hirowla

Dave, thanks for the suggestion but all it appears to do is generate the deals - none of the other functions required. Steve, can Dealmaster Pro handling the dealing of the cards with the dealing machine (Dealmaster Pro is package "B" in my original question)? I wasn't aware that it could, which is why we've been using package "A" to handle the dealing? Thanks, Ian

Hi, I'm after suggestions on software my club can use for generating deals, dealing out the generated hands and printing out hand records. The constraints we have are: The dealing machine is a Duplimate, so it must be able to deal with these machines. The number of different packages used must be minimal, or integrate very well together. The software needs to be user friendly and simple, due to the people doing the dealing not being overly computer literate, OR Configurable to make it simple, for the same reason. Given this is potentially an international forum, everything must be in English. Some nice to haves are: Runs properly on Windows 7 and above, running on XP is a bonus. Doesn't require Administration privileges on the machine. Low cost - it's not a massive club, but it can afford to pay for something worthwhile (it runs 10-12 sessions a week). We currently use two packages - one to generate the deals and drive the dealing machine (let's call it Package A) and another to generate the hand records (let's call it package B). "A" has lots of bugs, "B" is rather unfriendly and not very configurable (amongst other things). Any suggestions would be appreciated. If people recommend "A" and "B", I'll say what they are - but I'm hoping for suggestions other than these packages, otherwise I wouldn't be asking the question! Thanks, Ian

On 1 I have some ideas (much like the BBO robot NT setup) but I'm worried about my partner's memory strain. Doing that I would bid 2♠ (minor suit stayman), that might get me there. On 2 I do have that bid - 3NT!!!! But I wanted to keep the ♦ slam option - only thing I thought of was to bid 2♠.

I'll give a hint on what I did which may flesh out some things. Hand 1: We have no mechanism to deal with this type of hand. A bid of 2♠ is a transfer to ♣/♦, 3♣ is 6 clubs with a suit that will almost run (the SAYC definition), same with 3♦. I just bid 3NT because I couldn't find a way to deal with it! Hand 2: Bidding went 1♦ - 1♥ (as expected). I thought about 3♦ but that is not a game force. I thought about bidding 2♠ to force game and then retreat to ♦ but was scared that my partner would think I was serious about ♠. So I chickened out and bid 3NT. Which leads to.... Hand 3: Bidding went 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣. I regretted my earlier choice and decided to bid 2♥, mainly to keep the bidding open. I got a 3♥ response, said a rude word to myself and bid 3NT. Said an ever ruder word when my partner bid 4♥! So I passed and hoped he had 5 ♥'s :unsure: Is this ok (excluding the other answers) or did I do bad things (or did my partner do bad things)? Thanks, Ian

I'm not sure how to bid to get to these (possible) slams. There is no interference by the opposition. My partner and I play standard 5 card majors but a 12-14 NT. We have no jump shift agreements, do play 4th suit forcing, play 3-way transfers over NT. Not sure what else is relevant. Any suggestions? We got bad scores on all these boards. Hand 1 - Dealer is South [hv=pc=n&s=saq96haq95dj72ct5&n=s2hk7dak643cak976]133|200[/hv] Hand 2 - Dealer is North [hv=pc=n&s=s63haj876dq5cak93&n=sak9hqdakj984cj82]133|200[/hv] Hand 3 - Dealer is South [hv=pc=n&s=s7hq7632d5cakqj53&n=saqj98hakjdq63c86]133|200[/hv] Thanks, Ian

One thing I found on the Android app - if you click the menu which includes the "Redeal" option, it doesn't always disappear, so it tends to block your view of the table. Regards, Ian

I only meant SAYC-style as in not 2/1 responses. Maybe I meant ACOL-style - but I play against lots of people who play "ACOL" and you wouldn't know they played the same system! So you're saying only include it with ♥ (don't do it for ♠) if you will have rebid problems? I'm also assuming that you don't bother to try and extract the possible 5-3 fit?

The question is related to the strong NT - "how do you deal with the awkward hand type?" - it's just a different hand type. It's always easier to deal with when you have more strength in your hand though! So I gather you would live with not being able to extract the major 5-3 fits?

