Walddk

I agree that 4NT is a two-suited take-out, but in this case it can only be for the minors. With spades and a minor, responder will bid 4♠. If the opening had been 4♠, however, 4NT over double would be (any) two places to play. Advancer should assume minors unless otherwise advised (if doubler pulls). Roland

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saj103hk8742d1094c2&w=s972hj3daqcakj963&e=sq6hq106dkj632cq54&s=sk854ha95d875c1087]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Well done everyone! At best partner has 8 hcp, and since he overcalled vulnerable against not I think it's fair to assume that he has his high cards in the two suits. I agree with Justin that once you decide to win the ace and switch to spades, the king must be right in order to avoid confusion if partner has AJ10x(x). If you return a small spade, he might insert the 10. Maybe he shouldn't, but there is no need to give him a problem when we can solve it for him. The "unlucky" South at the table followed with the ♥9 to trick 1. Thanks very much, said declarer to himself and wrapped up the first 12 tricks. Roland

[hv=d=n&v=n&e=sq6hq106dkj632cq54&s=sk854ha95d875c1087]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] A hand from the Danish Premier League last weekend. Pass Pass Pass 1NT* 2♣** 3NT Pass Pass Pass * 15-17. ** majors. Lead: ♥2 (3rd and 5th). Low from dummy. How do you defend? Roland

i) I agree with your line, but you should also cash the other heart honour before you play diamonds. The RC point is moot because you don't have an entry to your hand even if you wanted to finesse. ii) I don't agree with the first part. If you decide to duck a diamond, you should not cash ♣AK first. If you do and you don't see the QJ, the duck is much too dangerous because they only need *three* spade tricks. Your line sets up at least one club trick for them when the Q and J don't drop. Roland

I survived the first 30 years of my bridge career without inverted minor raises. I play them but I can live without them. It's nice to have "inverted" on your CC or profile, but if you don't have agreements regarding the subsequent auction, they are useless. "Inverted minors, partner"? "Sure". Board 3: 1♣ - 2♣ ?? And then many invent a bid they expect partner to understand. Many fail to realise that once you add a new convention, it takes a fair amount of time to go through all the different options and meanings. You don't have time for that with a pick-up partner on BBO, so if I was asked "inverted minors"? by someone I do not have specific agreements with, I would decline. I much prefer to play Goren, Stayman, Blackwood instead of wasting my time with all sorts of conventions, most of which the person who suggests them don't know in detail. Roland

I agree with Paul. Play as few conventions as possible. The more you add, the more there is to forget. If I was asked to choose just one convention from the bidding and carding area, I would choose: - Negative doubles. - Count. I regard take-out doubles as part of a basic system. I think I would do well with no more than the two gadgets mentioned above, and I am convinced that beginners and intermeidates are much better off if they don't add much more, if anything. You often see profiles cluttered with all sorts of conventions. Names of conventions don't mean a thing; the essential part is to understand and use them properly, and most don't. Am I wrong when I claim that in most instances all those conventions appear on the profiles because the users want to impress other people? Perhaps in order to get a game with a better partner? Nothing hurts like the truth, and in my view those players often show that they don't understand the implications of the gadgets once they sit down to play them. Roland

Excellent decision, Duncan! You got it your way, and you got the result you deserve. Get out, and let someone who knows something about cricket take over! The worst part, really, is that after the debacle you even defend your selection of Gilo. "We want to bat to 8". How pathetic. If you don't resign, I hope the ECB has a few sensible people who want to get rid of you sooner rather than later. I have a feeling that they will get the support of thousands of English cricket fans and the tabloids. It won't be pretty reading tomorrow (Wednesday). Roland

You are a lucky man if you don't know the England cricket coach. He is useless and should resign, or if he refuses, be sacked. Football coaches would have been thrown out for less. (more in the Water Cooler's cricket thread). Roland

The hand is certainly worth 3♥, but 3♦ is perhaps a more descriptive bid. In my metods that shows a sound raise to 3♥ whereas 3♥ would have been weaker (distributional). Ideally, South can now bid 4♣ (semi-natural), hence showing values for game opposite a limit raise. Now it's time for North to show his diamond control by rebidding 4♦. From then on I think it's hard to stop South because opener must be loaded in the black suits when he has nothing in hearts. Not an easy slam to bid by any means, but it's not impossible. Roland

What is there to say other than well done Australia and ?&¤¤!+/&** England. I recommend that the English players don't read Wednesday's tabloids. England set a new (negative) world record. No team in history has lost after declaring on a higher total than England's 551-6 batting first in a Test. Roland

