Walddk

The same "problem" applies to vugraph broadcasts. Everyone is a spectator there, also the operators and commentators. Hence, we get lots of private chat messages that could and should be avoided because we commentate. In other words: would it be possible, when a user is "ungagged" for commentary, to let others know that the person in question is commentating, not spectating? "jtr is commentating ....." (rather than watching). Roland

Also to be read here ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/5382732.stm Roland

Sure they do; you just get a different datum (average) score. The 2200 will be compared to that score. The advantage is that those extreme results won't affect the "normal" results. In a very strong field with up to 8 tables it should not be necessary to toss any results before you calculate the datum. We don't have a world class field on BBO, so in my view, playing IMPs, it makes a lot of sense to throw away the extremes, perhaps even 2 from both ends. Roland

Opener's pass is not forcing, so I will pass. With this said, I would not have doubled 2NT. Nothing suggests that this hand belongs to us. Finally, I have never heard that 2NT over 1♦ shows the majors (assuming that SA stands for Sans Atout = notrump). Roland

If I have a tool to show both majors (I have), I will prefer that to 1♠. If I don't have a gadget like that, I will open 1♠, but I would not criticize anyone for passing the hand. I would have liked better intermediates for a 1♠ opening, but I won't apologise for opening 1♠ and rebid 2♥. After all, my (few) high cards are are in the suits I am going to bid. Qxxxx Kxxxx QJ Q 1 hcp more, but do not open 1♠! It even meets the Rule of 20, and still it's no opener for me. Roland

Thanks everyone, here in the forums as well as to all those who sent me happy birthday wishes through private chat messages. Roland

To play. "I think we have enough for 4NT to make, with your 7-card solid minor and bits and pieces outside. And I don't think we get enough compensation by doubling 4♠; maybe we can't even defeat it". 5♣ would be pass or correct as I play it. Roland

It's no coincidence that the Americans did much better in the individual. The advantage of being from the same country where they have a general concept of 2/1 (which the players chose for this event) was significant. On the European team, however, we had 6 pairs from 6 different nations, and in real life they don't play the same system. Some play 2/1, some strong club, others Acol and a few modified Standard. Now that they were forced to play one particular, natural system ("Standardish American"), they had many more misunderstandings than the Americans, and that was no surprise to me. With respect to the indy, Europe would have been better off if they had many pairs from the same country. With this said, I think it's fair to add that the Americans also judged better than the Europeans towards the end where USA had a clean sweep (12-0) in consecutive rounds. Curiously, this happened in a round despite the fact that Europe won board 1 (of 6) at all tables when the two Europeans bid 7NT vs. 7♠. From then on the Americans never looked back. Roland

No info, but I won't rule it out. This event is run by Willem Mevius and Norbert van Woerkom, and they are quite capable. No promises though. My personal guess is updates once a day. I honestly don't think that they can live up to the service they rendered from Poland. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong. Roland

Let me add that it's now a fact that we will be broadcasting from 6 tables throughout. As a new feature, each banner will be marked with language. The order will be as follows: 1. English. 2. French. 3. English. 4. Polish. 5. English. 6. Chinese. We were hoping to do Spanish too, but it can't be arranged. The system of scoring they are using is very unusual and quite complex. I suspect there will be a lot of confusion about this among our audience (and the commentators). In the meantime, you can read about it by visiting the official web site: http://www.buffettcup.com/Default.aspx?tabid=70 Roland

As I said in my initial post, I doubt that many (if any) partnerships have an agreement as to what 3♣ shows on this auction. So how can I tell you more than 2♠ would be natural and non-forcing? Roland

"How would you interpret 3♣", David Greenwood asked me. He got this back: "Very strong hand with spades, and possibly a red suit on the side. A hand too good to bid a natural 2♠ first time around, and not suitable for a leap to 4♠. 6-5, 6-4, 5-5, 5-4, and then I will correct 3♦ to 3♥ if I have the majors and 3♥ to 3♠ if I have spades and diamonds". After a while I got this back from David: "Right Roland. Thought I had invented a bid but any expert should deduce the obvious. I was given the hand ♠ AK1098x ♥ AKQxx ♦ void ♣ xx from the CBAI Camrose Trials by BJ O'Brien. He actually doubled 1♠ and then got into a mess of course. Over 3♣ partner will bid 3♦ and you clarify with 3♥. 4♠ makes if you guess the spades which are QJxx onside. Only one dummy entry". Roland

I don't think responder has psyched, but I do think that 3♣ includes spades now. Roland

As you wish, but a hand came up over the weekend (Irish Camrose Trials) where David Greenwood thought he had a perfect hand for the very rare 3♣ bid on an auction like this. He asked me how I would interpret 3♣, and I told him. Some of you have been very close already. I'll post his hand a little later. Roland

Yes, the 3♣ bid now is based upon the agreement that 2♠ first time around would have been natural, non-forcing. Roland

This is a very unusual bidding sequence which few partnerships have discussed (I think). 1Club pass 1Spade pass 2Clubs pass pass .. 3♣? What has he got? Roland

