[Bbradley62]

y66, on 2014-March-23, 12:14, said:

So, why don't more intermediates learn to play LC Standard or a similar, well-documented set of minimal, effective agreements as a baseline (not as their only system)?

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

[kenberg]

Bbradley62, on 2014-March-26, 08:55, said:

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

Right, and with a pick up I am always happy to play SAYC. I have seen a vast array of views on what SAYC includes, but that's not SAYC's fault, there is a booklet.

But I want to deal with the considerably larger number of players who wish to play Bergen or Drury or DONT or support doubles or... and have varied interpretations of just how these conventions go. It's no surprise to find many people who are quite sure exactly how they are played but what they are quite sure of differs substantially from what others are quite sure of. 1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♠)-X. Take a poll on the meaning of the double. Not a support double, according to Cohen (also according to me, but who listens to me). And so on.

You need a sense of humor for online pick-up, no way around that. I am hoping to find a few fewer things to laugh about.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2014-March-26, 08:55, said:

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

Not at all. SAYC was produced as a rigid set of agreements for openings and first responses to be used in a "Yellow Card" game (Indy or relaxed other), not as a baseline for anything. There are no "default" positions to guide later rounds of bidding.

[blackshoe]

TwstofLime, on 2014-March-24, 23:22, said:

Let's use LCS as a starting point. General Approach. Would I/A players follow Hardy or Lawrence? Is 2♣ over 1♦ forcing -- for simplicity?

Oh, it's forcing. The question is, is it forcing to game, or is it forcing to game, but a rebid of 3♣ turns off the force, showing an invitational hand with clubs?

[fromageGB]

and if it's forcing to game, is it really forcing to game, or if you decide to avoid 3NT and bid 4♣/♦ is that forcing?

[kenberg]

Bridge is 90% mental, the other half is conventions (apologies to Yogi Berra).




Here are a few that came up as I watched the Vanderbilt:

1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(1♠)
X

OK, you have agreed to play support doubles. Is this one? If not, what is it?
It turned out that while opener had four spades, it showed four hearts (which he also had). Commentator kareno mentioned that this is her preferred treatment. Mine also.
It's different from

1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(1♥)
X
This I like as three card support for diamonds. Some play support doubles only for the majors, but if you think about it, this auction might well be a part score battle and how high you want to go in diamonds will depend on your length. Opener will of course not usually have four diamonds on this auction since if I did I would most likely have five clubs, and we have to wonder why the spades are AWOL. Still, a support X is useful here.



Here is another:
1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)
2♦-(Pass)-2♠

What's it? A weak 5/4? They were playing it as in invitational hand, of course with five spades. It wasn't 5/4, somewhat surprisingly (to me). The commentator made the interesting suggestion that over 2♠ a bid of 3♠ should be forcing, offering a choice of games. Since 3NT made and 4♠ did not, this could have been useful here. The idea, as explained, was that you either accept an invitation or you pass. There is no invitational response to an invitation. Perhaps this is right.



And then there was:
1NT-(3♦)-4♥
Oops. Amazingly at the semi-fiinals of the Vandy, there was mis-communication here. The 4♥ was intended as a transfer, taken as natural. Since 4♠ was down 1 on a ruff at the other table the damage was minimal.
Imo, Texas, undiscussed, should be on if the interference is 3♣ or lower. Over 3♦ a bid of 4♦ shows both majors, so 4♥ has to show hearts.



My bbo profile says I play support doubles and I play Texas. It doesn't say how I play them so this is no doubt disaster prone.

I am going to give this some tought about how to play inline pickup, which I enjoy, while having fewer mis-understandings, which i don't so much enjoy.

A side purpose here is to encourage folks to go a little easy on partner when these mis-understandings do occur. There are quite a few players out there who think that there is only one real way to play a convention so any disaster that occurs is automatically the fault of partner for simply not knowing this one right way.

[Vampyr]

Maybe BBO SAYC could be fleshed out a little more, and then it could be arranged that potential calls and their meanings would be available for players to read before choosing a call.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-30, 15:02, said:

Maybe BBO SAYC could be fleshed out a little more, and then it could be arranged that potential calls and their meanings would be available for players to read before choosing a call.

Maybe. But maybe we can do better than that. I am going to think a bit on this. People like to choose. We have convention cards, we have pour profiles, but these don't really do the trick. Maybe bbo could put up some sort of alternative, or supplement, to the cc. It would begin: "You may think that everyone plays your favorite convention in the same way. They don't" After this it would list some stanrd conventions and some standard ambiguities that arise. A player could go through these, and there waould be boxes to check
Eg
Forcing NT:
Pass-Pass-1♠-Pass
1NT
This (is) (is not) forcing.


