bill1157

Do you have "Every Hand an Adventure" by Eric Landau and Randy Baron or do you know where i could get it? thanks, Bill Sharp

part of the problem might be that sayc has gone through several "incarnations". the original, if i remember correctly, did not have jacoby 2nt, that was added later. I find for the most part, sayc works ok, after all, the bids that seem to be so important to the experts here rarely come up anyway. So, if you just play transfers and 2s->3c over 1nt you are most of the way there anyway. Bill

Reversing (i.e. 1d-1s/2h..) is 100% correct on this hand and is the only real way to get to a great slam. Bill

Why not play 2/1 with a weak 2 clubs and no forcing opening? - game forcing openings are rare after all. I have always thought that the 2 club opening in sayc/2/1 was the weak part of that system too. Bill

I think I would overcall 1N in the first place. X of 2D shows hearts and clubs. Now pass 2H. Bill

jack of hearts Bill

whats the BFD anyway?

A weak 2 clubs would be ideal here! Bill

No didn't realize this. However, I don't think game forcing is a good idea here. Is there some way around it? Bill

Bid 3 clubs. Partner can pass this or with a fit bid 3N Bill

There are some NFBs that everyone plays 1NT - (2♥) - 2♠ 3♠ is GF so this has to cover a wide range. Lebensohl might help but maybe not, since it presumably means bidding 3♠ invitational at some stage on a 5-card suit. So 2♠ ranges from competitive to mildly invitational. Tough, so we all tend to force to game on the strong invites to take the strain off. Likewise 1NT - (2♠) - 3♥ ? Either this sequence or the one via Lebensohl/Rubensohl is non-forcing, easy to miss a perfect game. That's bridge, pay out to the overcall. With NFBs after a suit opening, double then a new suit is forcing, virtually GF so strong invites need to jump one way or the other. With KQxxxx, xx, Jxx, xx it's important to act after 1♥ - (2♣) - ? If you pass, opener will be deterred by his lack of spades. If 2♠ is forcing, you face a tough call next time if you have to double now. What will you do over 3♦ by partner? Will you remove 3NT to 4♠ ? It's true that you also bid 2♠ non forcing with ♦A instead of ♦Jbut that might turn out well. You will often get another go. really nice explanation! thanks, Bill

Freestyle bidding can and should work well if it the underlying system makes sense. Unfortunately standard american bidding (and 2/1) has a flawed base, and therefore there need to be multiple "patches " to make it work. For example, in 2/1 a forcing nt response is needed to cover for the times you open 1M on a semi-balanced 14 count. If your NT range were 14-16, you would not need 1N forcing....just an example. Bill

I have wondered why negative free bids arent standard, it would make sense to double then bid with a strong hand, treating the negative double like a take out double. With this treatment jump shift needs to be strong. Bill

The comments on sayc are very good. To me though the big problem isn't whether people prefer to bid one way or the other, but that to sit down and say "sayc pd?" should mean we can play a game without alot of discussion and not have misunderstandings about common areas of bidding. I suspect that if you designed a system to be standard and well thought out it would be very different from sayc (or 2/1 for that matter). Bill

I like X also, Maybe X followed by a minimum NT bid (or raise hearts if they are rebid) would convey this hand pretty well. Bill

I guess the obvious possibility is to open 1S then pass anything except 2D.

Hi all, I am curious: lately i have been playing sayc online and my various partners attempted to transfer in these sequences: 1N-(2C*)-2H** *=unspecified single suit ** transfer to spades (1H)-P-(2H)-2N//(P)-3H* *transfer to spades (1C)-P-(P)-1N//(P)-2D* transfer to hearts As i read , transfers only apply after 1N, 2N, and 2C-2D-2N with double system on otherwise (overcall) system off. Also, not to 1N overcalls. Has this changed and did i miss something? thanks, Bill

Agree totally, plus good lead director Bill

North is at fault, he should jump shift at his first turn. Bill

The reasons bridge isn't as conducive to being played for money as poker are also reasons why bridge is not more popular generally. 1. the vulnerability: why should a grand score only 40 points more than a small slam just because 1 was vulnerable and one not? - duplicate solves that issue, but not rubber or chicago. 2. need a natural, standard bidding system. You cant play realistically if you must have a 20 minute system discussion after every rubber (or 4th hand). Also, the bidding must be simple enough so you avoid the huge losses on misunderstanding (is that a transfer or not etc.) On the system issue, i think rubber bridge/bridge for money could be revived if you could come out with a totally natural system that would be fun to play, coherent, and takes in all the advances in bidding treatments that have been made over the last many years. Bill

Yes obviously in hearts

I think at IMPs you should definitely bid game. Partner shows a full opener by raising hearts , you have a double fit... Bill Also, I would open the hand most of the time.

maybe 1d-1h-2s-4s-5d-6d? Bill

I guess to have any likelyhood of success with weak 2's on 4 card suits, you would need to have the agreement that you could do that. Then your partner would only raise with Hxx plus a ruffing value. Bill

It looks to me like opening 2S on this hand would be an antipercentage action. Would you do it on the last hand of a big event that you were leading? Anyway, I would be interested to hear how this type of opening actually worked out. Bill