pilun

My slackness. I posted on 3 May and got a response the next day from Pescetom. I waited a couple of weeks with no further replies. It seemed no interest so I didn't return until now. "How would you rule?" admittedly doesn't cut it. There are questions to be asked that weren't. Don't know what the answers would have been and whether they would have been self-serving. For instance, North could have been asked about partner's 3♦. East-West wondered how North would decide that partner did not have ♦KQJxxxxx and out. I suspect the answer might have been "I have no idea about 3♦. Whatever partner intended, I wasn't going to pass!" The director asked two peers what they would do with North's cards and both said they would bid 4♣. The result was changed to 5♣ making 11 tricks. The assumption being either a spade lead or a correct guess in trumps. That seems a bit generous but weighted scores are messy. The 1♦ opening was unusual but defenders have meta-agreements over short minors. For instance, if 1♣ is 2+, most have discussed whether 2NT is minors or reds. Perhaps this partnership didn't get that far. Another avenue that might have been pursued. West's question about 2NT is a bit troubling. It's all very well to say that West has an absolute right to ask about the alerted bid. Indeed, it would be good to get a diamond lead against 5♣! However, there is always the concern that such questions have the "unwanted" consequence of giving an opponent a UI problem. In some cases, that may even be the intent. A face-to-face issue. Scamp is nearly ACBL-legal. 1♥ & 1♠ both show 4+ in the suit bid. 1♦ as a skip transfer seems less of an obstacle than a modern Precision 1♦. If transfer responses to 1♣ are perfectly fine, it seems mean to hamstring suit openings.

Start by asking West why s/he did not alert 2♠. The failure to alert gave East UI that something was strange in the auction, maybe that West had forgotten the meaning of 2♦. So West is expected to bid 2NT over 2♠ 100% of the time. It does not then follow that 3♦ shows something other than 18-20 balanced. Without agreements, it probably suggests some 18-20 point hand that West didn't want to rebid 2NT with, maybe with concerns about right-siding.

[hv=pc=n&s=skq865h863dt65ca3&w=s9732hkqdaq832c98&n=sahaj952djckjt765&e=sjt4ht74dk974cq42&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d(4%2B!S%2C%2010-15)2n(Alerted)p3dp(West%20asked%20about%202NT)3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] Australia RealBridge in "face-to-face" mode, so no screens, players alerting partner's bids. 1♦ showed 4+♠s, not 4♥s, 10-15 points. This was alerted verbally, plus the alert card clicked. (Not announceable, no question asked) 2NT was alerted by South. At her turn, so after South had bid 3♦, West asked about 2NT and was told "Minors, presumably". Note that 3♦ being the "the bid of a suit bid or shown by an opponent" is not alertable in Oz. 4♥ made 11 tricks on the ♠J lead. How might you rule? Also, How do you view West's question about 2NT, which caused the problem? Is this a case where polling is useful? Do you think NS should be offered some leeway in view of the unusual method they were confronted with?

Assume no revoke. That is, declarer draws trumps and claims 12 top tricks, which may - or may not - include the emerging ♦K.

This happens quite often. 6♥/S on a diamond lead. Dummy spreads 12 cards including a singleton diamond. 3rd hand wins the ♦A from AQxx and leads something else. Declarer has the rest. At some stage (does it matter when?) dummy's hidden ♦K makes an appearance. Is is +1430 or -100?

I think I see. If double contains all the hands that would have bid 1♥, it's okay. I was hung up over "Subset" and still am. If it goes 1♣ - (2♠) - 1♥, there might be a problem with double, because some weak hands that would have bid 1♥ are not strong enough to double. Then you go back to double as a subset of the 1♥ hands. (Not the other way round)

Even if double does not promise hearts? That is, if there are quite rare hands without four hearts where double is the correct system call.

I like double for penalty, if only to limit the other actions. Also I don't want to change method because of their range. Normal and sensible is to double a weak notrump for penalty. Is 14-16 strong? Is 13-15 weak?

