Stephen Tu

In SA the jump preference by responder after a 2/1 has always been GF. SA has historically always had a lot more forcing sequences than Acol. Invitational spade raises in SA are either jump raise immediately (1s-3s) once limit raises were adopted (in ancient times jump raise was forcing), or just give a 2/1 followed by a non-jump preference. Or go through 1nt forcing if that is available.

This has never been the case. One major problem is that a fairly large number of players these days, especially foreigners, and maybe beginners who started online where SAYC is more common, think "SAYC" (aka Standard American Yellow Card) is a synonym for "SA" (Standard American), which it is NOT, and use the two terms interchangeably, which they should NOT. SAYC is a particular flavor of SA, not the umbrella term for a family of systems that SA is. SA as a general approach (mostly a style popularized by Goren, updated for 5-cd majors) might still be most common (2/1 dominates among non-beginner level duplicate players), but SAYC never has been common. Rather these people all play SA as they were taught, with their own preferred set of conventions, and considerable variation in certain treatments (most notably which sequences after a 2/1 bid are forcing, which show extras and create a GF, whether responder always promises a rebid, as these things have evolved a lot over the decades, so it tends to depend on when these people learned bridge or when their teacher learned). SAYC is *supposed* to mean playing SA following a set of conventions and rules layed out in a particular pamphlet and printed on a yellow convention card. However a very large percentage of people who have the above confusion have never read these resources, so may claim to be playing SAYC when in fact they are playing "SA as I happen to think it is", rather than realizing there is no "standard" in "Standard American", and not realizing SAYC is supposed to be a particular version of SA. The other problem with SAYC (the true SAYC as layed out in the pamphlet) is that it was a system devised by committee originally intended for "everybody forced to play same system" tournaments, and was not really well thought out as a bridge system; it is more a hodgepodge of once semi-popular conventions/treatments thrown randomly together. There are a lot of incoherent things in there, like lack of a forcing minor raise, and things that don't make a lot of sense, like 1M-2x-2nt showing a minimum hand, yet it also being forcing (so that 12 opposite 11 basically forces to 3nt if you actually follow the pamphlet exactly). Also things that suggest that portions of the pamphlet were just cut/pasted from a book using a 16-18 NT without alteration, like "13-15" being described as a min range NT rebid when 12-14 would match actual practice. The only reason SAYC ever got any popularity in the first place was basically an accident of history. Yellow card tournaments had died out. But in the early days of online bridge, okbridge, there was a need for a relatively simple system that pickup partners could agree on and play, that could be distributed easily. The yellow card text writeup was available and sufficiently brief that it could be easily displayed by the text-based okbridge client program. Details at http://mojo.whiteoak...-sayc-happened/ So in summation, IMO, SAYC is a kind of bad system (if played as written), and no one really plays it anyway (a regular partnership would morph it into their own flavor and it wouldn't be SAYC anymore; a pickup online partnership it's very random whether your partner knows the difference between SAYC and SA, and a guess whether they are following the pamphlet or not). So I would recommend the original poster learn 2/1, probably the best resource for 2/1 is Mike Lawrence's CD PC program tutorial. At least if playing 2/1 with a pickup partner you shouldn't get passed after a 2/1 sequence and play slam in a partial.

Only allowed under "open+" for segments >= 6 boards. So effectively only Open+ team KOs/swiss/ sometimes the Reisinger if 6+ boards, since I've never seen any pair games with that many boards.

I don't think you are a beginner if splinter comes to mind. It is the normal descriptive action, if playing with a non-beginner partner who knows about splinters and can take the appropriate inferences and cooperate only with suitable hands. 3D is much worse, more ambiguous since it might be only trying for game not slam depending on agreements, and you won't be able to unambiguously show a stiff club later.

