Walddk

I grant undos myself in social games; the question is, however, where the limit is regarding a tournament, and not least a pay tourney. I don't know if Josh is in a position to always determine when an undo request is due to a genuine misclick or change of mind. I agree that certain misclicks are obvious, but I can't always be sure if they all are. And I agree with what's written in the Rules of this Site. You need not explain why you reject an undo. If an opponent sends me a private message and tells me that he meant to open 2♠ rather than 2NT as per your example, I will certainly grant an undo. I believe that s/he tells the truth until I am proven wrong. Roland

Why on earth would one want to get away from the World Cup? I am dying to watch all I have time for. And one correction, Gerben: it's football, the real thing you know! Roland

My list is somewhat different, but I guess that's normal for a non-English citizen. However, I must admit that my heart belongs to England, possibly because I lived there when I was young(er). 1. England 2. West Indies 3. Australia 4. India 5. New Zealand 6. South Africa 7. Pakistan 8. Bangladesh 9. Zimbabwe Roland

Speaking of Gary Sobers, captain of Nottinghamshire at the time. What about 1968 at Swansea against Glamorgan? 6 sixes in an over. Poor Malcolm Nash. Want to see the video? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...71645&q=cricket Roland

Agree. If you have a natural bid available and are strong enough, bid the suit as a one-round force. I do not play negative free bids. Roland

You may have the agreement that 3♦ is forcing, but it doesn't promise the world where I come from. What else but 3♦ can responder bid with say ♠ J4 ♥ KJ32 ♦ Q107643 ♣ 9 Take a diamond away and give him one club more, and he would still bid 3♦. So the answer to your question is: Longer diamonds than hearts (4) and no extras. It seems sensible to play it as forcing nevertheless, because in my book opener promises another bid. 2♠ shows a strong hand. Roland

Forget about slam for the time being and concentrate on getting to the right strain. That is what 4♣ is for with a hand like this. It seems logical to me that it must be a 2-suiter, because I have natural diamond, heart and spade bids available to show a 1-suited hand. 4♥ is unilateral, 4♣ shows doubt. It doesn't promise more than a minimum opener opposite what might also be a normal opening hand with short clubs. I can't see why one must commit to hearts if partner is 4342, possibly 5332 with a weakish spade suit. In the rare case that partner has a very strong hand, he will take action. Which will depend on his shape. To those of you who are not convinced that 4♣ is a 2-suiter, I would like to know what you think it should be. Roland

4♣ here: two places to play. Will pull 4♠ to 5♦. Roland

Last time I heard anything (a couple of months ago), Hervé Lustman told me that we will be broadcasting from the Rosenblum Cup. I also know that we have at least one volunteer operator. That's about it at this point. Maybe Fred knows more. One thing is certain. We do not have a definite schedule, and consequently we can't list anything on our vugraph web page. Roland

"Bridge is cool". Isn't that the ACBL slogan in an attempt to attract youngsters to take up the game? "Bridge is wonderful guys. Unfortunately you can't play this, that, this and that. We still hope that you will find our game fascinating". Wrong signal to send (pun intended). Roland

Why is it that I'm not surprised to hear that? As to Mike's comments I do not see at as a major problem, especially not at trick 1 when declarer is supposed to pause in order to give himself and the opponents an opportunity to plan the play/defence. That also applies when there is a singleton in dummy. I know how in real life many declarers call for the singleton in a split second (if dummy hasn't reached out for it before), but that is no excuse. Every defender is entitled to take the time declarer did not take. At the table I simply tell declarer: "Sorry, but I'm not quite ready yet". That goes for every situation, also when dummy has no singleton. If you make this a rule when defending, there is no ethical aspect to consider. North Americans (read the ACBL) are overly sensitive in this area in my opinion. Restriction upon restriction is not the way forward as I see it. Will the next step be barbed wire under and across the table? Roland

