Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Heitzman
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of the issues you raise, missing more 5-3 major suit fits is probably the most critical. I believe the considerations are similar to those involved in opening 1N or 2N with a 5-card major. Most people nowadays do this freely, whereas ten or twenty years ago it was unusual; of those, some rely on the crutch of puppet stayman, others don't bother (I don't).

My own experience is that, when we have a 5-3 major suit fit and both hands are balanced, 3N tends to be a preferable contract to 4M. (4-4 or 5-4 fits are a different matter–more of them belong in 4 of the major but there are exceptions.) I noticed in a recent Bridge World interview that Bob Hamman expressed a similar view. For others, the 5-3 major suit fit is the holy grail of constructive bidding, and once such a fit is identified it becomes impossible for them to even consider 3N; bidding it implies (or perhaps denies) serious slam interest. I don't play that myself.

There is gadgetry available at the 3-level after 1M-2N if this is a concern.

As to using 1M-3 as jacoby (rather than 1M-2N) this is not a problem at all. The way most people play jacoby nowadays, it is a trivial matter to devise an alternative approach that is far superior and makes do with one less step.
Aug. 15, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1M-2 is artificial, then responder must bid again to clarify what he actually has. In the meantime, while awaiting clarification, opener may reveal some feature of his hand that ends up being gratuitous information. Or, if 1M-2 is just a relay to 2, we use more space conveying the same information that standard bidders convey in one bid.

As far as withholding non-gratuitous information from opener when he raises 1M-2N to 3N, that cannot happen as long as opener is thinking clearly. If he needs more information, he has the 3-level to investigate. If he doesn't need more information, then the information is by definition gratuitous.

I define “gratuitous” as information that is irrelevant to determining what our final contract should be but is helpful to the defense.
Aug. 15, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the proposed sparts convention addresses a problem in standard 2/1 auctions, but I don't agree that it is the best solution to that problem.

For one thing, the price is too high. I play that 1-2 is a weak jump shift and am reluctant to give that up.

For another thing, the problem is not as severe as it might appear to be at first blush. For example, if you play 1M-2N as a balanced game force, with or without 4 cards in the other major, you have a way to deal effectively with many of the game-forcing hands with 4 s and 3 s. This means that you must play something else for your jacoby raise–I suggest 1M-3.

This is preferable to sparts because it does not provide gratuitous information to the defense when you are headed for everyone's favorite contract–3N. With some 4=3-(4-2) responding hands, you can still start with 1-2m (the minor suit holdings would usually be specifically two small in the short one and concentration in the long one).

This still leaves the problem of game-forcing hands with 5+ s and 3 s. If the auction starts 1-1-1N/2, checkback or fourth suit forcing work quite well here. The one admittedly awkward sequence is 1-1-2 where we are forced to use the space-gobbling 3 as fourth suit.

The suggestion above by Brad Moss seems like an ideal solution to this last dilemma (1-1-2-3, 3 and 3 are invitational+ transfers; 3 is natural and GF without a stopper). If you find this too complicated, you can get most of what you need by just playing that 1-1-2-3 is a relay to 3. This guarantees responder the space to bid 3, if that is what he has in mind. (Can opener ever “override” the relay? I suppose so if he has something important to say, but most of the time he should not.)

This is kind of analogous to using transfer lebensohl when we open 1N and they interfere at the 2-level–it is probably better than simple lebensohl, but the truth is that you can accomplish most of the things you need to do with simple lebensohl. It is also analogous to the way we continue the auction after opener's 2N rebid showing 18-19 balanced; 3-level transfers are probably the preferable solution but you can get most of what you need simply by adopting wolff sign-offs and 3 as checkback.

