glen

So 2♠ is forcing (since no upper range given) even though it could have just 5 HCP? Or are you just describing P-1♥--2♠ and there is a different description for 1♥-2♠ (unpassed hand)? If 1♥-2♠ is 5+HcP, 4+♠ etc., what is 1♥-1♠? Is your description of 2♠ perhaps the description of a 1♠ response?

Please re-read starting posting first example. We are looking for FD of 1♥ opening opposite a passed hand, and the FD of the P-1♥--2♠ bid. Could you please provide these two FD examples.

Wouldn't almost all systems have a hcp range for an opening bid, or if no upper range, then state forcing? I believe the 1♥ opening either needs a range stated for it or a "forcing" if they play it as unlimited. If the opening is limited, they need to state the approximate range. How would you like to play against ETM Tops (as an example) and get the FD of "5+♥s" for the 1♥ opening. Later, via trial and error, you find out the range is 8-17.

Did you miss this key question: so that is how you would type them into FD? Just "natural, possible canape" for 1♥ and let everybody assume point count etc. from that, and "non-forcing" for the 2♠ bid? Let me put it this way: could you please post the text of how you would describe the two bids in FD in reply to this post? We will then compare your description with their description. Btw Frances, I've asked for a [RANT] and [/RANT] feature - it would have a nice bold red font with steam rising. I would have used it here.

Did you misread the starting post? Let's take just the first example. That is how they explained the auction. You really believe that is properly informing the opponents? Is this all you would type into a FD description? If you don't believe this is properly informing the opponents, then you are sure that there is "much to complain about here". In that case you should retract your contention. The point is that numerous follow-up questions were required to drag the information out. Contrast to: US: Please explain the auction? * THEM: 1H natural, four or longer, possible longer second suit**, always unbalanced, 10-16 points. THEM: 2S non-forcing, 8-10*** has four card minor since would have opened a Multi without one. * I suggest "please explain the auction, fully describing each of your bids as much as you know about them" ** this assumes in their system, any other suit can be the longer suit, even the other major *** 10-12 range provided by them makes no sense in their system context, so 8-10 likely real range.

Bidding comes in different styles, and if the bidding is natural, styles tend not to be alertable. As you increase your experience, you will gain knowledge of these styles and know to look out for them. The alert system is not designed, at this time, to draw your attention to styles. If your opponents were playing DONT, and had read this document: BridgeHands - DONT The very first example hand they would see would be: [hv=s=sq98hajt9643d2c54]133|100|Scoring: ?[/hv]Here they would double (instead of bidding, say 3♥, and describe it as a one-suiter). Now say your opponents had obtained Conventions CD by Mike Lawrence (software by Bridge Base and Fred Gitelman) - you should also obtain this. See: Product Info They would learn that they should double, vulnerable against not, with: [hv=s=sq98hajt9643d2c54]133|100|Scoring: ?[/hv] So soon your opponents might be overcalling on hands without much points, especially if not vulnerable. This style would not be alertable, so it is something to be aware of when it might occur.

When playing against this type of partnership, and if the match will be close, or if winning by 100 even imps has value compared to winning just by 90 odd imps, then one needs to use the expression: "Tell us everything you know about ___?". If you then get a short answer, you use relay methods to find out further information: "So that is really everything you know about ___?" However there is another method I have used. Partnerships playing unusual methods often bring their system notes with them, if this is f2f. Since I speed read, and I find reading system notes interesting, I ask to borrow them. So then my questions are more like "so 1NT is 10-11 points, using a modified ZAR point count with short suit deductions and long suit upgrades, and can be any shape without a diamond fit, and is not 1-7-2-3, since the 3♥ response shows exactly that?"

First, I loved the dialog! Though instead of a cop show I pictured an overdubbed martial arts film ("and now, you die!"). Sadly, in return, I offer a pathetic soap opera: 1NT (usual, ho hum, what's on tv tonite? Hey, where did Monday Night Football go? Watsup with that?) 2♣ (I have a suit, it is black and round) P (Why am I P'ing here - can't I afford an 'ass' and Pass? Sheeeet!) 2♦ (What the heck was 2♣? Maybe it is DONT or CAPP or FRED or something - oh well lets fire out 2♦ here and sort things out) X (I have some good diamonds...maybe we can compete here...why do I have 250 channels and nothing to watch? Is 24 about CSI Toronto solving a case of beer?) 2♥ (Bonus! A chance to bid my second suit - this style is better than DONT, Fred was rite about natural bidding) X (Why hasn't she returned my calls? and not any of my text messages? and none of my emails? and she doesn't seemed to have watched my bidding in a box video on u'tubed? Perhaps I should make one of those doubles-with-values-but-no-clear-direction "cards" doubles and let partner figure things out) Pass (ha! it was not ♣s! Always best to take the rosie view in setting trump) Pass (man, Y would he X? Is he over the break up with Britney? Ho, hum? He can't have a heart stack since he would have transferred! did he get a date with Cameron yet or will it take days? did he take my X as takeout or fakeout? Is his X fakeout? What the heck does fakeout mean? Should I call Paris when this is fini?) Puke (here I go for 1-800-MYFAULT again) Leader: (Why did Britney dump me and keep going out to all those ♣s? Could it have been that mistimed strip and squeeze play on the vugraph? What's a safe play here? Sounds like pard has something in ♦s - leading those can't be wrong, can it? Doesn't Inquiry edit full disclosure dialog like this or is it just demeaning & misleading & missdebestleading? Maybe my trailer was just not big enough for Britney?)