If you are using 2c puppet stayman, you still respond 2 level. But what has gained some popularity in expert circles is actually using *two* stayman bids, regular stayman 2c and puppet stayman 3c (in some cases puppet stayman 2nt, though I am not personally familiar with that variant). The responses to the 3c puppet obviously have to be at the 3 level. The 3c puppet stayman is usually played as a "low information" variety for concealment purposes, where opener's 3d only denies 5 cd majors (may or may not have 4), and responder bids the major they don't hold if they have a 4 cd major. Responder with both majors or slam ambitions or < GF utilizes 2c normally. You need a lot of the lower levels to find how well the suits fit and establish overall strength. Cue bidding and RKC generally can generally find out about controls later. Some sort of lower level control ask might work after suit agreement but I've never really seen people use this outside of some sort of relay system. One problem is showing number of controls tends to interfere with showing control location which is sometimes more important. 2/1 bidders have enough problems just narrowing down overall strength with the wide range of both opener and responder. Garozzo I think eventually came to believe that low level control showing was a mistake, and shape should be shown first.

Mike, I think you missed East's double?

I prefer: - 2nt by opener NF - if opener has a GF opposite a min, they can bid 4th suit forcing artificial if unsuitable for a 3nt rebid or other jump rebid - if responder bids other than 2 of his M or the (potential) weakness signal, it's just natural GF. - jump by responder to 3nt is 12-14 (slam inv only vs opener's stronger hands); 2nt by responder if it is also the weakness signal (intending to pass opener's original suit or sign off in opener's 2nd suit) can also be nat 8-11 (intending 3nt rebid) or 15+ (intending 4nt+ rebid). If there is 4th suit available below 2nt then 2nt is just 8-11/15+.

The scoring system strongly disfavors being in 2nt rather than 1nt, or 3M instead of 2M. If you make enough tricks you get no bonus for being higher, since it isn't game yet. But if you are one off you lose a lot vs those that can stay lower and make. But missing game is also a big penalty. With a wider range, inevitably you end up overboard in partials more often if you try to find more of your games, or you miss more games by not investigating.

(1) This problem has nothing to do with 2-over-1. It's a question of best methods to advance an overcall, assuming transfer advances in effect, what the other bids should mean. 2/1 is irrelevant, that only matters when you are making a 2/1 response to a 1 suit *opening*. (2) You have 14 cards in your example. (3) Personally, I prefer if there is no transfer available to a suit in question, for a jump in the suit to be forcing. E.g. 3c forcing here if 2c is NF. But I don't consider this hand anywhere near strong enough to force, given that I like to overcall 1S very lightly. (4) I think it's a big hole to not have a natural 2nt response available in the absence of bidding by 3rd hand, responder to the opener. You don't need that many raises of an overcall, slam is much less frequent than after an uncontested opening. Just include 4 cd raises in the transfer-raise.

Maybe if you draw the line at having xx, you shouldn't present a hand with Qx as the example :).

That hasn't been my experience. When opener has the half stop you are right-sided. When responder has the only stop, it requires 4th hand advancer to have a good spade holding over the stop *and* not a raise. So IMO it is extremely infrequent. It is also IMO very infrequent that 4M in 4-3 fit or 5m is making & better in the absence of raises. People like to raise with fit on very few values these days.

Well, I also don't comprehend your comment. Are you saying that rebidding 1nt is misguided, and that one should rebid clubs (or reverse into 2d without extras), or not? We are asking you for help, to explain yourself more. Because some of us see significant advantages in rebidding 1nt without stopper or half stopper after a negative double on a somewhat routine basis. Here our 2c bid more reliably implies 6, we don't get stuck in 5-1 fits as often. Our reverse can promise extras. With a half stop, lead in their suit comes up to us, from the overcaller, which is often better when partner has help in the suit. We aren't stuck for a decent rebid with something like xxx Qxx AJx AQxx. If 1nt is our best scoring contract when partner isn't taking another bid, we get to declare it rather than some lower scoring 2m. In my experience with opponents not raising and only holding 2, partner often has length and help in NT. If we declare 1nt, the opponents might run the suit, but we aren't down yet, and still might have 7 after they take the first 5 or 6. The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt. I don't see why you should attack criticism so harshly and tell people to get help. Your posts are usually chock full of very good, accurate information. Mostly I think the bulk of us are nodding silently in agreement. But occasionally IMO you make strong statements that reveal an inflexibility of thought, lack of thorough thinking about possible methods and tend to dismiss things as misguided/fundamentally unplayable or something like that when there are perhaps advantages that you haven't fully considered or haven't tried.