While it may be that playing 1M-2 as artificial is the wave of the future, I personally am not ready to give the natural meaning of that sequence up. Lumping all of your problem hands into 1M-2 probably makes it harder for responder when he actually does have s, and also probably more often provides gratuitous information to the defense than does using 1M-2N as a balanced game-force. I dislike artificial solutions to problems that can be solved using natural bidding–they require a lot of memory work, and also tend to remove judgment from the process–everything is formula driven. I find this to be true of strong systems as well. I admit this is a personal bias.
Aug. 15, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that while 2N is very likely to be a preempt, one should not confuse the unlikely with the impossible. When a player commits the unusual 2N, he is at least 80% (maybe closer to 98%) to hold the weak hand-type, but there is always a chance that he holds the strong one (starting with something like AKJxx in each of his suits).

As to forcing passes, I follow the Larry Cohen school, where pass is only forcing when that would be clear to the janitor; this auction doesn't qualify.

As to the principle “never preempt over a preempt”, I suppose that is standard among experts, although I'd like to point out that there are dissenters. In this auction, even if we “knew” that 2N was a preempt, we would certainly not know that North has a weak hand, so it would not be entirely illogical to preempt with the West hand. My friend Al Stauber believes that we should all have at least one opportunity to preempt in any auction, and that, since 4 is West's first chance to weigh in, 4 is a preempt.

I define a preempt is a jump in a suit that is natural and can be passed. 2N is forcing, so it could actually be just about anything, depending on how warped South's mind is.
Aug. 14, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would interpret unusual/unusual slightly differently from the way Steve and Kevin have put it.

When the auction starts 1-(2N showing reds), 3 and 3 should, I agree, be game-invitational+ in s and s respectively, but they should also assert that we own the hand. Thus 1-(2N)-3/3-(P)-4/3 would not be forcing, but if the opponents bid again, we cannot defend undoubled; 1-(2N)-3/4 would also not be forcing; but do not create a force if the opponents bid again.

In this framework, I would say that Peter's jump to 4 doesn't create a force. It is just a “bash”. It says: “I have a lot of spades, and expect this to be a reasonable shot, either as a make or as a save,” but it does not assert that this is our hand. I would have bid 3 with Peter's hand, not 4.

With Steve's hand, I might have bid 5 anyway on the actual auction, especially at imps, because it will be right if either 5 or 5 makes, which might easily be the case (if they both happen to make, it will avoid the dreaded double game swing). This is where the concept of insurance comes in and why imps (in my opinion) is such an easy game. When the insurance concept applies, you only have to determine whether the insurance “premium” is worth paying (i.e., if you bid 5 and nothing makes, you are in effect paying the insurance premium and getting no value for your money; also, if they double and you go down a lot, the premium itself can be quite expensive).

Passing with Steve's hand is more of a matchpoint effort–let's just hope my partner's 4 bash caused them to guess wrong. At matchpoints, you might pass, you might double, you might bid 5. The concept of insurance doesn't help you; at matchpoints, you just have to do the right thing. Matchpoints is a much harder game.

As is usually the case with the UFR hands, I don't think the two players were on quite the same page regarding the 4 call.

Aug. 11, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree that Phil's writing is outstanding. We have really missed him in the bridge world for the past 20 years or so. His article(s) about his partnership with the late John Lowenthal are among the funniest things ever written about bridge.
Aug. 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In “expert standard”, the jump to 4S shows a 3-card limit raise. This has come up in several MSC problems in the Bridge World. That doesn't mean it is the only way to play, or perhaps even that it is best, although I think it is best.

Continuations after opener's jump shift rebid are among the most controversial in standard bidding. If you follow the MSC, every time this situation comes up you will see that every panelist has his own idea of what the various bids should mean (although the jump to 4S is one of the few non-controversial issues).

That's the main reason I wrote a recent Bridge World article about this situation. I'm not saying my suggestions in the article are the only way to go, and certainly not that they are accepted by all experts, but I think they are a good starting point for discussion.

On this particular auction, I suggest in the article that 3S should show a doubleton honor in spades (Qx or better). 3N should show a hand with stoppers in the unbid suits and less than enough to jump to 4N, which is quantitative with around 11-12 hcp (it also implies little slam potential in either of opener's suits). A raise to 4D should show a decent hand with 4-card support (higher raises are barred since the jump shifter may not have real diamonds).

