markyears

Thx! I will treat it as typo. Thank all!

Well, so the default is not takeout? What is Dbl. 1s Wk 2s. btw? Thanks!

Hi, I have another simple question about SAYC. On the card, there is a section with the title "VS. OPP's OPENING PREEMPTS" where both Takeout not checked. Could anybody explain the meaning of this part? Here is the link of the card: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf

I'm learning bridge and looking for a regular BBO partner. I indicate myself in the transition stage from novice to intermediate player. (I put intermediate in my bbo profile because several partners and opps insist I do so, but I somehow feel I'm not that qualified.) The bidding system I'm learning and using is SAYC. I'm looking for a partner who is a serious player. I'm not ambitious to win prizes at any event, but really want to improve my play gradually. So I hope my partner and I can discuss bidding treatment, conventions, and learn from same materials. I'm not a native English speaker but should be able to communicate. By the way I'm currently living in Ann Arbor MI, and will move to DC area at the end of this month. Both places are in EST. If interested, please leave a message on BBO chat or reply here. Thanks for taking your time to read this post!

That was I mean by "modern SAYC". Because I vaguely remember in that old booklet, limit raise require 4 cards. But that link is invalid right now.

Thanks! Then what about 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ in sayc? Is it illegal or just show no slam interest?

I'm a novice and learning sayc. It seems that in recent sayc booklet and some other materials, limit raise only requires 3 cards support. Like 1♠-3♠ only promises 3 cards support. If I have game-forcing value, then start with 2/1. But some people keep telling me, limit raise should require 4 cards support. If only 3 cards with invitational value (10-11), I should use 2/1 first, like 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ to show 3 card support and invitational strength. This seems also very reasonable. By this I mean, if I have game-forcing value, I can bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ to make a difference from the former. May I ask which approach is standard in modern sayc?

Well, as a novice, I found an evidence indicating forcing minor raise is "common" :P There is a sentence in sayc booklet "There is no forcing minor-suit raise", which means sayc designers understand this is a common treatment and just don't want to put it in sayc. :P Thank you all very much!

Thanks, all! I think I will adopt CSGibson's approach :P . But I sort of understand the logic in jillybean's approach, preemptive as in competitive bidding.

Hi everyone, I again have a very simple sayc question but cannot find the answer in books. How can I bid minor suit game in sayc? By game I mean 3nt or 5m, which ever is appropriate. The materials I've seen always discuss the sequence like 1c-1h, then some major suit involves and nt may appear at some level. However, raise can also happen. For example, 1c-2c (2c is 6-9/10 I guess in sayc) or 1c-3c (3c is 10-11/12 limit raise in sayc) Now how the opener rebid to explore game? I think checking stoppers in other suits is very important but I don't know a correct or an official way to do it. Please suggest a way according to sayc system if possible. Since I'm such a novice, I really want to stick on sayc for a while. Thank you!

Everyone, thanks a lot! I now have a little more confidence.

Thank you! Very helpful.

Hi, everyone, one quick question: What is forcing for one round? I'm not a native speaker, so not sure about the meaning of "one round". I thought it means one making this forcing also promises to bid at least once again. But in some literature, it seems same as forcing.

Thx all! I think I should work on suit combination and counting...

Thanks! Right, I agree with your approach. But the actual distribution is: [hv=pc=n&s=sha832dc&w=sht95dc&n=shq764dc&e=shkjdc]399|300[/hv] And the play by Jack 5 is: first cash A and then play small cards in both hands so K falls. It looks a little puzzling. But it works for this particular distribution.

Thanks for these suggestions, all! Maybe one reason I feel low level contract is difficult is I don't know how to play a suit with only a few high honors. For example, a suit combination I just played: Q 7 6 4 A 8 4 3 I need to lose only 1 trick in this combination. What is the standard play here? Thanks!

I'm a novice in bridge but not a completely beginner. Since I know a little sayc, a little declarer play, a little defense... But at the current stage, the most difficult part for me is to play partial contracts. Most of the introductory materials about declarer play focus on game or slam. But I feel partial contracts extremely puzzling. Because in a game contract, I usually have dominated HCP or/and a good fit, I can plan the play before trick 1. Maybe my plan is far away from the optimal, but it's a plan. If I go down, I usually can figure out what was wrong, maybe a wrong finesse or entry management. But in a partial contract, especially 1nt and 2 suit, hcps are balanced and trump fit is sometimes only 4-3. The suit combinations have many holes and I can't count losers and winners before I start. I don't know how to plan the play: there are just too many possibilities and I cannot get a clear picture. So here are my questions: 1. Is this a common problem many novices have? 2. Should I stop worrying the partial contract play because I'm still a beginner? 3. If not, could anybody recommend any books or materials that I can improve or at least become a little more comfortable about partial contract play?

Thank you all very much! I fully understand the first question now. For the second one, then I will treat the 2nt as a weak hand for now. Now it seems to me that the agreement after 2 over 1 is not very clear in Sayc, including this 2nt agreement. May I ask a question in another hand? It is from the book "standard bidding with Sayc" I'm reading: ♠ A Q 10 9 8 ♥ 7 4 ♦ 3 ♣ K Q J 8 7 The question is after 1♠-2♥, what should the opener rebid? I understand 2nt is not a good bid because of the singleton. But for 3♣, the book says "in this situation a new suit at the three-level would be forcing to game". But I don't understand, in what situation? For example, in the sequence, 1♠-2♠-3♣, is an invitation not forcing to game, isn't it? The correct bid recommended in the book is 2♠, in spite of the 5 cards only.

I'm learning SAYC, and want to ask two bidding questions (The answers are inconsistent in some materials I have...) 1. For opener, can "reverses" be used to show maximum hand (19-21 points)? Or we have to use jump shift. 2. In 1♠-2♥-2nt, this 2nt means 13-14hcp or 18-19hcp? Thanks!

Some people (like my dad) always prefer practicing all the time to reading a book. Did your friend ever read any fundamental bridge tutorial carefully? If not, please try to persuade him/her to do so. If yes, but he/she still made this kind of mistakes, just leave it, and let he/she be happy! :rolleyes:

Finding a pd is much harder than finding a book you know... :ph34r:

Thank you very much! Everybody!

Thanks! I took a look at it, pretty comprehensive! What is the basic system this book is based on? 2/1 or a general natural?

Could anybody suggest a book for "competitive bidding" for SAYC ? I feel it is very confusing. I want to specify my need as clear as I can. By "competitive bidding" I don't mean by "defensive bidding", like how to make overcall or take-out double. It is also very nice if someone recommend a book on defensive bidding though. :rolleyes: But by "competitive bidding", I really mean is how to handle the interference like "overcall" when we open the bidding. I found some tutorials only give a vague meaning of bids in a competitive bidding sequence, not as precise as constructive bidding. Most of these tutorials focus on conventions, like Unusual NT or negative double. But the part I'm most interested in is the exact meaning of the natural bids, i.e. the lower and upper limits and the shape promised by a bid, such as I learned for only constructive bid.

That's a great suggestion! But sometimes, I feel the deals in master bridge are a little artificial though...