I'm sure this has been covered, so apologies for asking again. Case 1 (1♣) - 1♣ Not condoned. I don't see how the "overcalling" side can do much here. Double is a thought but there are plenty of doubling hands that would not have opened 1♣. Would North have a chance if their 1♣ is the modern "2+, either long clubs or balanced, no 4cM"? Are they stuffed? Case 2 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥ A good change in the Laws is being able to replace an insufficient bid with a negative double. Say East has a 7-count with four hearts, so doesn't want to bid 2♥. Perfect but there are issues. ♠xxx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣Jxxx What should East do after 1♣ - (1♠) ? Put it to a bidding forum and you will get votes for double, even if that "guarantees" four hearts. So maybe double is only a 95% subset of the hands that would have bid 1♥ if legal. Is that rare possibility enough to make it incomparable? TIA

8 is a Fibonacci number. If you have a group of 8 hands, you can resolve them all within 5 steps. (3+2+1+1+1) The question is. Should you? Take the example of 3-suiters with both minors. There are eight of those. This is a logical Fibonacci way to group them: 4-0-4-5, 4-0-5-4, 5-0-4-4 (so 3 hands with a heart void) 4-1-4-4, 1-4-4-4 (2 of those) 0-4-4-5 0-4-5-4 0-5-4-4 If 2♥ is the bid to show 3-suited with both minors, you can get them all out by 3♠, zooming with three shapes. All good and easy enough to remember. Is it efficient? 4441 hands are more common. If we look at hands short in hearts, 4-1-4-4 is twice as common as the three heart void hands put together. With the scheme above, 4-1-4-4 comes out at 3♥, 1-4-4-4 comes out 3♠ with zooming. One asymmetric way to group them is like this 2N = 4 spades (4 hands) 3♣ = 1-4-4-4 3♦ = 0-4-4-5 3♥ = 0-4-5-4 3♠+ = 0-5-4-4 then 3♦ = 4-1-4-4 3♥ = 4-0-4-5 3♠ = 4-0-5-4 3NT = 5-0-4-4 So one hand finishes high. In fact all the heart void hands are a step higher. (There are 2 zooming shapes, not 3) To compensate, the 4441s come out earlier, which has to be good. 1-4-4-4 at 3♣ 4-1-4-4 at 3♦ That's a gain of two steps for both the 4441s. Seems a better deal; getting the more common hands out earlier. For us, there is another reason for an asymmetric split. Two of our major openings deny four cards in the other major. As a consequence, when describer shows a 3-suiter, there are only four shapes to show. Four is not a Fibonacci number so there is no gain in splitting. Just show them in a line, naturally starting with the 4441.

1♣ = 16+ 1♦ = 4+♠s, denies 4♥s 1♥ = 4+♥s, denies 4♠s 1♠ = majors, 4+ 4+ 1NT = 12-15 no 4cM 2♣/♦ = natural, no 4cM Thus every limit opening either shows or denies a major. The "denied major" concept has been discarded by some other systems, like Moscito, but we value it.

In many strong club relay systems, a 2/1 response is non forcing, typically 6-10 and a decent suit. Stronger responding hands start with a shape-asking relay, such as 1♥ - 1♠ = 11+ any

Marston - Burgess played a non-vulnerable 2♣ fert - basically 5-8 any - in the 1989 Bermuda Bowl. Previously they played strong pass. Regulations forced them to switch to strong club, so they moved the fert.

Select all the text, copy and paste into https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin= (Just paste it all into the address bar, after the equals sign)

We ditched the 3-6 fit jumps because the right hand never came up. We would do it on the wrong hands - such as a raise to two which happened to have a 6-card minor. Now we have them intermediate with no major fit. Working okay. It allows other auctions. In particular 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3 any where 1♦ = spades, not hearts & 2♣ any balanced. We use 3-any here as shortage, even in spades. This because hands worth 3m natural would have bid that first time. SPlinters in partner's possible four small have proved useful.

In Australia, I play strong pass in serious teams events, whenever it is legal. Our fert is 1♠, 0-7 any. (Note we play strong pass only when not vulnerable, strong club when vulnerable) Against us, common is to play a Precision-style defence, so double = 16+ any, all others 11-15 and natural. That's simple but misses out on a lot of penalties. Since fert auctions will sometimes derail the other side, it's important to gain compensation. Simple enough and best is double as balanced, rest are transfers. After their 1♠ fert: X = 14+ balanced then partner judges when to pass, typically scattered values with 3+♠s. A bit of poker. 1NT response is to play, 2♣ Staymannic, transfers etc. 1NT+ overcalls are transfers on shapely hands. A good alternative is to play 1NT as a big unbalanced hand, Romex-style.

