98.611% no complaints

[EdmundB]

Please  Don't  Hold  Unclocked  Events.

Hi Edmund

 

There are many people who like McBruce's event just in the manner he designed it.

There are many European player, who get up at 04:15 am to participate in the Alphabet-Points-Tournament.

 

Nobody forces you to play in this event or another which rules you dislike. :angry:

 

Why you don't have the tolerance to let every TD decide his rules and every player to register in the tourneys he likes?

 

Sincerly

 

Al

Don't you have enough troubles in your life that you don't need to add "trolling" to them?

[mpefritz]

paulhar:

 

Please recheck the manual that you quote.

 

It lists follow ups of :

 

1NT-2H

2S-??

 

??

Pass, 2NT,3C,3D,3H,3S,3NT, and 4S are ALL listed as options (note language: "Possible calls after the accepted transfer are:")

 

Note that 4C and 4NT are NOT listed as possible calls. Yes, that is asinine, but that is what the system manual says. I do not agree that it leaves those calls out, but it actively leaves them out! (it could have used a see below for 4C and 4NT meanings...)

 

fritz

[EricK]

paulhar:

 

Please recheck the manual that you quote.

 

It lists follow ups of :

 

1NT-2H

2S-??

 

??

Pass, 2NT,3C,3D,3H,3S,3NT, and 4S are ALL listed as options (note language: "Possible calls after the accepted transfer are:")

 

Note that 4C and 4NT are NOT listed as possible calls. Yes, that is asinine, but that is what the system manual says. I do not agree that it leaves those calls out, but it actively leaves them out! (it could have used a see below for 4C and 4NT meanings...)

 

fritz

It also leaves out

 

2NT 3NT

 

and

 

1NT 2NT

 

so what do you read into that?

 

Eric

[mpefritz]

I make out that:

 

1NT-2NT and 1NT-3NT are understood, but the use of 4C and 4NT after a transfer are specifically left off.

 

The bottom of the page states:

 

A direct raise of 1NT to 4NT is natural and invites 6NT....

 

Again, note the use of the word direct.

 

I think it is silly, but if we are arguing dumb fine points, then we will have a LOT of fodder from this pamphlet.

 

fritz

[paulhar]

paulhar:

 

Please recheck the manual that you quote.

 

It lists follow ups of :

 

1NT-2H

2S-??

 

??

Pass, 2NT,3C,3D,3H,3S,3NT, and 4S are ALL listed as options (note language: "Possible calls after the accepted transfer are:")

 

Note that 4C and 4NT are NOT listed as possible calls. Yes, that is asinine, but that is what the system manual says. I do not agree that it leaves those calls out, but it actively leaves them out! (it could have used a see below for 4C and 4NT meanings...)

 

fritz

However, we are discussing what 4NT means. The player bid 4NT in a transfer auction. Bruce didn't disallow or dispute the bid despite its omission in the SAYC manual. If a bid is allowed at all, it means something (unless it's a fert :angry: which certainly isn't allowed.)

 

So we are left to determine what the bid means given the constraints of the SAYC manual. The manual doesn't specifically tell us what the bid means. It does not specifically say that all 4NT's are Blackwood except 1N-4N or 2N-4N. It does not say that Gerber is used ONLY...

 

The bid was allowed. Since the SAYC manual doesn't tell us what it is, we have to figure it out using bridge logic. I did that in an earlier post on this thread and I couldn't come to any conclusion except that it's quantitative.

 

I don't read into a 'SAYC only tournament' that you are not allowed to make a bid that's not explicitly explained in the manual. After all, I have seen people bid 1S P 6S in these SAYC tournaments and nobody's going to bar them from doing that.

 

Come to think of it, 1NT P 6NT and 1NT P 7NT aren't there either. But I don't think that ace-asking is a prerequisite for bidding a slam.

