More adjustments to debate...

[McBruce]

Declarer loses connection at trick three after pulling two rounds of trumps in a 6-2 fit, ending in dummy. The sub can ruff a side suit high to get to his hand to pull the last trump and make eleven tricks, but when his request to know what was played in the first three tricks are not answered by the opponents, he ruffs with the nine and is overruffed with the ten. Adjust? I did. Surely the defense does not have the 'right' to make a sub play in the dark. As far as the sub knew, the nine might have been high, and the king he still held might not have been high enough.

 

 

 

♠ AQ63 ♥ AJ9 ♦ 987 ♣ K53

 

This player opened 1♣ white vs red as dealer, LHO overcalls 3♦, and partner doubles. This is a sayc-only tourney, so this is not a negative double. When this player bid 3♠ and found partner with six to the KJ9, I was asked to adjust. 3D was cold for nine tricks. Adjust to -670? I did. This is a non-sayc call followed by a fielded response which gained an advantage. Thems the rules. That both players were unaware that sayc includes negative doubles to only 2♠ is irrelevant: you sign up for a sayc-only tournament, you have an obligation to know what's in and not in.

 

Comments?

[helium]

I think ur adjustments are strange, in the first exsampel i fully agree, and i whould adjust too, but this is the only exemple i agree on, the other exempel in ur post i really dont understand, u adjusted the score couse it wasent a sayc call??

shouldnt the players be free to use there own jugement? if 3 dimonds was cold i would say it was a good take out,penalty dbl or not.bridge is a partneship game, and its scary that u feel u have the right to adjust in this case.

 

to take out the doble is just good bridge.

 

kenneth

[Rado]

Hi McBruce and all,

In the first case adjustment was just right. Furthermore I think that procedural penalty might be applied to the opponents of the sub for non-ethical behaviour. Trying to take advantage when sub is playing in the dark is far away from the game called "BRIDGE"

At the second example I strongly disagree with your adjustment. Playing SAYC only tourney does not mean playing no bridge. If we start to investigate all boards whether they are played exactly as per SAYC we will need a body which to determine what is SAYC and what not. There are many many situations where no clear instructions what to do as per sayc as well as per other systems. For instance the "Expert bidding polls" in the magazines based on SAYC give us many many examples where the top bridge players cannot determine what is the correct "SAYC" bid:-))))))))

 

Kind regards

Rado

[Cascade]

I think ur adjustments are strange, in the first exsampel i fully agree, and i whould adjust too, but this is the only exemple i agree on, the other exempel in ur post i really dont understand, u adjusted the score couse it wasent a sayc call??

shouldnt the players be free to use there own jugement? if 3 dimonds was cold i would say it was a good take out,penalty dbl or not.bridge is a partneship game, and its scary that u feel u have the right to adjust in this case.

 

to take out the doble is just good bridge.

 

kenneth

I disagree if the tourney was for sayc and if you have the hand shown and if partner makes a penalty double of 3!d then you would leave it. If you have a special illegal understanding that double is takeout then you should get penalized.

 

Therefore I would be willing to adjust the score and warn the players and if necessary penalize them.

 

However I would not normally run a SAYC only tourney.

 

Although I do in some of my lessons.

[inquiry]

First adjustment if fine, and if the opponents speak english (or whatever language was used), a procedural penalty and stern warning is required.

 

Second adjustment is just too bizarre. Who dictates that SAYC uses negative double only through 2♠, or 1♠? I would have easily violated this rule in an "SAYC only" event myself, because I thought you could play them through 4♦ or the like in SAYC. I would have thougth that the level of negative doubles is an option (neg doulbes are allowed in SAYC, so the question is how high should each pair play them). Now if you posted on the web somewhere your own flavor of what an SAYC card looks like, or if you defined your tournment as BBO Basic only (which specifically plays negative double through only 2♠) maybe there would be some room for discussion on this issue.

[luis]

The second adjustment is an offense to the gods of bridge.

[Cascade]

Second adjustment is just too bizarre. Who dictates that SAYC uses negative double only through 2♠, or 1♠? I would have easily violated this rule in an "SAYC only" event myself, because I thought you could play them through 4♦ or the like in SAYC. I would have thougth that the level of negative doubles is an option (neg doulbes are allowed in SAYC, so the question is how high should each pair play them).

