shevek

Basic SAYC just has 3♣ Stayman and major transfers, though Puppet has become "standard". What continuations? What of the rest? 3♠ minors seems common enough, though playing it as a transfer to ♣s has right-siding merit. Transfer to 3NT for slammish continuations seems too complicated for a broad market. 4♣ Gerber is default but maybe limited value opposite a big hand. Are 4♣/♦ better as natural slam tries? 4♦/♥ Texas seems common in US. I guess it allows 4♦ - 4♥ - 4NT as RKCB, whereas 3♦ - 3♥ - 4NT is presumably natural. An obscure gain. In other countries, South African Texas (4♣ = ♥s) is more common, over 1NT at least. (That made sense over a weak NT since responder would often want to declarer 4♥/4♠) As a corollary, 4♥/4♠ over 2NT could show ♣s/♦s. How many do that? 4NT direct is quantitative. Again, I'd have thought that had little value opposite a range like 20-21. Back to Puppet, what is 3♣ - 3♦ - 4x? Some texts say 4♣/♦ now show different strength major hands, to be dummy. Is that best? After 3♣ - 3♥, maybe 4m & 4NT are natural? TIA

Assuming East's double of 4♠ is not penalty, I think the only way to defend is for East to open 1NT, as I would. So shoot me. If East has to pass 4♠ & hope for a double from West, that won't happen.

Amazed at the passers. Once in 10 years 5♠x will make. Double is clear, remembering I had high hopes in 5♦.

[hv=pc=n&w=sakJ74ht74dat75c9&e=s6h863dkqj6caq874&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp2cp2dp3dp3hp4cp4dppp]266|200[/hv] West was surprised but pleased that East passed in this 2/1 "GF" auction. The get out clause was not clear to either. Could you have stopped? If so, what are your rules?

[hv=pc=n&s=sat432ht954d743cj&w=sj98765h2dqj82c65&n=sqhaqj7dkt6cqt872&e=skhk863da95cak943&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1cp1sd2hp2sppdppp]399|300[/hv] 2♠ made for -470 NS. EW were an average, elderly club pair. 2♠ non-forcing in the traditional style. Unclear to me whether East would have bid 2NT over this, though this level of player is likely to make bids like that. In fact, West had bid 2♦ over 2♥, presumably natural. These players have a vague grasp of 4th suit forcing. Anyway, she corrected to 2♠, barring partner. Assuredly, this West had no awareness that "this could well damage the non-offending side." Your ruling?

To fully justify the switch, the aim should be to provide all the data they currently get from travellers, which - in most cases - includes the hand record and card led. Otherwise, some players will leap at the excuse to say travellers were better. Admittedly, showing the hand record is an option which we mostly have turned off. Can't be bad to have it. Good for keeping track of fouled boards. Likewise the director at the computer gets to see the hand record next to the scores as they come in, making it easier to spot errors.

Are you sure about this? This is my understanding: The orginal Dutch Bridgemate Pros with 2 lines of text & a black key for the director were a bit clunky. Then came American bridgepads with a bigger screen to enter all data at once & display more results. Then Brdigemate 2s, which are a bit better again, though expensive. Finally Swedish bridgescorers are the ones with touch screens. I like these & they give the best feedback, including leads at other tables, percentages for all scores on a board, not just yours. Can even display hand records & deep finesse analysis.

[hv=pc=n&s=skJ64ha8dkq953c97&w=s73hq643da862ct63&n=sq985ht975dj7ca52&e=sat2hkj2dt4ckqj84&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1h2cppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints We let them play and make 2♣ here when we make at least 8 tricks in 2♠ & can shoot 3♣. In your style & method, might you reach 2♠? Or 2♦? Yes, it would good if South could double 2♣ for takeout but that would be an unusual treatment.

Unofficially, the ACBL frowns on methods like EHAA. As an outsider, it seems to me that they would prefer people to play similar, natural systems. Then matchpoint events would be decided by bidding judgement and cardplay skills. To play something like EHAA (or a simple strong pass method) could be seen as "irresponsibility to the field", distributing tops and bottoms to random opponents. System designers are unwelcome, tweakers only in rigidly controlled sectors, such as interfering over 1NT.

Minor penalty cards are silly. If a defender drops a spot card, I REALLY want to tell her to put it back in her hand.

With West dealer, auction goes 1♠ - (2♣) - 3♠ - (5♣) 4NT North doesn't accept. Away from the table, West admits she didn't see 5♣. Pushing my luck, I ask her what 5NT by her would mean over 5♣. "Dunno, maybe RKC" What should happen now?

Yes I read that. Just pointing out that it is a poor agreement. This auction is markedly different from 1♠ - (2♥) - 2♠ - 3(♥) where double as a random game try makes some sense.

I double for penalty. 3S should be a game try. Don't compete at the 3-level vs a non-fit auction. Of course, if 3H is cold, partmner should rip.

