shevek

1NT - (no) - 2♣ - (2♦) 2♦ Opener didn't see 2♦. They play Extended Stayman where 2♦ would show both majors and a minimum. That's what he had. Is he allowed to get away with 3♦ now (which would ordinarily show both majors and a maximum)? How about an unsystemic 4♦?

Declarer on lead had ♥J972 left and claimed. An opponent had ♥10. Declarer admitted she thought all trumps were gone. Is she presumed to play them from the top? If no, what if the opponent's trump were ♥3? Apologies since I'm sure this has been asked and answered many times

Confess I would downgrade & open 1D. Vulnerability is an interesting issue. I don't think it should affect the decision on notrump openings. Responder should be the one on the push seat.

[hv=pc=n&w=st97652hadk532c32&e=skj4hkj72d8caqjt6&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2dd4hppp]266|200|Weak only Multi[/hv] EW a newish partnership who simply agreed to play "Standard Multi, no strong option." There don't seem to be universally accepted continuations here. 2M & 3M are clearly p/c. East thought 4♥ the same, while admitting 2NT would have been safer. West in turn wondered whether East might even have assumed that they were playing "4♣ = transfer to your major, 4♦ = bid your major" a neat idea but not widely known and not mentioned.

If partner's double shows a strong desire to defend, then pass is clear. In my partnerships, double would say "I want to raise", something like ♠Ax ♥QJx ♦xxx ♣AKxxx. For us, it's a "fit-double". Applies when they bid & raise beyond the level of responsive doubles. You may say that hand should bid 5♥. Maybe, but not so good opposite a stiff club. With a spade stack, opener makes a non-forcing pass. South would then make a takeout double.

East. Clear 1♦ or 2♦ opening in 3rd seat, non-vul. West's failure to make a passed hand double of 1♠ deserves mild censure too.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq942ht4djt96ck3&w=s853hk53da732cat9&n=st76hqj976dq8cj54&e=skjha82dk54cq8762&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1n(12-14)2s3sp3nppp]399|300[/hv]. IMPs Perhaps your partnership has signalling methods to handle this. Or is it simply a matter of judgement & analysis? Anyway, I led ♠4. After declarer played ♣A-another, I led ♦J for -600. Up to you what partner plays on the first 3 tricks.

Yes I have that move keyed & movement cards for it. Not sure that all the 75-year-olds will appreciate going to 1E, 11E, 8N, 8E, 13E, 10N, 7E, 9E, 13N, 9N, 10E, 11N, 7N. Worth a thought though. Thx.

I'm about to run a 3 session pairs event with 13 tables. Twin board sets available. They expect 2 x qualifying to a 5 table final & Mitchell plate. The simple way is to run a 13T Mitchell & repeat. Separate fields. That's okay but they like & expect longer rounds. I could run 2 x 6½ table Mitchells wth the EW sit outs at the last table in each section playing each other. Slightly random, since the EWs might catch two strong/weak pairs at table 7. Also has to be a one winner move, presumably scrambled. Last round enough? Last 2? Does this move have a name? Secondly, would your players expect or prefer 3-session cumulative? All-play-all over 3 sessions is a little awkward with 13 tables. How would you run the Howells & Mitch? 5 Howell + 8 Blackpool? 4H + 7+2 App? Arrowswitch the Mitchell? Is there a better forum for asking these sort of questions?

Thanks everyone. It's all good ...

Playing 4-suit transfers over 1NT, where 2♠ = ♣s, 2NT = ♦s, it's traditioinal to bid the intermediate step as a super-accept. (Maybe Hxx and a max, but that is a separate issue) A recent trend is to switch, bidding responder's suit with a GOOD hand. What is the thinking behind this? Is the strength of 1NT relevant? I guess it might allow responder to bid 2NT on a weak 5-5 minors, passing opener's 3♣.

[hv=pc=n&s=sA85hk76d74ckt854&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp2cp2dp]133|200[/hv] You play vanilla SAYC so no forcing or semi-forcing 1NT, no criss-cross raise or strong 2/1, etc. You still like a limit raise to guarantee 4 trumps so you start with 2♣. Over opener's 2NT, you planned 3♥. Is this non-forcing? Over 2♦, is it normal to play 3♥ now as forcing? (2/1 then jump preference) If you don't think this hand is worth game, is it okay to bid 2♥ now?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthq942dat7cak65&w=sa9632hj53d65ct83&n=sq5hak7dk983cj972&e=sk874ht86dqj42cq4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1hp1np2d(no%20alert%20but%20GF%20enq)2spp3sp3ndppp]399|300[/hv] All decent players. EW a new partnership. NS established, with memory issues. At the end of the auction, South said 2♦ should have been alerted, 2-way Checkback. North had forgotten. Director called, hand played out. East led ♠4. EW had agreed 3rds & 5ths but East forgot, playing 4ths with all other partners vs NT. After some thought, West ducked this for -1150. Director recalled by East who at least wanted to withdraw his double, though NS contended he should have twigged after East's 3♠. Director initially awarded +660 NS. West (moi) suggested that he would have passed 2♦ given correct info, that 2♦ would then have been passed out. The Director agreed to that and awarded +110 NS in 2♦. What do you think of all that, particularly West's defence.

Clear to go for 3NT Vul Butler, the most attractive conditions to push. So clear in fact that I would have bid 2NT as South first time. Wouls at least consider passing at MPs.

