Hanoi5

By whom and when? I guess you mean by East or West and then, if I'm not mistaken, it would show a spade stopper, in which case West better bid 3♦(he doesn't have the spade stopper). The other possibility is that it asks for the stopper in which case East would bid 4♥, which makes :D . ps I now think that after two or three suits have been shown (in this case ♥s and ♣s) a new suit asks for the stopper to play 3NT (of course, that happens when the supported suit is a minor). When only one minor suit has been shown and supported a new one shows the stopper.

I use to open 1♣ when holding both 4-card minors and a balanced hand but 1♦ if my hand was 4441. I thought that was standard and the reason I did it was I expected my partner (or myself) to have at least 5♦'s and 4♣'s when s/he opened the bidding with 1♦ and re-bid 2♣. How do you play and why?

In minibridge declarer is the player with more points of the pair with more points (or is it the most points?). So the other pair can't compete, they have to defend even if their cards would give them a better contract. That is very different from bidding in bridge; competing is a very important factor.

If those are the two ends, where do you leave competing for the best part-score or game (or even slam)? People usually play 2/1 in my country. When I learned a system (I used to play some kind of rustic bridge) I learned a natural system where 2/1 was forcing to 2NT or 2 of opening bidder's Major, double raises were limit bids (1♥-3♥ showed 11-12 with at least 3-card support), five-card Majors and 1♣ could be opened on two cards (with the 4432). I call that SAYC. My teacher (my master) was told it might not be a good idea but he was in command so everybody agreed with him. Learning a system not everybody played (but good players could play if they had to) allowed us not to have 'bad' partners. Of course playing is at the core of our teaching method. But we want our students to learn a good and easy system (so that they can start playing tournaments as soon as possible). The tournament where they'll be playing is an important one, but our goal is not losing so badly and showing young people in our country that bridge exists, that they can have fun, and that there's an international scene where they'll be able to play.

I'd like to know your opinions on what's the best way to teach bridge to young people. I think teaching SAYC, a VERY natural approach, is the best thing to do. What are your opinions? What if these guys are going to play in an important tournament in, say, a year? Is it too disadvantegeous to play SAYC in an international tournament? Isn't it more important to know your system very well than to use a very good system? Thanks for your thoughts on this. H A R A

I have again botched the bidding but this time it is not my fault. We had a committee yesterday where we found out the 'truths': West North East South Pass Pass 1S Pass 1NT 2C Pass* Pass 2D! 3C X 3S! Pass Pass Pass Well, North considers her hand to be low for a 1S opening, 1NT was supposed to mean a positive hand with 9-11 HCP, and it was forcing. North says her Pass to 2C could have been made if the 5-card suit were Hearts or Diamonds, too, and also if she had 5 Spades, just because it shows a minimum hand. East wasn't alerted the pass to 2C, she asked about it and got as an answer that her five-card suit was probably clubs. South was asked and said that opener might have another five card suit or 5 Spades; he says 2D was a 'natural' bid, he says he had too much to say just 2S and he didn't want to double negatively (which partner would have passed) because he had too few HCP and too many spades. West says she didn't think North's 5-carder could be Clubs for she was told that opener could have 5 Spades (although she sort of recognized she was also told North could have any other 5 card suit). After the double East bid 3S for she could never fathom South having 4 card spade support; East is pretty sure she was being 'hunted' (that's how we call it in Spanish when someone is waiting to drop the axe on us). In the end, East ended up paying 500. At the other table, 3CX was the final contract and it also brought up 500 points to N/S. No points gained or lost. The committe (which unfortunately got together 2 days after the incident) decided to let the Director's decision stand, i.e. no adjustment.

So what hrothgar is proposing is that an 'innocent' player acting after a hesitation frees the hesitator partner from any penalty?

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq964hj62dacaqt62&w=sha943d103ckj98754&e=sajt52hkt7dk842c3&s=sk873hq85dqj9765c]399|300|Scoring: IMP WestNorthEastSouth PassPass 1♠Pass 1NT 2♣Pass*2♦ Pass3♣DoublePass Pass Pass [/hv] Well, as usual North and East share the same side of the screen. North/South play a Napolitan club (some sort of). They've been playing for years and evreybody sort of knows their system. So, 1 Spade is alerted as being 4 or more cards and possibly having another longer suit. After passing 2 Clubs, North alerts his pass as 'possibly' having clubs as the second suit (which, when playing canapè, which is what they play, is longer). On the other side of the screen the pass is not 'alerted'. Of course, West complains that she wouldn't have bid 3 Clubs if she had been 'alerted'; however, she did know that North had a longer suit. So, how should the Director rule? N/S are good old players who've been playing this system for a long time, while E/W are very good players of international calibre. The bonus question is the following: When can a player change his/her bid when using screens? I have asked this before but I didn't quite understood the 'conclusion'. Again, something weird happened last night, this pair is bidding over a NT sequence and a player 'says' (she didn't even use the bidding box) pass to a clear cue-bid and after LHO quickly passes says, "Wait! I mean some other bid! i can change it if the tray hasn't gone to the other side!" but the truth is that the pass by her LHO ended the bidding.

I made so many mistakes with the explanation. West, who's sitting next to South of the screen receives the correct meaning of the 2H bid and so he doubles to show hearts. At the other side North alerts the bid to East as natural and strong, and this made East think that his partner had few hearts and was trying to find a part-score, i.e. that west's double was for take-out. I'm really sorry for the mess I've created trying to explain things but I think everything is finally correct.

Again. West doubled the 'transfer' bid of 2H to show hearts. East was alerted that the 2H bid was natural so he took the double as take out (therefore his partner had spades). As I said previously it turned to chaos afterwards and E/W played in the poor contract of 3Dx instead of 3H.