I have to agree with Mark and Paul. I don't mind that the UNDO feature is there, but as a general rule I don't think undo's should be granted for misclicks. Accept that you misclicked and get on with things. This way you won't have to determine if a "wrong" card was played due to a slip of the hand rather than a slip of the mind. Roland

There is one more aspect to consider. Hvad if dummy has a singleton? Most pairs play suit preference signals indiscriminately. Basically, I still think you should play attitude. Below you will find one way to play it (assuming upside down attitude): Low card = Encouraging. Please continue the suit. I can't stand a switch. High even = Discouraging. Switch to the lower remaining side suit (trumps always excluded). High odd = Discouraging. Switch to the higher remaining side suit. This is not the only way of course, but it's playable although you don't always have the right cards (small card, or high even-odd). But that applies to all methods; nothing is perfect. Roland

By the way, it's good to see that the Windies are getting back in business. They have been out of it far too long. Defeating India 4-1 in the ODIs is not to be sneezed at. Who doesn't remember the likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Harper, Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner and many more? Maybe Alan, Mark, Frances and a few others are too young to remember, but they have surely read about them. Those were the days. Are they coming back I wonder. Roland

Excuse me for correcting you, but I am not famous at all. All methods have its flaws, but my experience is that attitude on honour leads works best for me. Incidentally, I play something completely different with one of my favourite partners: Peter Lund. Count always (when partner needs it obviously, not the opponents)! His philosophy is that the auction often has revealed much about declarer's point count and shape so that it's more important to get a count signal in order to get a complete picture of declarer's hand. This also applies when discarding. One exception: in cash-out situations we use attitude (high is encouraging). Our leads are also different from what is considered standard. From a sequence of 3 honours we lead highest, from only 2 touching honours we lead lowest. KQJ(x), QJ10(x), J109(x), even 1098(x). AKx, KQx, QJx, J10x, even 109x. From AKQ we lead the queen. So as an example the lead of a king is either from AKx or KQJ. This method was developed by John Trelde of Denmark ages ago. He was also the man behind Danish Asking Bids (Trelde-spørgemeldinger) and the Copenhagen Convention (2-suited jump overcalls). I am not claiming that this method is best. How do you and your partner like it is what matters. I think it's important to be flexible, and if your partner has strong preferences it's nice if you are able to adapt although you may think that another approach is better. So in the unlikely event that Frances asks me for a game and that she prefers to let ace ask for attitude and king ask for count, I will be happy to comply. As long as she doesn't insist on playing F and G, all is fine ;) Roland

That does not solve your problem. Who has the ace? If partner has it, you will likely want to continue the suit, whereas if declarer has it you run the risk of leading into his remaining AJ tenace. No matter what, it's a guess. Allow me to point out that if you play standard methods where ace promises the king and king shows the queen but not the ace, it will make life so much easier for yourself and not least your partner. I find it hard to believe that you could write this if you had actually read the whole of my post. I will repeat it here for convenience. Secondly, no matter what your leading style is, you will have to decide, - What is our primary signal on the lead of the ace? - What is our primary signal on the lead of the king? Frances said in her original post that on balance it seems more useful to get count on a king lead (assuming we always lead the K from KQ). Of course, once you've made that decision, there are going to be some hands where it is not successful. The lead from KQx(x) when declarer might have Axx or AJx is one such problem. But once you've decided to show count you can't get away from that. This problem is not related to what you choose to lead from AK. But once you've decided that you generally want attitude on an ace lead and count on a king lead, then it makes sense to vary your lead from AK if you think you know what signal you want. I did read the whole of your post, and I do not find it convincing. This is a partnership game, so it's often not enough when one player decides what's right and wrong. If you find the method appealing, fine with me. As I have pointed out in an earlier post, I know it's popular in Britain, but that does not change the fact that I think it's flawed. That would also be my view if I moved to Southampton or Glasgow. It looks pretty silly when you get it wrong and either don't continue the suit when it's right and continue when it's wrong because you can't read your partner's signal. If you have never come across that situation, good for you. Roland