D.I is an abbreviation used for Declarative-Interrogative. It refers to a 4NT bid employed as a general slam attempt. This method was originally established as part of the Neapolitan system. The Blue Team Club was based upon a bidding system called Neapolitan, the origin of which remains unknown, but which was played successfully by many bridge players in Italy. However, since 1965, Benito Garozzo has gradually revised the Neapolitan and renamed it the Blue Team Club system. 4NT is Blackwood if it is a jump bid or bid at the very first opportunity after a sudden jump to game by either partner. Otherwise 4NT promises 2 aces if bid by an unlimited hand by either partner, or 1 ace by either partner who has limited his holding. The 4NT bid requests that partner shows an undisclosed feature, either a first round control, or a second round control, or even a key queen by bidding the suit, in which the feature is held. This feature-showing response does not indicate or promise additional values unless the bid exceeds the 5-level of the agreed trump suit. For example, if the agreed trump suit is hearts and the D.I. response would be 5♠, then this sequence promises additional values. The responder may also rebid by jumping to the 6-level of the agreed trump suit, which denies any interest in a grand slam, or responder may rebid 5NT to communicate maximum values and interest in a grand slam. After any normal 5-level response to 4NT, a subsequenty 5NT asks for additional features and promises one more ace than origianlly guaranteed. The Declarative-Interrogative 4NT, in other bidding systems such as Blue Team Club and Kaplan-Sheinwold, requests additional information about held features rather than promising a specific number of aces or key cards. In the Blue Team Club, whenever the Declarative-Interrogative 4NT is made after a series of feature-showing cuebids, then it becomes a slam try with the promise that all suits are covered and/or contain a first round control unless the player who bids 4NT bypasses a suit in which a control has not been shown. All too complicated for me, but good luck if you want to try it out! Roland

It will hardly come as a surprise that September will be another very busy vugraph month. We have already been in Greece (Crete), and BBO International Airways will also take us to Brazil, Denmark, Netherlands, England, Colombia, Croatia, Ireland and Japan. Our vugraph schedule web page gives you all the details. The biggest and most prestigious tournament of the month will no doubt be the Warren Buffett Cup (the Ryder Cup of bridge in Dublin, Ireland), but we have lots of other great stuff on offer. In this context, I would like to mention the annual Hecht Cup from Copenhagen, Denmark, next weekend. World class players en masse as you see here (10 of the 16 pairs): Zia Mahmood / Roy Welland Mathias Bruun / Peter Fredin Lars Blakset / Geir Helgemo Sabine Auken / Daniela von Arnim Chemla / Quantin Alain Levy / Hervé Mouiel Peter Bertheau / Fredrik Nyström Jan Jansma / Louk Verhees Pablo Lambardi / Juan Carlos Ventin Pepsi (Jacek Pszczola) / Michal Kwiecen The South American Championships from Colombia will also be high quality, and the same goes for the Modalfa Top 12 in the Netherlands and the English Open Team Trials. Plenty to look forward to. Roland

Thanks for excellent analysis by all of you. I think we agree that objectively nothing is "right" or "wrong". So let's assume that you are "inspired" and ask for dummy's king. It holds, East contributing the 4. Provided that West did not start with AQ6 or AQ106, how do you proceed? Does it make any difference if East had followed with the 10? Roland

In the last round of the PABF Championships in Shanghai this deal came up (rotated for convenience): [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sa754haq52dakckj7&s=shk9dqj8763c98532]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After North had shown a strong balanced hand and South both minors, South became declarer in 6♦. Not a great spot but a little better than the 6♣ they were in at our other two live tables. West led ♠K won in dummy (club pitch). Declarer then cashed ♦AK, both opponents following, and ruffed a spade. Next came a low club, 6 from West and .... ? Provided that you can do the right ting at all, is it a pure guess or ..... ? (to be continued after you have decided whether to insert the jack or king). Roland

This seems to be difficult for many readers, so let me give a little help. Assume that trumps are 3-2 or 2-3, because they must be in order for you to have a chance. As a consequence, you can pull the outstanding trumps if you want to, but do you? Is there a danger looming? Roland

I don't think that this is the layout, Wayne. If East really has AQxxxxx in clubs, he would surely have bid more than 2♣ over the redouble. That is not a strong bid. It just shows many clubs opposite what could by 3 (sometimes even 2 if West decided to double on a 2-4-5-2 or 2-5-4-2 shape). So with 6+ clubs headed by AQ, East should bid at least 3♣. It makes it a little more difficult for the opponents if you take the 2-level away from them. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj6hk108dqj762ckj6&s=saq7542hqj3dk854c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Team game. You open 1♠, double to your left, partner redoubles and RHO bids 2♣. Eventually, you end up in 4♠. West leads a small-ish club to the jack and queen, and you ruff. At trick 2 you correctly lead a low spade from hand, and LHO wins his king (East following with the 8). West continues with a club, you try the king, but East produces the ace. You must ruff again. 1. How do you envisage the EW hands? 2. How do you proceed from here? This is meant to be for beginners/intermediates, so if your skill level is higher, please use hidden text. Roland

Indeed, because you didn't explain why it can be right to switch to a low heart. If it's correct to switch to hearts (it may well be), then the king is the right card, because that will definitely knock out dummy's entry. It may not matter, but it doesn't cost to return the king (assuming that a heart switch is necessary). "Take ♠A, play ♥x" is useless information if you can't tell us *why* the low heart return is correct. Roland

Yes, and concede 510. Mind you, it's not as bad as it sounds. You will get a flat board because your team-mates have 500 from 3NT doubled at the other table. And you can actually blame it on them since they should have taken at least 800 (possibly 1100). Meanwhile, be happy that it's not B-a-M. B) Roland