Thanks Susan - a good background on sayc. The rule on the hand in question depends on the type of tourney. If the tourney begins with something like: and given that the basic SAYC Card has 2♣ as a natural overcall, and given the 2♣ overcall was just described as "suit", and given the 2♦ bid was not self-alerted and not self-explained, then I would rule against the 2♣ bidder side. However since these games should approximate a club level environment, and not something like a national event, I would not "throw the book" at the 2♣ side. Instead I would point out the need to have an accurate cc, as noted at the start of the tourney, and the need to self-explain bids properly. Then I would give average to each pair. For the 2♣ side this change of result will be painful enough to draw their attention to following the rules, while for the star player, and their partner, they would have to be content with not suffering the bad result. This is not the "perfect" ruling as required by the laws, but it is the type of ruling found in club games, where the TD is attempting to motivate players to follow the rules without seeming to be too harsh in doing so.

Well the paper could have gone yellow due to age, or some sort of misuse. However it was also quite yellow when brand new, and was obtained from ACBL sources. Attempts to sell it on eBay for $29.99 failed.

A yellow paper posted on my wall, marked at the top "ACBL Standard Yellow Card" - I was not kidding about hardcopy.

My yellow paper copy of sayc (hardcopy, gasp!) has 2♣ as natural. A natural 2♣ overcall over our 1NT got us for 8 IMPs in the last tourney, so I hope they ban these evil natural bids.

I would rule the same given the star, unless the cc of the 2♣ pair stated 2♣ was natural (such as with a default sayc cc), in which case I would rule against the bad cc pair - unless the tourney allowed player profiles to replace cc's ("what a nice surprise, bring your alibis"). Note that we see lots of "suit" short self-explain for double playing dont and 2♣ playing capp, to the point we would assume suit means any suit, not a natural bid, unless the cc confirms natural. I would warn the 2♦ bidder to self-alert on this sequence.

I was just playing out a hand (instead of claiming, since playing out often faster) when a defender claimed 0 of the remaining tricks. The advantage to this was only person needed to accept.

plus they have happy feet to shuffle to the right spot

While it is not expert methods to play fakeout doubles (at least deliberately), there are certain advantages to the fakeout approach: - You get into the bidding with values – this might find a good partscore or game where experts methods would not provide an easy path into the auction. - You force the opponents to continue to investigate for 4-4 fits in the unbid major or majors, as the double does not promise any length in an unbid major. This means you can often allow the opponents to identify your fit – if they find a fit, you usually have one, and they just bid your suits, then let them play the contract. - Advancer (partner of the doubler) must be careful to bid only real suits (usually five or longer) at higher levels. With no real suit, advancer can keep the bidding low, or bid notrump, or cuebid to explore possible landing spots. Bidding real suits will help with leads, while keeping the bidding low or bidding notrump can work on a whole bunch of layouts. - If you end up defending the hand, declarer will find it harder to get a read on the hand shapes of the hands. - Advancer may be able to pass 1 of a minor doubled without a stack in the suit, taking the chance that the doubler is not very short in the opened minor. This list of advantages may not be complete and I would be interested in any others. Personally I’m tempted to switch to fakeout doubles (really!) to explore the pluses and minuses of this approach in average fields. After all, thousands of satisfied customers can’t be wrong?

Quite a number of players play a double of an opening bid just shows values without any other good call available (this might even be the majority of players in certain tourneys). Others play the double as takeout, as recommended in all the books. However if you click on the double during online play to find out which type of double, both styles will describe their double as takeout. You could ask a long question like "does your double promise either a very big hand or at least three cards in each of the unbid suits?" but this would just slow the game down and might confuse the issue. So I propose that the first style be termed a "fakeout" double, as one or more of the "outs" might be "fake" (shorter than three). For example a 2=3=4=4 shape double of a 1♦ opening would be a fakeout double. Now when you click on somebody's double, the doubler could just quickly reply takeout, fakeout, t/o, or f/o.

It was Friday the 13th that got you

Any other info available on this - was this a tourney or just mps for fun? Was their system standard, albeit with negative free bids, or something else? Was their opening notrump range 15-17, or something else? Was the "it is NF, 10+ hands start with double" said by responder, or by opener?

Just to clarify, you claimed but did not make a statement of claim (such as "trump is good, top ♣ is good")? Also you thought that this claim would be faster than trying to play the last two tricks quickly while claiming if one of the opponents stopped to think?

First, I agree with everything Justin says (which I do usually, but just don't say it). Next to answer: This is not rude. It is not the best, but it is far from the worst so does not cross the border into rude country.

The original is at nbc.com - go to shows, and then saturday night live - select the uncensored version of the digital short (please note that no short digitals were hurt in filming this). For the latest on nasty gossip, including links to videos involving stuff in boxes, see perezhilton, a top 10 site in Canada last month. You will be offended by this Hollywood site, as it works that way.

Thanks Claus. Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods. Given that, I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

... and now leaving the main topic, which seems finished (thanks everybody, good discussion), and returning to a sub-topic: I believe you are not looking at their system notes (which they keep under lock and key - these run hundreds of pages and nobody has these on the net), but instead their cc notes, which are quite terse and I suggest you not use these to derive much system stuff. Also note this Meckwell move: after a big club opening, in a forcing pass situation: Pass asks for a double (unless partner would not pass a penalty double). Double shows doubt (i.e. two-way values). Bids show that suit. Pass (forcing to double) and then bid shows that suit and another suit.

MS Vista (free security with purchase of operating system) Okay, bad joke!