I recall the ideal arrowswtich arrangements are something like once for up to 8 tables, twice for 9-12. Whatever. Next week I'm running a social 12-table competition between 2 clubs. They expect to play pairs from the other club so Club A will take NS & Club B EW. I think they'll play 11 x 2. Does it make sense to have more arrowswitched rounds?

Thanks. We'll be in touch in a few months.

Thanks. However, I'm hoping to set up a BBO type forum where people could use something like Hand Editor to post hands. Some clubs have a similar facility on their web page. Such as (if it works)... http://www.australianbridge.com/grandslam/forum.php?sess=GS100905-1&board=2 where you simply click on a hand. Would be good if outsiders could key hands and auctions.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt53hkt763d74c4&w=skj986hdjt96ckqt5&n=s7haqj52dkq53ca62&e=s42h984da82cj9873]399|300[/hv] Is there a case for the winning line? Given that you only need 9 tricks from trumps, you can afford a high trump at some stage. On the actual, cashing ♥A at trick 5 is fatal. Has to be ♥K or 10 early on. That takes care of any 5-2 spade break but risks a diamond overruff. When the 0-3 trump break is revealed, still need to be a bit careful, taking your low diamond ruff early before East gets a chance to pitch one. I think it's a cute hand, admitting that taking a second low spade ruff may be percentage.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt53hkt763d74c4&n=s7haqj52dkq53ca62]133|200[/hv] You reach 6♥/S (don't ask) on the helpful lead of ♦J - K - A - 4. Helpful in that you know straight away that you have just one diamond trick. No oppostition bidding. They know you are 5-5-2-1 with ♠A & ♥K. East plays a club back to dummy's ace. You play ♠A and a spade ruff. Now what?

Probably been asked before ... I'd like to put neatly formatted hands in a bridge blog, so I need something like hand editor, which is great. Is there a simple way for me to use BBO Hand Editor, or is there a legal issue? Can it be licensed? If that's not possible, are there other editors available that would do the job? Thanks in advance.

Polling peers would have taken a while. Swiss teams, 8 board rounds, 48 minutes on the clock. I would have to wait till certain pairs played this board, grabbed a few dummies for their views. We score up quickly (bridgepads) so the next draw is out immediately. Didn't seem to me that I was telling N-S I was about to rule in their favour. Just that they were the ones who would call for redress so I kept them in view. This is Australia (so currently outside US) therefore weighted scores are okay, however usually need a panel of directors for that. In 4♥/x, also need to weight the chance for East to underlead ♣A at trick 2.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hakjt93dk93cqt4&w=skj985h654dj82ck2&n=sqt4hq872dt4cj875&e=sa632hdaq765ca963&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1d1h1s2h3s4hp(BiT)p4s(Director%21)ppp]399|300|Agreed hesitation by West over South's 4H.[/hv] All average club players. IMPs. When I arrived, East agreed to partner's hesitation but added the common "I was always going to bid 4♠. Here, look at my hand." I declined the offer, told them to play it out and then call me back IF THEY WISHED. I forgot to find out whether 1♠ showed 5. Suspect this pair did not make that distinction. Looked at the hand record. East seems to have an easy 4♠ first time. Note however that there is a set of players who sometimes bid like this. Their jumps are almost forcing. They might bid 3♠ then 4♠ when partner failed to act over 4♥. "I didn't want to let them play 4♥." To what extent am I required to get inside their heads, to think as they do? (No peers available) Anyway, while they were playing I decided to wind back to 4♥ passed out, though there is a case for allowing East to double 4♥. (However, West's hesitation may indicate a desire to penalise, making double by East more attractive) Also had to decide how likely it was for East to lead a low club at trick 2. These finer points could wait so I hovered a couple of tables away till they completed the play. I caught South's attention and gave her a quizzical look. She looked at her partner and they both shook their heads, so I walked away. Is that acceptable? We all use our own words but I find these rulings difficult to express, since I'm about to tell East she is being unethical. I was going to say "Change the contract to 4♥/S making 9 tricks. When you bid only 3♠ first time, you can't then bid 4♠ when partner hesitates." Maybe "shouldn't" instead of "can't". If pressed I would add "Partner's hesitation makes it more attractive for you to act, therefore you shouldn't" Some directors prefer the formal, legal approach. "You partner's agreed break in tempo has conveyed Unathorised Information to you, that partner was considering acting over 4♥. When in receipt of UI, the Laws require you to choose - from Logical Alternatives - one that was not suggested by partner's break in tempo. Pass is a Logical Alternative, therefore I'm adjusting to 4♥/S making 9 tricks." Which approach and which words do you use? Does you approach vary with the standard of the players?

Result stands. The big concern for South is that North has six good spades and is about remove 4♥X to 4♠. So North's hesitation makes it less attractive for South to double. That would concern me as South enough that I might have passed out 4♥. Note that double in our strong club style would be takeout, trusting their super fit. We would double as North.

I reckon every man & his dog rebids 1NT with ♠6 ♥AKJ5 ♦J875 ♣K942 Maybe catlovers bid 2♣. Don't know. Certainly those who opened 1♣ have zero choice. Sure, the opening leader and dummy can have a long chat about hands like this and whether ♠Q would swing it but no useful purpose is served.

I don't like your example much. If we go 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - end I wouldn't be happy to hear the leader ask whether I can have a stiff spade. Sure I can. Sounds like the question might be based on a good spade holding. Just lead and wait till you - and only you - really need to know. In the endgame.