EricK

I'd double, of course. But I'd also double with xx AQx Kxxxx xxx What else are you going to say? Pass? 2D? I mis-stated when I said that SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. I should have said that with a pickup partner playing against another pickup partnership, SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. However, it has no defined defenses against Moscito or forcing pass, and there's some confusion even against Precision. There is no meta-defense in SAYC, and that's what I mean by not being robust enough. There seems to be some difference in the usage of language. If you double on these hands, you are playing -ve doubles, in my understanding of the term. A negative double is simply a double which asks partner to bid (but he may choose to pass), this is compared to a penalty double which asks partner to pass (but he may choose to bid). Eric

But you are not really using 3NT as serious as opposed to non-serious - All slam tries are serious opposite a limit-bid! Beginners please turn away now. :) The benefit of using 3NT as specifically denying a club control, comes when you don't bid it. eg A cue bid of 4♦ will show a ♣ control and a ♦ control, but deny a ♥ control. Beginners, you may look again. B) Eric

Is serious 3NT really that useful when partner has already limited their hand so much? I can think of better uses for 3NT in this sequence (slam interest but no Club control would top the list, I think), but none of them are really suitable for a B/I forum. Eric

The difference between overcalling 3♥ with 4♥, and overcalling 4♦ with 5♦ is considerable. In the hand you quote, partner isn't strong enough to bid 5♦. He has 2 ♠ losers for a start. Also, after (3♥) 4♥, if partner bids ♠, and you correct to ♣, you are showing a minor 2-suiter and the first round ♥ control. Isn't that the difference between 4♥ and 4NT and between 5♥ and 5NT? Eric

What about 4♥ and 5♥? Eric

Negative doubles are an unnecessary crutch at any level. SAYC does great when it's playing SA or 2/1. It's simply not robust enough to handle anything else. I certainly disagree with you about negative doubles. The portion of Robson and Segal's book "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" about negative doubles explains why they are necessary. But I don't follow what you mean about SAYC not being robust enough to handle other systems. Could you give some examples? Eric

I don't think SAYC is a horrible system. It is not a great, world-beating, system, but it wasn't designed as such. My major gripe with it is that negative doubles should certainly apply above 2♠. Otherwise the system is just too open to pre-emption. Apart from that, it handles most things at least adequately. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get through a normal evening of bridge (24 boards or so) without really missing any more advanced stuff. Eric

It is a pity that RHO forgot that he was allowed to Pass :D Eric

It doesn't matter which card you play as long as you play it quickly (OK, I mean "in tempo"). This is the only holding in which you may have a genuine reason to hesitate, so if you do hesitate, declarer may draw the right conclusion and make the overtrick. And if you hesitate without this holding and declarer guesses wrong, you may find the TD adjusting the score. Eric

In Standard American (and most other non-2/1 GF systems), this sequence shows a limit raise in ♠ with exactly 3♠. However, SAYC plays this as GF (this exact sequence is mentioned in the ACBL's booklet). With a limit raise you raise directly to 3♠ with 3 or more ♠. This may not be the optimum approach, but SAYC is a rigidly defined system, and that's what it says. Now the question arises, if you are playing SAYC with a pick-up partner on BBO, will he play the actual SAYC methods or will he be treating SAYC as a synonym for "Fairly natural, Strong NT, 5 card majors"? Unfortunately the answer is probably the latter. My advice is to definitely bid game if you have any excuse at all, but if you pass, pray that you don't make 10 tricks :) Eric

Traditionally the bid which shows support for partner (and a strong hand) is a cue-bid - here 3♥. After this, partner can bid 3NT because of the double stop. Because the double promises ♠ (according to the ACBL's SAYC leaflet, a negative double up to the level of 2♠ promises 4 cards in an unbid major), your partner wasn't wrong to show the ♠ support. However, you must have one of the hands wrong as both players have the ♠A. If partner's spades are very weak, then certainly a case can be made for his bidding 2NT rather than 2♠. Eric

It also leaves out 2NT 3NT and 1NT 2NT so what do you read into that? Eric

We will only get to 4♠ after the double if partner bids it himself. I am certainly not going to bid it for him. If partner has a jump to 4♠, then I think 4♠ making is at least as likely as 4♠ down 2. At this vulnerability and position, people will jump to 3H on almost any old rubbish (I know you would, and so would I!). I think that swings the odds in favour of doubling, because there is also the (slight) possibility of 3HX -2 against a part score. Eric

Fairly close between double and Pass, IMO. But I go for double. If I have 3 Hearts and I club, I would pass (and hope partner can reopen with a double). If I had 1 Heart and 3 Clubs, I think double is clear. 3 Spades seems an overbid because partner will be very keen to raise to game at this vulnerability, and I don't think the odds favour it. Eric

