Walddk

Indeed, and you need to be an expert player to foresee the danger. The expert player will ask her/himself the following question when dummy's cards are shown: "What can I do about it if trumps break 4-1, with East holding four to the jack?" I think it's fair to say that this will be spotted pretty quickly by an expert, whereas it's equally obvious that the inexperienced player can't see it, or even more frequently, does not see that there may be a problem. Most of the time not even after the hand. "Good grand slam. Nothing I could do about it with that trump split, partner." Roland

Read above. You don't need to find East with three spades; two will suffice. The risk is that he ruffs the third spade (to dummy's queen). You can guard against that. Roland

Yes, just run winning hearts through East. The slight improvement is that you also make when RHO started with only two spades. Roland

Impressive cardplay, and you will be successful on this layout. However, you made a slight error (which will not matter here). Do you see where? Roland

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq82haq742dkqck65&w=s105h10963d3caj9732&e=sj43h85dj876cq1084&s=sak976hkjda109542c]399|300|Scoring: IMP South 7D Lead: H6[/hv] This is a most interesting deal from the Nordic Junior Teams Championship over the Easter holidays. Only one pair bid the excellent grand slam in diamonds. Mind you, it is not that easy to get there when you are off one ace. I could have given you the hand as a single dummy problem (only declarer's and dummy's cards exposed), but that would likely have been too difficult in the forum for mainly intermediate players. Declarer got a heart lead to the king and eventually went one down because he was unlucky to find a 4-1 trump break. He lost a trick to ♦J. Could he have landed the grand slam, and if so, how should he have played the hand? (advanced or better players, please make your posts hidden if you feel like contributing). Roland

So you're in good company, Justin. Rimstedt and Houlberg are both World Junior Champions and they both pulled as you see above. I've got one question, though. If 4♠ is to play, why can't 5♦ be? Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saq73hdkqj98653c8&s=shkqj10643da7cj543]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Both North players tried to bid a natural 5♦ (who can blame them?), but it was not interpreted as such. Rimstedt and Houlberg both pulled to 5♥, passed. Not a success; down 2 and a flat board. What North and South could have done to avoid this is not clear I think. Roland

... and Anne-Sofie Houlberg of Denmark at the other table. They both got it 'wrong', which just shows that you need a specific agreement. I won't show the other hand just yet, but is it worth spending too much time over a sequence like this? I bet some top pairs have an agreement, but my estimate is that the number is pretty low. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=shkqj10643da7cj543]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Nordic Junior Teams Championship in Iceland over Easter. Your RHO opens a natural 1♣, you bid 4♥, and the tray comes back with pass, 5♦ by partner and pass to your right. Question 1: What is 5♦ and what do you bid now? Question 2: What would 4♠ and 5♣ have been? Roland

We had this interesting (simple?) suit combination on vugraph Thursday: AK1096 87 You need four tricks. No inferences from the auction (opps did not bid), and you have plenty of entries to both hands. How would you play without using Suitplay or the like? Most commentators got it wrong until Mark Horton and Walter Johnson made thorough calculations and told us what the odds are. Roland

I wonder: how often will a player of any level of skill play the queen from Qx? Much more often than you think. I reckon that 129,483 BBO'ers will; roughly 83%. Roland

It is simple. Let's just look at the following familar example: ♥ AQxxx ♥ xxxx This is your trump suit in 6♥, and you can afford to lose a trick and still make the contract. Now, a priori at IMPs the correct play is to cash the ace first, then enter your hand and lead a small up. You improve your odds, because it caters to the singleton king offside. At matchpoints, however, that would be an incorrect line. You need to try for as many tricks as possible, and you can escape for no loser every time LHO is dealt Kx. You can't afford the luxury of the safety play (cashing the ace first) with the format you are going to use. If Kx happens to be onside, you have blown a trick by adopting a safety play line and will get a bottom at MP, but the fact of the matter is that you know how to play IMPs, and that is the crucial point. I mean, you are going to select pairs for an IMP event, are you not? So what good is it that some pairs can take lots of tricks at MP if they don't know how to tackle a suit like this at IMPs? If they don't, you won't know until it's too late. Roland

Despite the singleton in partner's suit this hand is too good to pass vulnerable at IMPs. I bid 3♣, pass the rebid of 3♦ or 3NT and bid 3♠ over 3♥, because 3♥ may not be a suit. Could be a feature. If it is, overcaller has no spade stop. The worst case scenario is that we end up in 4mi, which could be too high. However, I am willing to gamble on that in the search for the vulnerable game. Roland