[mpefritz]

See my earlier posts for my full analysis of what I think happened on this hand. I continue to believe that I would interpret 4NT as quantitative in this auction in this SAYC tournament, but there are arguments for 4NT being Ace asking or quant.

 

The manual, though, actively omits the 4C and 4NT continuations after a 2-level transfer and uses the word "direct" when speaking of a 4NT quantitative raise (in relation to 4C Gerber as ace asking in these cases). So 4NT as "Blackwood" is not insane in this case.

 

fritz

[the hog]

"Come to think of it, 1NT P 6NT and 1NT P 7NT aren't there either. But I don't think that ace-asking is a prerequisite for bidding a slam. "

 

If they are not explicitly mentioned, then according to McBruce's definition they are illegal and should be penalised. The same goes for 4N in the mentioned auction. I wonder whether 1M 4M is mentioned?

[luke warm]

from reading all of this 2 things seem obvious... first, sayc (as described here) is a horrible system and i'd never teach it to a beginner... and second, it is impossible to form rules based on what the sayc manual states or leaves out...

 

one can't logically say "it's not in the book, it's illegal, i'm adjusting your score" after 1s/4s while at the same time allowing the auction given (4nt can't be quant, it is expressly forbidden unless 1nt/4nt).. it isn't enough to say that some bids are a matter of bridge logic, even if not expressly allowed or forbidden by the sayc manual, while denying that others are...

 

that's far too subjective, and subtle, for me

[McBruce]

I'm not sure why this continues to happen, but we are now both off topic and attributing statements to me that I have not made.

 

I missed the possibility of 4NT being quantitative when I arrived at the table. So did the South player; his comments indicate that whether it was regular Blackwood or RKC was his concern. No further attempt by South was made to find out whether 4NT was anything other than straight Blackwood; he simply complained about the form of the answer he got.

 

Several have criticized me for deciding that 4NT was Blackwood, and assumed that I would adjust the score if 4NT was quantitative. This has in turn led to the usual suspects piling on and claiming that I adjust in all cases where a bid out of the book is made. Not true, and that is not the original issue here either.

 

Suppose you pick up a opening hand that is 5-5 in the reds and partner opens 2NT. You might, playing SAYC, transfer to hearts and then bid 4♦--who knows, this may uncover an even better fit, and 7♦ may well be the only grand that makes. But with 5-5 in the rounded suits you cannot show the club suit if you play that transfer, then 4NT is quantitative. It's the price you pay for the gadgets you choose. And it means that it is not at all obvious that 4NT is quantitative after 2NT - 3♦, 3♥ - 4NT.

 

You're allowed in almost every other tournament to play (almost) anything you want; in Alphabet Points I am trying to level the conventional playing field, for two reasons: 1) it is an individual and we can't have 5 minutes of discussion before every deal, 2) bridge is more than just a test of who can build the best system. Had E-W told me that they thought 4NT was quantitative I would have allowed it, but it is a slippery slope, because the second I allow one pair to use a convention (like 4NT quantitative in a transfer auction) that others may reasonably think is not allowed, this gives them an unfair advantage over the other pairs.

 

Earlier we had a responder who made a negative double of a jump overcall to 3♦ and the 4-3-3-3 opener bid 3♠, finding six-card support in dummy. Since negative doubles in SAYC apply only up to 2♠, I adjusted the score to 3♦*+1 and the anti-AlphaPoints clique went postal, claiming that the book did not specifically say that higher doubles were for penalty. When I pointed out that the side I adjusted against got an unfair advantage by both using a forbidden convention, the response was 'so what?' So Law 40D.

 

As for those who say that SAYC is a horrible system, or those who say that unclocked tournaments make no sense, let me just say this: over 1100 total tables have played in the twice-weekly Alphabet Point series since it began in February. Some actually like to be able to finish the tournament without finishing a round early and waiting forever; others like the fact that they can take a minute extra without holding everyone up; others enjoy not having to worry about how best to defend against unfamiliar systems; others like the idea of a rating system. I must be doing something right.

