Walddk

Wayne put "not" in the wrong place in that sentence, perhaps intentionally. I am sure that you are not entitled to base your pass on the fact that partner "seemed more likely to be asleep than awake". Wayne gave a clearcut reference: Law 16. Roland

The term hat-trick was originally used in cricket, and was connected with the custom of giving a hat or cap to a bowler who achieved the feat of taking three wickets in a row (three consecutive balls). It may be connected with the concept of giving someone their "cap", i.e. acknowledging them as a regular member of a representative team. Another school of thought mentions that a bowler was challenged if he could take three in three. Hats were passed around to collect the odds. The bowler succeeded and collected the large amount of cash. Thus the term hat-trick could also have been derived from this event.

Indeed. Wayne is a great asset to BBO in many areas. Congratulations and good luck in Shanghai! Roland

Never heard about it. And if it's from Denmark, it's likely Andersen. Andersson is a Swedish name. Italian gelato for me too, and vanilla flavour please. Roland

I would expect a bit more, especially at IMPs, when I'm not on lead and where my double therefore is "positionally wrong". But strange things happen at pairs. And this is indeed MP. I think there is, and should be, a difference between penalty doubles of 1NT, depending on whether you are over or under declarer. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s873h1042dj106cj974]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] RHO opens 1NT (12-14), pass, pass, and partner doubles. You trust him to have a very good hand, sitting under declarer, so you leave it in. Correct decision in my opinion. What do you lead? Roland

You are, with North as declarer. Roland I double you I redouble! Try to make it on a diamond lead. And that is exactly why the contract can't be defeated if South is declarer. West can't attack the suit. Roland

You are, with North as declarer. Roland

Since Karen (macaw) is too modest to bring it forward herself, I will post a cake recipe from the late 50's she sent to me some time ago: Orange Chiffon Cake: 6 large eggs, separated plus 1 additional egg white 2 1/4 cups (225 grams) sifted cake flour 1 1/2 cups (300 grams) superfine white (castor) sugar 1 tablespoon baking powder 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/2 cup (120 ml) vegetable oil or safflower oil 3/4 cup (180 ml) freshly squeezed orange juice (2 - 3 large Navel Oranges) 2 tablespoons (10 grams) orange zest 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract 3/4 teaspoon cream of tartar Note: To make superfine sugar, process 1 1/2 cups (300 grams) of granulated white sugar in your food processor for about 30 seconds or until finely ground. Superfine sugar is used as it dissolves easier in the batter. Orange Zest - The orange outer rind of the orange that contains the fruit's flavor and perfume. Cream of tartar is tartaric acid and is a fine white crystalline acid salt which is a by-product of the wine-making industry. It is used in the whipping of egg whites to stabilize them and allow them to reach maximum volume. Separate the eggs and place the whites in one bowl and the yolks in another. Cover with plastic wrap and bring them to room temperature (about 30 minutes). Preheat the oven to 325 degrees F (170 degrees C) and have ready a 10 inch (25 cm) two piece tube pan (ungreased). In the bowl of your electric mixer, fitted with the paddle attachment, place the flour, sugar (minus 3 tablespoons (42 grams)), baking powder, and salt. Beat until combined. Make a well in the center of the flour mixture and add the egg yolks, oil, orange juice, orange zest, and vanilla extract. Beat about one minute or until smooth. In a separate bowl, with the whisk attachment, beat the egg whites until foamy. Add the cream of tartar and continue to beat until soft peaks form. Gradually beat in the remaining 3 tablespoons (42 grams) of sugar and beat until stiff peaks form. With a large rubber spatula or wire whisk, gently fold the egg whites into the batter just until blended (being careful not to deflate the batter). Pour the batter into the ungreased tube pan and bake for about 55 to 60 minutes, or until a wooden skewer inserted into the center of the cake comes out clean. (When lightly pressed the cake will spring back). Immediately upon removing the cake from the oven invert the pan and place on a bottle or flat surface so it is suspended over the counter. Let the cake cool completely before removing from pan (about 1 1/2 - 2 hours). To remove the cake from the pan, run a long metal spatula around the inside of the tube pan and center core. Invert onto a greased wire rack. Can store in an airtight container for a few days at room temperature or for about a week in the refrigerator. This cake can also be frozen for a couple of months.