There are many ways to make a lin file. Teachers can make use of this, to put hands on a big screen via handviewer. You can import a deal file to a pbn editor, key the auction and play, save as pbn. When you open this in something like the old netbridgevu.exe, a lin file is created. Or do it all on BBO. Provided you have keyed the cardplay, you can step through the play with [next], or choose everyone's cards. You can enter code to hide two of the hands to present and step through a declarer play or defender problem. (Looking back, I think nt|bt||ht|h|sk|SN|st| hides EW) Here's a simple lin file with bidding and play pre-keyed: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html? lin=st||pn|Dummy,undefined,Declarer,undefined| md|3SKQ65H63DJ74C7642,STHQ95DQT8532CA85,SAJ984HAJ74DAKCJ3,S732HKT82D96CKQT9| sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|1S|mb|P|mb|2S|mb|P|mb|4S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P |pc|CK|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|C3|pc|C9|pc|C4|pc|CA|pc|CJ|pc|C8|pc|S8|pc|CT|pc|C6|pc|SA|pc|S2|pc|S5|pc|ST|pc|HA|pc|H2|pc|H3|pc|H5|pc|H4|pc|HT|pc|H6|pc|H9|pc|S3|pc|S6|pc|D2|pc|S9|pc|H7|pc|H8|pc|SQ|pc|HQ|pc|D4|pc|D3|pc|DK|pc|D6|pc|HJ|pc|HK|pc|SK|pc|D5|pc|D7|pc|D8|pc|DA|pc|D9|pc|SJ|pc|S7|pc|C7|pc|DT|pc|S4|pc|CQ|pc|DJ|pc|DQ| basically |mb| look like "make bid", |pc| is "play card". So |pc| seems to be the code that allows you to click through play or select cards. I don't suppose there is a code that allows you to do the same in the auction?? That would be great. Is it possible? As a teacher, I'd really like to be able to click through the auction as well as the play, rather than have the full auction displayed from the start.

Looks like I underbid as East, vul at IMPs. In my defence, it's worth noting that West would have an automatic 1♦ opening with ♠Axxx ♥Qxx ♦KQxx ♣xx, when 2♠ is a trick too high. Admittedly, that's a particularly dreadful hand to find opposite. Still not sure whether 3♥ or 3♠ is right. It would be good to have a mixed raise available, such as the suggested 2NT. That would be ideal.

[hv=pc=n&w=sat83hada8652cj73&e=sq762hj98d7ckqt52&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d(4%2B!S%2C%2010-15)2h(weak)2s3hpp3sppp]266|200[/hv] 1♦ shows 4+♠, not 4♥, 10-15 3♠ made 10 tricks, losing a trump, ♣A and a club ruff. +620 at the other table. As East, I didn't feel like bidding 3♠ or 3♥ (which?) first time with soft values and ♥J-x-x. When the raise came, the belated 3♠ was more attractive. Not match points, so this is invitational, not competitive. Yes? Partner passed, though I think she would have bid game with spades and diamonds swapped.

Our 1♥ opening = 4+♥, not 4♠s, 11-15 pts. 1♠ is then an 11+ shape-ask 1♥ - 1♠ 1NT : 4+♦, unbalanced 2♣ : balanced 2♦ : ♥ >= ♣ 2♥ : ♣ > ♥ 2♠+ : 6+♥ That works fine, won't change that. Now consider 1♥ - (no) - 1♠ - (2♣) Relay is intact after the overcall and Square, so pass : 4+♦, unbalanced X : balanced 2♦ : ♥ >= ♣ 2♥ : ♣ > ♥ 2♠+ : 6+♥ Easy enough but a bit silly. Fancy bidding 2♥ with 5+ in the overcalled suit! Apart from that, you will miss most penalties. Better is to swap the minors in this particular auction. We normally show suits and shortages top down, (♠>♥>♦>♣) which works fine in most auctions. A swap here would produce pass : 4+♣, unbalanced X : balanced 2♦ : ♥ >= ♦ 2♥ : ♦ > ♥ 2♠+ : 6+♥ which is clearly superior. Responder can relay with double over the club-showing pass, aware that opener might pass. If not prepared for that, asker would jump or cue instead. The same would apply after our 1♦ opening, which shows spades 1♦ - (no) - 1♠ - (2♣) Only the 2♣ overcall requires the swap. No swapping needed after a strong club, or other openings. So it would be very rare and a genuine memory strain. Is it worth it?

