sdoty

Without any special agreements, 2♥ is forcing in the given sequence: invitational or better, at least 5-4 in the majors. If you have to choose one or the other, 2♥ is more valuable as a natural and forcing than as a pass/correct bid ... the hands that still have game interest take priority over the ones that just want to play a different partscore. Some players adopt the following sequences (or something similar) to try to gain flexibility/accuracy: 1♣ : 1♠ 2♣ : 2♥ = Weak with both majors (pass/correct) 1♣ : 1♠ 2♣ : 2♦! = artificial and F1 (functioning very much like NMF) This enables responder to show the weak ♥+♠ hands and have a way to bid stronger hands effectively as well. Susan

The SAYC Yellow Card Booklet was most recently revised (to the best of my knowledge -- I could be wrong) in 2003. You can find a copy here: SAYC Booklet The ACBL also publishes an SAYC convention card: Yellow Card cc. You used to be able to order it from the ACBL product store (they'd come in sets of 50 or 100 iirc, for use at clubs or whatnot), and they were indeed printed on yellow paper. :) But ... I wouldn't say that the ACBL publications on SAYC are authoritative. The 2003 revisions at least brought it closer to what's actually being played by SAYC players now (at least in the US), but there's still a lot of room for variation. For example, the ACBL card defines a 2NT response to a minor suit opening as 13-15, while it's also commonly played as 11-12. Another problem area is that traditional SAYC assumes 3+ card limit raises, so when players decide to differentiate between 3 and 4 card invites (without the use of 1NT Forcing) there's a "gap" in the definitions. At any rate, imo the ACBL publications don't provide a safe default, at least in part because there isn't a widespread knowledge of them, and I wouldn't look to them as a definitive reference. Along those lines I think it's worth noting that the published teaching materials available for I/N level bridge classes do not adhere strictly to ACBL card (which many I/N players don't even know exists). Playing in the US I'd much sooner fall back on "Grant Standard" or something similar: it's more in keeping with the SAYC materials improving players have access to, and is therefore more likely to reflect what's actually in use at the table. Audrey Grant's materials are widely used and her newer "Bridge Basics" books are perhaps one of the better indications of what's become standard. I don't mean to imply that there's any real degree of uniformity in what people call "SAYC" -- certainly not in areas like what to use over their NT opening. Regretably there are plenty of sequences in SAYC where there's really no "standard" meaning that you can confidently assume without discussion. To make things even more fun, there are at least a few sequences which the powers that be largely agree upon, but that 9 out of 10 I/N players would probably get wrong. 1S : 2C : 2D : 3S as invitational (instead of forcing) comes charging to mind... Anyhow, just some thoughts. :P Susan

2-level non-jump overcalls aren't so much "let's get the the way of the opponents" bids in the way that a weak jump overcall would be -- they're constructive for your side. The 1H opening by the opponents doesn't preclude this from being your hand, either in a making partscore or occasionally in a game contract. If advancer needed to have a good 6 card suit to introduce it, the partnership would miss a lot of excellent contracts. Whether or not he'll introduce a 4 card major over a 2minor overcall is something you might want to talk about, but a 5 card suit is certainly enough. The 2C bidder could hold a hand like: ♠AQ10 ♥A73 ♦5 ♣KQ9842 or ♠KQ53 ♥4 ♦103 ♣KQJ963 Even something with more modest in spade support ... say ♠A53 ♥K6 ♦86 ♣KQJ963 a spade game is still possible opposite a hand like ♠KQ1076 ♥98 ♦AK92 ♣52 Most of the time you won't have hands that want to play in game, but finding a spade fit so that you can compete to 3S is valuable in itself. Susan

I place the blame on both sides, but the bid I hate the most is 3NT. I have some sympathy for starting with a basic transfer and then faking a 3C bid. I think it's obviously bad, but I've been in positions where I seriously doubted that partner would correctly interpret the bid I -wanted- to make... even if it was a 'straightforward' one. At least you can feel confident that 3C is forcing. 4H seems too conservative, but if you didn't trust partner to handle any of the other possible bids over 2H correctly, I can see how after 3NT it would feel like a "4H or 6H?" shot in the dark. I can't, however, muster any sympathy for the 3NT bid. How could 3H over 3C possibly be misinterpreted? (okay -- your regular partner might infer that you don't have a diamond control, but worrying about that with a pick-up seems silly. and it still doesn't make 3NT make any sense.) :) Susan

I'd try checking on half.com or alibris.com -- my guess is that you'll be able to find a used copy pretty cheap. (I love amazon, but it's not the best place to find used books.) Happy hunting!

