Walddk

Yes, 5-6 in the reds, forcing. Roland

Sri Lanka 1st 231 England 392-8 Cook 88 Flintoff 79* Collingwood 56 Pietersen 44 Jones 35 Plonker 11* Maybe you don't spell his name the way I did, but excuse me, it seems quite appropriate after all the half-volleys he produced yesterday. Roland

denies the J? Typo, sorry. None or two higher. If two higher, the jack will almost always be there. The only exception would be AQ109 if you decide to lead from that holding. Roland

I did not, *you* did. If you're not allowed to bid your hand in a sensible manner, you might just as well find a game where partners don't matter. I have the most obvious 1♦ opening and an easy reverse into hearts. And I do not buy jdonn's argument about the risk of being blasted in spades. Sorry, but I really can't worry about that when I try to describe my hand. They do not always bid lots of spades or clubs in front of partner. Coincidentally, they did not as we see. LHO didn't bid over 1♥, so he wouldn't have bid over 1♦ either (unless he has a heart suit). OK, so we have dug a hole for ourselves to fall into. Excellent; I shall try to get out of it by bidding 3♦ next. Roland

Once again England let Sri Lanka off the hook on a perfect batting strip. SL shouldn't have got close to 200. Then Trescothick threw his wicket away. The attempt for a second run was, well let me put it diplomatically: crazy! Roland

My advice is: Casual partnerships: Lebensohl. Regular partnerships: Rumpelsohl. There is more to forget if you play Rumpelsohl, but in my opinion it's the best there is. (Rumpelsohl by Paul van Rijckevorsel, Bridge World, Oct. 1992: p16). Roland

So please enlight my intermediate or advanced view: Experts do know, that after 1 ♣ 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ does not promise more then two diamonds, is a new minor and is forcing, but is not new minor forcing, because per definition a new minor is just named a new minor after a NT rebid? Or are there real differences, which I just cannot see? Now you got it absolutely right. After a 1NT rebid, it's called NMF. However, if the rebid is not 1NT, it's simply a new suit, Bourke relay, etc. No, it doesn't promise more than a doubleton as I (and apparently MikeH too) play it. See above. You may call it NMF all you like but be prepared for misunderstandings if you agree to play NMF. Your BBO pick-up partner will likely not understand that this is how you mean it. 1♣-1♠ 2♣-2♥ is also forcing. Do you call that NMAF = New Major Forcing? The term NMF only applies after a 1NT rebid. I did not invent the description as quoted in one of my earlier posts. Roland

1. ♠ AKJ953 ♥ KQ7 ♦ A5 ♣ Q6 2. ♠ KQJ95 ♥ J53 ♦ AKJ ♣ K8 3. ♠ AQJ943 ♥ Q32 ♦ A ♣ KJ5 4. ♠ AK1064 ♥ K ♦ KJ43 ♣ 1097 In all 4 examples the bidding goes: 1♣-1♠ 2♣- ?? What is your next bid? Most of you will probably have figured out what I am aiming at but feel free to disagree. Roland

Interesting. I've been taught to use ~ between usernames. Example: inquiry~Walddk~fred~uday Maybe it has changed (I haven't arranged tourneys for a long time), but I do remember that everybody was able to exercise all TD functions, including talk to the table. Roland

I will do my Henry Blofeld impression on Test Match Special. "A crow has landed on the pavilion roof, could this be an omen?" :) hehe Yes, what a character he was. Was? Still is, I hope, though I haven't been listening to radio 4 today. Some employers. :( Oops, still *is* of course. I was just referring to the quote GeeGee came up with. Regarding the World XI (1 and 2). I hoped it was clear that I meant current active players, not the all time greats. Roland

They played walsh 30 years ago? Wow, thought that was new... But I still do not see your point: If 2 ♣ is a defined puppet, (which is very usefull playing walsh) where responder mostly has to bid 2 ♦, why should 2 ♦ direct not show Diamonds? Okay, so in your book, it shows 2 or more diamonds and is forcing. Per definition, opener bid 1 Club, so this is a new minor. Somehow, this adds up to NEW MINOR FORCING, doesn´t it`? 1. The Walsh System was invented more than 30 years ago! 2. Playing 2-way checkback Stayman: After a 1NT rebid, 2♣ is not mostly, as you write, but always a puppet to 2♦ (usually followed by an invitational bid). Please read my post again. So if I want to play 2♦ I bid 2♣. Accordingly, I have 2♦ free as an artificial game force. 3. New Minor Forcing (NMF): "The use of a bid in an unbid minor suit by responder as an artificial convenient forcing bid after a 1NT rebid by the opening bidder". This is the decription. Note "1NT rebid". 2♦ happens to be a new minor on the auction outlined in the first post, but I repeat: it has nothing to do with NMF. This is often misinterpreted by intermediate and advanced players, never among experts. Roland

