shevek

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hkt72d9764caq&w=skt8543hq65da2ct3&n=sj9hj943d5ckj7642&e=sq6ha8dkqjt83c985&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c(2%2B!C%2C%20often%20wk%20NT)d2h(5!H%20%26%205!C)p3dp3nppp&p=sjsqsas3s7sks9]399|300[/hv] North-South were good players. West an ethical young pro, East a complexity-keen client. We were playing RealBridge in face-to-face mode. 1♣ was strange. I guess East planned to show a weak notrump. West's 2♥ systemically showed 5♥s & 5♣s. East alerted it but no questions were asked during the auction. On lead, North asked about the auction. East expressed some uncertainty. "2♥ is natural and forcing, I think." West corrected by saying "I have shown 5♥s & 5♣s." North woodenly led the ♠J-Q-A. South woodenly returned the ♠7 for -690. After claiming 12 tricks declarer volunteered "I saw the double as 1♦. Over that, 2♥ would show 6+♠s." Documentation was not available but there is no reason to disbelieve West. The reason for bidding 2♥ seems irrelevant anyway. West eventually gave the right explanation. While his partner's explanation conveyed UI and may have woken him up, his 3NT bid was not based on that. 16A refers to bids and plays, not explanations. North new something was awry. Both opponents had denied four spades, which would place partner with five of them. Yet partner did not overcall. South might imagine that declarer had ♠Kxx ♥QJ9xx ♦- ♣KJxxx Even so, South might cash the ♣A and switch back if partner discouraged. Also, if West has that, North might have bid 2♠ over 2♥. Do North-South have any recourse?

Yes. We pass some balanced 11-counts. Not a good look to play 2NT with 11+11. When you focus so much on shape, there is a cost.

How would you play 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♥ ? where 1♥ = 4+♥, not 4♠s, 11-15 1♠ = 11+ relay 2♣ = balanced Responder can bid 2♥ to invite; or continue relay with a good heart hand; or have bid 2NT as a raise first time. So 3♥ is not needed. We play it as shortage. Being forced to open a major with four small can give responder doubts about 3NT. "Is my singleton facing KQTx or xxxx?" We have found that hands with a singleton do better to show than ask. Let partner decide. Here's a (slightly doctored) one we had recently [hv=pc=n&w=sAJ4hj963dkq83ck8&e=sKT3h7daj942caq92&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h(4%2B!H%2C%2011-15)p1s(11%2B%20any)p2c(bal)p3h(shortage)p3sp4dp4sp5cp6dppp]266|200[/hv] Overdoing it, maybe. Would be happy to reach 5♦ and find North with ♥AQTxx. We have extended this. In relay auctions, ALL 3-level breaks (opposite a bid that shows balanced) show shortage. 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♣/♦/♥/♠ show shortage. Invitational hands with a long minor would have responded 3♣/♦ initially. (Or bid 2NT/3NT/relay now) We do the same in strong club auctions: 1♣ - 2♣ = 8+ balanced with a major 3 any is a splinter David Morgan points out that these should really be transfer splinters to give extra options to both. You might even bid this way with a 6-card major ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦KQx ♣Axx When partner shows 8+ bal, this hand would like to show a mild slam try with six spades and a stiff heart.

Okay, makes sense, though it doesn't seem a good use of space. Those 4M - 6m hands with four small in the major must be very rare. Seems strange to set aside 2♥/2♠ rebids just for them. Means starting shape-showing for the 98% 1-suiters at 2NT. I'd rather open the major or distort them, so that shapes start at 2♥ or 2♠.

Did partner make 3NT on the heart lead? Restricted choice in clubs places East with 9 cards in those suits, so finessing against ♦J is 9 tricks. 2♠ by South would be to play, so maybe double instead. Leading to 2NT.