SAYC was designed as a complete system.

 

I am not a SAYC expert but in the documented versions that I have seen negative doubles are played to 2♠.

 

Changing to negative doubles to 3♠ or some other level is now modified SAYC.

 

Personally I do not like most system restrictions (except in a teaching environment). But if they are in place then they must be followed.

[inquiry]

SAYC was designed as a complete system.

 

I am not a SAYC expert but in the documented versions that I have seen negative doubles are played to 2♠. Changing to negative doubles to 3♠ or some other level is now modified SAYC.

Well, this brings me back to the beginning of my comment. A negative double is easily understood by anyone playing SAYC (it is part of the system), the level you play it too should be an option, not etched in stone. Some players may not feel comfortable playing them above the old spunik level of 1♠, others may want to play them at any level.

 

Since an alert and and explain is satisfactory I see no reason to take an allowed convention and then restrict its use. I did know that BBO Basic uses negative double through 2S (it is on the CC and the website), but I had no idea that it would be ILLEGAL to use a negative double of 3D even if playing in an SAYC only event. In fact, I guess I will never play in one because I surely am not going to go find an SAYC booklet and study it so that I don't use an illegal bid if the tournment directors are going to be literal in determing the rules... they are playing some game, but it certainly isn't bridge.

 

Now, I think good bad 2NT, merckwell over NT, transfer advances, all those things would be out, and deserving sanctions. And maybe negative doubles after partner opens 1NT too (although I still like takeout here), but what level you paly a negative dobule or a take out double? That is just silly.

 

Ben

[mpefritz]

McBruce runs an SAYC individual for which he has created a website (see above). He went to the trouble of creating a BBO SAYC alphapoints CC that players are supposed to use. Furthermore, he has links to the ACBL SAYC CC and to a booklet for SAYC. he announces the rules and gives the link to his site many times before the tournament.

 

I think his idea is to try to have an individual where the players are all playing the same system. He also has a warning that he WILL adjust if a non-SAYC call is made AND it is fielded by the partner.

 

I believe this is the context of all of his ruling questions.

 

All of these SAYC documents clearly state negative doubles through 2♠.

 

I am not convinced that a penalty double of 3♦ should be pulled, although 3NT, 3S(?forcing to 3NT or 4M), and pass would depend on the vulnerability. 3DX looks to be a huge plus white versus red. BUT the fact that the double was not penalty already makes it a non-SAYC call that was then potentially "fielded" by partner pulling. Pass is certainly a logical alternative. Pulling the double to 3♠ when it was actually a penalty double should be allowed as the double would then have been SAYC, and then the opener used "judgment". Yes, this seems convoluted, but matches this director's rules.

 

Please understand that I am responding under McBruce's rules, not whether or not I agree with them.

 

On the first hand, the 2 defenders should be taken aside and slapped upside the head. Really really hard! And adjust as you did. Then repeat the slapping!

 

fritz

 

p.s. I e-mailed McBruce that he should have adjusted his own Jack computers as they made a non-SAYC transfer:

 

1D-1NT-P-2H

P-2S-...

 

The CC from the ACBL on SAYC says systems off after 1NT overcall except for Stayman...Clearly one computer made a "non-SAYC" call and the other one fielded it... ;)

[McBruce]

All of you who think a sayc-only tournament is not bridge are free to play in dozens of other tournaments every day on BBO. But there are over 100 people who enjoy these twice a week tournaments and play in as many as they can. Not all of us feel that bridge is a contest between two bidding systems revved up like competing Formula One cars. Millions of rubber bridge players the world over like to play a simple system with a lot of judgment and very little in the way of unexpected arcane conventions, so they can play with many partners without changing their style completely. Scoff if you want, but among bridge players as a whole, and perhaps among tournament bridge players too, you system tweakers are definitely a minority.

 

If I allow deviations from sayc to be fielded without penalty, I frustrate those who come to these tournaments to play a simple system. I don't penalize when a non-sayc call is made and partner treats it as he would sayc. Only when both partners seem to know that a call is non-sayc is there an infraction.

