shevek

That's fine, so long as directors - the people needed to give advice on movements - also peruse this offline forum.

Thanks for replies. This is what I probably will do: All require 2 bd sets, not more. 9+T 9 x 3 bd & simply score at end. web or Bowman-Ewing. 8T 8 x 3 bd 2 x 4T share/relay. Not ideal because 2 tables share 3 boards. (Is this avoidable?) 7T 8 x 3 bd Interwoven. Like above, 2 x 3½ tables. EW go to NS 4 after they leave T7. 6T 6 x 4 Bd easy. No sharing 5T 6 x 4 Bd Interwoven. 2 x 2½ tables. EW go to 3 NS after they leave T5. 4T 4 x 6 bd barometer. (Or 6 x 4 bd ¾ Howell if unfillable half table) Is that the best I can do? Remember, all pairs need to play all 24 boards, 1 or 2 winners. IMP scoring (after 12 bds & at end) PS. A bit grim for this thread to be moved outside directors' forums.

The club wants to run some sessions in 2 halves, with a break in the middle when boards & results can be displayed on screen and discussed with an expert panel. The aim is for 24 boards, prefer Mitchell style but Howell etc okay for small numbers. Want the players to play all boards in play since IMP scoring. Note that we can have multiple board sets but maybe not enough to do barometers for all sizes. 8 tables might like to play 8 x 3 bd Mitchell but that's 6 sets of 1-3 for Rnd 1. Would be good to have 3 sets, say with 1-3 & 4-6 in play. For Howells, are there moves where 1-12 are all played in the first half? Is there a resource for this sort of stuff? TIA Nick

Declarer quotes 45 C.4(b) "Until his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought." This seems to imply no change since declarer has already played. I guess it only applies if dummy is 1st or 2nd to play. Is that right? So let's try something else: Dummy is on lead in 7NT and has been running hearts. ♥AK4 ♥32 Declarer says "heart" and dummy dutifully leads ♥4 to East's quick ♥5. Does South have a case now?

Here's a different example: South is in 7♠ and on lead. ♠ Q ♥ — ♦ 2 ♠ — ♥ A2 Rather than claiming, South leads ♥A, West follows. South says "ruff". Dummy obeys in tempo & East follows quickly. Declarer "immediately" realises that he was a trick ahead of himself. Can anything good happen?

No skip bid warnings in Australia

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj95hak2d83cq43&w=shjt965d9742ck975&n=sat732h84dk6cjt86&e=s864hq73daqjt5ca2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2s(spades%20%26%20a%20minor)p4s5hppdppp]399|300[/hv] MPs, Club game, average standard. The alert of 2♠ MAY have caught East on the hop. Anyway, apparently he thought for a bit before passing. N-S called at the end when they conceded -650. A trump or spade lead shoots 5♥x easily. North led ♣J, which looks okay to me. The (lucky) winning line is to ruff one club then play trumps. Confess I don't know whether that happened. No-one could remember. Perhaps South over-ruffed the fourth club, which would be an error, though not a hopeless play. West "naturally" quoted the vulnerability and said he didn't notice partner's BIT. West has a bit of a history of light re-opening actions with this partner. I gave both sides 4♠/N -1. Views please.

Haven't played for a while, using the windows client. Had a toughish defensive problem. Up popped a message telling me to play. I didn't, found myself back in the lobby. How long has this been going on? How can the table server stop it?

Here's a related matter. If I have 18 tables, I can run separate NS & EW, swapping. Top 7 each way to final. That's easy & best. However, not so good with an odd number, like 19. If I swap fields, one pair (EW 10 say) plays the same pairs twice, a bit mean. Other than running one field & arrow-switches, is there a way round this? TIA

Thanks all

I'm about to run a 2-session, 1-winner qualifying event with 2 sections. Say it's 2 x 9 tables. I end up with 4 fields, 1 field playing NS twice, 1 play EW twice, 2 flip-flop. Question: Do I also need to arrow-switch (1 round) in each session?

5+ cards, though 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♦ is often artificial, maybe 2nd negative. I realise this approach can miss a 4-4 major fit, which is why we all strain to open 1x on 2-suiters.

1♣ - (2♦) - 2♠ - (no) 2NT - (no) - 3NT 1♣ was alerted, could have been 2+. North led his 6-card heart suit against 3NT. At the end, he said "I assumed multis also applied against a short club" South said "Not in my book. Nobody I know plays that way" Etc, etc Do EW get anything?

Pleased with the answers, since I was South, conceding -800. The full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sahkqt753da64cq93&w=skj2hj964dqt92c75&n=sq976h2d8753ct642&e=st8543ha8dkjcakj8&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2h2sppdp2ndpprp3hdppp]399|300[/hv] Perhaps our scrambling ensured that they would collect. Just one of those things? Or maybe we all have something to learn. Stiff ♠A is a big negative ♠6 ♥KQT753 ♦A64 ♣AQ9 is auto to double, though might have fared the same.

[hv=pc=n&s=sahkqt753da64cq93&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2h2spp]133|200[/hv] I'm guessing most would act at MPs. As an aside, if you act, is it X or 3♥?

thx for that

X = 1-suiter 2♣ = minors 2♦ = majors 2♥/♠ = Mm 2-suiters (Cappelletti-style) The player told me it was popular in Sydney ...