Anyone could quickly make a list of twenty or thirty such ambiguities. Setting things up so that players could check off and display what they play would of course require bbo involvement.

Here is what happens in reality: People play pick-up, one player or the other says "I'll play your profile". That profile has conventions listed. But there is no room for elaboration. A checklist of understandings could be useful. Instead of "I'll play your profile" it could be "I'll play your checklist". Maybe it would work.

Such a list could expand to almost infinite length, so that would need to be dealt with, probably in a somewhat arbitrary manner. I would be ok with arbitrary.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2014-March-30, 15:58, said:

Such a list could expand to almost infinite length, so that would need to be dealt with, probably in a somewhat arbitrary manner. I would be ok with arbitrary.

I am not sure that everyone having their own personalised version of SAYC is the right approach.

[whereagles]

Following on the principle that "undiscussed bids are natural", I would venture bidding 3♠ if I find likely pard would take it as invitational, OR a truscott 2NT if he's advanced+ or I agreed to play 2/1. Next on the list is an underbid of 2♠. That would certainly be taken as natural

I would never, ever, bid 3♣ or 3♦ as bergen raise. Those bids are a death wish opposite a random pard.

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2014-March-23, 08:41, said:

I was kibbing an I/A game when this hand came up, so it seems suitable for the I/A forum. It is a particularly strong example of a common problem.
At this point there are quite a few possible bids for North
1. 2♣, Drury, played on over a double, anticipating either traditional response of 2♦ or the reverse response of 2♠ if the opening was light.
2. 2♦. reverse Drury with four card support.
3. 2NT, often called Jordan over a double, played as on opposite a third hand opening.
4. 3♦, Bergen, on after third seat openings and a double.
5. 3♣ Reverse Bergen, on after a third seat opening and a double.
6. 3♠, played as a limit raise.
Of course it's a frequent problem, and perhaps a somewhat unavoidable one, but I am thinking there should be at least a partial solution somewhere.

---

IMO

• 2N (Good raise) = 10. Most systems use this to show a good raise after RHO's double.
• 4♠ = 9. If partner is weak, you hope he appreciates the compliment to his play skills but if he's strong you might miss a slam.
• Pass = 8. if 1♠X is passed out, the contract shouldn't tax partner . Otherwise, delayed jump support for ♠ is unlikely to be weak.
• XX = 7. Unlikely to backfire badly. Your hand won't surprise old-fashioned partners.
• 2♠, 3♠ = 6 Unfortunately, partner is likely to treat these as weak. You might miss a game but the contract will be playable.
• 1N, 2♣, and so on = 4. Without clear prior agreement, these bids just add confusion. Partner might pass. If they go wrong in any way, partner will justifiably blame you.

[kenberg]

whereagles, on 2014-March-31, 07:21, said:

Following on the principle that "undiscussed bids are natural", I would venture bidding 3♠ if I find likely pard would take it as invitational, OR a truscott 2NT if he's advanced+ or I agreed to play 2/1. Next on the list is an underbid of 2♠. That would certainly be taken as natural

I would never, ever, bid 3♣ or 3♦ as bergen raise. Those bids are a death wish opposite a random pard.

I agree with this, especially the last. But does partner? Here I am with my pickup. I open 1♠ after two passes. Lho doubles, partner bids 3♦. Or 2♦. Or 2♣. Or 2NT. Or something. Pass on my right. Great. Partner will explain later why I should have know what he meant.

I'm trying to find a practical approach to lessen the confusion. Not playing pickup iis of course one way. But I'm weird, I enjoy the challenge of a pickup game.

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice, but it won't happen in our lifetime. SAYC is about as simple a default you can get and still there are a fair number of crashes. So I am trying to think of a way, somewhere between the extremes of a full discussion that is not practical for a casual game and let's just wing it. Agreeing "your profile, pard" is a disaster in the making.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2014-March-31, 11:05, said:

I agree with this, especially the last. But does partner? Here I am with my pickup. I open 1♠ after two passes. Lho doubles, partner bids 3♦. Or 2♦. Or 2♣. Or 2NT. Or something. Pass on my right. Great. Partner will explain later why I should have know what he meant.

I'm trying to find a practical approach to lessen the confusion. Not playing pickup iis of course one way. But I'm weird, I enjoy the challenge of a pickup game.

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice, but it won't happen in our lifetime. SAYC is about as simple a default you can get and still there are a fair number of crashes. So I am trying to think of a way, somewhere between the extremes of a full discussion that is not practical for a casual game and let's just wing it. Agreeing "your profile, pard" is a disaster in the making.

