shevek

Assume SAYC or similar, where 2♣ is a virtual GF, 2♦ negative 0-7. 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣/♦ These are forcing. With no special agreements they are game-forcing. Seems a bit rich to require opener to battle to 5m opposite a Yarborough. After 3♣, seems okay to play 3♦ as a kind of 2nd negative. Should it deny a 5-card major? If so, 3♦ = waiting, typically 0-4, no 5cM but could be better with a 4cM. 3♥/♠ = 5-card suits, could be weak? 3NT = offer to play, probably no 4cM (in case opener is 4-5 or 4-6) 4♣ = decent raise After 3♦ waiting, responder can pass if opener rebids 4♣. Straight away? Is that what people do? Awkward after opener rebids 3♦ over 2♦. Don't much like 3♥ or 3NT as a 2nd negative. (If 3♥ is a negative, maybe 3NT should show 5 ♥s?) How about 4♣ as a 2nd negative? At least it allows you to stop in 4♦

There is this (apocryphal?) story that the Italians would still have won (nearly?) all those early Bermuda Bowls (from 1957 - 1975) if they had bid NO slams. That is, missing out on those cold mama-papa slams bid at the other table wouldn't cost. That loss would have been offset by staying out of the flaky, failing slams that cost actual IMPs. Did someone actually do that analysis? Who? Which events? Might it still hold in the modern game?

While not defending East's double, East may simply think that the hand has too much potential to pass. If partner passes the double and they make 790, no big deal. East was hoping for pass or 5♥. She would convert 5♣ to 5♥ and hope for the best, aware that this sequence could be converting +50 to -500. Eh bien. East should probably pass 5♦. Partner might have ♠x ♥xx ♦QJTxxxx ♣Axx One thing I forgot to add is the location. Australia, so no skip bid warnings.

I would pass as East but in 8 instances of the same auction, all East's peers chose to act. Some of them might been opposite a BiT, don't know. If you act, double is clearly better than 5♥. Do we disallow 5♥ because it is a poor choice? The East who doubled opposite BiT said it was routine. All actions lead to 5♥ or so. One concern is the possible lack of a director call at tables with poor to average players, where players don't realise they can get a better result by calling the director. Or they think it's mean.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9852hdt4cqj64&w=s7hajt7d753cat975&n=st64hk5dqj982ck32&e=sa3hq986432dak6c8&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1h4sp(agreed%20BiT)p5hppp]399|300[/hv] Been called 3 times so far. 1 East doubled, other 2 bid 5♥. IMPs. All 30 tables have played 5♥ or higher, some 5♠x. Of course, some Wests must have bid 5♥ directly. Calling NSs have been good players, EWs average Views

Maybe. There is the screens argument. If West is North's screenmate, North will explain 3♦ as a heart raise. West might infer that South forgot and take his chances against 3♦. Also, if North thinks he has shown a limit raise, why should he bid 4♥ on a hand worth 3♥? South is still there to wake up. Perhaps South psyched 1♥. Unlikely but North knows this is not the case from the failure to alert 3♦. That's UI. In Australia, no alert for weak jump shift responses.

Matchpoints, club game [hv=pc=n&s=sqhkqt54d5caq6542&w=sakj7432h6da2ck98&n=s985hj973dkqj93c7&e=st6ha82dt8764cjt3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h1s3d(N%3DBerg%2C%20S%3Dweak)pp3s4hppp]399|300[/hv] North thought Bergen applied, with 3♦ showing a limit raise. Then bid 4♥ because .... South thought no Bergen after an overcall. No alert. For some reason, South went 1 off in 4♥.

Most BBO bridge (80%) is IMP-scored, like most major championships. Players get instant +/- IMP feedback. In your local club with bridgemates (or bridgepads or bridgescorers) the only instant scoring feedback you can get is matchpoints/percentage, though the external scoring program can take that data and score IMP Pairs vs datum. Question: How hard would it be to write server software to give IMP feedback instead of percentage, as per BBO? I play 3H making 10, then see -5 IMPs. IMP events are a bit trickier to run, since you should ensure that all the pairs play all the boards in play. This can mean slightly unusual moves like share, webs, Bowman-Ewing etc, with some requiring two sets of boards. Most clubs have dealers so rarely in issue. Is anyone working on this? I for one would like to play more casual IMP-scored games at my local club.

I suggest your team-mate needs to put in more effort. If you wonder whether you might have been damaged, it's not enough to put an asterisk on your scorecard. The least you should do is call and explain. If analysis is not a strength or time is very short, you can tell the director "I think we could have made something in spades or maybe doubled them."

Did you mean "waiting till after the play"? They waited till after the MATCH, 40 minutes.

If West hears from South that 3♦ is p/c, he can infer an auction gone off the the rails.