Appalling contract, but .... Roland

I am prepared to give you one of Hans Ø's bright Danish seagulls as a playmate for your excellent post, Mike. You couldn't ask for a better compliment! ;) Roland

Not in a million years would West double on a flat 14 count opposite what might be 3 or 4 hcp, remember! 1NT is much less dangerous that some think. The dangerous part is to surrender. Roland

That simulation would be useless because you assume that opener has 12+ hcp and responder 5+. This is not the case in real life as I'm sure you have experienced on a number of occasions. As to your double in the balancing set, I must confess that I am lost. It's not at all safer (to the contrary) to get in now. Opener could have 15, responder 9, leaving your partner with a bust. They are much more likely to double you now when you're at the 2 or 3-level than they were when you could get in at the 1-level. Roland

I will try to remember your words of wisdom next time I score up and lose 11 IMPs. Incidentally, this hand came up over the weekend in the Danish Premier League: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s872hk2dq93ca10765&w=sk954hq54daj854c3&e=sqj6hj10873d62cj98&s=sa103ha96dk107ckq42]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If I understand your second point correctly, NS have done nothing wrong when they sell out to 2♥ on this auction: 1♦ pass 1♥ pass 2♥ all pass South's pass was actually a 'good bid' as you put it. It may not bother *you*, but I am not feeling comfortable about staying out of a virtually laydown vulnerable game. You even have the values for it, and yet pass is all you can come up with. Everyone knows that in 2006 most partnerships don't require 12 hcp to open the bidding, and they don't need 6 hcp to respond. I really can't understand why one should be paralysed and surrender just because they open and respond. For the record: at all 12 tables West opened and East responded, and at all 12 tables NS scored 600 or 630. Roland

Double, 500 vs. nothing. Next case. Roland P.S. Yes, partner's pass is forcing.

I understand that this is American football (which I know very little about), but out of curiosity, why must you emphasize that Ohio is a state? So is Florida. Roland

In a 4-card major system I would have bid 3♣ but agree with pass if clubs can be short. I will pass again over 4♥ at love all. Call me unimaginative, but I will lead a club. If nothing else, I will win the post-mortem as opposed to what might happen if a non-club lead (♠Q) is wrong. Roland

I'm with Frances. It's quite common for RHO to baby psyche (usually a major) when he has a fit for the x suit, so double is take-out of x and 4y is natural. Roland

According to the Rules of this Site your offence is not among the serious ones, only among "bad manners". Quote: "The following are examples of bad manners. You will have trouble making friends if you: <snip> Gloat when you get a good result and complain when you get a bad result." As I read it, abuse will not get involved if you are reported. Roland

Excellent batting by Collingwood and Pietersen and tired looking McGrath and Warne. England are in a healthy position, but I very much doubt that they have the bowlers to dismiss Australia twice on such a slow wicket. Ponting is the key man, so if they can get him early on day 3, there is a glimmer of hope. However, to save my life I would put all my money on a draw. Roland P.S. Curious that KP got out on 158 for the third time in Test cricket! On the other hand, if this is the weakest part of your game, you should consider yourself lucky.

Then there is something wrong with your system in my opinion. This is a normal 1NT rebid, heart stopper or not. Just show the nature of your hand and let partner investigate if he is good enough (2♥ = are you serious about notrump?). This is also the reason why I have never understood the (American) point of opening 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors. It's not just a European thing to open 1♣. I know that Zia - Rosenberg and Garozzo - Reisig do too, among others. As a matter of fact, Michael Rosenberg has put it like this on many occasions: "1♣ or 1♦; we do not feel strongly about it". Richie Reisig goes a bit further: "1♦ is plain silly." I would be happy to open 1♣ and rebid 1NT with a hand like this: ♠ Q74 ♥ J8 ♦ AQ98 ♣ KJ105 1♣ (1♥) double pass 1N If you are going to lose any sleep over a 1NT rebid, I suggest you bid 1♠, but I certainly don't recommend that you open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. That should show an unbalanced hand, and you don't have one. It's as balanced as can be, given that 4432 hands come up almost 21% of the times! The number 1 pattern by a mile. Roland

If I were Fletcher, I would declare. Why waste half an hour when you are all out for less than 300 anyway? That will also give Giles and Anderson the opportunity to bowl the Aussies out before lunch and enforce the follow-on most likely ;) Roland

Give preference to 2♦ and pass 3♣. This shows extras (16-17, even a bad 18); if he has a minimum, he must pass 2♦, also with 5-5. However, I do not fancy 3NT with nothing in his suits. Roland

There is a case for 1NT, but I still prefer double if that shows four spades. If you had given me four baby spades, I would be inclined to bid 1NT. K10xx is too good to deny. Roland