Yes, pass. Roland

4♠. I don't leave partner in 3 with such a good fit. The thing to remember is that he has plenty of values outside spades because his overcall was based on a weak (likely) 6-card suit. Roland

3♦, natural and extras, although it's marginal. It's not really a 16 count on this auction, but the 1♠ overcall could have been worse. Roland

Not for me. I need a better and/or longer spade suit. I would double. Roland

The ideal way of barring your partner from entering the auction on most occasions. Roland

Hi Roland, this is funny, I think while playing walsh (as they do here), 2 ♦ must be to play after 1 ♣ 1 M 1 NT, or you have discussed some relay scheme where you can bid 2 ♣ after 1 NT as a puppet to 2 ♦. But in that case, the direct 2 ♦ is natural and shows 4+ Diamonds with invitational strength ( at least in the way I got used to play it). In that case I strongly recommend that you start playing something else. 2♦ as a sign off after 1♣ - 1MA ; 1NT was abandoned in most places 30+ years ago. Whether you play NMF, 1- or 2-way checkback doesn't matter as long as you have an agreement. Yes, for me 2♣ is always a puppet to 2♦, whereas 2♦ is articifial GF asking for more info. This way you can always sign off in 2♦ if that is your wish. But back to the point: 1♣ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ has nothing do to with NMF. Roland

2♦ has nothing to do with NMF which only applies after 1mi - 1MA ; 1NT (rebid). 2♦ is natural (can be 3 and even 2 on rare occasions) and forcing; new suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing (F1, not necessarily GF). Close between 2♥ and 2♠. I don't mind either, but I have a slight preference for 2♠. 1. It doesn't promise 3-card support in my book. 2. whereagles has strange ideas imo. "The correct technical bid seems to be "pass". Ahem. Really? Roland

I will do my Henry Blofeld impression on Test Match Special. "A crow has landed on the pavilion roof, could this be an omen?" :) hehe Yes, what a character he was. By the way, who is your favourite TV commentator (top 5)? Here is my list: 1. Bob Willis. 2. Ian Botham. 3. David Gower. 4. Michael Holding. 5. David Lloyd. Roland

Ben was very quick, well done! 3♠ is natural. Double of 2♠ should also show spades, but with a hand that's not good enough to bid at the 3-level. As a general rule (with a couple of exceptions) I play double of an artificial bid as showing a suit. Roland

Only the moderators can do that, and I don't see anyone online. Send a private message to inquiry and ask him to delete it. You can start a new thread in another forum before if you like. Roland

3♥. I have the right shape in the minors, and I do not double with 4-6 in the majors unless the 6-card suit is very weak. Roland

1NT-3NT. If you never go down, you don't bid enough, period. I can't stop in 4mi, but I am willing to learn. This reminds me of an incident (accident perhaps) in the Danish Premier League 15 years ago. Our opponents (Dorthe and Peter Schaltz) bid to 4NT with xx opposite x in hearts. I led a top heart, and 1 minute later we all wrote -430 or +430 on our scorecards. You guessed it: I had AKQ, Peter Lund J109xxxx. Oh well, life goes on. Roland

Sorry for being very late, but 1♣ followed by a couple of spade bids seems a prudent approach with this hand. Now, so Koen opened 1♠ and is asking what to do over 2♦. You have no choice really: 3♣. The auction hasn't been very economical so far, but that can't be helped. I am happy to bid 3♣ even. Yes, it's forcing (even game forcing in my methods). A good rule is: new suit at the 3-level, by opener as well as responder, is game forcing. You have a 4-loser hand. That should be plenty to force to game after a 2-o-1 response, even if 2♦ doesn't promise more than 9+ hcp. Sure, occasionally you have a serious misfit (partner is perhaps 2-4-6-1 or 1-5-6-1, ouch), but if you don't bid clubs and spades, or spades and clubs the way you did it, you may as well stop bidding. I mean, no-one will tell her/himself before taking the first call: "I am sure partner has 65 in the red suits, so I'd better pass before we get overboard". That's not bridge. Finally, if the bidding had gone 1♣ (1♥) 2♦ (2♥) 2♠ must be obvious to any expert in this world. The hand is much too good to pass, and if you rebid your clubs, you will never tell about your spade suit. Does 2♠ promise 5 spades? No, but my intention is to show the 5th on my next turn. Roland

Correct. For obvious reasons 3 of my 4 accounts will always be invisible during vugraph broadcasts (Walddk2 gets plenty of private messages as it is). So I have probably been there. I count as a spectator but you can't see me. Roland