shevek

1 (small?) loss in in playing this 2♠ as an invite with 5 is the loss of one of the garbage hands. Presumably ♠Jxxxx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣xx has to transfer and pass, since 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ presumably shows the invite for people like Han. Thus you will occasionally play 5-2 ♠s instead of 4-4 ♥s via Garbage.

Better to forget HCP after GF established. For slams, much better to find out QPs (or SPs/RPs as sometimes known) If pard showed 8 QPs, 6♣ is okay. Since stiff ♦K counts as 1SP in most symmetric systems, perhaps you could settle in 4NT/5♣ opposite that.

1. ♠KTxx ♥xx ♦AQx ♣xxxx You bid 2♠ with this & 2NT instead on an invite with no major. Perhaps you do this because 1NT - 2NT is not natural, maybe ♦s. 2. ♠KTxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AJxx You decide this is not worth transfer then 3♣ GF & you don't fancy transfer then 2NT. 3. ♠QTxx ♥x ♦QJ9xx ♣xxx You dreamed about hearing 2♠. Now you just want to survive. You expect partner to pass with 3 or 4 ♠s. You hope he lets you play in 3♦ otherwise. 4. If it's forcing, does it show 4 or 5? Maybe ♠KTxx ♥x ♦AKQx ♣xxxx Thx

Well, as devised by Dave Cliff and others (who also invented DCB) in 1968. Above is his usage and ouras for QPts. When looking at kontrols, K=1 even if stiff.

Dealing with a 1♥ overcall is very different. Some of us from South of the border respond 1♠ with spades. For us, 1♣ - (1♥) - X denies 4 ♠s & strongly suggests ♦s. Hence 2♦ by opener does not show extras. Responder might have ♠Kx ♥Txx ♦Qxxxx ♣Kxx

It's worth noting (maybe somebody has) that opening a Multi with 6 ♥s CAN be more preemptive than a natural weak 2♥. Some would pass over a 2♦ multi with ♠KTxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Qxxx when they would surely double a weak 2♥ for takeout. The auction will often go (2♦) - no - (2♠) - no (3♥) - ? Or (2♦) - no - (3♥) - no (no) - ? Now they can double for tko but this can work out badly. I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s. This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s. Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

People extoll the virtues of the system they play. I've never played 2/1 so I meanly look for poor auctions. People have suggested that 2/1 tends to be good for games, great for slams, not so good on partials. Our crude Acol style has proved effective on some slams like this one (slightly doctored): [hv=pc=n&w=saq653htdat63ckq4&e=s8h9873dkj8542ca3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1sp2d(Acol)p3h(spl)d4cp4sp4np6dppp]266|200[/hv] 2♦ is marginal - even in Acol - but worked a treat. 4NT was intended to show good trumps. At the other table, the 2/1 pair bid badly 1♠ - 1NT 2♦ - 3♦? no 3♦ was pusillanimous of course. He was dreaming of 3NT. Even if he had bid 4♦ or maybe 4♣(?) I don't think they would get there. The problem I have with 2/1 is the need to make an early decision to GF. I've seen way too many hopeless 11+12 3NTs.

Need to learn when to break. I like 2♥ over 2♣, assuming it's not some silly reverse relay. I realise you have 4 1st round controls but experience suggests breaking early with a shortage in partner's suit. If breaks guarantee shortage, responder knows how to evaluate his long suit. If you can't bring yourself to break first time, at least do it over 2♠, assuming this showed heart shortage. Relay is fun. In the early days I used to grind it out. These days I'm always looking for reasons not to relay. Anyway, 4♥ is clear enough. I suppsose partner might have a silly slam hand like xx, x, KQJT9xx, Kxx. Or even Kx, Q, Qxxxxxx, Kxx. Go with the odds.

The 1993 A to Z book may reflect the ACBL jurisdiction at the time. Little has changed there. Having 40 minutes to spare, I looked at the BBowl cards for Holland 22 teams x 3 = 66. We find Weak 2D = 17 (26%) majorities of India, Chile, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, USA2 Multi = 25 (38%) didn't split mini-multi strong = 5 18-19 bal = 5 Flannery = 5 intermediate Ds = 1 short Ds = 2 weak majors = 5 S & m = 1

Fine to play test, if you have filled out a complete Full Disclosure card, including competitive. Should take you a few days. Please advise Nick

There is another danger in bidding 1♥ - 4♥ with a wide variety. Say the next hand bids 4♠. A shapely opener may want to bid 5♥ as an each way bet over this but feel constrained by your possible balanced 14-count. Opener has ♠6 ♥AKJ532 ♦KQT7 ♣74 5♥ looks right opposite a shapely raise but you would want to defend opposite ♠KQ5 ♥Q764 ♦A6 ♣QJ95 A neat solution is for opener to double here to show this - a hand that wants to be at the 5-level opposite a shapely raise.