 

Anyhow, my tournaments are well-advertised as being sayc-ONLY, and I post a sayc convention card and the official booklet on my site. I explain clearly the circumstances under which I will adjust. I will take private chat questions from players about what is and is not sayc during the tournament, and since all play sayc, you can look at your own card by looking at the opponents'.

 

This hand...

 

♠ AQ63 ♥ AJ9 ♦ 987 ♣ K53

 

...is a clear pass of a double of 3♦ by partner. You have defensive tricks galore, an amazing number of diamonds suggesting that declarer is shorter than usual or dummy is void, and the opponents are vulnerable. If you can take five tricks in diamonds, which seems likely, you need to bid a game to beat 200. The only thing that supports bidding is if you have the agreement that the double is takeout/negative.

 

In this tournament this is an illegal partnership agreement.

 

There is no infraction when South makes a negative double of 3♦, until North fields the non-sayc call and takes it out. It's exactly the same as a psychic bid which is fielded by partner.

 

BTW, the South hand was ♠ KJ9754 ♥ T76 ♦ 62 ♣ J2. I know, this is irrelevant to the decision that North has no 3♠ call over a double.

[the hog]

McBruce, why even bother posting these? You know that those who play bridge will disagree with your second judgement; so what is your point? As Luis says, "It is an offense to the Bridge Gods."

[McBruce]

McBruce, why even bother posting these? You know that those who play bridge will disagree with your second judgement; so what is your point? As Luis says, "It is an offense to the Bridge Gods."

 

Perhaps we can come to an agreement and you can simply stop reading my posts if they rile you up so much. I post these because they are difficult decisions and I would like considered advice. Those whose advice consists of harping at the conditions, or completely ignoring them, I ignore. I imagine if I were to barge into one of your discussions on hi-tech system architecture with a comment, you'd ignore me too, because I know nothing about that topic.

[Rado]

Hi friends,

Please relax and do not go into another war confrontation.

The original post by McBruce presented 2 cases of adjustments and at the end was written: "COMMENTS" So we have posted our comments and views. Whether right or wrong 100 heads might think better than 1 head only:-)))) I have the feeling that McBruce needed to assure himself about the correctness of his adjustments. So he has now different views. If he feels people need restricted SAYC tourneys let them play, if need more flexible, the he or other volunteer let make different.

Regards

Rado

[luis]

I think that the problem is that you must understand SAYC before running a SAYC-only tournament. If you think that SAYC forbids a negative double of 3d after 1c-(3d) then you are absolutely wrong. In fact your doubles can be whatever you want them to be because SAYC makes no clear statement about competitive auctions so you are free to play whatever you want.

 

There is no infraction when South makes a negative double of 3♦, until North fields the non-sayc call and takes it out. It's exactly the same as a psychic bid which is fielded by partner.

 

I find this ridiculuous, I understand you want players to play an inferior system for some quixotic reason and I don't have any problem with that but I really can't understand why you are the judge to decide what is SAYC call and what is not and decide when a player "fields" a non-sayc call. There's no way to decide the scope of SAYC you should limit your rulings to opening bids, responses and basic agreements and let players do whatever they think is right when the auctions gets competitive.

[hrothgar]

I think that the problem is that you must understand SAYC before running a SAYC-only tournament. If you think that SAYC forbids a negative double of 3d after 1c-(3d) then you are absolutely wrong. In fact your doubles can be whatever you want them to be because SAYC makes no clear statement about competitive auctions so you are free to play whatever you want.

Luis's post illustrates a very significant problem.

 

The expressions "SAYC" refers to both a specific bidding system as well as a general approach towards bidding.

 

Historically, the expression SAYC referred to a fairly specific bidding system. This system was codified in the original Yellow cards that the ACBL distributed. The sample convention card that McBruce provides at http://web2.acbl.org/publications/sayc_card.pdf looks to be very close to the original cards that I saw.

 

Unfortunately, SAYC has also come to refer to a general approach towards bidding which includes 5 card majors, a 15-17 HCP NT opening, and a natural 1NT response to a major suit opening. The "decision" to refer to use an expression describing a specific bidding system to refer to this entire approach causes no end of confusion.

 

As an example: SAYC as a system very specifically notes that negative double are played through 2S. Check the card if you don't believe me.

