Walddk

How can he invent a suit he already denied when he bid 2♣? You will never make your partner believe that 2♠ shows a suit. I don't think anyone has a system where certain bids say: "Sorry, partner, I regret what I did on my first turn." It is exactly the same as if you open say 1♦ on a balanced 16 count. You may get lucky later, but you can't repair the damage in the sense that partner will ever believe that you have a balanced hand in the 15-17 range (given that you play strong NT, of course). Roland

I can't vote because I will give them 100% each. North for making the gross underbid of 2♣ (assuming that you don't play inverted raises), South for doubling 3♥ with a flat minimum opposite a single raise and only A10x in hearts. I agree with South's 1♣ and pass of 2♣; I do not agree with North's 2♣ ( he even had a negative double available if that shows 4 spades in your system, otherwise 1♠). I could perhaps live with his bypassing of spades, but if he decides to do that, then at least bid what this hand is worth to most people: Either 2♥ if that is your limit+ bid, or 3♣ if you play that as limit. North's hand is much closer to a game force than a single raise. Roland

A psychic bid (also known as a psyche) is a bid that grossly misstates the power and/or suit lengths of one's hand, used deliberately to confuse the opponents. The 1♥ bid in your example is therefore not a psychic bid. 54 K10532 1053 J83 If you open 1♥ with that hand, however, it is a psyche because that would grossly misstate the power of your hand. Also, if your partner opens 1♣ and you respond 1♦ with AQ95 KQ72 72 K105 (perhaps a lead inhibiting bid should you arrive in notrump) it is a psyche because 1♦ grossly misstates the length in diamonds. Let me finally try to be as diplomatic as I possibly can when I comment on the director's ruling in your case: Outrageous. Roland

November will be another comprehensive and exciting vugraph month with visits to China (four times!), Australia, Norway, Portugal, Finland, England, Estonia, France and USA. http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event Unfortunately India had to cancel, so the upcoming weekend will be completely off as far as vugraph broadcasts are concerned. Some won't mind though, and I am certainly one of those. The highlight of the month is no doubt the Reisinger BAM from Honolulu, Hawaii. We may add a tournament or two from the Fall 2006 NABC, but it's uncertain at this point. It will depend on operator availability. Roland

1. ♠9 2. ♠9 3. Director! Regarding 3): No partner of mine would talk at any point during biding or play, so that question is actually irrelevant. Hypothetically, however, call the director, tell him what has happened and let him give a ruling. Roland

Not quite true, Ben. Here are some extracts: Walddk2: No one has a system for a freak hand like that. CuttySark: Not a hand for science - blast it! Cutty Sark: Pre-empt in a minor - makes bad breaks more likely. kinman: X? and then bid 6♥? jtr: or 4NT? then 6♥. wilkinsona: X then cue. jtr: X then cue sounds ok. Roland

His behaviour was totally intolerable, period. With this said, I think it's fair to add that no-one is allowed to touch any other player's cards unless permitted to do so (that also includes partner's). Every player at the table is responsible for his/her own 13 cards and is allowed to refuse if asked. The appropriate procedure would have been to ask declarer to make dummy arrange his cards properly, and if no luck, you should have called the director. Finally, so that no misunderstanding is possible: regardless of the way you handled the situation, it was absolutely no excuse for dummy's violent behaviour! Roland

3NT was not gambling, it was a pre-empt in a minor (4mi would have been Namyats). OK, it's beside the point, but yes, I still believe that no-one has a system for a hand like that. I obviously know what the contract should have been, but I think 6♥ is a fair shot. I doubt that anyone can find out if partner has the right cards for any slam, small as well as grand. Roland

Bullshit There are plenty of examples of doubles that are neither fish nor foul. From my perspective, the most definitive example is the following double that cropped up on a rec.games.bridge thread on defenses to multi-2♦ opening. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...52a153ea366e3ec Assume that the auction starts (2♦) - P - (2M) - X The authors (Martin French and Danny Sprung) recommend that this double is two way, showing EITHER a penalty double OR a takeout double. Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty. Thanks for emphasizing my point, Richard. That is exactly what I said. They are all for take-out or penalty. It's matter of partnership agreement. It's just a shame that you are back to your old self where you can't join a constructive discussion without swearing. By the way, I fully agree with the interpretation of the double French and Sprung bring forward. I have been playing it like that for years. Roland

Yes, a surrounding play (or surrorunding defence) like this is not one you encounter every day. You may see it in books, but virtually never at the table. And even if it comes up, there is usually no one who notices. Give East ♥4 in exchange for North's 3 and the contract is unbeatable. A kingdom for a 4; quite amazing. Roland

