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

I like both the new stars and locks. I think they have a much friendlier appearance, although I agree with Ben that the lock isn't as obvious against the gray tourney background.

I give my students the following guideline for handling 2/1 auctions in SAYC: Opener should have extra values to rebid above 2 of his own suit. It doesn't have to be much extra, but enough to be in game if responder only has invitational strength ... roughly a good 14 or more. This does mean that they often have to rebid a 5 card major suit, but I usually find that they get used to that idea pretty quickly. It isn't too hard for them to see that if they bid 2NT with a minimum opening when responder is going to have to take another bid, there's no way for them to play in 2NT. (I teach them that a 2/1 response guarantees another call unless opener rebids game.) I've spent a lot of time teaching sayc and working with the system, and I've never found another way to make the 2/1 auctions work. (Correction: you can go the other way and say that a rebid of 2M or 2NT by opener is non-forcing, but I don't consider that in keeping with the original system.) This guideline also clears up a lot of the confusion about which subsequent bids are forcing or not. If opener's second bid was above 2 of his major they have to reach game, because opener has said he has enough to be in game opposite an invitational strength partner. It's true that a random BBO partner might not be on the same wavelength, but that's a potential problem no matter what you teach them. Susan

There are a few things I would like to say publicly, as the person responsible for the decision regarding the commentary for the Cavendish. My decision to make the arrangements personally was not meant as a negative comment on Roland Wald's ability or the overall quality of the broadcasts he organizes. As an occasional operator I have worked alongside Roland several times and respect and appreciate his tireless work. I want to stress that at no point did the organizers say or insinuate "we would be unhappy with Roland". Responsibility for the decision rests on me personally, no where else. When a broadcast is scheduled, events are given the option to utilize the service Roland provides but are also free to organize commentary directly. I am not of the opinion that choosing the latter option is inherently a disparagement of the former option, and I regret that it has been seen that way by some. I made the choice I believed most appropriate for this tournament, and opted to undertake the task as part of the job of organizing the whole broadcast. I worked as the operator for the Cavendish in 2004, and handled all of the on-site arrangements and operation in 2005. I've taken pride in that work and it was my hope to expand and enhance the broadcast this year. Not all of the changes proved possible for this year, but I will be following through with the commentary scheduling I began. My reasons were not political, nor were they a reflection on Roland, nor was this a question of believing I could step in and do a better job. I did and still do respect the difficulty of the role. Was my choice the traditional one? No. Is the only reason to choose to do something differently a belief that the traditional method is bad? No -- at least not in my mind. I don't believe that the on-site and on-line elements of a broadcast should necessarily be seperate. I also don't think it's inappropriate for a tournament coordinator to say "okay, we are going to take on the responsibility for inviting commentators as well". I am not offering those as reasons for my decision, but feel they are relevant elements of the position from which I view things. I truly regret that some people have felt offended by the decision, or believe that it was made in a different spirit than what I have expressed. My reasons were honest (whether or not that is accepted by all), but I apologize to those who have seen this in a different light. It is unfortunate that certain commentators have chosen not to participate, but that is their right and I respect their decision. Susan

Round of 8 halftime scores updated in first post.

First post now updated with 1st quarter Round of 8 results. and thanks for the earlier vugraph compliments. I'm in Dallas attending the Nationals, but I don't expect to be working the Vanderbilt vugraph this year. Its a demanding job, with sessions lasting close to five hours. As much as I enjoy the work, I've decided that I'm not willing to volunteer two exhausting 10+ hour days. If a high quality broadcast is a priority for a sponsoring organization, it should be willing to invest resources accordingly. I understand the appeal of using volunteers, but I firmly believe that whenever possible the burden of the broadcasts should be picked up by the organization and not left for volunteers to shoulder. Susan

First post now updated with Round of 16 halftime results.

Halftime results from the Round of 8: Link to today's bulletin (team rosters, bracket sheet, etc): Daily Bulletin Welland 39 76 Robinson 9 42 Baze 29 52 Chang 70 98 Nickell 42 53 Hollman 29 72 Shugart 69 114 Moss 30 73 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Round of 16 Results: Nickell 26 89 125 169 Strul 32 47 80 105 Hollman 12 108 128 162 Lynch 26 27 59 92 Jacob 5 29 57 94 Shugart 31 70 97 145 Moss 24 77 92 118 O'Rourke 37 59 95 103 Welland 67 99 172 Marston 28 56 89 W/D Rubin 29 53 74 91 Robinson 34 64 91 162 Team Orange 46 67 78 127 Baze 39 83 113 144 Chang 26 91 119 148 Schwartz 11 50 124 135 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Round of 32 Results: Nickell 22 64 108 172 Hans 17 58 82 103 Roman 51 77 106 ?? Strul 41 65 98 ?? Strul advances. I'm not sure of the final score, but I believe the match was decided on an appeal. Meltzer 38 54 69 111 Hollman 28 80 127 156 Lynch 48 76 204 137 Kasday 21 56 83 120 Team Robison 38 52 87 143 Baze 61 96 114 161 Weed 3 22 49 W/D Team Orange 51 85 130 Schwartz 22 62 118 160 Johnson 42 77 103 120 Kamil 38 57 88 123 Chang 29 78 109 124 Welland 36 71 101 140 Schermer 37 48 72 Polowan 14 37 95 105 Marston 31 51 76 115 Robinson 49 96 154 200 Tucker 29 95 96 134 Rubin 29 59 89 126 Gordan 13 36 58 85 O'Rourke 25 55 115 148 Helman 34 60 83 117 Milner 10 37 55 107 Moss 36 64 130 156 Narasimhan 16 54 104 141 Shugart 31 69 128 169 Jacobs 10 33 70 102 Jacob 36 54 84 114

Those are fantastic, thanks Nikos. :-)

Two of my absolute favorites: The West Wing Sherlock Holmes (with Jeremy Brett -- okay, it wasn't exactly a series)

Nethack and those masks you put over your eyes to keep things dark while you sleep. :)