In Australia, South scores & East checks. That's our advice, not a Rule. Incidentally, it seems clear to me(us) that South should score since he sees the world the right way up. Fewer errors in keying declarer. I suspect North as scorer started in America a century ago and nobody sort to question it. This is not a hemispherical issue. Now boards and movement cards are mostly numbered upside down. The horse has bolted, which is a pity.

Yes the ACBL seems too complicated for a weekend congress & the EBU guide too generous. I've done some googling and seen european events with 1/3 c/f. Seems closer to the mark.

Thanks for that.

In your country, are there guidelines about carryforwards? Take an example of 2 session qualifying to 1 session matchpoint final. The trend in australia is to start afresh. That may have been due to technical limitations years ago. Maybe time to revisit this. Then there are Swiss teams with leaders playing off. Advice please.

No skip bid warning in Australia, seems irrelevant here anyway. When the director polled 4 of East's peers, all would remove an in tempo double, reaching 5♥, not 6. So 650 awarded. Whether East should remove this style of double is a moot point. An aim of raising a limited 1M opening to game on a wide range of hands is to catch the opponents speeding, accepting the occasional 4 IMP loss for +500. The point being that ♠x ♥KJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣Kxx or ♠Ax ♥KJxxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx will also double 4♠, these admittedly are very specific. Still, the quick double seems to suggest that passing is likely to be right and East can hardly claim that passing is indicated, in the face of peer pressure. System users are few & far between.

[hv=pc=n&s=saj7432h8d97ckq82&w=skq5hk952dk42cj54&n=s86hj76djt8653c73&e=st9haqt43daqcat96&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c(4+%20Hs%2C%208-12%20pts)p4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv] Strong pass system. 1♣ showed ♥s, 8-12 pts. 4♥ came after some thought, then 4♠ & double followed "in quick succession." No screens, no alerts beyond 3NT. -1100 The problem for EW is the meaning of double. Systemically it means "I have high ODR, I'm happy to be at the 5-level." It's a good method but West forgot, quickly. Declarer called the director at the end and suggested that East should have bid 5♥. That the decision to pass might have been influenced by the quick double. East admitted that partner had a record of forgetting this agreement but that it was a verbal agreement, not in the system notes. Director went away and polled a few of East's peers. What did he rule?

1♣ = 16+ 1♥= 4+♥, denies 4♠s, could be minor canapé 1♠ = both majors 1♦ = 4+♠s, denies 4♥s 1NT = 12-15 balanced-ish, no Major

I see this comes from a 5-card major context. For three main reasons, we play 4-card majors. 1) A desire not to overload 1♦ & underload 1M. 2) A wish to use symmetric over all openings 3) Usual testosterone-inspired MAFIA. So important that 2m denies a 4-card major. We have used 6+m or 5-4m for years with good results. Agree with Straube that 6+ is better & 5431 hands are not well served. Having said that, opening 2♦ on hands like ♠AQx ♥x ♦QJxxx ♣Kxxx while ugly, has been good for us. Opponents have tended to overbid. 2m has been a net IMP gainer. Note that 1♦ is not an option for us. 1♦ thru 1♠ show Major hands. PS. We open 2♣ with 5-5, 10-14.

Okay so 100% for a low diamond seems clear. This wins when partner has ♦A-x, okay opp ♦J-x. If you agree that dummy is unlikely to have a stiff diamond and declarer virtually certain to have 3 or 4, partner has 1 or 2. The winning layout is heavily odds against. The case for a heart is certainly stronger at matchpoints.

Their is merit in transfer then 3NT. Opener has ♠AKxx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣Qxx, right?

[hv=pc=n&s=st83h962dkq7543c3&w=skj754hj75d62cak5&n=saq6hq43d98cjt874&e=s92hakt8dajtcq962&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1np2hp2sp3nppp]399|300[/hv] As you see, a diamond is no good. All declarers who got a diamond lead made 9 tricks, doing the normal thing in hearts. The declarers who received a heart lead all failed. The play is interesting. You win the heart to play a spade to the J-Q. North returns an honest ♦9. You finesse to South's ♦Q who exits with - say - a heart. If the next trick goes ♠9-T-K-A, you are down, making no spade tricks since South's ♠8 is master. Should you cover ♠10? It's not clear. If North has ♠A86 left, the suit is doomed. You'll probably need clubs 3-3, or maybe stripping red suits to throw North in with a club. That would work but it's obscure. Winning is to duck South's ♠10. You can win South's exit, play 2 rounds of clubs if you like to get that bad news, then make on 3-3 spades. That seem the best shot to me. However, South should not cover ♠9! Declarer will likely fly king, not wanting to go down in an embarrassing fashion when South started with ♠A83. Still, if South had ♠A together with ♦KQxxx(x), a diamond would have been led. Quite puzzling.

[hv=pc=n&s=st83h962dkq7543c3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1n(14-16)p2hp2sp3nppp]133|200[/hv] IMPs. 14-16 notrump & transfer Your lead