Matchpoints is reasonable because with imp scoring (especially imps across the field) there is far greater potential variation per board. At matchpoints each board is equal to roughly 4% of the total score. At imps across the field, 1 or 2 huge board(s) played against an inexperienced pair may be roughly the positive score needed to place or win for the entire session. Who said IMPs Across the Field? Butler Pairs is an option, where one could discard extreme results before calculating the datum if one fears that swings will be too huge if you don't. This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of time there is to plan. I claim that it's wrong to have a matchpoint format for selection of pairs for teams events. The reason is obvious: you dump the safety play aspect when you play MP, and this as an aspect that is paramount for and makes IMPs unique. Roland

Interesting indeed. Matchpoint scoring to select the pairs for a teams event!? I am lost. Roland

This is how I recall the Germany vs Austria match. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/851637/www_v...ython_football/

Natural; just like it is when it goes 1♣ pass 1♠ 2♠ or 1♦ pass 1♥ 2♥. Some play this as Michaels (5 of the other major + 5 of the other minor). You don't need that when double takes care of the other two suits. It's similar in your example, but again you don't need 2♦ as Michaels. You double if you have the majors. Roland

I could not have analysed the hand better than Mike Hargreaves, not even with all cards in view. Here is the whole hand: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj9874hk9d7cq1087&w=skh62dak943cak652&e=sa1065haq74dq62cj9&s=s32hj10853dj1085c43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Only a heart into dummy's tenace is killing, because it takes an entry away prematurely. By switching to a heart, John Diamond ensured that he could not be couped. Declarer's only chance from that point was to find the singleton jack or 10 in diamonds with North. No such luck. Pretty. Roland

No; a 2/1 response is only game-forcing in an uncontested auction. 2♠ here is only a one-round force. Roland

Good point. As a matter of fact, if the declarers had known the layout, they would have made the contract no matter which lead and which defence they get. One declarer did (with a little help), the other one did not. Roland

[hv=d=w&v=n&e=sa1065haq74dq62cj9&s=s32hj10853dj1085c43]266|200|Scoring: IMP W: 6D Lead: SQ[/hv] The third quarter of the Vanderbilt final between Katz and Diamond was one of the best sets on vugraph in recent years. This deal was breathtaking beyond compare, when John Diamond defended as if he knew all the cards. West (Steve Weinstein) opened 1♦, Brian Platnick overcalled 1♠, and after several rounds of bidding Weinstein showed a strong hand with 5-5 in the minors, a spade control, no heart control and three keycards. Platnick led ♠Q to declarer's king. Weinstein cashed ♣A and K and ruffed a club with dummy's ♦6, North following with the 7, 8 and Queen. Diamond overruffed with the ♦8 and went into the tank. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that he remained there for almost 10 minutes. Eventually, he came out and .... did what? While you are thinking about it, I can add that the contract was the same in the other room with Brad Moss as declarer. The play was identical until trick 4 when Tarek Sadek overruffed the ♦6. Sadek did not think as long as Diamond before he .... did what? (Those of you who were there could perhaps hold back for a while until other users have had the chance to comment. Thanks.) Roland

Katz up by 10 IMPs after 16 boards. Diamond up by 1 IMP after 32 boards.

We expect many spectators today when the semi-finals get under way in Houston. Nickell vs Diamond and Cayne vs Katz , 64 boards. Nickell Freeman, Meckstroth, Rodwell, Zia, Hamman. Diamond Platnick, Gitelman, Moss, Greco, Hampson. Cayne Seamon, Lauria, Versace, Fantoni, Nunes. Katz Jacobs, Elahmady, Sadek, S. Weinstein, Levin. We will be broadcasting from all four tables throughout. Come and root for your favourite team. This rates to be exciting! Roland

Is the sponsor usually in charge of these administrative duties? I usually get the captain's role, which means getting the entry in, reporting after matches, etc.. Don't know whose responsibility it is, but Martin de Knijff, who will be playing on the team with Fallenius and Fredin, has this post on the SBF's website: Tyvärr missade tjejernas sponsor (Emma, Cecilia, Sandra) att anmäla sitt lag. Deadline är nämligen 20.00 dagen före. Inga undantag medges. It states that the sponsor forgot. Roland

As an aside: there is no team with the young Swedish women, Emma Sjöberg, Cecilia Rimstedt and Sandra Rimstedt. Their sponsor forgot to submit the entry. The deadline is 20:00 the evening before, and there is no exception to that rule. Perhaps a little strange given that an odd number of teams (71) entered. Roland