The meaning of 4C and 4H depend on what 1N is–in the usual case where it is either semi-forcing or forcing but limited, these should be cue-bids in support of diamonds. If 1N is unlimited and responder might have 3 spades with 12+ support points, the 4-level cues should be in support of spades, not diamonds (this would be the case for 1H-1S-3m, since the 1S bid is unlimited).

All other hands are shown with a “punt” of 3H, including hands with 3-card support that were deemed too weak for an initial raise to 2 (this hand will usually bid 4S next).

In auctions where there is no unbid suits available at the 3-level, rebidding 3 of opener's first suit becomes the punt, and no longer shows Qx or better. If there are two unbid suits available (e.g., 1S-1N-3C), then 3 of the lower is the pure punt, while 3 of the higher unbid suit (by responder or by opener after responder's punt) shows a stopper in that suit and asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper in the other unbid suit.

It goes without saying that opener's jump shift rebid creates a game-force (except for Kit).
Aug. 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not only talking about clients.

I don't know what I would lead from that hand. I might (even probably would) lead a . Certainly a lead from any of the side suits could allow them to make a contract that has no play. For example, a lead could be a disaster if their suit is Qx opposite ATx. Leading from a jack would be my last choice. If that is the layout in the suit when I lead from a king, declarer is more likely to go wrong at trick 1 because he probably won't play me to be underleading a king against a grand, unless I take a long time to make my lead. But then again, I don't think I need to give you examples where leading away from one of my kings would be disastrous.

I think it would depend on who bid 7; how quickly he or she bid it, and perhaps other intangibles.

I would certainly not be critical if my partner or teammate chose to lead a against this auction.

What would you lead?
Aug. 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think players are much better off if they just forget about collecting numbers at the one or two levels and focus on bidding their own hands to their best contract instead. If they give you a shot at a number at the 3-level, that's the time to pounce. Too often, when we try to collect a number at the 1 or 2-level, we end up with an inadequate number, or (worse) them making.

I remember a Spingold in Washington DC several years ago where there were 3 or 4 disasters (by great partnerships) that all had this theme. For example, if it goes 1N-(P)-2C-(X), the focus should be on the strong hand showing or denying a club stopper, not on determining whether we can punish them for an indiscreet double. That doesn't mean we can never play 2C redoubled; it just means that should not be our main focus.

Going for a number at the 1- or 2-level is a bit like playing for a squeeze instead of a finesse. Constantly looking for the spectacular result is probably not the key to winning bridge (to know for sure, you'd have to ask someone like Gavin who wins all the time). Instead, you should try to get the mundane hands right. Most of the time, your opponents will screw up enough of the mundane hands for you to do well in the event. Every now and then you will get the chance to do something enterprising and even spectacular (for the great players, this happens more often than for the not-so-great ones) but nailing them in 1D doesn't seem like one of those opportunities.

I agree that either 2D or 3N is indicated with this hand. I prefer 2D because 3N is rather unilateral and eats up a lot of space. If I bid 2D, maybe I'll get a crack at 3D; that is very unlikely to happen if I bid 3N :). Or maybe partner has an interesting hand that he would like to tell me more about. Or maybe it is better that partner declare notrump (especially at matchpoints), even though I play the hands much better than he does in general.
Aug. 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Non-expert”?

With Kxxx x Kxxx Jxxx, what lead would an expert choose against 1-2N-4-4N-5-7?

“Non-expert leaders will tend to have non-expert teammates”

Oh really? Most of the teams in the mixed BAM consist of non-experts playing on teams with experts.

“After partner shows no kings and you bid the grand anyway,I think most reasonable players would think:you have a long suit,trumps are solid,and you could count 13 tricks if partner showed 1 king and were going to bid 7NT.If this is the case,7H is cold.OR,you have a hand where you feel 7H is a reasonable gamble because you feel 6H won't win the board and you know it has good chances.I think most good players would think this way and would definitely not lead a singleton trump.”