[paulhar]

Suppose you pick up a opening hand that is 5-5 in the reds and partner opens 2NT. You might, playing SAYC, transfer to hearts and then bid 4♦--who knows, this may uncover an even better fit, and 7♦ may well be the only grand that makes. But with 5-5 in the rounded suits you cannot show the club suit if you play that transfer, then 4NT is quantitative. It's the price you pay for the gadgets you choose. And it means that it is not at all obvious that 4NT is quantitative after 2NT - 3♦, 3♥ - 4NT.

Yes, you're doing something right. Keep up the good work! There is definitely demand for the type of tournament that you run and the many posters flaming you can choose not to play in them.

 

However, at the risk of repeating myself, I think that 2NT-3D-3H-4C can show CLUBS. There is no advantage that I can see to transferring first (yes, by all means give the opponents a chance to make a lead directing double!) if all you need to know about is Aces. Remember - RKCB is not allowed.

 

If you want to know about Aces, bid 4C right over 2NT. Then place the contract in hearts if that's where you want to play.

 

I'm sure that if this is flat-out wrong, a whole slew of experts would have let me know the first time I posted it. That didn't happen.

 

So you have it all, you can ask for aces, or show clubs, or show diamonds, or bid NT quantitatively, even letting partner know about your major to help him decide on the contract (with 6H being possible.)

[EricK]

from reading all of this 2 things seem obvious... first, sayc (as described here) is a horrible system and i'd never teach it to a beginner... and second, it is impossible to form rules based on what the sayc manual states or leaves out...

 

one can't logically say "it's not in the book, it's illegal, i'm adjusting your score" after 1s/4s while at the same time allowing the auction given (4nt can't be quant, it is expressly forbidden unless 1nt/4nt).. it isn't enough to say that some bids are a matter of bridge logic, even if not expressly allowed or forbidden by the sayc manual, while denying that others are...

 

that's far too subjective, and subtle, for me

I don't think SAYC is a horrible system. It is not a great, world-beating, system, but it wasn't designed as such.

 

My major gripe with it is that negative doubles should certainly apply above 2♠. Otherwise the system is just too open to pre-emption.

 

Apart from that, it handles most things at least adequately. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get through a normal evening of bridge (24 boards or so) without really missing any more advanced stuff.

 

Eric

[jtfanclub]

My major gripe with it is that negative doubles should certainly apply above 2♠. Otherwise the system is just too open to pre-emption.

Negative doubles are an unnecessary crutch at any level.

 

SAYC does great when it's playing SA or 2/1. It's simply not robust enough to handle anything else.

[EricK]

My major gripe with it is that negative doubles should certainly apply above 2♠. Otherwise the system is just too open to pre-emption.

Negative doubles are an unnecessary crutch at any level.

 

SAYC does great when it's playing SA or 2/1. It's simply not robust enough to handle anything else.

I certainly disagree with you about negative doubles. The portion of Robson and Segal's book "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" about negative doubles explains why they are necessary.

 

But I don't follow what you mean about SAYC not being robust enough to handle other systems. Could you give some examples?

 

Eric

[the hog]

Re the comment re -ve Xs.

pehaps you could give me some indication of how you would handle this sort of hand if not playing -ve xs. -ve Xs are Al Roths best invention.

 

1C (1S)

 

xx

KQxx

Kxxx

xxx

 

I will admit that gf hands can be handled with a cue bid, but these limited hands are impossible if you don't play -ve Xs. OK JT, how do you handle this please?

[luke warm]

[sAYC does great when it's playing SA or 2/1.

oh really?

[keylime]

Name the last pair using SAYC to win a major event (EXCLUDING Nickell-Freeman's win of the LM pairs in 2003).