 

SAYC as an approach uses negative doubles, but no one understands how high they apply.

 

To further complicate matters, there are people who play "Simple SAYC". I've never been able to figure out what this means. And of course, the key issue is that

most of the people who claim to play SAYC don't actually have a a clue what is or is not part of the system.

[uday]

No one is disagreeng with the following, right?

 

- it is a TDs right to run tourneys limited to a specific bidding system.

- it is a TDs responsibility to adjust results caused by calls that fall outside the range of permitted methods

 

These seem obvious. If not, I will reiterate that BBO feels (emphatically) that a TD can do whatever he wishes in terms of restricting a tournament. He may restrict psyches, he may restrict conventions, he may restrict opening bids without a singleton. It does not matter to BBO that the result is not the purest form of bridge.

 

 

So whats left? Only whether the double in the problem hand was takeout or penalties. Who gets to decide what it means, in the context of McBruce's tourneys? McBruce, of course. If to him, "SAYC" means that doubles are negative only through 2S, that seems to settle that. It is his business to make sure that the users of his Ts understand this. But if they dont, they will over time.

 

 

With my TD hat on, I agree completely with the ruling. I urge all of us to sign up for TD rights and run Moscito-only Individuals, 2/1 Individuals, Polish Club individuals, whatever. You can email uday @ you know where . com if you want TD rights.

 

With my BBO-admin hat on, I have no opinion at all, since this is an "internal" matter (internal to the Tourney, that is. If users dont like it they dont have to play in the TDs Ts)

 

With my BBO-user hat on, I am very appreciative of Individuals where everyone has some idea of what they are playing. It is my non-bbo opinion that the only sane way to play individuals is to restrict systems, or allow for more time in each round for discussion at the start of each round.

 

With my bridge-purist hat on, I might agree that this only "bridge", not "Bridge". Even so, I might agree that McBruce has no responsibilty to promote "Bridge", only to have fun (and share it).

[inquiry]

Hi Uday,

 

McBruce does a great service running tournments, and I have always supported the TD right to establish rules and enforce them as they see fit. I have posted on this topic many, many times and always support the TD's right to be king of his own empire.

 

However, here McBruce posted two examples and asked publically for view of his action. I think he therefore was asking for either validation of, or reasons not to be support his actions. And I think a lot of people addressed this issue... is negative double at three level a violatoin of SAYC rules? I was more specific, when I said...

 

Now if you posted on the web somewhere your own flavor of what an SAYC card looks like, or if you defined your tournment as BBO Basic only (which specifically plays negative double through only 2♠) maybe there would be some room for discussion on this issue.

 

By this I meant, if it was made clear that here are the hard and fast rules that this is the specific agreements you play by, then that was a "horse of a different color". In fact in a subsequent message, some one pointed out McBruce provides the BBO-version of CC people are suppose to use in his events, and has a web page detailing the SAYC nature of his events. With this background information, his ruling in his event is perfectly fine.

 

However, it seems to me that McBruce took the "comments" (some harsher than others) that his second ruling was "a crock" a little harder than necessary. In reply to his criticis, he basically dis-invited all of "us" commentors who disagree with him not to play in his tournments. This seemed unnecessary and an over-response to the replys he was getting. AFter all, he did asked for peoples views, and I believe everyone gave their honest opinion. That many disagreed with him would be, I think expected. And even without being dis-invited, I think most of the posters who disagreed with him might decide not to play in an SAYC only event anyway (this would be the event or type of event, I would play with on line with my mother or a beginner). But having expressed the view that his ruling seemed "anti-bridge" and reading his reply, it is not surprising a few people had more to say. After all, just as those who attacked McBruce ruling made him feel the need to make comments about their views, McBruce's reply basically telling them to stay out of his tournments, would surely get a reply back for the them. I myself took the news that there was an official sanctioned cc as the final answer on this question, and if neg dbls are only allowed through 2♠, then that is the end of the story, so until your reply, I felt no need to comment again. But as you said, the issue of the rules you play by in a McBruce or a topflight or an abalucy event is decided soley by the TD. nuff said.

