gordontd

Well, it' not surprising there's a divide since NMF is virtually unknown in the UK (and perhaps the rest of Europe?)

No, it's more like "I didn't realise when we agreed to play Puppet Stayman that it applied after both 1NT & 2NT".

More importantly, it needs a better suit than this.

Under-use of punctuation & failure to use capitals.

You may well be right, but what we are considering here is not a direct cue-bid.

I think it's best to say something like "please put a pass card on the table if you intend to pass".

Since for many EBU players 10hcp is too strong for a weak two, I think 6-11 should probably be announced as weak-to-intermediate. After all, for most players an 11 count and a six-card suit is a one-opener. In any case, making the wider announcement seems less likely to cause problems or mislead.

Neither of them seem particularly strange to me. That seems a perfectly reasonable argument. I agree. But even if it were judged to be SEWoG, that would only affect the adjustment of EW's score, not that of both sides.

I've seen players pass mis-fitting 17-counts opposite a three-opener. But if that had happened here, I imagine partner would have been able to pass in tempo.

I don't think a single instance creates a tendency, but I did lose all respect for him at that point.

I think the fact that you talk of having director calls "on" players says something.

It is if the director is called in the correct manner, and does the teaching properly.

The problem comes when you don't have a card to unequivocally encourage, or if you don't play this situation as attitude.

And having not done so, partner has given me another chance by saying he would like us to bid on unless I have the contract off in my own hand. I don't, so I bid 4♠.

I´m sorry to hear that, but not entirely surprised. The Young Chelsea Marathon used to hold 56 pairs and was for many years sold out well in advance. Then, the numbers started falling off and the last three or four were not full, the last one only managing to attract 17.5 pairs (directors took it in turns to make up the half pair). I´m not sure what the reason is - perhaps that online bridge is available 24 hours a day for anyone who wants, and the old stalwarts who used to play are now rather older. Whatever the reason, the club isn´t intending to hold another until sufficient interest has been identified, because it´s a very time-consuming event to organise and barely broke even financially.

"Funny two-bids" is a phrase I hear quite often, and seems quite appropriate in that it invites further questions or examination of the system card.

Unfortunately the current Law book no longer has a Contents, which the previous ones did. The index would have made a welcome addition to the new Laws, but is a poor substitute for the Contents.

Duplicate post deleted

If 4NT shows the ♥K, then it also denies the ♠K.

Howell movements are ideal when you have one fewer round than the number of pairs, so for nine rounds (18 boards) a full Howell would only be suitable for five tables. There are also 3/4 (or reduced) Howells when you don't meet all the other pairs, and that might be a good solution for six tables playing 9 rounds. However, with larger numbers of tables, as Frances is expecting, a Howell is not really ideal.

You play that you have to bid 3♥ if you really want to force?

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

For the eight table Bowman, put out boardsets 1-6 on tables 1-6. Table 7 will share with table 1 throughout. Table 8 will share with tables 6,4,2,6,4,2 so that they play boardsets in reverse order. There will be a skip after three rounds, but otherwise EW pairs just move up one table. Arrow-switch the last round. For a ten-table web mitchell you really do need two sets of boards. Put boardsets 1-5 on tables 1-5, then boardset 4 on table 6 boardset 3 on table 7 boardset 2 on table 8 boardset 1 on table 9 boardset 9 on table 10 One set of boards feeds in at table 5 and comes out after table 1; the other set of boards feeds in at table 10 and comes out after table 6. Note that the top half of the movement plays boards in reverse order, so boards are fed in to table 10 as boardset 9,8,7,6... EW pairs move up one table throughout the entire movement, and all tables arrow-switch the final round. Boards move down one table each round, but remain within their own half of the movement - ie boards from table 6 go to a relay and then to table 10; boards from table 1 go to a relay and then to table 5. Will you know in advance how many pairs you have?

Actually, for 11 tables it would be a Bowman. A ten-table Bowman would only have eight boardsets. A further possibility would be to play 6x3-board rounds, so that board-sharing (if necessary) would be easier. That would give you a Bowman for eight tables.

As is his understanding of the word "subsequently".