While I agree that "optional" is often a bad description of double, I respectfully disagree that double is either for take-out or penalty. (And perhaps you weren't making such a sweeping generalization, so don't want to put words in your mouth.) Examples of doubles that I do not believe fall well into the category of takeout or penalty: Snap-Dragon Doubles: Showing specific holdings in two suits. (arguably takeout?) Strong NT Doubles: Some play that after opening 1 of a suit playing a weak NT, openers double over interference on his right simply shows a strong NT hand with 2-4 cards in RHO's suit. (arguably penalty?) Support doubles and Rozencrantz doubles. (arguably takeout?) Lead directing doubles, in particular when they say to lead a suit different from the one bid. E.g. (1♠) - P - (4♣) - X = Lead hearts. Double as a step in a relay. Again showing specific suit holdings. This one is clearly not takeout or penalty, but simply information. If opener converts it, it may be due to length in relay responder's hand or his own. 2/3 doubles: These seem to me to be purely cooperative, finding a penalty double of an opponents runout to 1NTX. Call them what you like, but except for lead directing and specific holding doubles they are all for take-out or penalty. You have the option of passing any bid partner makes, so "optional" as a term makes no sense. A take-out double is for take-out and a spade is a spade. Using "optional" is the same as trying to hide behind a cobweb: it's all too transparent. Roland

And so is "optional". A double is either for take-out or for penalty. As the term implies, a take-out double is for take-out. There is nothing optional about it, although partners sometimes (often poor judgement) decide to convert by passing. 3♣ (double) That double is for take-out, unless you play Fishbein or some other nonsense convention in this context. Yet you see "optional" on many CCs when people fill in "defence to pre-empts". Roland

Well done, Arend. I have been in the game for over 40 years, and I have never seen a combination like this. It takes a couple of world class players to get this right at the table. North is also very much in the spotlight as you rightly point out. Don't ask me to do it. It's difficult enough with all cards in view. My compatriot, friend and fellow vugraph commentator, Peter Lund, spotted it when the deal was played. At 7.08 on a Sunday morning. I am impressed! You can see the play and comments by clicking on Explore Bridge --> Bridge Library --> Vugraph archives --> All recent broadcasts ... It's from Round 7B, board number 6. The Turkish defender (South) came very close when he exited with the deuce of spades. Close, but no cigar. He got endplayed 30 seconds later when declarer won the ace and put South on lead with another trump. Hearts can't be attacked from the South seat. Then declarer can come to three tricks. Roland

Pastscore hands don't often make it to newspapers, magazines or forums. They are often too complex, and that's a shame because some are much more interesting than routine games and slams. Here is an amazing deal from the World University Championship in Tianjin, China. I was fortunate enough to commentate when it appeared on vugraph early Sunday morning European time in the match between Turkey and Denmark. [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sq9ha974daj9cq532&w=sa843hq1062d32ck87&e=sj10765hk83dq8ca109&s=sk2hj5dk107654cj64]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] East passed, South opened a weak 2♦ passed to East who reopened with 2♠. Pass, pass, 3♦ by North, passed to West who competed with 3♠. All pass. The Turkish South led a diamond to his partner's ace, and a diamond came back to South's king. My question to you now is: do you want to declare or defend? (Those of you who were present are kindly requested to use hidden text if you would like to contribute). Roland

China, USA, Netherlands and England qualified for the semi-finals, and the pairings will be: China v England USA v Netherlands 3 segments of 16 boards starting Thursday at 10.00 pm New York, 4.00 Friday Paris, 3:00 am Friday London, 10.00 Friday Beijing, 12:00 pm Friday Sydney. Big money at stake: 1st prize: $20,000. 2nd prize: $10,000. 3rd prize: $5,000. 4th prize: $3,000. Roland

You will get the chance to see the best women in action from Wednesday through Saturday when the inaugural Elite Tournament in Wuxi, China, takes place. France will not be there, but all the other big nations are present: England, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, USA, Canada and China. Round-robin of 16-board matches before the semi-finals and finals. I have got our fixtures for rounds 1-3: Round 1: England v USA and Italy v Sweden. Round 2: Sweden v England and China v Italy. Round 3: Netherlands v USA and Germany v Sweden. For full time schedule, please go to http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/schedule.php Roland

I agree that web cam(s) and sound are a must if this is going ahead as a vugraph broadcast. I think we can get enough bridge players to participate, but can we also get the celebrities? And finally, who is going to pay for this? Not that I am going to charge anything for teaching Julia bridge, but I do expect to get my expenses covered when I am to pick her up at Kastrup Airport, Copenhagen. ;) Roland

I think it's a splendid idea. Can I have Julia Roberts as my partner, please? Then I'll teach her bridge while she teaches me acting :) On a serious note, it'll have to be f2f if this is going to work out. I don't mind one bit, but I doubt that Julia has time for that. I can't act and I'm not half as handsome as Hugh Grant, but I believe I'm a better bridge player. Roland