As you may - or may not - know, I don't much like the modern Moscito opening structure. Last century, the limit openings denied one or both majors. This avoided leakage, from responder not needing to search for a non-existent fit. Responder could also diagnose the opponents major fit, maybe even psyche in it. It allowed opener to use bids in the denied major in various ways. That all seems to have been lost in modern incarnations. Nowadays (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm expected to opened 2♣ with ♠xx ♥QJxx ♦x ♣AKxxxx but paradoxically open 1♠ (diamonds) if we swap the red suits. Seems weird in a "major-oriented" style. Prefer to show hearts, then bid 3♣. (And surely open 2♣ with 2-1-4-6) Responder to 2♣ (or 1♠) shouldn't have to worry about the rare 4-4 major fit, which costs time and presumably steps. ♠Axxx ♥AKxx ♦xxx ♣xx looks like a 1♦ (hearts) opening, but No. Am I supposed to throw this in with the 11-14 1NT? Is that right? Apart from suppressing both majors, this requires responder to make a revealing search for a 4-4 fit. We think the denied major is under-appreciated. Our opening structure focusses on majors, old-school: 1♦ = spades, ♥ = hearts, 1♠ = both, 1NT and above deny a major 1♦ (♠s) - 1♥/NT 2♥ we play as a max with 6♠s or 5-5. ♠xx ♥KTxx ♦QJxx ♣xxx seems is an easy jump raise of a heart opening that denies 4♠s, etc. 1♦- (3♦) - X - (no) 3♥ Good to be able to bid this with 5-3-2-3 or similar. Is it okay to post the following link? https://masterpointpress.com/pages/bookinfo.php?prod=776&cat=142

We had this success yesterday [hv=pc=n&s=sakq86hqjtd62caqt&w=sj95ha752dq873ck4&n=st742h93dajt4cj87&e=s3hk864dk95c96532&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1c(16%2B)p1d(0-7)p1h(19%2B)p2h(5-7%20bal)p2s(ask)p2n(4!Ss)p3c(ask)p3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Pleasing that the ♣K was offside, so 4♠ had no play, while 3NT is heaps better. We admit that these gains are rare and there is a cost in dreaming about them. We give them lead-directing doubles, plus help them to lead and defend well, risk wrong-siding. In the long term, is the effort worth it?

Let's consider a face-to-face 2-session event over two weeks, maybe a club championship, with 8 tables. We run say 8x3 share/relay in week 1. In week 2, we "add a session" and might run two 4-table Howells, 21 boards. Scores add up auto, then prize-giving. How would you do this on BBO? Maybe run a complete Howell with +bduration=9900+ ...! Or In week 2, run two separate 4-table events, directing the NSs from week 1 to event A, the EWs to B. Then add by hand.

The trend is to open a weak two on a 5-card suit, when not vulnerable in 1st & 3rd seats. What are good guidelines? Something like ♠KQJTx ♥x ♦JTxx ♣xxx seems fine but you will wait a while for that. The other day I had ♠AK9xx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣xxx which did not go well. -500 vs their 430. Any tips would be appreciated!

When - as a director - I view a board in order to make an adjustment for a slow table, I have to hit [Next] multiple times to reach the point where the board was whisked away. Then I can make a judgement or use GIB. It would be good if the board presented itself at the moment play was curtailed.

Might have to do that then, though Swiss is really Danish on BBO isn't it? (Meaning pairs can play each other twice?)

If I play a barometer in face-to-face, I can look at a screen that displays standings at the end of each round. I can see where we are running and who is leading. Is this possible in a BBO barometer event, or am I stuck with just seeing my cumulative score after each round? I ask because I will soon run a 2-session MP event with a break for lunch. Don't want them to have to wait till the very end to see where they are placed in the field. Ideal would be to display the top x pairs after each round. TIA

I've created a convention card from one of the templates. Looks fine to me. However, when it auto-loads, the explanations stop at slam bidding. That is, no cardplay is displayed for opponents. Any ideas? TIA

1♣ 16+ - (1♥) - 2♥? What should 2♥ be? You only get two choices. (a) Michaels ♠KTxxx ♥x ♦AJxxx ♣xx (b) Stopper ask (so balanced GF with no stopper) ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AKQxx ♣Jxx Would it be different at the 3-level: 1♣ 16+ - (2♥) - 3♥?

Thanks for that! Found it in the archives.