: ( What happened to the poor little green card? This hand should open the bidding given the chance, but just because a hand is worth an opening bid doesn't mean that we're obligated to find a bid if the ops beat us to the punch. There are plenty of opening hands that should keep quiet after a 1-level opening from the ops, let alone a higher level bid. I consider this hand an automatic pass. I'd keep quiet over a 1H opening: double is out of the question with only AJ doubleton of spades and minimum strength, and I don't have a suit worth overcalling (it's my style to require a better suit and/or hand for a 2-level minor suit overcall). The fact that the bidding is at the 3-level makes it even less palatable to get involved. Btw, I'm assuming that the double of 3D was intended as takeout, not as showing diamonds. Even if it shows diamonds I would pass ... the suit and the hand isn't worth coming in. Here's something to consider: if the opening bid had been a natural 3H call, making a takeout double would force partner to bid 3S or higher (assuming he couldn't make a penalty pass, which is unlikely with our hand containing Jxx). RHO being weak doesn't guarantee that partner will have values: the missing points could be in either LHO's or p's hand. To force partner to bid at the 3 or 4-level, we have to have a good reason ... not just a random 13 count. And if our bid is a takeout double, we have to be prepared for any advance from partner. - If we double, partner will go out of his way to bid spades... and he doesn't even have to have a 5 card suit to bid them. - Partner is likely to insist on game if he holds a good 10 count (and sometimes even less if he has spades), figuring that if our hand is good enough to force him to bid at the 3 or 4-level, his 10 points is enough to get to game. The auction in question was a bit different, since partner isn't -forced- to bid if he trusts that the ops aren't going to pass it out in 3DX. However, the above two points about the spade suit and game still apply: partner may have the option of passing, but that's no guarantee that he won't bid of his own volition. On the actual deal you won't miss out if you pass in direct seat -- partner's hand is worth a bid over 3H. Susan

The SAYC full disclosure convention card that you can use while playing on BBO is also a great resource. I'm not sure if there are instructions on how to use the FD cc's in the BBO Help pages: I took a quick look but didn't see any, so here is a link to a brief How-To I wrote for the members of the Beginner/Interemediate Lounge: FD How-To Good luck! Susan

I completely agree. Also, the super bright colors are still around on the screen that pops up at the completion of a loaded hand at a teaching table.

If you're fairly quick about it, it usually isn't a problem to jot down the auction once the bidding is complete and the opening lead has been made. This is when a lot of players write down the contract on their scorecard, and when declarer pauses to think. Just make sure to fold your cc over / close your notebook / etc so that you can't look at what you've written during the play -- not that you ever would, but so that the ops know that you couldn't even if you wanted to. Any notes regarding the play of course have to wait until the hand is completed.

I like the new color scheme, but I find it hard to read the names of neutral players who are on brb because there isn't enough of a contrast. I tried putting the text back to gray and it's much more readable (I also tried white but it doesn't show up well for brb yellows). Just a thought.

edited ... had misremembered the specifics This is pretty trivial, but... When teaching, I often have one student seated while I'm occupying the rest of the seats at the teaching table. I've encountered the following inconsistency with the claim function. (It predates the last batch of betas, so not a new problem.) If the student (South) is the declarer, after I make the opening lead and press CLAIM, the text in the claim box reads as though I'm claiming for the declaring side. For example if the result I'm after is 3NT making 3, it reads as though I need to concede 4 of the remaining tricks. The result displays correctly on MY screen, but to my student and in the lin file that's created, it is as though I claimed that # of tricks on defense. (In other words, that same 3NT shows up as 3NS-5.) If I (as North) end up as declarer the results are recorded correctly in the lin file. Susan

I just noticed that when I'm occupying multiple seats at a teaching table North/East/South/West shows up in the bidding area instead of my name. I'm assuming this is a new change, although it's possible I've just been oblivious, but either way I wanted to say THANKS! It's a fantastic feature for lessons/reviews/etc held at a teaching table, and I know it'll prevent a lot of headaches. :P

When I'm at a table and have the lobby displayed above the chat area, the information bubble that appears when mousing over a player's name sometimes obscures part (sometimes most) of their name. Left clicking on that person to send a pm doesn't work unless I can find an area that isn't covered by the bubble. It took me a while to figure out why left clicking wasn't working all of the time (at least I think I figured it out), so I thought I'd mention it in case it saves someone else a headache. I never experienced this problem before the most recent batch of releases.

My chat box gets hijacked when an ad refreshes also. :( It would be great if that could be tweaked, since it's a bit disruptive. (I use the wide screen format -- haven't tried it in the narrow view.) Susan

I just tested the following and it's working for me: If you have a single hand in the .lin file, open it in a text editor (like notepad). At the start of the hand where it says qx|o1|, change that to qx|o#| where # is an appropriate board number (o2 will get you Dealer = East, o3 = South, o4 = West). That should make the hand appear in the right 'slot' in the bridge movie screen, and when you send it to the table it should have the right dealer. Hope that helps, Susan