First off, only some of us would ask for kings before bidding 7. Secondly, if “trumps are solid” then I guess a trump lead is safe whatever you might think declarer is up to. Thirdly, if “7 is cold” then who cares what we lead?

Aug. 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we have too many events already and that the 2-day bracketed KOs already largely satisfy the need Henry is referring to.

We especially do not need more KOs. Not that I don't like KOs, but I also like pair events (matchpoints and imps), Swiss teams, BAM, etc. In short, I like variety. Imps in a KO setting is, in my view, the least interesting format for bridge. I know many people think this is the only form of “real” bridge, but I strongly disagree with them.

I also think the imp/KO format caters to pros and clients. The clients can play only half the boards. Because of the imps format, only a few of the boards they play actually affect the outcome; and on every hand, once the auction is over, they know exactly what their trick target is, which vastly simplifies the card play.

I suspect this proposal would exacerbate the current phenomenon that many of our top pros already play exclusively in KO events, where they can more easily find a sponsor to pay them for their efforts. The main reason I go to nationals is to play against great players–I want to see them in the national pair events.
Aug. 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for showing me the hand record, Gavin. I looked at our card and saw that they were in 7N down one against us. We won the board of course–not sure what our teammates did.

Declarer ultimately took the hook. I think his only clue was that the s were 2-3. Maybe there was something about the way we discarded when he ran the clubs, who knows? It was a pretty good player at the wheel.

If they had settled for 7, I'm sure he would have got the s right considering the lack of a lead.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gavin–I guess if you think they will settle for 6 at the other table rather than 6N, then 6N is the better bid. My own personal BAM instincts would lead me to bid 6N almost reflexively in this situation, so I would expect my counterpart to do the same and try to win against that result, which I gather is what you did at the table.

In fact, there was a board from the first day where I chose 6N rather than 6 of our major–it didn't work out as the s were foul and in 6 I could compensate by taking a ruffing finesse in s with stiff A opposite QJxx, but didn't have that available in 6N. I think we pushed the board against 7 down one at the other table.

I agree that all we need to do at BAM is get above 50% to make bidding 7 worthwhile, assuming they are in slam at the other table, so the lead consideration is not essential to the argument–it just helps nudge me in what I see as the right direction.

At matchpoints, it is not clear to bid 50+% grands, because we have to consider variance as well as expectation. At imps, of course, we need a higher percentage to justify bidding a grand.

Tom–If I am playing against you, and you will be on lead against my grand, I will definitely not count on a trump lead with a stiff.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gavin, I'm sure you are relieved to know that you made what I think is the right decision, even though apparently you now think it was the wrong decision :). You didn't mention the most important datum of all for us results merchants–did your team win the board? What did they do at the other table?

Did you not consider the possibility of a trump lead against 7 to be relevant? You didn't mention it in your sum-up.

Your point about leading a trump from Qx when you think the opponents have a 9-card trump fit is very interesting.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“All of these ignore that changing the contract may change the lead.”

I contend that you are ignoring something pretty significant.

Assume that absent a lead, you are usually going to play for the s 22, which will work 53% of the time (I sharpened my pencil in an earlier post; I think it's actually 53.125%).

The only time a lead will help you is when the opening leader has a stiff heart, which is about 25% of the time. But if his stiff is the Q, it doesn't matter, so drop that to 20%. If his stiff is not the T, and partner doesn't own the T, the opening lead will not resolve the suit in theory, but it will in practice–partner will insert the 9, and if his right hand opponent covers with the T he will play opening leader not to have led from Qx; so in real life, the whereabouts of the T is irrelevant. If declarer's rho has specifically QT8, the lead will not help you at all, so reduce the 20% to 19%.

The issue is: in 7, how much of that 19% will you get on top of the 53% you start life with?

I think if the opening leader is the client, you will get quite a bit of it, because the textbook lead against a grand is a trump. If the opening leader is a great player, you will get less of it, but I'm not sure how to estimate how much less–it depends on his side-suit holdings and his general bridge philosophy. If the opening leader is someone like me, who never leads trumps unless there is some pro-active reason to do so, you will get almost none of it, because the auction will probably not point to a trump lead.