As an aside, both slams are theoretically slightly less than 50% on a double dummy basis, as you have certain Club loser, a finesse for the H King, and a possible ruff at trick one or two. However, some of the time when the slam could be beaten, it won't be, because they don't find the ruff, or a club isn't led allowing you to discard your club losers on the spades. So, how should one factor these imponderables into the decision to bid slam? Eric

This may not be a common opinion, but I would have bid 2S (WJO) with the third hand. Then I don't have this problem (although I may have others). Eric

IMO, it is better to ask "Shouldn't there be a test administered before someone can give their advice in the beginner/intermediate forum?"! Advance/expert players are (or should be) more capable of recognizing bad advice than beginner/intermediates. But I don't think either test is necessary. If someone gives advice which is, let us say, questionable then they will quickly be told the error of their ways by follow up posters. Eric

At this vulnerability, that seems a little frisky. You're not playing inherently destructive methods are you? :huh: Eric

I pass on both Eric

Not going to happen. Which has the lower p-value, an opening 3-bid on KQxxxx or 2H showing 4+H and 4+S? I would guess the latter, Ekrens, but the first would be allowed anywhere, and the second would be banned in a lot of places, simply because it's harder to defend against. An opening 1D bid which shows either 5 hearts or 5 spades, kind of like Multi would have a very low p-value, much lower than that crappy preempt. Are you really saying that should be allowed for just that reason? Now, if y'all jump on board and tell me that THIS is a real convention too, I'm really going to be surprised! The point is that "they" can't then say that they are banning it because it is inherently destructive. I see no reason to ban a 1D opening showing 5 cards in a major. If it is a weak hand, then the rest of the system would be hard to construct so people wouldn't want to play it, I imagine, but a system like 1C = 15+ 1D = 5 card major 10-14 1H/S = 6+ or 4 (not balanced 12-14, hence canape) 1NT balanced 12-14 2C/D 5+ unbalanced no major seems eminently playable. Eric

The difference may be that when you open you don't know the level you are going to play at or if you have a fit or even if it is your hand. So you try to give partner as much useful information as you can. With a weak suit you might not want to suggest it as trumps, especially if you have no easy way to show the balanced nature of your hand and also if partner may lead it if we defend or compete too high if things get that way.. With a strong suit these worries are lessened. In the case of the response to 1NT with a GF hand, we are only concerned with finding the best contract. Eric

OK, let's come up with a list with a high 'p' value. Opening preempts. (especially 5 of a minor :angry: ) Bergen raises. Preemptive raises. Including the standard 1 of a Major - 4 of a major. Sacrifices. The Unusual Notrump. I'm sure there are others but need I say more? I think the definition needs a little refinement. I don't think any of these methods is meant to propel the partnership past their par contract. Remember that very often the par contract is one which will be going down. Your inclusion of sacrifices suggests you overlooked this fact. If one sie can score +620 in 4♠ and the other can score -500 in 5♣X, par (for both sides) is 5♣X. Yes, some preempts will propel the partnership past their par results, just as some purely constructive methods will. Tim This is absolutely right. Par contract is not the same as highest making contract. But a 3 level pre-empt with a suit of KQTxxx will have a higher p value than a 3 level pre-empt with KQTxxxx. Thus 6 card 3 level pre-empts are more destructive tha 7 card pre-empts (by my definition). That is not to say that the 6 card pre-empt would fall to the "banned" side of the line. The point of all this is to be able to rank all methods in terms of their destructiveness. Then if one method is allowed, all methods with a lower p value would also be allowed. Eric

I think the difference is that a weak suit makes more tricks when it is trumps, but a strong suit will take tricks in NT as well. And often, when two balanced hands face each other there are as many tricks in the suit as in NT. This is especially true when your main source of high card tricks is the prospective trump suit. Opener is meant to try to work out which of 4M and 3NT is more likely to make :angry: Eric

I agree both methods are playable. There are two sorts of low HCP slams which are easily missed. Those with a shortage opposite a weak suit, and those with two running suits and sufficient controls outside. One method will make finding one sort easier, the other helps with the other sort. I have never seen any research done as to which type is more common! Eric

Regretfully, no objective definition has been provided for "Inherently Destructive". And, I doubt you could come up with one. I think it's like pornography: I know it when I see it. I would approach it something like this: Any method (and by "method" I mean a bid and the responses to it and so on) will sometimes take the pair using it above their par contract. So for any method we can, theoretically, award it a value 0<p<1 which is the probability that the method will take the pair too high. The higher the value of p, the more destructive the method is. So all methods could be ranked from least destructive to most destructive and a dividing line put somewhere. No doubt this could be refined somewhat, and it may not be easy to evaluate p, but I think it captures the fact that a constructive method will tend to avoid taking the pair above their par contract (and "destructive" does seem to be used by these people as the opposite of "constructive"). Eric