I don't think so. Inserting the 10 works fine; when that holds, he can just exit with a low diamond from hand. Try to defeat it from there. By the way, wouldn't an expert player have done that, catering for a 4-1 diamond break? It seems like a straightforward safety play to me. Roland I guess if youre saying declarer ducks TWO diamonds, I think I agree. It doesn't quite work to duck one diamond and play the Ace on the 3rd round. When LHO shows out on the second round of diamonds, it goes without saying that I won't cash the ace. That is exactly why I didn't cash it when the 10 held. Give them 2 diamonds and 1 heart. Is that not a classic safety play against a 4-1 break now that I know that RHO can't have a singleton? Roland

I don't think so. Inserting the 10 works fine; when that holds, he can just exit with a low diamond from hand. Try to defeat it from there. By the way, wouldn't an expert player have done that, catering for a 4-1 diamond break? It seems like a straightforward safety play to me. Roland

It shouldn't be too difficult to play low. Declarer is 0-6-5-2 if his bidding makes any sense. He may have A10xxx in diamonds and win the 10, but I will still come to two diamond tricks if I play low. I am not sure I can beat this contract, but maybe I can pursuade him to cash ♦A next when the 10 holds, and then we have a chance of tapping him before he can set up his 5th diamond. Perhaps he is dealt something like -- KQJxxx A10xxx AQ That would be consistent with his bidding. He must have that holding in clubs when he pitches the queen at trick 1. Partner doesn't have ♣AK when he leads a spade. I know that declarer with the hand above can make his contract if he doesn't cash ♦A next, but if you don't give them the chance to make mistakes, they will make fewer than they normally do. Roland

That comment is beside the point. No one wants to disallow chat; the problem arises when that chat becomes abusive (stalking). Roland

Happy Birthday from me too. My birthday wish to you is that you get more time for vugraph commentary (English juniors excluded of course B) ). You are excellent! Roland

Please be specific. Which? :) On a serious note: RHO has a freak hand, likely a 7411 or 7420 pattern. If he is void in hearts (partner could have clubs and hearts or diamonds and hearts, rather than clubs and diamonds) ♥A could be a disaster. 1. I may hit declarer's void with the king in dummy. 2. I may hit declarer's 4-card suit and help him set up that suit. If declarer's side suit is clubs, I am not worried with Jxxx. The problem arises if he has a diamond suit on the side. Then a diamond lead may expose partner to a finesse prematurely. For all those reasons I think I'll choose the passive road and lead a trump. I may lose a tempo, but at least I won't be doing anything declarer couldn't have done himself. Roland

In my position as our vugraph coordinator, I am in touch with most NCBO's worldwide. We have a couple of Scandinavian countries that seem to avoid BBO at any cost because they have personal interests in supporting a competitor. Although we would like to have everyone under our wings, I think we are all doing a pretty good job. It would be naive to think that no NCBO will recommend a different bridge site. This is not the end of the world. For a start, BBO has the support of all major organizations, and as our vugraph presentations reflect, we have loads of minor NCBO's to add to the total. It wasn't always like that, I know, but with a little bit of work (and luck) you are able to change matters. Let me take England and the EBU as an example. Max Bavin, who is in charge of the EBU secretariat, and I are friends and both keen cricket and football (soccer) fans. Back in 2002 I asked him why the EBU seemed to avoid BBO and recommend other bridge sites. "It is a matter of tradition and difficult to change", was his answer. You don't change traditions in England overnight, but there is no law against trying. During the European Championships in Malmö, Sweden, in 2004, Max, one of EBL's chief tournament directors, and I sat down one day in order to have a serious chat about it (Max loves a beer or two, so we had a couple on BBO!). I told him how the EBU members would benefit if BBO became their new "home". Max Bavin promised to give it try, and I think you all know what happened since. Max, Roger Bryant, Anna Gudge, Michael Clark and Steve Eginton actively supported the idea, and today BBO is virtually the only bridge site that appeals to the EBU members as well as English bridge players who are not members. We have the evidence, because one page on the EBU web site is dedicated to vugraph broadcasts on BBO, and they have been plenty as some of you know. They also have our logo there for everyone to click on. "Why didn't we think about this before", is what we now hear from the HQ of the EBU. Better late than never strikes again. Maybe Uday can tell us how the number of members from England (some with the Union Jack instead of the St George's Cross in their profiles) have increased significantly over the past 2-3 years. This is just one example. I could give you many more, and I sincerely think that BBO is in a healthy position regarding *the* bridge site on the internet. We have competition, sure, but that applies to all aspects of life. However, BBO offers a much better product, and it's even free of charge. Let's not be naive and think that we can gather every bridge player in the world. Less will do, and in the years to come many more will realise what a fantastic site we have here. Roland