I don't mind saying that I think my solution is the best

[whereagles]

kenberg, on 2014-March-31, 11:05, said:

Everyone agreeing on a default would be nice

Well, I believe there is a default:

3♠ = weakish raise
2NT = Truscott raise, 4-card spade
Rdbl = 10+, usually misfit. But in this case can be 3-card spades, intending to bid 2♠ next (Truscott on a 3 cards is dangerous, as a 3rd seat opener may have only 4 spades)
2m = natural NF, misfit
3m = no default exists, so meta-rules apply: undiscussed = natural (preempt, wimpish suit because pard didn't open it first place)

If pard is so reckless as to bid an undiscussed 3m, there's really not much you can do except guess and hope for the best. Still, if you pre-agreed "2/1", chances are good that pard's bid is bergen After all, some people have the tendency to ignore the dbl.

[Mbodell]

kenberg, on 2014-March-30, 13:19, said:

Here is another:
1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)
2♦-(Pass)-2♠

What's it? A weak 5/4? They were playing it as in invitational hand, of course with five spades. It wasn't 5/4, somewhat surprisingly (to me). The commentator made the interesting suggestion that over 2♠ a bid of 3♠ should be forcing, offering a choice of games. Since 3NT made and 4♠ did not, this could have been useful here. The idea, as explained, was that you either accept an invitation or you pass. There is no invitational response to an invitation. Perhaps this is right.

It is not uncommon to play this as a shapely invite offering 3 contracts: 4♠, 2♠, 2nt. I.e., if you fit spades and are max then we have game. If you don't fit spades then even with max we don't have game.

[kenberg]

Mbodell, on 2014-April-01, 23:35, said:

It is not uncommon to play this as a shapely invite offering 3 contracts: 4♠, 2♠, 2nt. I.e., if you fit spades and are max then we have game. If you don't fit spades then even with max we don't have game.

In fact I like it. Around here (Mid-Atlantic U.S.) I think it is commonly played as weak. Responder has five spades, four hearts, and wants out. I prefer it to be five spades and invitational, and that is fairly common, just not around here, or so I think. I had always thought that when played as invitation there would also be four hearts in responder's hand, but this may not be needed.

I like to play that after 1NT-2♣ I can jump to 3M holding five cards in M and a non-minimum. The logic is that when partner bids 2♣ he will either have invitational values, and if so I accept whether he fits M or not, or else he has both majors and is trying to get out, in which case a nine tricl contract will probably fare ok with our presumed nine card fit. But this style by opener should still work since when he has five spades and two hearts if he is still in the invitational range.

When I get some time I think I will conjure up a list of "misunderstandings lurking to grab you" and see if I can post it somewhere. My point is that a lot of I/A players, and maybe others (certainly many others if we include many who rate themselves as expert) think that there is one way and one way only to play these simple sequences. Play will improve a lot if they give up this notion and discuss what needs to be discussed.

[blackshoe]

With my fairly regular partners, it's either undiscussed or 5=4 in the majors invitational. 2♥ would be weak with both majors. With 4=5 in the majors and an invitation, we go through a heart transfer and rebid 2♠. Thus responder's 2♠ rebid shows 5-4 in the majors and invitational values.

Where the 2♠ rebid after 2♣ is undiscussed, so is the rest of it.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-03, 11:36, said:

With my fairly regular partners, it's either undiscussed or 5=4 in the majors invitational. 2♥ would be weak with both majors. With 4=5 in the majors and an invitation, we go through a heart transfer and rebid 2♠. Thus responder's 2♠ rebid shows 5-4 in the majors and invitational values.

Where the 2♠ rebid after 2♣ is undiscussed, so is the rest of it.

It has always seemed obvious to me that 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ should be five hearts, four spades and invitational. I have encountered those who think that it shows 5-5. While I wish to be able to bid both my 5-4 hands and my 5-5 hands as an invitation, I get dealt 5-4 more often. I usually use 1NT-3♥ for the invitations. Maybe it's not great, but it is also not frequent.

But again, it is another place where we can easily have a mis-understanding.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-April-03, 11:59, said:

But again, it is another place where we can easily have a mis-understanding.

Oh, indeed.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2014-April-03, 11:59, said:

It has always seemed obvious to me that 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ should be five hearts, four spades and invitational.

A long time ago that seemed logical and obvious to us also. Then, we discovered Walsh relays and found that we could use:

1N-2C
2D-2M with 5-4 (five in the other major) and invitational...mini Smolen, if you must name things.

Starting with a Transfer, when holding four of the other major, gives up a toy unnecessarily when Stayman can handle those hands.

Those who play 4-suit transfers will not be using Walsh relays for single-suit minor slam tries. But, with WR, Opener has better information about the quality of that long suit at a lower level than the 4-suit xfer people do.