Walddk

This could easily turn out to be another South Africa for Steve Harmison. Far away from home and his mind seems to be somewhere else (in Durham I presume). The bowling he produced on day 1 was, well hopeless is hardly an exaggeration. When did you last see an opening bowler being asked to have a rest after 2 overs!? And when Flintoff finally decided to go for the new ball, he also let Harmison stay in the deep. Deep trouble? I am not sure how England expect to take 20 wickets in a match when their main strike bowler aims at hitting the slips and fine leg. Roland

Fred is in Hawaii for the ACBL Fall Nationals and will likely not be able to reply until he is back in a couple of weeks, but I know that he is aware of this and that it is on his "to-do-list". We have been debating the issue before, and as far as I recall it's not a trivial thing to programme. I know for a fact that you won't see a change in the new release. The same problem will arise in the upcoming Reisinger B-a-M from Honolulu the weekend after this I'm afraid. In the past we haven't had many pairs events on vugraph, but we are getting still more, so I suspect that the topic will be rather high up on Fred's list. Let me guess that something will be done some time in 2007, but no promises. Roland

I am not particularly worried about being hammered at the 3-level at IMPs when I hold AKQxxx. When I have the choice between running a passive risk (pass) and an active risk (bid), I always choose the active one. By the way, I don't like poker much and last I played it was on March 17, 1991 if my memory serves me correctly. Roland

A feature is a an ace or king (even a queen) that may be of particular importance in a given hand - for example after a weak 2 and a 2NT enquiry. Responder, if interested in at least game, has 3 options when he decides to bid 2NT: 1. Ogust, asking for suit quality and strength within the range. 2. Feature asking. 3. Shortage asking. It's up to the partnership to discuss which is your preferred method. You must choose; you can't play all of it at the same time. I have tried them all and I don't have preference for either. As always, it depends on the hand you are dealt. Roland

Claus, must we really see the enormous ad for your web site every time you post? This is the third time in this thread. There is probably no law against it, but I am with Richard on this topic. Bad taste is the term I would use .... unless you pay for the advertisement, of course. Roland

If you don't overcall 3♥ I think you have stopped playing the game I know as bridge. Roland

The rules are clearly stated in Law 40.E.2. During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. The Laws also state what the director should do in a situation like this. Law 73.B.1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. In your case the TD considered that your opponents gained an advantage through the irregularity, and then he must award an adjusted score. Since the Laws don't tell directors which, he/she is entitled to award the score he/she finds appropriate. The conclusion is therefore: the director in your case did nothing wrong according to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Roland

I don't think you would find many who play this as showing a heart control too. By the way, I am not fond of letting 3♥ be invitational (limit) or better. I think it's more important for opener to know if you have a limit or game forcing hand with support. Therefore, I suggest that you play 2NT as game forcing (Jacoby or similar as if there had been no overcall) and the cue bid as limit. Many top pairs play it like that; Sabine Auken - Daniela von Arnim for example. Yes, you lose the natural meaning of 2NT (10-12 with stop(s) in the suit RHO overcalled), but if you have this hand, you can start with a negative double. It's all a matter of frequency and what's best for your whole system, and I believe you are better off if you are able distinguish between GF and limit hands with support for opener's major. Roland

I agree, and that was my intention. That's exactly why I didn't say a word about hesitation in my original post (although some might guessed early). Accidentally, Frances revealed it. Can happen, not a big deal. Roland

If you bid on, 4♦ is probably better, but I honestly don't think you have a bid when partner settled for 3NT opposite my spade singleton or void. It's not for me to determine if my partner misbid her hand or not. It makes life a lot simpler when you bid the hand *you* hold, rather than the one partner has. 3NT was a serious misbid but that is not my concern, at least not until the post-mortem. The huddle (UI) before 3NT made it more attractive for South to bid again, and South should not be allowed to take advantage if pass is a logical alternative. I think it is. Since there was no ruling, there is nothing further to discuss. All academic. However, I wouldn't mind if you comment on the operator's remarks. Roland

I agree with Justin on both counts. Another matter is that 3NT was a serious misbid in my opinion: ♠ AQ103 ♥ AK32 ♦ 8 ♣ QJ85 Roland

Accidentally, or perhaps intentionally, Frances has revealed that this is a hesitation issue (North tanked before bidding 3NT our operator told us). Sure, North could have the hand you post, and so what? What happens after you bid 4♣? 4NT as a sign off, of course. It takes a pretty special hand where 4NT is not safe when you have South's cards. By the way, example 1 (as you may have guessed) is another huddle debate. Here North also tanked before bidding 5♣. As Frances well knows, North did not have solid clubs as she "should" have (according to Frances). But how you can you be so certain regarding their methods? I had a chat with South yesterday, and she said that partner did not promise a solid suit. We are of course entitled to say what *we* think 3♣ followed by 4♣ *should* show, but we have no right to decide what that pair actually plays. On both occasions, South bid on and the pair reached two excellent slams. Since the TD wasn't called to the table, there was no case regarding UI .... or maybe there is when I add the following: The vugraph operator was furious with her decisions, making remarks about "A new way of slow shows" and later called her that xxxxx *****. Then he accused her of bullying one of the opposition into not calling the director. Other remarks were made to make it clear that he thought she was not playing fair - on the above "evidence". I don't think any player deserves those remarks. We all like a bit of local colour from the operator, but not this. Roland