To what extent to players jeopardize their right to an adjustment by failing to call the director at the time. This was a case of misinformation. [hv=pc=n&s=sj7h987dk972cq973&w=st984hakdt8543ca8&n=sk2hqjt62dqckt642&e=saq653h543daj6cj5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2n(saame%20shape)p3d(p%2Fc%20to%20S%2C%20GIR%20to%20N)p3n(round%20suits%2C%20max)p4cp4hppp]399|300[/hv] This drifted 3 off. North was adamant that 3♦ was a game interest relay. South not sure. No director call. EW approached me at the end of the 9-board match, wanting +300/500 against 4♥x. After quizzing NS, it was clear they had no clear agreement. SHould I adjust?

In what way is SAYC more complicated?

I don't understand how Rule of 20 meshes with length points. If I hold ♠xx ♥xxx ♦AKxx ♣AJxx I open because good suits and 12 + 8 = 20. ♠xx ♥xxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx is a Rule of 20 pass becasue 11 + 8 = 19. but ♦AKxxx is very good. By length points, this is 11+1 = 12. Does that make it an opening? Seems to me that 5-cd suit 332 is often better than two 4-card suits, certinly in notrumps but Rule of 20 treats them the same.

[hv=pc=n&w=s75ha6dak6ckq8764&e=sakt83hq842dJ4ct5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1s2cppp]266|200[/hv] Butler IMPs 17 of 20 pairs bid & made game.

Auction goes West deals 1D - no - 1C Next player doesn't accept. Let's say you take East away and ask what is going on. East admits "I didn't see partner's 1D." How would you rule if EW play better minor? If EW play short club (2+) ?

I've played BBO matches where the current score is known to everyone. Can make it more interesting. 10 imps down, do you play anti-percentage in the routine game on the last board? Stating the obvious, most games - golf, football - are like that, meaning real time scores. Even the sequential ones, like slalom, where you know the time you have to beat. Helps to be last through the starting gate. Bridge is unusual in this regard, though technology is changing that.

This happens a lot and has doubtless been discussed. Playing with bringemates or equivalent, a table is due to play boards 13 & 14. Sleepily, South places 14 on the table and away they go, scoring it up as 13, perhaps seeing their percentage and other scores (we allow that in OZ, won't change that wish)). Then somebody twigs. So director gets them to enter that score on the correct board 14 and they usually get told that they can't legally play board 13. What do people in other jurisdictions? This is Australia. Normal enough is to award NS 40%. Cases can be made for EW to get 40/50/60. Can the director rule that the info gleaned is inconsequential? Is just seeing the percentage feedback enough to kill the board? If NS have seen feedback but EW haven't, can EW agree to play & score Bd 13 anyway?

Okay but they like a full session. Also, 2 x 26 bds allows adding percentages for outright, rather than matchpoints. More meaningful to the players.

Prefer all players play all boards in play.

I'm running a 2-session cumulative pairs event. Say it's13 tables, want all play all. Session 1 = 13 x 2 Mitchell Session 2 = 13T interwoven Howell, 13 x 2 So they play all opponents with 1 repeat. Question: Do I need to arrow-switch the Mitchell? Or does the Howell take care of that? TIA

Stating the obvious, your "two-way forcing pass system" should feature 4-card majors. Concerning the actual, XX should be rescue.

How do people play 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♥ ? Assume 3♥ natural here. (Some pairs play 2nd round transfers but let's ignore that) Is is forcing or invitational? Does it show 5-4 or 5-5? If it's forcing and 5-4, why didn't you use Stayman then jump to 3♠ to show this? (Or 3♥ if you play Smolen)

As a teacher, it would be great if I could step through the BIDS on hands I keyed in via the old bridgevue. Too much to ask?

Planning a trip across the lake next year. In Oz, our partnership plays strong club, full relay, 1♦ opening = spades. Need some adjustments. We'd like to maintain some relay. I was thinking 1♣ - 15+, full relay 1♦ - Prec-style, natural responses 1♥ - 4+♥, unbalanced, denies 4♠s 1♠ - 4+♠s, unbalanced 1NT - 12-14 balanced, full relay 2♣ - 5+♣s, no major, unbalanced, full relay 2♦ - 4-4 or 4-5 majors, unbalanced, Flannery-style 2♥/♠ - weak 2s 2NT - minors GCC Definitions 3. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid. So we can do what we want over 1NT & 2C, so full relay. Throw 5M332 hands in 1NT Allowed responses & rebids 7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. I think that means anything goes over 1♣, except relay. However, "relay" does not start prior to opener's rebid so all okay. (Note that those who play 1♣ - 1♦ as GFR fall foul of this) We'll open 1♥ with six or 5+4 with a minor, either way Can still use a forcing NT, so Over 1♥ 1♠ = forcing, usually 5+ 1N = forcing, then new suit forcing; simple preference or 2NT are inv 2♣/2♦ = non-forcing 3♣/3♦ = invitational, 6-carders That fudge works okay. Note that can't really open 1M with 5M332, since you have no rebid over the forcing notrump. (If you rebid a minor, responder will pass with most 6-9 balanced, risking the 3-3 fit) This seems legal & not bad. Views please.