Sorry but the bidding was wrong. West doubled 2H to show hearts and East understood it as take out and chaos ensued.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=s65h103d10752ck9842&w=s83haj762d43cj1073&e=sq1092hk854dkq86c5&s=sakj74hq9daj9caq6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South Pass Pass 1C* X Pass 1NT Pass 2H** X Pass 2S X 3C Pass 3D X All Pass * 11+ with or without Clubs **East was alerted 2H as being natural and strongwhile West was alerted by South himself as to 2H being transfer. E/W went down 4 -1100. The Director was called after dummy was tabled. It's a butler tournament, pairs face each other for a match of 12 boards; North/South didn't have a Covention Card (they were penalized for that). How would you rule? What result should the Director give?

What if South has: [hv=s=skjt76hq4dkj3cjt6]133|100|[/hv]

3♣ is really weird, but then 3♦ after being doubled? I don't think so.

Lately minibridge has been used as a way of introducing kids to the full game of bridge. However, I've seen how minibridge is in itself a game and I was wondering, how are kids or people who learn minibridge going to pass from one game to the other? Why isn't bridge taught instead of minibridge? Will it be possible that minibridge takes over the role of bridge as THE game? And also, on the same line of ideas, is rubber bridge still played? Is the number of bridge players increasing or decreasing? Thanks for your thoughts on these topics.

The thing is that the person who wanted to change his bid had not made a 'mistake'. He just realized, after LHO action that his bid could end badly and so he preferred to change his bid. I think blackshoe had it right when he said the director has to decide whether it was inadvertent; and I think in this case it wasn't.

When using screens some laws change a bit and some are no longer necessary. What happens if a player bids and so does the next, and right before moving the tray the first player announces that he wants to change his bid? Should this be allowed? Why and why not? What can be done if the Director lets it slip and then the other pair complains?

Hi, I posted here somewhere else but this might be the best place to do it. I'm trying to teach bridge to a group of people and I was wondering if the program used for making hands for the Bridge Masters program or for playing at BBO is available. Also, I'd like to know if it is free or where can I buy it if it isn't. The thing is that I believe it is a wonderful tool to explain things for students, and one they can use at home or at work when reviewing what was seen in the class. Thx for your answers, H A R A

Hi. I'm trying to teach bridge to a group of people and I was wondering if the program used for making hands for the Bridge Masters program or for playing at BBO is available. Also, I'd like to know if it is free or where can I buy it if it isn't. The thing is that I believe it is a wonderful tool to explain things for students, and one they can use at home or at work when reviewing what was seen in the class. Thx for your answers, H A R A

Greetings. We're running a butler tournament in my country (Venezuela) and we started using the ACBL score program to score it. Afterwards we changed to an excel-program prepared by the Director. We have some problems deciding what to do in the following situations: - A pair is finishing a match late. The Director decides not to let them play a couple of boards because they're playing too slowly and there's need for a change of round. Using the ACBLscore, the pair who wins the match would get on these Not Played (NP is what you 'score' them) boards the average of what they've won so far, while the losing pair also gets the negative average, i.e. the average of what they've lost in the played hands. This doesn't seem fair, in my opinion, for a pair is winning and another losing when they should be both penalized. However, as this is the ACBLscore we're talking about, the question is whether these boards should fall under the category of NP (Not Played), in which case the pair winning the match gets to win more and the pair losing gets to lose more, OR they fall under another category (i.e. both pairs get AVE or AVE- or any other, which one then?). The excel program, of course, gives zero points to both pairs in these hands, which is in a way a punishment (Neither pair is able to get more points in the boards either to win by a larger margin or to lose by a smaller one). - On the same line, what happens when a board is mis-duplicated or cards mis-placed and many pairs play the wrong way? are all the results in the boards cancelled? And if a board is thus eliminated, or if it is eliminated by another reason, do all pairs get AVE (0 points) or are these boards scored as NP (and then all the players would get their own averages in the rest of the boards of the match as their score for the boards, some pairs losing and others winning because of nobody's fault) or scored any other way? Thanks for your answers on these topics.

the jurisdiction as local regulations matter This was played in Venezuela, I don't know of any special regulations regarding this. what damage did East-West claim? They claim N/S would have reached a slam if the huddle hadn't ocurred. how did North-South explain their bids in the auction? 2H doesn't show extras after the 1 spade overcall and 2 clubs answer by North. 4nt was taken as key-card asking in diamonds and 5h showed only two key cards and no Queen of trumps. 5 Spades obliges 5NT. why did South take so long to respond to 4NT? He claims to have been thinking what the real meaning of 4nt was, whether quantitative or key-card in Diamonds. N/S are 'experienced' players who have started to play together recently. South lied about holding the Queen of trumps 'cause he didn't really want to be in a slam.

Well, I don't quite remember (got it now), but I know it was board 15. South opened the hand with 1♦, West overcalled 1♠, North bid 2♣, East passed, South rebid 2H, opponents passed from then on, 2♠ by North, 3♦ by South, 4nt by North, long hesitation and then 5♥, 5♠ by North and 5nt by South putting an end to the bidding. So: 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ pass 2♥ pass 2♠ pass 3♦ pass 4NT pass 5♥* pass 5♠ pass 5NT all pass * long huddle 2-3 mins acc. to East.

I was directing this tournament in real life (not internet) and I was called to a table. The players had arrived at 4NT and South thought for a long time before answering 5♥ on this hand after agreeing on Diamonds as trumps: [hv=n=sxxxhqtxxdakqxctx&s=skqxhkxdjxcakqjxx]133|200|[/hv] North bid 5♠ (which was West's suit), South bid 5NT and North passed. I didn't see anything wrong with the bidding concerning the long hesitation, so I let the results stand. Was I right?