 

Ben

[spwdo]

hi,

 

in this case it woud be very easy, aldough mc bruce announces a lot in his tourneys i never saw him anounce what "sayc" in fact is according to his standards(besides the link to his site wher u have to do obligate reading witch probaly not a sool is going to do), maybe announce and obligate the sayc basic cc that everybody can find once u clicked on cc woud be a good start, i too post tournament rules, hardly ever one is reading them(took a unwanted test, co-tds said in info tournament rules wher posted and they werent=they didnt had the linfile and i simple forgot), got one replie in 4 tourneys .

only thing helping is to keep reminding players what your rules are, maybe continui this during the tournament , and if u want to stick to that dble example(i feel its rather important to announce it then because im sure it happens alot) and like i see in the posts great confusion if its right/wrong, if there is a right wrong to it in any case. further i hope for mc bruce sake not all "non sayc" bids are reported to him, he might wanna need a couple of co-tds then.

3. i tottally agree with uday post( i wish i had same possiblity to express myself in english lol )

 

marc

[the hog]

McBruce's problem appears to be that he is not able to distinguish between a system and a convention. Negative doubles are a convention, which can be added on to a system - or not if you don't like them. In a similar vein, a defence to an opponents NT opening is a convention, not a system. I have read the sayc guide on McBruce's web site - the following is a quote -"The negative double is used through 2♠ promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major." Notice the absence of the word "only". I would be very interested to read where it is written in stone that negative doubles are only permissable to 2S in sayc.

 

This whole thread raises an interesting question. If a 3D bid is described in sayc as a holding of 7D to say two of the top 3 hons, would McBruce penalise a player who did not open 3D with that holding? If not, why not? Its sayc! If a player respnds to his partner's 1N opening with an invitational 3C on say

Kx xxx xxx KQTxx , (regardless of whether such a bid is a good bid or not), would Mc Bruce adjust? The sayc notes say this must be a 6 card suit. If there is no adjustment, again why not?

 

In the second example given by McBruce, we have a situation where we know we have a good contract at the 3 level, but we cannot under any circumstances play there - we can't get there by a negative double, and of course we can't bid 3S as we don't have the values, and anyway, "It wouldn't be sayc" - therein lies the paradox. I don't know what card game this is, but it is not bridge.

 

Perhaps the best solution for McBruce would be to say "here are your cards, the contract is such and such, now play the hand".

[McBruce]

Well, if the problem is that there are differing ideas of what SAYC means, then perhaps I need to do more to let people know what version I mean. I will accept that as a criticism--but I do provide a lot of ways to find out on the website.

 

Page 7 of the sayc booklet says: "The negative double is used through 2♠ promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major." (I will admit that it is written on paper and not in stone.) The convention card clearly shows 2♠ as the limit for negative doubles. This doesn't mean that South's double is 100% penalty in SAYC. But my judgment is that North has no business bidding 3♠ without a known fit in spades. Based on SAYC there is no reason to assume South has four spades or even for that matter three.

 

If I'm mistaken here, let me know: that's why we're discussing this.

 

I'm frustrated because some of the posters here seem to prefer to bash my rules, or criticize my rulings without bothering to understand the preconditions, and in order to do so they are going to extremes. For example:

 

I disagree with the idea that South (♠ KJ9754 ♥ T76 ♦ 62 ♣ J2) faces "a paradox." When I preplayed the deals (single dummy, of course) against Jack, the auction went 1♣ - 4♦ and I thought 4♠ was a bit of a stretch but reasonable under the circumstances. 3♠ or pass by South (after 1♣ - 3♦) are reasonable SAYC bids. Double is non-SAYC, still not an infraction until North fields it. To say that "we can't bid 3♠ as we don't have the values" is a valid opinion, but surely the answer is not to double with this hand!

 

Or this: "an interesting situation. If a 3D bid is described in sayc as a holding of 7D to say two of the top 3 hons, would McBruce penalise a player who did not open 3D with that holding?" What does this 'argument' have to do with anything? SAYC doesn't make any such description.

[the hog]

Or this: "an interesting situation. If a 3D bid is described in sayc as a holding of 7D to say two of the top 3 hons, would McBruce penalise a player who did not open 3D with that holding?" What does this 'argument' have to do with anything? SAYC doesn't make any such description.

 

Fwiw I have read your conditions of contest. I still argue that you appear to have an inability to distinguish between a convention and a system.