Say 1♣ is 16+ and 1♦ 0-7. A common structure over a Standard notrump caters for strong hands, so Stayman then 3x is forcing, transfer then 3x is GF, etc. How do people adjust when responder is known to be weak? For instance 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT (16-18) ♠ Axxxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣xxx If you think this hand is worth an invite (debatable), transfer then 2NT is a bit silly. Stayman then 2♠ COULD show this. If you agree to do that, you give up on some Garbage hands, such as ♠ Jxxxx ♥Kxxx ♦xx ♣xx If Stayman then 2♠ invites, it's unsound to do that with this hand. So you decide to transfer, risking the 5-2 when you have 4-4 hearts. Seems quite close to me. Unbalanced hands with 5 hearts are awkward. ♠ x ♥Axxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx Stayman then 3♥ over 2♠ is unsound. (However, this sequence usually a good spade raise but you don't need that if 0-7) You can transfer then guess (probably pass), or Stayman then hope to play 2♥ over 2♦, 2NT or 3♥ over 2♠. A bit messy. The bigger issue is shapely hands with a 4-card major: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦xx ♣KTxxx You could pass a 16-18 1NT rebid but opener could have 4 (or 5?) hearts. Easy enough to constract game hands: ♠Axx ♥QJxx ♦Axx ♣AQx A thought is Stayman then 2M to show unbalanced 4+, mild invite. Could play 2♥ in the 4-3. If opener prefers spades, then 2NT or 3C could end the auction. With 4-6, Stayman then the minor works well. ♠Axxx ♥x ♦Jxxx ♣xxxx Stayman then pass 2♦ or bid 2♠ over 2♥ to show this. Difference here is that opener might raise 2♠, not what you want. If this sequence is weak, responder needs to rebid 2NT with this: ♠Axxx ♥xx ♦Jxxx ♣QTx Would be good to bid 2♠ on the way to 2NT with this, in case opener is minimum with both majors. Need to give up on that if Stayman then a suit is a scramble. Transfer then a suit could be invitational, so ♠ x ♥Kxxxx ♦Kxxx ♣xxx can transfer then 3♦. Not so good with these cards but appealing with 5-5. Views please.

Given normal rate of play, a "standard" bridge session is around 3 hrs. 13 rounds x 14 minutes = 182, 9 x 20 = 180, 7 x 26 = 182. Enough for a full morning/afternoon/evening of bridge. Many social activities tend to be shorter: film, restaurant, theatre, football. In the 1930s, duplicate could have evolved with 2 or 2½ hour sessions. Why not? I'm assuming the mathematicians made the early decisions. A pure all-play-all contest - Mitchell or Howell - requires 13 x 2, 9 x 3, 7 x 4, etc. They aimed for a fair contest and grudgingly accepted skips & incompletes. Timings maybe came from 6 minutes per board + 2 for the move. Hence 3 hours. Is there any literature on this? There is a case for shorter sessions, say 24 boards, meaning around 2 hrs 40 minutes. This is better for retaining beginners, who sit through a series of 2 hour lesson and may be discouraged by the extra hour. Of course supervised sessions are shortish. On the other hand, some retirement places fill the day with sessions that play 30 boards, spanning lunch. Say 11am - 3pm.

Typically I'm too lazy to search. We are talking of methods where most balanced hands without 5cM open 1♣, forcing or not, maybe even including 4-2 minors. then 1♦ = hearts, 1♥ = spades, 1♠ maybe diamonds, maybe balanced, no major, etc. Have a vague idea that this is European (Italian?) in origin, that Americans adopted the method and (naturally) gave it an American name. Please enlighten lazy me.

For instance 1430 or 3041 Wondering whether it's practical for someone with more computer skills than me to trawl through the lobby or tables in BBO sessions, scan all the user profiles for various text strings, then compile a list of methods & frequencies, maybe even graph trends over time. Maybe somebody has already done this. If so, pls point me to it! If not, seem a worthwhile project, maybe even worthy of commercial crowdsourcing. TIA

The particular issue with 2NT in passout seat is wrong-siding via Lebensohl. After (2♥) - no - (no) , ♠Qxx ♥AQ ♦KQJxx ♣Axx doesn't want to double and hear 2NT "negative". To avoid this, maybe best to bid 2NT or 3NT on all balanced hands with a stopper. Say 14-17 bids 2NT, 18+ shrugs and bids 3NT. 13 a bit rich but don't want to defend their 6-1 fit with twin 14-counts.

Assuming you can live with (1♥) - 1NT as 15-18, & (1♥) - no - (no) - 1NT as 11-14 what are the higher equivalents, if balanced? (2♥) - 2NT, & (2♥) - no - (no) - 2NT ? (3♥) - 3NT, & (3♥) - no - (no) - 3NT ? TIA

Normal is 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♠ as invitational, 6-carder & say 9-11 HCP There is a case for treating 1♣ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♠ as forcing. Who does that? Does your answer depend on whether you play weak jump shifts? Or form of scoring? (Might want to "correct" 2♣ to 2♠ at matchpoints, but not IMPs) Do you play Bourke relay or similar? TIA

A bit restrictive on "balanced" Do I get a warning if I think it's normal to open 1NT on ♠Qx ♥Ax ♦AQxx ♣Jxxxx ?