 

With regards to the ADA, if memory serves, doesn't the ACBL have special accomodations for our blind/visually impaired players and hard of hearing/deaf folks? I distinctly remember in Las Vegas two or three tables with really bright lighting setups for the LM pairs.

[hrothgar]

Name the last pair using SAYC to win a major event (EXCLUDING Nickell-Freeman's win of the LM pairs in 2003).

Silly question: Don't Nickell-Freeman normally play 2/1 game force?

Any reason why they switched for this event?

[jtfanclub]

Re the comment re -ve Xs.

pehaps you could give me some indication of how you would handle this sort of hand if not playing -ve xs. -ve Xs are Al Roths best invention.

 

1C (1S)

 

xx

KQxx

Kxxx

xxx

 

I will admit that gf hands can be handled with a cue bid, but these limited hands are impossible if you don't play -ve Xs. OK JT, how do you handle this please?

I'd double, of course. But I'd also double with

 

xx

AQx

Kxxxx

xxx

 

What else are you going to say? Pass? 2D?

 

I mis-stated when I said that SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. I should have said that with a pickup partner playing against another pickup partnership, SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. However, it has no defined defenses against Moscito or forcing pass, and there's some confusion even against Precision. There is no meta-defense in SAYC, and that's what I mean by not being robust enough.

[EricK]

Re the comment re -ve Xs.

pehaps you could give me some indication of how you would handle this sort of hand if not playing -ve xs. -ve Xs are Al Roths best invention.

 

1C (1S)

 

xx

KQxx

Kxxx

xxx

 

I will admit that gf hands can be handled with a cue bid, but these limited hands are impossible if you don't play -ve Xs. OK JT, how do you handle this please?

I'd double, of course. But I'd also double with

 

xx

AQx

Kxxxx

xxx

 

What else are you going to say? Pass? 2D?

 

I mis-stated when I said that SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. I should have said that with a pickup partner playing against another pickup partnership, SAYC works great vs. SA or 2/1. However, it has no defined defenses against Moscito or forcing pass, and there's some confusion even against Precision. There is no meta-defense in SAYC, and that's what I mean by not being robust enough.

There seems to be some difference in the usage of language. If you double on these hands, you are playing -ve doubles, in my understanding of the term. A negative double is simply a double which asks partner to bid (but he may choose to pass), this is compared to a penalty double which asks partner to pass (but he may choose to bid).

 

Eric

[the hog]

"There seems to be some difference in the usage of language. If you double on these hands, you are playing -ve doubles, in my understanding of the term."

 

In my understanding also EricK.

[jtfanclub]

"There seems to be some difference in the usage of language. If you double on these hands, you are playing -ve doubles, in my understanding of the term."

 

In my understanding also EricK.

Ah, OK. It's a confusion of language then. Sorry.

 

In the ACBL Yellow Card sheet, which somebody was kind enough to link earlier in this thread, under "competitive bidding", it says:

 

The negative double is used through 2♠ promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major

 

What I meant by it being a crutch is that it's unnecessarily restrictive. There's lots of times when a "negative" double is the best bid even when you don't have four cards in an unbid major. *I* interpret the 'negative bids up to 2♠" to mean that up to 2♠ you are promising an unbid major, and above that level you're no longer making that promise- it's just an ordinary takeout double. I don't see anything in the card to tell me if I'm right or wrong.

[EricK]

"There seems to be some difference in the usage of language. If you double on these hands, you are playing -ve doubles, in my understanding of the term."

 

In my understanding also EricK.

Ah, OK. It's a confusion of language then. Sorry.

 

In the ACBL Yellow Card sheet, which somebody was kind enough to link earlier in this thread, under "competitive bidding", it says:

 

The negative double is used through 2♠ promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major

 

What I meant by it being a crutch is that it's unnecessarily restrictive. There's lots of times when a "negative" double is the best bid even when you don't have four cards in an unbid major. *I* interpret the 'negative bids up to 2♠" to mean that up to 2♠ you are promising an unbid major, and above that level you're no longer making that promise- it's just an ordinary takeout double. I don't see anything in the card to tell me if I'm right or wrong.