I want to defend given that North is declarer. Will wait with the lead till others get the chance. If South declares, however, I want to play the hand. Roland

I know how to make TWO hotdogs. Is that of any help? B) I can also boil 4 eggs without burning my fingers (too much)! Roland

Nuisance it is, but there is nothing wrong with spelt if you are from Britain: "Its principal parts are spell, spelled or spelt, spelled or spelt, Americans preferring spelled, the British, spelt". Roland

What can you and what can't you say when you're a public person like Tiger Woods? Generally speaking, what is permissable, and what is not, also as a layman? Maybe read this article first: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4902432.stm There seems to be such a difference between English (Britain) and English (America). Roland

Pass. It seems wrong to make the decision in front of partner. I pretty much showed my hand already. I expect him/her to do something intelligent. Roland

Here are 7 interesting bidding problems to tackle. What do you suggest? 1. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] RHO opens 1♠ (4+). You? 2. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] LHO opens 1♥, pass to you. 1♠ or double? 3. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♦ - 1♠ ?? 4. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] LHO passes, so does your partner, and RHO opens 1NT (12-14). This is passed to your partner who re-opens with 2♠ (natural, one-suited). You? 5. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♣ (1♠) pass pass ?? 6. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You pass 1st in hand (I know some would not), LHO opens 1♠ (5+), partner overcalls 2♦, and you see 2NT to your right (sound 4-card raise). What do you bid now? 7. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq73ha976dk952ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner is dealer, and the auction is: 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ *) 2N - 3♦ 3N - ?? *) 4th suit GF (2♣ was not game forcing). What now? Roland

He would play a home brewed 3½ card minor system with the following gadgets: 1. Gerber. 2. Reverse Gerber. 3. Flannery. 4. Reverse Flannery. 5. Capp. 6. Reverse Capp. 7. Fishbein. 8. Reverse Fishbein. 9. Reverse White House (he invented that one himself last night). 10. Air Force 1. *) 11. Middle from 2 small. And he would refuse to play with anyone who doesn't play reverse White House. What is the White House convention you may ask. Here it is: 2♣ is a pre-empt in any suit at the 1-level. Then he reversed it to 1♣ as a pre-empt in any suit at the 2-level. The convention is only used at white colours, hence the name. *) Air Force 1 requires that partner holds 4 aces. You open 7NT on KQx KQx KQx KQJx The sublime thing about the convention is that responder bids NT at the appropriate level depending on how many aces he has. Roland P.S. Oh, and I forgot Stay-man. It seems impossible to get rid of that man ;)

You can't let the players decide which side spent more time than the other side. I do not accuse them of not telling the truth, but it can be very difficult to estimate how much time you consume when you are concentrated on other matters. Let an impartial third party (monitor) do the job. And yes, I do believe in time penalties as perfectly legitimate. You get xxx minutes to complete yy boards, and if you are slower than that, you must be prepared to accept the penalty the TD will award you. I would, however, much prefer that bridge games are decided at the table and not away from it, but sometimes that isn't possible. You have to live with that as the rules are now. Personally, I think they are fine as they are and that no changes are necessary. Playing with screens is no excuse for not finishing the boards within the stipulated time. Roland

Not that easy. The time is not divided 50-50 between players. If one side has difficult boards and the other not, the first one will need more time. Maybe add EW from table one with NS from 2 and vice versa and compare it, but this is probably against law this time. Why isn't that easy? Have the players monitored at both tables. I am talking about major events of course. A few years back the Danish Team Championship was decided by a time penalty in the final segment of the final. Unfair? I don't think so. The players know about the time restrictions before they sit down and must therefore be prepared for penalties if they violate the rules. Roland

Are you speaking on behalf of anybody but yourself? I don't think you should use "our". I for one don't want to be included. Fred has said it on a number of occasions: it would be nice if you could add "in my opinion". Roland

No matter what you decide, you need to impose a penalty for time violation - also in a knockout event with 4 or 2 teams left. In the recent Vanderbilt Teams in Dallas, they seemed to spend all the time they wanted to. It was excruciatingly slow at times. How to go about it? Let a person monitor the players. With modern technology it's quite simple to figure out which side spends more time than the other. Deduct IMPs accordingly if they don't finish within the stipulated time. Time is part of tournament bridge, like it or not. No-one can be interested in letting it go on forever. Roland

Not suspended from BBO, but suspended from playing in the MBC, usually for 3 days. Roland

Open room: Fu - Zhao and Balicki - Zmudzinski Closed room: Fallenius - Welland and Deutsch - Hallberg Open room: Fu - Zhao and Balicki - Zmudzinski Closed room: Martel - Stansby and Chang - Hallberg

Final results of the quarter-finals: Nickell vs. Hollman 113-118 Baze vs. Chang 124-135 Welland vs. Robinson 126-88 Moss vs. Shugart no final score, but Shugart won by 4 IMPs I have been told. Semi-Final pairings: Hollman vs. Chang Welland vs. Shugart Roland

Correction Since screens are now in use, the evening sessions in Dallas will start half an hour later than previously advised. So add 30 minutes to SF3&4 and F3&4. For full schedule, go to http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event Roland

Try the lottery instead, Gerben; that will give you better odds :huh: The quarter-final pairings are: Nickell vs. Hollman Baze vs. Chang Welland vs. Robinson Moss vs. Shugart Roland