Good points, Richard. 1. 3♣ followed by 4♣ for this pair shows a suit with at most one loser opposite a singleton. It is not necessarily solid. 2. Regarding weak NT or not: my fault, I should have said that NS do indeed play a 12-14 NT. So 3NT is either 15-17 balanced with goodies in spades or an unbalanced hand with spade stop(s). Roland

Two hands from the English Lady Milne Trial at the weekend. 1. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sahkq543daj985c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥ - 3♣* 3♦ - 4♣ 4♠ - 5♣ ?? * Strong jump shift. Pass or raise? ---- 2. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sahkq543daj985c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are responder and play a 4-card major system where 1♣ is always 4+. 1♣ - 3♠* 3NT - ? * Splinter, game forcing. Pass or bid on (4♣ presumably if you decide to bid again)? Roland

1. Transfer and pass unless he super-accepts. 2. Pass. I'd rather be in 3♥ than 4♥ when partner pulls my 3♠. 3. 3NT. Pre-empts in 2nd seat are (should be) sound, so if he doesn't have ♦K, he has QJ and an entry. 4. 5♠. Roland

I think you're much too nice, Mike. I'm disgusted and sincerely hope that I will never have to play against the perpetrator. Roland

That's roughly 6% and therefore not even half as good as my average slams. Sure, I may bid one like this, but for some reason I am never among the 6 declarers that make it. I am among the 94 needless to say. Very unlucky, the story of my life ;) Roland

I have been in much worse grand slams, believe me. 62% for diamonds 4-3, and if only we had ♥10, it would make half of the times diamonds are 4-3 (♥K onside regardless of how many hearts LHO has). With no ♥10 we also need hearts 3-2 or singleton king. As a consequence, this grand makes roughly 37% of the times diamonds are 4-3. Still around 20%, so much better than my requirements for a fine slam as some of you may know ;) However, the grand is actually better than this, because sometimes you make it even if diamonds are 5-2 or worse. Then we need five heart tricks (hearts 3-2 with the king on). I would be embarrassed if I bid a grand this good, and there is absolutely no reason to be disappointed if your opponents bid it against you! :( Roland

Well, let's put it this way: we are both right and wrong ;) . Yes, we require full name for broadcasts where the organisers want us to get commentators. We do not accept commentators with no or incomplete name for broadcasts we are "responsible" for (at least not when I'm around). However, we do *not* interfere if the organisers prefer to find their own commentators. They are entitled to get own commentators and we even encourage them to do just that, especially for "minor" events and on weekends where we have multiple overlapping broadcasts. That was exactly what happened this weekend with SIX of them! Roland

We don't want any commentator to hide behind anonymity and we do indeed require full name in their profiles. Commentators who are scheduled by me know that and oblige. Occasionally, I must send a private chat message to a user and ask him/her to put full name up before commentating and that has never caused a problem. However, sometimes the organisers get their own commentators, and although they should know about our rules, it can happen that those commentators are "ungagged" (enabled for commentary) by the operator. Even if we wanted to, we can't control everything. But the BBO policy is clear: vugraph commentators must have full name in their profiles. Spectators are entitled to know who says what during vugraph broadcasts. Roland

I like 1♦ and 1♠ and that's about it. 3♦ is an overbid after which the wheels went off. 2♦ is enough. I also dislike 3♥, prefer 3♠. The contract will then be 3NT, likely 1 off on a club lead. That's life. After the 2♦ rebid, South has an invitational 3♦ available, and you will probably end up in the same hopeless 3NT. Finally, how West could pass over 1♠ is beyond me. He didn't think he had a bid at the 2-level, but at the 4-level vulnerable he woke up all of a sudden. That's not the way I understand the game. Roland

I don't disagree, Frances, but how likely is it that opener has a balanced hand in the 12-14 range when you are 4117? I am not saying that 1NT is the correct bid (I won't reveal anything at this point), but if it is the bid, I would not be afraid of responding 1NT even if it's passable. Opener is indeed entitled to pass if you play Sayc, Acol or French Standard, whereas 1NT, in theory at least, is forcing if you play 2/1. Roland

2♠ would show an opening hand (also playing standard or Acol) after 1♥ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ With exactly 4 spades, a longer minor and less than opening values, one must start with 1♠ over 1♥. This is the issue here, isn't it? But ..... :) Roland

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sq865h7d7ckq108653]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Four intermediate players around the table on BBO the other day. It all started quietly when North opened 1♥ and East passed, but after that things went horribly wrong for NS. Now, put yourself in the South seat. What is your response to partner's 1♥? It's too simple, is it not? Maybe it isn't after all. Think about it after I tell you that it might be a good idea to look further ahead. (Let the beginners/intermediates have a go at this. They don't get too many problems in this forum as it is. If you are advanced or better, feel free to chip in, but if you do, you are kindly requested to use hidden text). Roland

Read here: Explore Bridge! --> Bridge Library --> English --> Award symbols in your profile Fred Gitelman is the person who awards the stars. This happens because ... 1. He knows the players himself from real life. 2. The players approach *him* and ask him for a star. 3. A member approaches Fred to let him know of a (new) user who deserves to be starred. Some players do not have stars although they qualify. There are mainly two reasons for this: 1. They don't want one. 2. They do not wish to follow the rules in this context (full name and country). If I forgot or am unaware of some details, I'm sure Fred will let you know. Roland