vuroth

Thanks Mike. I was afraid for a minute there that this whole convesation was going to go over my head. It's hands like this, I think, that are the reason I want to be playing vanilla SAYC at this point in my development (ymmv). It doesn't make sense for me to be taught the solution until I understand (come face to face with) the problem. I think discussion like "If I were a bit stronger I'd bid Y instead of X", or "A shows same strength but more concentrated values than B" are very helpful. These are the tools, I think, that B/I need to grow.... 0.02 V

I'm just glad it was you facing him, and not me in a club match. These sorts of people may get busted by the mikeh's of the world, but they've got to be making money off of someone.... :(

No argument on the first point. As a prominent writer in my country once said, no modern democracy has ever declared war on another modern democracy. The problem, mainly, is that a lot of countries are not democracies. They do not value human rights and human life as we do. Many countries involve power and prosperity being in the hands of the few, and the repression and oppression that they use to stay in power are not "peace", by my definition. Concentration camps, gulags, state-sanctioned violence against people based on gender, religion and/or race exist in this world. While I would love to believe that rational discussion will one day end all of this, I am sceptical. Violence IS being perpetrated against our brethern. It happens every day, and we do not even lift a finger. I refuse to accept that all those who take up arms in the service of others are criminals, or immoral. (Nor do I assert that they are all moral.) Life just isn't that simple.

The only way we have no fit is if partner has: 5 or fewer spades 2 or fewer hearts 2 or fewer diamonds. That would mean partner has at least 4 clubs. If I trust opponents bidding, partner should not have more than 3 clubs (implied 9+ card fit). This is not a hand where you should be afraid of not having a fit, I think.

Not all enemies can be reasoned with. If someone were coming to try to harm me, personally, I'd rather run away than fight. If someone were in the process of harming my friends and family, I'd rather fight than run. The question I guess, is what is pacifism - I won't fight unless I have to, or I won't fight no matter what happens.

As came up in yesterday's thread, partner could bid 3♣ and still have 2 card support. I'm not sure you're always going to find the 6-2....

As low as 15 points? That sounds kind of low, considering partner only promised me 6....

If I'm south, I think 4♦ next. If partner has 3♣ (LOTT) and 4♠ (for his double), we have at least an 8 card fit in the reds. Hopefully, this bid can be passed if partner has a minimum with preference for diamonds, though here I'd expect a bid of 5♦. Would take better players than me to find the 50% (?) slam....

If playing SAYC, pass. Partner just limited her hand. If playing 2/1, I'm not sure. With RHO showing some spades, 3NT might be dicey. The only way I see partner forcing game and RHO having his/her double is if partner is strongly 2-suited in the minors, in which case we're likely headed for 5♦. V

True. I really don't know how you could learn 2/1 without knowing like 99%+ of SAYC. I also heartily endorse the idea of keeping gadgets to a minimum. 0.02 V

It's forcing, but with a pickup partner, I'd be afraid of them bidding bananas over my ♦. In other words, it might not be clear to my partner that ♦ wasn't some kind of cue bid or second suit in support of bananas.

The bottom line is that you want all of your ways of showing heart support to show DIFFERENT things. 1♥-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should be different. Furthermore, each bid should be the most logical and natural that it can be, within the constraints of SAYC. I don't think that the existence of a general consensus based on logic is unreasonable. Yes, the rules presented here are likely open to partnership agreement, but I'm personally satisfied by the logic presented here so far. In the end, all "natural bidding" really is is bidding what is most logical and reasonable, within the confines of the system. The challenge and joy of bridge bidding is that sooner or later someone is going to use a sequence you've never bid before. Having the ability to reason out the most sensible interpretation and arriving at the same answer as your partner, absent a specific agreement, is going to be what's important. 0.02 V

I think in SAYC, your options are 3NT and 5♦.

You were entirely correct. In SAYC, 1NT-3m is invitational, while 1NT-3M is GF. ... If BIls should not be opening 1NT on ♠xxx ♥AKJxx ♦Ax ♣Axx, I'd love to hear about it.

...and more work, on her part. V

Thanks, folks. It all makes a little bit more sense to me now. V

I guess that makes for a tough answer to 1H holding something like ♠432 ♥Q7 ♦A76 ♣KQ52 I guess you have to choose between underbidding 1NT now and bidding 2NT over 2♣ - 2♥? (With 4/4 in the minors and no spade stop, you'd answer 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ over 2♥.) Obviously every system has in-between problem hands. Fair enough. Always helps to know what they are I guess. Thanks. V

Regarding the auction: 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ ? 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was? It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise I almost posted my questions in the original thread, but decided my questions were on the dumb side, and that maybe other beginners might find this auction confusing/surprising too. First of all, I've been over the SAYC booklet 3 times today, and I don't see it explicitly covering 2 level responses where opener rebids his original suit. Ergo, I can't find an explicit statement in the booklet that 3♥ is GF. Arend's post seems to imply that it is incorrect to bid hearts on this auction with less than 3 hearts. Is this right? (To my Goren-raised self, it "feels" like partner should have 6 hearts, though I know that sometimes she might be forced to rebid with only 5....) If so, how do you handle hands that look something like this: xx Qx QTx AKxxxx - i.e. hands that might make 4♥ opposite a maximum 2♥ bid with 6♥? Do you tend to 2NT with 2 card support, even if one of the suits (in this case spades) are wide open (maybe 2NT is better with xx xx xxxx xxxxx and 11 points somewhere therein?)? Do you retreat to clubs with this hand? What if partner has 6 hearts and 3 clubs and a minimum - aren't you going to end up in 3♣ instead of 3♥? Since the SAYC booklet isn't answering my questions, what's the right way forwards in general with exactly 2 hearts and invitational values? Thanks. V

4 posts and I'm convinced of 2 things, jillybean: 1 - your partner results like it's 1999. 2 - you're an excellent player who knows what you're doing. This is an instructive hand. After ♠, ♥ and ♦ could all be right. V

Deleted. Board is acting very funny for me today.

Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

4♥ The postmortem tells me that 3 people at the table thought that 4H was preemptive in 4th seat. I would have passed with partner's hand, and bid 6H over 4, though maybe I'd show my aces if it wasn't a pickup partner.

I'll take that under consideration. That said, I'd rather play in a system with no forcing minor raise than play with a partner who thinks the OP's hand is only worth an invite. :)

Ouch. What a crushing thought.

Honestly, as one of the team captains, I really think the responsibility belongs with the teams, not the tournament director. You've volunteered your time and effort to put everything together. The success or failure of the endeavour is really going to depend on the teams. I know our team has been VERY happy with the team matches so far, and we appreciate the effort that has been put into them. V