 

McBruce, it does give other specific examples of bids eg the 3C response to 1N. Did you not realise that I used the 3D bid as an example? Apparently not! I said IF a 3D bid was described as such.. and not used , would you make an adjustment? You still have not answered the question - would you adjust if a player has a holding described in the sayc notes and does not make the "book" bid? here is another one. The bidding goes:

1D (1H) next hand holding AKQJ xxxx xx xxx bids 1S ratehr than making the "book" negative double. {1D — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five)}. It CLEARLY states 1S shows 5 cards. Would you adjust McBruce?

 

"3♠ or pass by South (after 1♣ - 3♦) are reasonable SAYC bids."

 

A forcing 3S bid on your given holding is not a reasonable bid, in sayc or anything else you care to mention. So whether you like it or not McBruce, a paradox clearly does exist. Your saying it does not, does not make it so.

[Cascade]

♠

McBruce's problem appears to be that he is not able to distinguish between a system and a convention. Negative doubles are a convention, which can be added on to a system - or not if you don't like them.

...

I would be very interested to read where it is written in stone that negative doubles are only permissable to 2S in sayc.

I don't think the problem is McBruce's. SAYC appears to be a system that employs negative doubles up to 2♠.

 

You may argue that that makes it a flawed system (but what system isn't). Nevertheless that is the system.

 

Here are some links:

 

SAYC compared with Standard American

 

Fifth Chair pdf document

 

ACBL System Booklet

 

They all have negative doubles up to 2♠. One does say only a recommendation.

[the hog]

"I don't think the problem is McBruce's. SAYC appears to be a system that employs negative doubles up to 2♠."

 

At the risk of being pedantic Wayne, where does it say ONLY up to 2S?

[hrothgar]

"I don't think the problem is McBruce's. SAYC appears to be a system that employs negative doubles up to 2♠."

 

At the risk of being pedantic Wayne, where does it say ONLY up to 2S?

Quoting from the ACBL system booklet

 

"Negative doubles are used through 2S promising four cards (at least) in

any unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or

more points and a five-card or longer suit.

1C -- (1D)-- Double = 4-4 or better in the majors.

1D -- (1H)-- Double = exactly four spades (1S promises five).

1D -- (1S)-- Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts and

5-10 points.

 

"

[helium]

Declarer loses connection at trick three after pulling two rounds of trumps in a 6-2 fit, ending in dummy.  The sub can ruff a side suit high to get to his hand to pull the last trump and make eleven tricks, but when his request to know what was played in the first three tricks are not answered by the opponents, he ruffs with the nine and is overruffed with the ten.  Adjust?  I did.  Surely the defense does not have the 'right' to make a sub play in the dark.  As far as the sub knew, the nine might have been high, and the king he still held might not have been high enough.

 

 

 

♠ AQ63  ♥ AJ9  ♦ 987  ♣ K53

 

This player opened 1♣ white vs red as dealer, LHO overcalls 3♦, and partner doubles.  This is a sayc-only tourney, so this is not a negative double.  When this player bid 3♠ and found partner with six to the KJ9, I was asked to adjust.  3D was cold for nine tricks.  Adjust to -670?  I did.  This is a non-sayc call followed by a fielded response which gained an advantage.  Thems the rules.  That both players were unaware that sayc includes negative doubles to only 2♠ is irrelevant: you sign up for a sayc-only tournament, you have an obligation to know what's in and not in.

 

Comments?

I still don understand or agrre in ur secound adjustent, you say that the doble is a non say call,the hand was ♠kj9754♥j76♦64♣j2

I whould say that its a bad x no matther what kind of x its suppose to be, but the problem is that hes partner, holding♠AQ63♥AJ9♦987♣K53 dint pass the dobble (which are a penalty x after the system)but pulled to 3 ♠ and found hes p whit a superfit. now lets say the hes partners hand was this: ♠xx♥Kxx♦QJ10654♣Ax now opps are 800-1100 down in 3 dimonds X, but he polled the dobble to 3 ♠ got dobled and went 500-800 down,whould u adjust now?

the guidelines in sayc is that neg x is true 2 ♠ but this does not mean that every x after 2♠ is 100% penalty.

 

 

kenneth