gordontd

It's not uncommon among UK players either, but that's because they may be playing a weak NT and playing 1♦-2♣-3♣ as non-forcing.

There's less point to two-way Checkback if you don't bypass diamonds to bid a major, and if you agree only to bypass on hands too weak to make a move over a 1NT rebid (which is a reasonable thing to do) then you will have far fewer of those hands when your 1NT rebid is strong.

This sounds reasonable, but what do we say to a pair who are scheduled to play against a weak pair, and find they get a poor board playing an extra board against a much stronger pair, through no fault of their own?

The TD might well have benefited from asking something like that - asking him to repeat the basis of his claim (though the actions of the player's RHO have rather spoiled that), but my question was specifically to Bluejak, who is assuming that the player did not mean what he said. I wondered how he knows that. I think if you have asked him what he meant, and he says he meant what he said, there is no need to follow up by asking why he is playing that way. His opponents might have good reason to feel aggrieved if you seem to be encouraging him to a new, better, unstated line.

Not invariably.

To the contrary, David, it seems that you have assumed a different line from that which he said. How do you know that the player meant what you think, when it differs from what he clearly said?

I seem to remember this same question was asked on rec.games.bridge a few years ago. You might find some useful responses there.

It was really just meant to be a friendly exchange, since you quite frequently play in a mixed partnership and you play all over the world. I'm sorry to have imposed.

Ah, that's the explanation. Still, it's worth the tradeoff.

I would if I were going to cite unusual agreements in support of decisions to make calls suggested by UI.

The initial post started "When mixed pairs are played men and women sit in a fixed position." The statement was not limited to the WBF or any other body.

I don't recall us having such regulations here, when we have such events, do we Andy?

Thanks for this. Yet another Firefox problem for me - I don't have the buttons. I can see them if I go over to Safari, which it seems is what I'll have to do when reading the forums.

It would happen less if pairs with surprising, unlikely agreements made sure they were adequately recorded on their system cards or in their notes.

Can you explain how this voting works? I can't seem to find the facility anywhere, and it's not mentioned in the help file.

3♣? :rolleyes:

Of course it is. 2M is a (sub)minimum rebid, and everything else is natural with at least full opening values. How is that not playable?

Yes, but for me it's not teams if you don't play the same boards against the same team as your team-mates. I thought this process of having a short triple was universal. I'm surprised that you appear not to know it. It's not complicated when you're prepared for it - we always carry three table cards, with 0-10 VP scale on them, to any Swiss Teams we run.

Sure. You get the bottom three teams to play two half-matches, using an appropriate VP scale that gives them up to 10 VPs for each half. The movement within the three tables is a mini American Whist. Imagine you are playing 8 board matches. The three teams in the triple will have 12 boards in play - four on each table. After playing four boards against one of their opposing teams, the EW pairs take the completed boards back to their team-mates (for them to play), and then go on to play at the third table. After playing both half-matches they return to their team-mates to score up. You need to have spare boards available for the extra half-set, and it's a good idea for them to be very high numbers so they don't get confused with other boards in play.

There already exists such a solution, routinely used. Your method does not seem to be an improvement on it.

Me too.

I've read it, but it doesn't make sense, because you are suggesting that we have different opponents from our team-mates. Shouting at us to read it doesn't make it meaningful.

I'm not sure that 3♥ should be forcing if this is an acceptable 2♣ response, but I do think the question should be looked at of whether bidding rather than passing is a logical alternative.

Another strange behaviour: when I select View New Content I get a list of posts. If I select one of them I am taken to it. So far so good. If after having read it I use the back button, I don't go back to the list - I get taken to a list with only one post on it, a post that is no longer current.

I expect I'll get used to it, though I'm finding it hard work at the moment and I have a similar reaction to others - I dislike the red blocks, and the hands take forever to load - not always accurately. However I do have one other issue: in Firefox I get the following errormessage whenever I choose a post with a hand diagram in it: