in three suits. She can't discard a club of course, and if she lets go a diamond she gets endplayed after ♣K and another. So D'Ovidio did the best she could by baring her ♠A. Zhang had read the position to perfection though and ducked a spade. EW could take a diamond trick but then they had to give declarer her 10th trick. So the Chinese loss was limited to 5 IMPs. Brilliant card reading. What a joy to watch! Roland

I am pretty certain that we will be showing the Vanderbilt (March 11-17), but I don't think it comes as a major surprise that I haven't received any info from the ACBL yet. Every time for years I had to remind them (Spingold, Reisinger, Vanderbilt, etc.), but it is actually not my job to get in touch with the organisers. It is their job to contact me if they want BBO to get commentators for an event. Obviously, they don't have to tell us anything in order to broadcast (our software is free for vugraph purposes), but I very much doubt that they intend to get their own commentators. I also think that the ACBL would like to have the event listed on our vugraph schedule web page. I don't know anything at this point, so we must wait and see. I will be happy to coordinate this as I do with all tournaments, big as well as small, but I can't do a lot without information. In our vugraph guidelines it is outlined that we require 3 weeks advance notice if the organisers want us to provide this service (getting commentators). That won't happen this time either, and frankly speaking, I can't see why the ACBL should be an exception to that rule. It is my call if the notice is too short. I am usually very co-operative in this regard, time permitting, and I will likely be it again when I get some info. Roland

To Fred: LHO did open light, and yet ... To Arend: 1100 should have been the result. For some reason only known to himself declarer elected to concede 1400. Here is the full hand: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=s843hk1042d987c875&w=skqj76h73daq1063c6&e=s1092haqj9d4cqj1094&s=sa5h865dkj52cak32]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] At the other table East did not open and EW got to 4♠ making after South had opened 1NT. Roland

What are you going to do when you get the likely 1♠ response? Roland

This is a clear 2♠ raise for me. I am not going to rebid king empty to six with such a nice support for partner. We have lots of bids available below game if partner is strong enough, and if he is not, a 2-level contract is likely to play well even if we only have seven spades between us. Roland

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa5h865dkj52cak32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Team match on BBO yesterday. Your partner passes and RHO opens a natural 1♣. Do you overcall 1NT or not? Roland

Instead of complaining your (ex)partner should have concentrated on making the contract RHO gave him at trick 1. When North won ♥A, it was over for the defence. If he ducks, 3♠ is 1 down. No matter what, East had no reason at all to blame you. Your bid was fine, his declarer play was less than perfect. Roland

The flags are also almost identical, the difference being that the Swiss ran out of white paint ;) Roland

You only have five spades, Wayne, but I would still transfer. However, there is no guarantee that 3♠ is a better contract than 2NT. Roland

I do. In an ideal world you have a fourth heart and a spade less. The world is not ideal, so I am happy to double with that hand. Roland

As an aside, out of curiosity, how do you want your partner to judge further action if your 3NT can be examples 10 as well as 11? Or do you have the agreement that she is not allowed to bid over your 3NT opening? Roland

If it hadn't been for that unneccesary redouble, 4♠X down 1 is not a bad result even vulnerable against not. 4♥ is easy for EW, and with careful play they can even make 5 on this layout. Another culprit at the table was East who failed to support hearts with a hand that was quite suitable for a raise. Roland

I would also get to 4♠ after my partner's raise (2♠ or 3♠ depending on agreement). The redouble is ... well, optimistic. Roland