Thanks smerriman for organizing and good luck to the semifinalists. Stephen Tu 19 - 32 cherdano https://webutil.brid...b=web&v3v=6.0.2 Stephen Tu 37 - 9 Elyk25 https://webutil.brid...b=web&v3v=6.0.2 Stephen Tu 22 - 1 icycookie https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:cab09029.5245.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1638322024&u=Stephen%20Tu&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.2

On this side of the pond, delayed splinter promising only 3-cd support after making a 2/1 is a common assumption, the idea being that a lot of hands with 4 cd support + spl would have splintered directly on the first round. It has pros and cons; obviously when holding both 4 support and a good side suit it's nicer if the delayed spl guarantees 4 as partner can evaluate a bit more finely. OTOH being forced *not* to splinter when holding 3, means partner will not be able to cooperate intelligently below 4 trumps because he won't know if your cue bid is high card or shortness, and also some of the time you won't even be able to cue your shortness as it might go 1s-2h-2s-3s-3nt!-4c-? because 3nt is artificial (serious 3nt) and you are obligated to show a club control because 4d would deny a club control. Plus someone looking at xxx diamonds is a lot more excited opposite a d splinter than if the cue bid could be based on a diamond holding of Kx or KJx or Axx. IMO if grand is in the picture with your 3604 hand responder should be grabbing the reins with exclusion, rather than cue bidding diamonds then guessing to show the void over RKC. In my view the hands where opener is taking the reins and responder is too weak to take control are way more likely to have ace of diamonds where the void isn't additive to your trick taking; not holding the ace of diamonds opener would be less likely to be cooperating or bidding rkc rather than signing off or cue-bidding hearts. I think it's way more likely that you drive to 6 - 1 holding the 1 key than you find 7 in this manner, or 6 when it makes because of the void when opener is going to sign off in 5.

??? In standard schemes it's opener who can show a splinter after 1M-2nt, not responder. Now perhaps there is modified scheme involving 2nt for responder to show, but probably only on certain continuations by opener, and if that was in place one might as well have had say 1S-3nt to show a void spl directly, and I already specified that N/S didn't have the tools. This thread is mainly concerning whether North should show void in response to RKC *not* having the ability to show the void below 4 trumps. This perhaps works for some auctions, but depending on suit you get the awkward situation that North doesn't know if South's even number includes the ace of the void suit or not, and I'm not sure on all continuations North will be able to confirm void, depending on what South's other bids mean and what all of North's continuations mean. Also this getting far afield from the original question, and won't be available to the vast majority of partnerships.

Something like: [hv=pc=n&s=sQ9543ha65d2caKJ2&n=sA762hdkqj5cQ8654]133|200[/hv] N/S don't have tools to show void spl. 1s-4h!-?. South think slam is probably pretty good bet though not 100% opposite 2 keycards. But now North presumes void is useful and there you are in slam? I just don't see how you can tell when the void is useful or not, when partner often has the ace in the suit, and void rather than stiff may not be helping you at all. Now if you can arrange an auction where partner specifically denied any control in that particular suit, then maybe you can tell, but when slam auctions come up it seems all too often I've only shown singleton or void (and sometimes not even that, can only show control in the suit which could be A/K/shortness), and have no idea whether partner is looking at the ace of that suit or not. So basically I can practically never tell useful or not so I routinely do *not* show the void by responding 6 to RKC.