That does not solve your problem. Who has the ace? If partner has it, you will likely want to continue the suit, whereas if declarer has it you run the risk of leading into his remaining AJ tenace. No matter what, it's a guess. Allow me to point out that if you play standard methods where ace promises the king and king shows the queen but not the ace, it will make life so much easier for yourself and not least your partner. Roland

During vugraph broadcasts only scheduled commentators are able to talk to the room. That's how Fred coded the programme 5 or 6 years ago. Excellent job in my opinion, and I don't think he has any regrets today. With this said, I think it's wrong to impose restrictions elsewhere on BBO. Table and tournament hosts have the option of barring spectators from talking to the room, but they are allowed to chat among themselves, and yes, a large number do take advantage of that option at crowded tables. Although I would like to see more comments on bridge issues rather than the eternal greetings and "how is our aunt in Minnesota" stuff, I think it's fine that spectators can voice their opinions at all times. Sometimes they even have something meaningful to say. A nice side effect is that when it comes to analysing a bridge hand, it is almost always easy to spot who we should not invite for vugraph commentary. Do I mind if spectators have the option of turning off chat? Not at all, but I will understand if this is item number 115 on Fred's "to do list". Roland

That is enough evidence for me to label the method "flawed". MikeH has come up with an example, and here is another one. Partner leads the queen, asking for attitude in your method, and dummy tables xxx You hold 10xx. Now, if the lead is from QJ, you want to encourage. On the other hand, if it's from KQ empty, you must discourage in order to prevent partner from continuing the suit into declarer's AJx (Bath Coup) when he ducks at trick 1. With this said, I'd like to add that the method is fine against 5- and 6-level contracts, especially in competitive auctions. Ace for attitude, king for count. The king will often be the right card because you want to know how many tricks you can cash in that suit. Then count is essential and attitude useless. It hurts, but I actually agree with Mike when he says that generally speaking this method will create problems on routine hands. Easy for me to say if I hadn't tried it out at the table, but I have. I had a Scottish partner for 3 years, and she insisted on A for attitude and K for count always. We did face problems that would not otherwise have occurred if we had subscribed to "standard" methods. Roland

I assume that Frances has taken notes regarding this summer's international fixtures. Then she will know when to be out of the country. Additionally, she will get to travel much more than she and Jeffrey had anticipated, and that can't be bad. How about Denmark? Fares from Stansted to Copenhagen and/or Malmö are ridiculously cheap. Roland

And you are unlikely to see it again according to Pietersen: "The best form of defence in my case is to take it to the bowlers but the reverse sweep for six was naughty. I don't think I'll play that again", he said to BBC Sport. Roland

I agree that it takes ages for them to put on make-up, but does it always help? Well, at least it helps the manufacturers make a lot of money. Roland

If the phone is turned off, what is emitting the signal to be located (by whatever means necessary)? There is no way to locate a cell phone if it's turned off (for all currently applicable definitions for "turned off"). Claiming the contrary is spreading urban legends and conspiracy theories. --Sigi I am sure you know a lot about these technical aspects (I am absolutely clueless), but excuse me for asking. How is it related to the topic: "How can Vugraph be improved"? - "realistic suggestions only, please". Roland

I would open all 3 of them, but it's all about partnership style. To Helene: not sure where the void is. Clubs? If yes, you will have to rebid 2♦ over a 2♣ response. Roland

In my view, the hand is not good enough to double first, then bid clubs next. The texture of the club suit is my main concern, but there are other flaws too. I would overcall 3♣ which shows a good hand, especially vulnerable. Do I not risk missing the heart fit if I don't double? Sure, can happen, but as said many times before: bridge is a game of percentages, and the odds favour a 2♠ (or higher) response when I am 2-4 in the majors. Roland