The full 19% would bring you up to 72% which is certainly good to bid 7, and is enough higher than the odds of making 7N to warrant bidding 7 over 7N.

You also need to take into account how likely it is that they will bid a grand at the other table. Because jacoby and blackwood are pretty common conventions, the player holding your cards rates to have more or less the same information that you have–that we have all the keycards but are missing the trump Q and have only 9 s. If that person is the client, (s)he is very unlikely to bid 7, because the textbooks say that you don't bid grands missing the trump queen, and the client is usually not trying to be the hero. It would be foolish to bid 7N under those circumstances, which must be an inferior contract to 7.

If that person is a great player, it is not clear what they will do. I contend that pros playing with clients are less likely to go out on a limb, so maybe even a great player might not bid 7–if it goes down they might get fired. On the other hand, if the person holding your cards is someone like Meckstroth, he will not care whether he gets fired or not; he will just try to do the right thing. If the team you are playing is not a sponsored team, then the good player holding your cards at the other table will probably bid a grand, but that's not totally clear.

Putting it all together, I believe that bidding 7 is the right move.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that, while xx in s is partner's most likely holding, it is also quite a bit less than 50% that he holds precisely that, because a parlay is involved (no third plus no jack).

But to make 7N, you will still need to bring in the s, and my main point is that playing 7 rather than 7N increases your chances to bring in the s (in addition to not needing to bring in the s in 7, which I'm sure you agree is not a lock).

Perhaps you might also consider who is on lead at your table, and who holds your hand at the other table. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about either issue.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess 7N is about 36% rather than only 20%. Sorry about the misstatement, but it doesn't alter the conclusion.

Personally, I avoid leading trumps against any contract unless I see some “pro-active” reason to do so–e.g., declarer is likely to play along cross-ruff lines.

However, in my experience, most players, even competent ones, look for “safe” leads against grands. When your choices are to lead a stiff trump or from some side-suit holding that looks dangerous, many will choose the stiff trump, correctly reasoning that leading from the dangerous side-suit is more likely to allow declarer to make a contract that has no legitimate play. I'm not endorsing this reasoning–I try to lead one of our suits rather than one of theirs–only noting that this is the way some players' minds work (even some pretty good players).

If the opening leader will have a stiff trump 19% of the time, he only needs to lead it one-third of the time to make 7 better than 60%. That's good enough for me in the mixed BAM, assuming my role on the team is to look for opportunities to win some boards, and not just sit there and follow suit.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree this is a very interesting BAM hand. Oddly, I don't remember playing it.

I think it is clear to bid 7. I presume partner cannot have the hand Henry cites, since I don't consider 5422 with honors concentrated in the two long suits to be a “balanced minimum”. Aside from that specific hand, I can't think of too many layouts where 7N is a better contract than 7, whereas there are many where 7 is better than 7N.

My partner's most likely hand is 5332 without the club J (she rates to be 5332, her doubleton rates to be in my long suit, and if she has two clubs it is about 70% that she doesn't have the jack). Opposite that, 7N depends on both the hearts and the clubs coming home and is a poor contract–about 20%, while 7 will usually make if only the hearts come home.

On top of that, I have the edge that many players consider it routine to lead a trump against suit grand slams, unless they are looking at the Q. If my partner gets a trump lead, she will probably pick up the hearts; if she doesn't, she will have a strong clue about where the Q is. This makes 7 better than the 54% that picking up Qxxx of trumps outstanding usually is.

At imps or even matchpoints, bidding 7 would be a lot riskier. At imps, if you are wrong, you will lose a bushel of imps, more than one board's worth. At matchpoints, if you are wrong, you will get a zero, which is very hard to overcome. At BAM, it is only one board, which is much easier to recover than it is at matchpoints.
Aug. 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I faced this problem at the table and tried the spade A. It didn't work–it was necessary to lead a club.

I was wondering whether this lead was findable and, despite the votes favoring the spade A and the heart K, think that it was. The comments by Bill and Ken are on point.