In fairness to East, bidding 3♥ over North's 2♥ might be read as a stopper-ask or a big Michaels hand. East is not a strong player. She might even have imagined that NS's hearts were 5-1. The transfer created a problem she was not competent to solve.

[hv=pc=n&s=st6h6dakj974c9653&w=skq9532ht9d652c82&n=sj74hk8dq8cakqt74&e=sa8haqj75432dt3cj&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1n(15-17)d(1-suiter)2d(alerted%20as%20XFer)p2hp3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] NS a decent pair. This was their first serious game together. EW indecent. South assumed system off after DONT double, North guessed otherwise. Silly-looking pass of 2♦ by West. South explained the possible misunderstanding before East led. East had a problem. ♥Q lead for -520. What score or scores do you award?

More to the point is defending against a 2♥ weak-only Multi where 2♥ = weak in a major. Now (2♥) - no - (no) - ? is quite threatening. There is no presumption that responder has hearts. He might have spades & be playing poker. If you double that in 4th seat and opener passes, don't assume he has hearts.

1NT (no) 2♦ (2♠) X 2♦ usual transfer. Is double penalty? If not, does it show 3 hearts? Max? If 3 hearts, what spade holding? If the overcall is 3m, is double the same? Thx

When - if ever - might it be appropriate to give a bridge score to NS & average +/- to EW. Our scoring program allows this.

Thx Robin & Gordon Nick

These days it's easy to have multiple board sets available to minimise sharing. I want 11 tables to play a 2-winner mitchell-type movement over 9 rounds, 27 boards in play. Possible is a Bowman, which I haven't tried. As I understand it, a set rotates around 1-9 while T10 & T11 can share the 2nd set, T10 playing boards in the usual order, T11 in reverse. No sharing except R5 when both (appendix) tables are looking to grab 13-15. Can live with that. Is there another (simpler?) way to do this? Can a web work for 11 tables? I only know of webs for even numbers. If so, how?

I get this a lot, regretably. I get called to see East with a faced card. Maybe East revoked some time ago and corrected it in time. The table (who?) then made some ruling & told her to leave it out. What is the correct procedure here? I feel like saying "Since I wasn't called at the time, East can pick up the card without penalty." The point being that EW might have been able to get the defence back on track to avoid this lead penalty. What am I allowed to do? Also, is it appropriate to admonish the table?

This has switches for stationary pairs at various times. I believe this procedure has been discredited mathematically. Also makes the guide card a bit messy. Need instructions like "Moving Pair to T1" rather then the usual "EW to 1 EW"

The old 3/4 Howell cards had heaps of arrowswitches. I've realised thanks to people like John Probst & Ross Moore that this was pointless. So what is a fair movement for 7T (9x3) ¾ Howell ? Is it 1) 5 stationary NSs 2) 3 stat NSs & 2 stat EWs? After you make the correct choice there, should you arrowswitch the last round? Thx

[hv=pc=n&w=sa6hkqjt96da64ca8&e=s984ha5dkq985ct42&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1hp2dp4np5sp7nppp]266|200[/hv] A crude but good Acol sequence I thought. Our pathetic auction was 1♥ - 1NT - 4♥. Hope you can do better. Diamonds unfortunately broke 3-2 so that was 17 out. Team mates unkindly pointed out that 7NT is much better than six since both fail if diamonds don't split.

Given 2♣ was not GF, 2NT over 2♦ would presumably be invitational.

[hv=pc=n&s=st97h8765d52cat92&w=saq4ht42dk3ckj743&n=skj2hqj93djt7cq86&e=s8653hakdaq9864c5&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1dp2cp2dp2sp3sp4dp4hp5dppp]399|300[/hv] Assume SAYC or Acol. (In 2/1, West had 3♦ forcing available over 2♦) At the other table, West bid 3NT over 1♦ and was surprised to win 10 IMPs.

This is not quite the case here. Low from A-K-5 may be deemed irrational but low from 6-5-2 with the 3 out may not qualify. Also, in the ABF example, claimer probably knew there were 1 or 2 cards out that would fall under the A-K. This declarer thought all trumps were gone. Happy to assume "from the top" but guidelines are unclear.