The statement in the ACBL booklet is ambiguous. I suspect that they mean that "Negative doubles are employed up to the 2♠ level. A negative double promises 4 in an unbid major." Rather than "Negative doubles are employed. Up to the level of 2S they promise 4 cards in an unbid major."

 

Judging from what McBruce wrote in an earlier thread, he, in his SAYC only tourneys, certainly interprets it in the former way. However, since 1♣ (2♠) and 1♦ (3♣) take up basically the same amount of space and pose responder the same problem, it seems wrong to say that you have to double negatively on the former, but for penalties on the latter.

 

Eric

[McBruce]

My opinion is that negative essentially means takeout. A negative double has the extra connotation of four-card support for unbid majors, and is limited to responder's first action after an opening bid and an overcall. But this is an awfully minor difference. It seems to me that your interpretation reads quite a lot into the SAYC booklet that is simply not there: if they wanted the double of a 3-level overcall to be for takeout, they would have made the negative double limit higher. If they wanted such doubles to be optional, they would have said so. They did not do so in the booklet, so I assume higher doubles are for penalty and adjust when a pair makes and fields a negative double. So far it has happened once in 41 tournaments:

 

Opener: ♠AQ63 ♥AJ9 ♦987 ♣K83

 

Responder: ♠KJ9754 ♥T76 ♦82 ♣J2

 

After 1♣ - 3♦ - Double - Pass - 3♠ - END, I adjusted +140 to -870 (4♦ was cold).

 

In a similar vein, I have had people arguing that "the booklet" doesn't specifically say conventions such as RKC or DONT or splinters are disallowed and thus one should not rule against them (especially when partner makes the right response). If I caved to these arguments, I wouldn't be able to call it a SAYC-only tournament for long.

[the hog]

"If they wanted such doubles to be optional, they would have said so. They did not do so in the booklet, so I assume higher doubles are for penalty and adjust when a pair makes and fields a negative double."

 

Again this is incorrect. As Richard points out in another thread, such doubles are card showing, not explicitely penalty.

[jtfanclub]

"If they wanted such doubles to be optional, they would have said so. They did not do so in the booklet, so I assume higher doubles are for penalty and adjust when a pair makes and fields a negative double."

 

Again this is incorrect. As Richard points out in another thread, such doubles are card showing, not explicitely penalty.

And I disagree with both o' youse.

 

I don't see anything in the card that implies that it should be penalty. I will point out that in the defensive bidding section, it says:

 

A double is for takeout over an opening partscore bid (4♦ or lower); penalty over opening game bids (4♥ or higher).

 

I will also point out this is the ONLY place where penalty doubles are mentioned on the card.

 

I see nothing on the card that states or implies that 1♣ 3♠ X should be penalty. Given that we do have the information that 3♠ X is takeout, I see no reason to think that just because your partner opened it become penalty.

 

SAYC has a very explicit definition of negative doubles: a takeout double which promises a four card major in the unbid suit. That negative doubles are only used through 2♠ says nothing about takeout doubles.

 

I tell you what, though...the ACBL has usually taken about a week to respond.

I'll ask them that exact question.

 

Edited to add: I don't think there should be any question about what a negative double means in SAYC. A negative double promises 4 cards in an unbid major. Doesn't imply, doesn't show, promises. And while there will be the occassional unusual hand that requires a negative double without an unbid four card major (just as you can occassionally open 1 of a major with 4 cards), if you do it regularly you aren't playing SAYC. Doesn't matter what it meant in 1930, what it means now in England, or even what it means in an ACBL Midchart tourney. It is expressly and explicitly defined in SAYC in black and white. There is nothing to assume.

 

I'll stop posting on this subject until I get a reply from the ACBL. I don't think it's something we can resolve without them.