Hi, I was wondering how people deal with playing a weak NT (12-14) and 5-card majors (SAYC style, not 2/1)? Basically, do you include 5-card majors in your weak NT opening? If you don't ever: How do you deal with weak balanced hands with a 5-card major (say, 5♥, 12 points and 5-3-3-2 shape)? What do you do if your (very) helpful partner decides to bid 1♠ back at you? What does your partner think you have when you bid 2♥? Same with any similar hands. If you do always: How do you extract any 5-3 major suit fits? Do you care about them? If you care about them, how do you fit them into your (and my) NT bidding structure? My current structure involves garbage stayman, and 3-way transfers (2♠ is either minor)? Can you still extract 4-4 major suit fits easily? Does it have any flow-on effects to the rest of your system? One thing I can think of is playing Bergen raises (which we do) you may end up in 1NT (and probably having opponents intervene) when you could be at 3 of your major because you couldn't see your 5-4 fit quickly enough. If you do sometimes: What is your criteria for deciding when you do and when you don't? As punishment for your ambiguity, can you answer both sets of questions above? :rolleyes: I don't want to debate the merits of weak NT and 5-card majors (I'm sure it's been done a million times) but I'm wondering how people deal with it and how they handle the awkward hands? I know the "standard" answer for a strong NT (most seem to say just include it and "suck it up"). Thanks, Ian

Thanks for the advice people - very much appreciated. Definitely something to discuss with my various partners. Thanks, Ian

Hi, I was wondering if anybody had suggestions on how to handle things when your partner doubles the opposition's opening bid of 1NT for penalty. I realise that it happens rarely playing standard, but most people at my club play a 12-14 NT opening so doubling (with 15+ points) is very viable. A couple of thing I'd like advise on is: What is the main criteria for when to leave it in and when to get out of it? If you get out of it, any suggestions on a good way to get to a playable contract? Any systems which may cover most hands? Any suggestions on how to get to any games, as this can happen? Just to be clear, I'm looking from the perspective of the partner of the person doing the doubling (i.e 1NT - X - P - ?) not the partner of the 1NT bidder - I have a couple of ways to get out of that situation, but not when you are the partner of the doubler. Any ideas would be helpful. Regards, Ian

Ok, we effectively play Standard but with a weak NT (there will be no 5-card major). We play Stayman (Garbage if appropriate) and 3-way transfers (2♠ is a transfer to either minor), with no Texas transfers. What we currently play at the 3-level is the following (I believe it's what is part of SAYC): 3♣/♦ is a 6-card minor with 2 of top 3 honours, asking whether partner has at least 3 to a honour. It's an invite to 3NT and a check to see if we can run the suit - if we think we can, it goes to 3NT. 3♥/♠ is a good 6 card suit and asking about an interest in slam. Is anything else relevant (I'm not sure what other parts of the system you have in mind)? Let me know and I'll try to clarify. I'm mainly asking because as I said in the original post, there are lots of options out there). Thanks, Ian

Hi, I was wondering what people recommend for the 3-level responses to a 1NT opening. I've seen a variety of schemes but not sure what everybody else plays and recommends. If it makes a difference, can you suggest what you would do differently if it was a weak NT opening rather than the Standard NT (most people at my club play a weak NT)? Thanks, Ian

I think I quoted the bidding wrong - he didn't pass first time through (that bid was his 1st bid).

That's not what happened - they never ended up seeing the proper dummy's hand (it was just played out with declarer's hand as dummy).

I agree except for 2 factors: 1. He didn't have the rulebook on him. 2. I didn't realize what the correct ruling was and hence question his ruling (hence why I've asked the question here!). Maybe it's just a way of doing things. I know in the last meeting that 2 directors got told off for disputing a ruling at the table, so I'm just being careful. Maybe I'm just trying to set an example to other players - but if they asked for a rule reading I can't see what is wrong with that, I just probably wouldn't and would use the research afterwards as a learning exercise.

Isn't that just about mistaken explanations? What I meant was the law that says agreements are what should be said and not bids?

I think I said to my partner one time he put his hand down "where's the hand you bid?" !!