I think the heart K is very unlikely to be right, so I ruled it out. (Perhaps there would have been fewer votes for it if I had shown the hand with 6 hearts rather than adding the 6th heart in the comments.) It doesn't feel like the opposing hearts are 22.

I think the main choices are the spade A, a low spade, and a club. The spade A caters to partner holding the spade K, or perhaps a stiff spade, although the latter is pretty remote. A low spade caters to finding KJ in the dummy, which is not that unlikely, but even if you do find that holding, declarer might be inspired to guess right when there is a right guess available (especially when you think a long time before leading). A club caters to partner holding the club K and dummy holding spades that will provide a club pitch once your A is driven out, which was the actual situation.

Dummy had KQJTx of spades, and the trick 1 carding revealed that either partner or declarer had a singleton. Declarer might have bid 4S over 4H with 3 spades, so I wasn't that hopeful when I played a second spade.

I think it boils down to deciding which black king to play partner for, and that a club is a little more likely.

After this deal, we changed our methods to play transfers starting with 1N in this situation. Partner had 4-by-3 with KQxx of clubs, and might have bid 1N using transfers, which would have made the right lead easy.
Aug. 3, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I enjoyed Toronto, it has fallen from my third favorite site for a National (after D.C, and N.O,) out of the top 10, and perhaps even out of the top 20. For example, I definitely preferred Louisville, which was an unexpectedly charming city (sort of a poor man's New Orleans).

The split site aspect was a major negative, although luckily I only had to trek over to the Sheraton two of the ten days. On many days, the regional pair and team games were at different sites, so someone who had a partner but not teammates could not decide at the last minute which event to play in. (I never had this problem, but felt sorry for those who did because it is a silly problem to have–the product of sloppy, insensitive scheduling.)

Customs and immigration were a pain, especially coming back for some reason. I guess this is one of the prices the world pays for 9/11.

The need to exchange currencies added to the cost and annoyance. It seemed your choice was to pay an extra 50 cents for that apple you wanted or to exchange U.S. dollars for Canadian dollars and get screwed that way.

The Royal York is badly in need of an update and is very overpriced. I thought the restaurant where they served breakfast was especially bad–expensive and mediocre (at best) food quality, along with poor service. The orange juice was not fresh-squeezed, although the price was fresh-squeezed. The restaurant was nicely furnished, but you can't eat mahogany. There was a good alternative breakfast place a few blocks away, but a few blocks is kind of a long walk when it's as hot and humid as it was there, and a couple of times I got caught in a rainstorm coming or going. When I checked in, despite the fact that it was several hours after “check-in time”, I had to wait an hour before the room was ready (and they told me I'd have to wait in the long check-in line again when it was ready, although I made such a fuss that didn't turn out to be the case). Each time you entered or exited the hotel involved a flight of stairs (I guess to make sure the bell hops get their tips when people check in). Every cell phone call involved an extra charge. Having to pay for internet access is especially annoying–just another way to nickle and dime the guests. And the connection was very bad, especially when I tried to use it to connect to my office intranet.

My wife and I are two of the people you have never met, Henry, who prefer the “normal” starting times of 1:00 and 7:30, so that aspect was fine. We like having the mornings to sleep in, perhaps get in a workout, have a nice breakfast, attend to some of the non-bridge aspects or our lives, etc. Going out to a nice dinner and drinking wine are not high priorities for us at a bridge tournament. If we have a good day, we can have a glass of wine in the bar afterwards to celebrate.

The worst experience was the first Sunday night, when the concession stand that sold coffee didn't open up, and all the places in the hotel where you could buy coffee were closed. Who can play bridge without coffee? I was reminded of the scene from “Airplane” when the pilot announces that they had lost power in all the engines and were going to have to attempt a crash landing. The passengers reacted to that news with equanimity. Then the pilot announced, “by the way, we're also out of coffee” and pandemonium erupted! The second Sunday, the concession stand did open, thank god.
Aug. 2, 2011
.

Bottom Home Top