Again, my criticism holds. How often does partner have Axx on this auction rather than xxx in the void suit? *Especially* when partner holds the 2c opener and is the RKC asker. 2c-2d;2s-3s;4c-4h;4nt-?, you've say cue bid your heart void. But at this point, partner doesn't know if your heart cue is stiff, void, or king, (or ace if he is looking at say KQx). If he is looking at AQx, how do you know that it is actually useful that you have a void H rather than a stiff? From his view it's zero heart losers either way, he might be using rkc to not bid it being off two keys outside of hearts. Answering your 6h to 4nt to show 1+ void may leave you too high. 2c-2d-2s-4h! spl is at least better, now at least partner knows it's a shortness control and not the K solidifying his AQJ(x) heart suit. Now if one had say 2c-2d-2s-3nt! defined as say undefined void, now you'd be getting somewhere useful. This is even worse IMO, the hands where the voids would most gain (no wastage in void suit) wouldn't be able to bid 4nt sanely to begin with. Again, when you cue bid 4d, partner doesn't know if it's A/K/stiff/void on this auction. Wouldn't you do the same on 3514? And shouldn't you spl over 2s instead to show it more directly? And again you don't know whether partner has xxx diamonds or Axx as to whether the void decreases your number of losers or not. So to me answering > 5 trump suit just to show void is really dubious. And I don't really think that italian cues as pescetom really solves all problems either, as italian cues are mixed and Ks/aces are shown interchangeably. You get to find out *whether* a suit is controlled or not, but often you can't distinguish between hands where partner has Axx which works fine opposite your stiff (if you are the one asking), or KQx which would be much worse (you are off two aces). That's why most are doing mixed cues below 4M to find out if suits are controlled then an rkc ask to make sure not off two keys or key+ trump Q. To me someone needs to show void below 4 trumps for it to work best, and if not possible probably partner of spl bidder should try hard to be the rkc *askee* (so spl bidder can use exclusion if appropriate), rather than the *asker*. But if partner beats me to asking keycards, if I have 1 with void, I am just making my normal 5 level response not 6. I've had disasters with partners who answered 6 with 1 and we were in 6 with no play.

If partner opens 1c on xxx or Jxx clubs, void is pretty useful in a suit contract. And if in the opponent's suit, the shortness is often useful, but a void is *not* one trick better than singleton if you show shortness there and partner is excited holding Axx opposite rather than xxxx. So jumping to 6 suit to show 1 key + void is still very dangerous IMO, partner may already be assuming zero losers that suit holding the Ace and hearing your shortness, and was checking if 2 key cards missing outside or KC + trump Q, and 1 key might not be enough for that.

I don't think you can provide good example auctions of this. Often it takes a few rounds of bidding and maybe a jump or even a double jump just to show your shortness in the suit, and you've only shown shortness (singleton/void) there, not void specifically. Then there is no room for partner to say cue bid the ace of that suit or not (you are very often bidding 4 level to show the shortness), and partner eventually launches into rkc, and like I said you can't tell if partner has xxx opposite and the void is one trick better than a stiff, or Axx (IMO more common) and the void doesn't directly help you, and bidding 6 level to show 1 kc and stiff might land you at 6 missing 2 cashing keys, or like cashing key and a losing hook for trump Q since you've also blown up Q asking. It works way better if you can specifically distinguish singleton vs void below 4 of trumps, or if the void holder is the one who can employ exclusion, IMO. But it can take significant gadgetry/relay system stuff to get it to work in general auctions. It's reasonably easy to get low void showing into stuff like say 1M-2nt raise auctions or direct 1M-splinter auctions though.

Showing 0 key cards and a void and forcing to slam as GIB does is ridiculous. Showing 1 key card and a void, IMO, is not much better. How do you know if your void is "useful" or not? The main thing I find is that you've splintered at some point, or maybe cue bid the suit, but partner holds like Axxx in the suit and thinks there isn't duplication and is facing a singleton, but with ace opposite void there is, and there is something crucial missing elsewhere. Having void rather than singleton in this case doesn't decrease the number of losers in the suit and often doesn't decrease number of losers overall. Basically I think it works a ton better to try to arrange system to show voids below your keycard asking level, and not deal with void showing responses, at least the 0/1 variety. 2+ I can probably live with.