Funny, when I mentioned something to him later (see another recent of mine) he said the rule book is here and you can look it up. So he had one available to him! He didn't have a good night on my table - I reckon he was 0/3! But you need to be careful (I'm a new director myself) and our club strongly suggests that you don't obviously disagree with the ruling director at the time - if you still disagree, take it up with him later. In my case it would only be to confirm or contradict my understanding of the law in case it happens to me in the future. In this case I wasn't 100% sure at the time - I'm now sure if it ever comes up again. And no, I won't be trading in my partner at the partnership desk - we just had one of those nights. One of those nights where I discarded when having 2 of that suit left (didn't cost thank goodness - they won 13 tricks anyway). Thanks, Ian

I know what you're saying. We do play Unusual NT but not in that sequence (at least we've never discussed it). If he thought I'd "work it out", he was wrong! I just though that instead of saying "it might be the Unusual NT, it might be a strong NT hand, or it might be something else" - I said we had no agreement. Maybe I should have said "we play Unusual NT but it's never come up in this sequence and we've never discussed it in this sequence" and left it at that, other then saying we have no agreement if pushed further (which I was). I was actually getting annoyed when pushed to tell a minimum point count of a sequence I've made clear we have no agreement - I should have said "between 0 and 28 points" (given there was a weak NT opening!). BTW, our convention card does mention Unusual NT on there (and yes the card was present and available!). So what could I have said to give the relevant information?

Which is the relevant law that says this? I'd just like something to quote, that's all.

I thought the whole thing was silly. It could have been the minors but I thought it could have been a strong hand facing a 0 count from me and a transfer sequence which may not promise any points either (maybe I got the sequence wrong - maybe the 1NT person opened, that seems to make a bit more sense). We don't play unusual NT in that situation (now if the bidding had continued P - 2♥ - P - P - 2NT, that is a known sequence for us and would have instantly for the minors). The thing that got to me was we said there was no agreement, yet my partner was forced by the director to explain what his bid meant - knowing that we didn't have an agreement on it. Yes he was "winging it" but he would have known we have no agreement in that sequence. I think it stirred them onto a good result (they played a ♥ game). So it is true to say the opposition can know our agreements, not what my partner meant by a bid outside of our explicit and implicit agreements? Thanks, Ian

Ok, that was the option I thought of afterwards but I didn't know which law it was under. The director offered two options (well, he said one and if I didn't like it he would give me the other one!) - just let declarer's hand be dummy and play it, or have all of declarer's cards exposed. I thought the first option was a possibility given I know it mentions that in the law elsewhere (just not in that context - in the context of an opening lead out of turn). I knew the 2nd option was utter crap! The amusing part was that the opponents wanted a penalty imposed - their reasoning was we did something wrong, therefore we deserve a penalty! I don't think they believed me when I commented that the laws try to restore equity, not impose penalties.

Hi, I ran into this situation the other night. The bidding goes something like the following (everybody is playing a weak NT). P - 1NT - P - 2♦* - 2NT** *transfer to ♥ ** partner's bid My opponents then ask me about the 2NT bid. I'm sitting there with 0 points and we have no agreement in this situation. From my inferred knowledge, he could be bidding an unusual NT (asking for the minors) or he could be sitting with almost anything else (except ♥) - but either way, I don't have a clue and it isn't in our system. My reply was that we have no agreement as to what the bid means. They ask me what's the minimum number of points he could have - from my perspective, it could be 0! I then repeated we have no agreement over what the bid means. The opponents called the director and asked about the bid. I told him we have no agreement. His decision was to send me away from the table and ask my partner what the bid means. I was under the belief that the opposition only have the right to know our agreements (explicit or implicit) and not what our bid means. Yes they are entitled to know inferred knowledge based on our experience together, but this has never come up before so there isn't anything there. So I asked the director later why he did that and he said they have the right to know what my partner means by his bidding - even saying that in a situation where my partner was psyching a bid then the opponents have the right to know what the bid means (and presumably know it is a psych bid) if they ask what it means. What is the proper view? Do the opponents have the right to know what a bid means when there is no agreement between us as to what it means, or do they only have the right to know our agreements (explicit and implicit) and hence the proper response is we have no agreement? If the jurisdiction matters, it's in Australia. Thanks, Ian

Hi, I was wondering what the proper procedure was when the following occurs: My partner and I have bid to a contract (bad one, but that's another story!), my partner is declaring. The correct person leads, and my partner has a brain spasm and puts his hand down as dummy! Naturally the director is called. What is the correct procedure in this case? I can think of two options, but I'd like to know what others thing the law says to do. Thanks, Ian