rdylan

This may be a faux pas on a site about BBO, but I have found that trickstercards is much friendlier for beginner players. Their robots are not nearly as good as GIB, but they are free. The live players are all either beginners or have zero expectation that a random partner will be anything other than a beginner. It's rubber bridge, so you won't get duplicate comparisons, hand history or analysis. But if you just want to play, it is significantly less intimidating. I've been using a mix of BBO and trickster for several months now, successfully balancing enjoyment and learning.

Thanks all. This thread has been very enlightening for me. The only reason I said at the outset that there was no need to convince me to change bidding systems was that I was already generally aware of the weaknesses of SAYC and the superiority of 2/1 GF. However, I play with a group of mostly (self-described) "kitchen bridge" players who claim to play SAYC, but really play a combination of pre-modern SA and Grant Club series with only the most basic modern adaptions. They are also all in their 70s and 80s, so getting them to switch now to 2/1 GF would be an exercise in futility. I will definitely be learning 2/1 GF, and hope to find a player soon to take that journey with me (I'm working on getting my brother to play). In the meantime, I've been trying to make the most sense out of SAYC (and out of the situations in which my group departs from SAYC) as I can. What is clear to me now is that there isn't much sense to be made for either.

Now that you say that, I've gone back and checked and it is a split, and the more authoritative texts seem to use 10, but clearly T is better.

Hahaha. I live in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and sometimes go across the river to play poker on the Quebec side. Every time I do, the first board that comes out with a face card throws me off for a few seconds (R,D,V vs K,Q,J). Any letter would be better than '10' in my opinion.

Understood. I only mention it to show that the general description in the SAYC booklet of a 2NT rebid as being a balanced minimum hand obviously doesn't apply in all situations. It doesn't answer the question, however, as to whether it applies in a 2/1 situation. Two opinions appear to be emerging based on whether 1♠ - 2♦ - 2NT is forcing or not. I think that the crowd I normally play with would consider this non-forcing, and indicating a balanced minimum. Frankly, I see no good reason that this would be forcing in SAYC. A balanced 18-19 with no support for responder's suit could just go to 3NT.

And it gets more complicated again... "Standard Bidding with SAYC" describes a 2NT rebid after a simple raise as inviting to game with a 5 card major, whereas a 3 level rebid in suit invites with a 6 card major. If this is right, then 2NT rebid doesn't always mean 13-15 points (here it would mean 16-18).

Thanks Stephen, I missed that in the booklet (which I find difficult to read): Rebids with a minimum hand (13-15 points): Rebidding no trump at the lowest available level Maybe then NT rebids are the exception to responder's promise? That would seem to line up with the explanations in "Idiots Guide to Bridge" (standard but not SAYC).

Couldn't agree more! As a beginner, I've miscounted several hands because of this. Using T would also conform to every book and article I've read on bridge. I guess I've never read anything from the Netherlands.

SAYC opening range for 1NT is 15-17 HCP, and is preferred even with a 5 card major, so I don't see the utility in 2NT showing 15-17 here. It has to be either 12-14 or 18-19. I would have thought it was 12-14, given responder has shown 10+ points, but as mycroft has pointed out, responder has guaranteed another bid, so this would appear to be off the table. The problem, as you've identified, is the 5332 major 12-14 point range, especially when responder is 2335 and 11 points. We would want to sign off in 2NT (or 2 of a suit) but there doesn't seem to be a way to get there. After, say, 1♠-2♣, I have no decent rebid, but I must rebid (responder could be temporizing on the way to a jump to game). Probably best to rebid my original suit, but this will likely end up with a simple raise to 3♠. I could try 2♥, which would appear to be the best bid if partner is 2335, but if he's 2425, then we are going to end up in 3NT or 4♥. Bidding a suit in the hopes that it won't work doesn't seem like a good tactic. I suppose that is just the hole in the bidding system we have to live with, rebid the original suit, and end up down 1-2 in spades. Of course, opponents might let us off the hook here by competing.

Thank you mycroft, that was extremely helpful and exactly what I needed to wrap my brain around this.

I've seen conflicting descriptions of the 2/1 response in SAYC. I'm aware that this is a weak area of SAYC (no need to try to convince me to change to a different system). My first question is this: What does a 2/1 response in SAYC guarantee for distribution? (There seems to be a general consensus that a 2-level response shows 10+ points). Some refs say this guarantees a 5 card holding, some say 4 cards, at least one says 4 cards except if it is 1♠-2♥, which guarantees 5 hearts. The most confusing comes from the book Standard Bidding with SAYC, which says this bid shows 5+ cards and 10+ points (or 4 cards and 11+ points). Second question: After a 2/1 response, what does opener's rebid of 2NT show? Is it the same 12-14 points balanced that a 1NT shows after a 1/1? Does it deny support? Does SAYC require stoppers in the unbid suits at this point?

Okay, I'm still learning everything to do with bridge, and I need some help with this defensive lead problem that circulated through my bridge group. I've received two different answers with three different explanations. I'm looking for the views of the group. Contract: 1NT (bidding goes 1NT All PASS) Hand: ♠Q64 ♥K2 ♦987632 ♣J3 First Answer (from several intro guides on leading): ♦6 - fourth from longest (as I understand it, to try to set up diamonds). Second Answer (from local bridge instructor): ♦9 - essentially an extension of the Top of Nothing bid (as I understand it, all your other choices suck so go diamonds and play passively hoping to promote the ♠Q and ♥K); the 9 doesn't give the false impression that you are holding an honour in diamonds but also implies a shorter suit. Third Answer (from a different bridge instructor): ♦9 - longest without implying an honour (this one I don't understand, as it would seem to imply a shorter suit, probably 3-carded nothing). Any insights here from the group would be appreciated. Is this simply a matter of convention? It seems to me that SAYC calls for the first answer, but I get the rationale of not wanting to imply an honour. However, if you are leading this for its length, then surely the 6 is a better indicator of length than the 9.

It's at least a little funny. You win, I concede.

I understand what you are saying, and yes, I suppose at least some of the initial sample is biased, because I did start it when the other players were complaining and I did look back. This tainted the first 40 hands. I will ditch that sample and carry on. Using the tournament sample won't help. I should refine the hypothesis to state that hands are dealt randomly in the casual table IMP games. We just played another 20 hands or so. I'll let you know what my results look like when I hit 100 untainted games.

Well, my sample is my entire play history, so we can strike 2. Three sounds like conspiracy theory. I admit it could be really bad luck. I calculate that bad luck at 1 in 400,000. I'm not saying it isn't possible. Of note, your results over 47 hands don't actually exclude my results based on confidence levels, so they aren't "completely at odds" with what I'm experiencing. As for making a hypothesis and then looking at the results, that is exactly what I have done. The hypothesis is that the deal is random and that the odds of getting dealt a 9-point hand are 9.356%. The experiment deviates from the expected results by a statistically significant amount. All I am saying is that casual players are experiencing a phenomenon that is at least backed up by my initial set of hands. There are many potential explanations for this, including extraordinarily bad luck. But simply dismissing the idea out of hand lacks rigor. I'd be very interested for one of the programmers to confirm that the code for dealing the casual tables is identical to the code for the competitive and money players. I'd also love to know how the code does its random generation.