That makes sense. So how do you handle 12-13 balanced, no major?

Playing 4-card majors with some canape and a strong club, we find ourselves missing some 8-card major fits and playing the wrong 7-card ones. Take these two recent matchpoint examples: Case 1 [hv=pc=n&s=sq76hj7d7654ca872&w=sat4hat85daq92cj3&n=skj82hq643dk83c95&e=s953hk92djtckqt64&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1h(4%2B!H%2C%20not%204!S%2C%2011-15)p2hppp]399|300[/hv] Balanced 15-counts are dangerous for our 16+ 1♣ system. Most of the field made +150 or +400. It's easy to say that East should bid 1NT but the hand looks suitable for 2♥. If partner has five ♥s, 2♥ rates to score better, or at least match the field. If you play a method like ours, what are your guidelines for raising on three? Case 2 [hv=pc=n&s=skt73hq5dkq982ct9&w=s8652hjt84da3ck52&n=sa9hk62dt7654cq73&e=sqj4ha973djcaj864&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h(4%2B!H%20no%204!Ss%2011-15)2d2h3dppp]399|300[/hv] Forget the North-South bidding. Can't argue with their success! Those who opened 1♣ had no problems scoring +140 in 3♥. West might have bid 3♥ first time, or had 2nd thoughts when 3♦ came round. Hard for East to act, though favourable vulnerability at MPs makes it tempting. Perhaps East can double to say "We were making 2♥, let's bid to 3♥ unless you have raised on three." Or should that double be a game try based on a 5-card heart suit? At IMPs too, don't want to bring back "-140" "-110, 6 out."

So I ran a BBO Swiss Pairs on Saturday, 16 pairs, 6 x 8 boards. (Whether this format is "correct" is irrelevant) Everyone out here hates Danish - mainly because of the repeats - so I was pleased to see the +swiss+ hack was available, so I tried it. There was good and bad news. For most of the field, there were no repeats. Great! However, the bottom two pairs played each in the last THREE rounds. So what went wrong? In a Danish, 1st plays 2nd, 3rd plays 4th throughout. In a true Swiss, 1st plays the highest team it has not yet played and the algorithm proceeds through the field. However, to stop repeats, the algorithm also works bottom up through the bottom x teams. What appears to happen with +swiss+ is top-down only, so the bottom teams get stuffed. (Serves them right for playing so badly or being so weak?) Is it so hard to implement a Swiss with no repeats? Note that this is only my guess at what happens. Maybe I simply got the syntax wrong.

With your acrobatics, you free the entire 2-level for pre-empts, which is good. There is a price 1♣ = 16+ any, or 11-15 44M 1♠ = 5+♣ 0r 5+♦, no M, not bal Not so keen on multi-meaning bids, partly because our aim is to attract a new group of punters. Also, bridge is a 4-handed game. Aggressive opponents would cause some problems.

Some 4-6 hands can be awkward. The strongish hands are fine because 1♥ - 1NT/2♥ - 3♣ shows a good 4-6. With a minimum and that shape, we have been known to suppress a poor 4-card major. ♠Jxxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣KQTxxx "might" choose to open 2♣, then show as 3-1-3-6. This is rare. Mostly we open 1♦ and accept the consequences. Either you play 4-card majors or you don't. It's worth noting that our style with three trumps is not so rigid. We tend to respond 1NT on most of the 4333s and some of the 4432s: ♠xxx ♥KTxx ♦Qx ♣KJxx would bid 1NT over 1♦. I think (not sure) Paul would expect responder to bid 2♠ with that.