Stephen Tu 14 - 6 billyfung2 https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e068b76f.46cf.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1637061917&u=Stephen%20Tu&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.1 Stephen Tu 36 - 7 natali_ https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:223b8a94.45e0.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1636958949&u=Stephen%20Tu&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.1

There are "low reverses" and "high reverses" in the bridge literature. I've never ever heard either of them termed as a "true" reverse or "not true". They are both reverses, whether they show extra values is agreement dependent. Sometimes "fake" reverse is used to describe reversing into a fragment suit (the fake term referring to the suit, not the true fact that you reversed) when it seems the most descriptive practical option. It depends on how you structure all the possible rebids, I don't think you can definitively say that "there is more benefit". If reverse does promise extras you have conveyed some extra information than if not. Remember the goal is to maximize exchange of information *over the entire auction*, not *maximize the number of suits shown in the first two bids*. It's not like responder has to place the final contract on his 2nd bid; there is more bidding and room to unwind! Sometimes you are able to exchange more total information < 3nt by making higher bids more tightly defined, and packing more meanings into more ambiguous lower bids when there is still room to unwind them later. That's like how almost all relay systems operate.

Because high card strength matters for whether slam should/can be safely explored, especially when there are minor fits and you often want to stop in 3nt. If the auction can go 1s-2h-3d, and opener can be some shapely 11 count, responder with some (but not a ton of) extra values and a club stop and a diamond fit often really can't do anything other than bid 3nt, because raising diamonds would end up too high, or perhaps end in a sub-optimal 5d instead of 3nt (esp. at MP even if both make if 3nt makes 4). But if opener also has extras, then he also can't move over 3nt, since responder will often be some min 12 count, and 4nt might be quite uncomfortable if the hands are somewhat misfit and don't mesh well even if there are some 28/29 hcp combined. So neither wants to explore slam (since mins are much more common than extras), so 16-ish vs 16-ish hands often miss a good slam. Luckily these problem hands don't come around so often so perhaps people who play "just show your shape" don't notice it that much (although IMO they don't clearly have any compensating wins from the just bid shape approach). Or they are playing some strong club system where this would be much less of an issue. Kokish actually suggests the 3 level reverse should be both 5-5 AND extra values, though I have never tried that style. Currently my own preference is to allow 2 level reverse 1h-2m-2s without extras, because now with tools like frivolous 3nt/serious 3nt we have ways to define strength range for cue-bidding without killing all your bidding space. Before these tools were widely promulgated, I still preferred extras, because otherwise you need a lot of "fast arrival" jumps to game to limit strength, which would blow up the auction if partner had a good hand. The advantage of the 2-level shape showing without extras is it allow opener to fully pattern out after the frequent 2nt by responder, which wouldn't happen with a more frequent 2M-catchall bid. But I still like extras for high reverses (and minor raises also). 1d-2c is an entirely separate class of its own IMO and there are quite a few different coherent approaches.

Deleted

1. On the actual auction, West owes East a 5d cue over 4S, having already denied a good hand with 4H. 2. It's a big error for East to start with 1H planning on reversing to "show strength". In standard systems, you don't plan a reverse sequence with 5-5s to "show strength" (there are some "canape" systems that do this systemically but usually only in non-competitive situations). In standard, reversing shows both strength *and* that the first suit is *longer* than the second. If you plan to reverse, you'll run into multiple problems: partner may pass 1H holding a weakish hand with a good spade fit, not being quite strong enough to move over 1H.you'll have to bid spades *twice* to show the fifth one, which will sometimes be at an uncomfortable level and too high, and also convince partner that you have 6+ hearts which will sometimes lead to him putting you into a 5-2 heart fit and a level higher to boot.Instead, try a Michaels 2D cue-bid and make a game try if partner bids 2M only. 3. You don't actually want to be in slam on average IMO. I think with most of the HCP outstanding South rates to have HAQ more often than not. Also I don't see how you are supposed to determine in the auction that West has the right shape/cards to make the club loser go away. I would have passed 4H and made 6.