[bglover]

>Another comment about raising to game (if partner freely bids 3H) on the same hand sounds like hara-kiri to me. First you make a negative double to show some values and interest in competing in the majors.
Now with the same values and same shape , you raise yourself to game >

Tis funny... you make my point for me while telling me in the previous paragraph I (and Ben and Richard and Luis) are wrong....

The point is to distinguish between a "bad" opening hand and a "good" opening hand. Passing this sequence when you hold the opener's cards says "P i have minimal values... I can't act." When we elect to bid at the 3 level in this sequence we are saying "Partner, I have a fair hand... make your next decision accordingly."

If you want to bid again on the opener's cards based on a negative double by partner (who may well have the worst hand at the table for this sequence) you are the one ready to commit hari kari. The fact that you can't see it is beyond amazement to me, but, then like I said, suckers like you get taken for money all the time.

Suggest you try money bridge for a while... I guarantee it will break you of some real bad habits fast. If you think the opener's hand should bid 3h, I know you have at least one, and if this hand is illustrative of your general ability to judge a bridge hand's assets, I would venture to say you may have others... I strongly think you are the one deluding yourself.

[sartaj1]

"Bad habits" havent stopped me winning national events and they are not going to stop my flight next week to an international tournament either.
Sorry, dont have enough time to spare to clean out your local money game. 8)

[the hog]

rofl
;D

[inquiry]

I think the difference of opinion here centers around the phrase "SAYC in Competition". Steve is surely right that a 3H bid here shows extra values in SAYC.

Those who practice aggressive law of total trick issues and bid in competition as aggressively as suggest by such authors as Robson/Segal, would play 3H or 3S bid here as a "LAWFUL" bid and purely competitive. I believe this is what sartaj1 is advocating (which BTW, is not really part of SAYC treatment here, but no matter).

I actually fall more into the school with sartaj1 on this hand. My 3H and 3S bid don't technically show extra value. I play a double by me over 3D (as opposed to 3H/3S) as takeout (I mentioned this is earlier in this thread). Of course, the dbl shows extra values because partner can pass. So my 3H/3S are most commonly passed.

But here is where I disagree with sartaj1. At this vul, the reward (+140 if lucky) versus the risk (-200 not unlikely even if not doubled, and -800 possible) is not worth the bid. If this was matchpoints, maybe you might risk it. But not at imps. Partner sees the vul, he heard my pass, and if it goes (3D)-P-(P) to him, he will balance MANY of the times when it is right to do so, and NEVER balance when it is wrong to do so. Not VUL, I too would bid 3H with this hand.

Ben

[bglover]

Well, of coures a double by opener would show extras. But, so would a 3h bid, that is all I have been saying all along.

The original post said "what would a 3h bid show in SAYC?" It says, as I have said all along, "partner I have a hand worth competing further with."

It may not show a monster... but it shows a better hand than I am holding here... That has been my one and only point all along. OK, obviously some people think this hand is worth competing to 3 level on vulnerable. Frankly, I cannot see why absent further action by partner... the risk/reward just is off, LHO can be holding too many possible hands where I will get doubled and go for a number (as outlined ad nauseaum above),

Maybe if I am playing some other system, a 3h bid is fine.... NOT IN SAYC. I am about as bad as I can be here... My hand can improve GREATLY if partner can act. But, now I am repeating myself so...

[Codo]

Hi Ben,

as you mentioned, that 3 Heart would show extras in Sayc and that pds second redouble will be done with many many hands:
Please name me the fountain of your wisdom, as I cannot find this issue in the write downs I have about SAYC.

So, in other words: Who says, that in SAYC it MUST be that way?
(I got to know SAYC as a very unspecific tool, so no idea, where I can found good notes about competetive bidding anyway).

Kind Regards

Roland

[inquiry]

Hi Roland,

My experience and understanding of SAYC (which stood for STANDARD AMERICAN YELLOW CARD) comes from when it was introduced to tournment play in the US decades ago. They actually had a prefilled out convention card that was printed on yellow paper instead of white (hence the name). In addition, there was some printed material explaining the theory behind introducing it and what you could modify (you could use strong twos or strong jump raises I think), and what you were not allowed to modify. Sadly my version of the written material is long lost. They even ran YELLOW card events where everyone had to play what was on the card.

I played in a couple of events LIMITED to players using yellow card (the only time I ever played yellow card in tournment play). Some were individual events, one of which I was lucky enough to win... and I have to admit to win an individual event you HAVE to be lucky. But anyway, SAYC, at least the way I learned it (when it was first invented, not as it morphed...by the way I think the ACBL no longer advocates SAYC because it morphed so much) is that jumps are strong, that bidding more shows extra. In other words, it was very Goren-like vanilla.

Thus, my experience with SAYC would suggest that 2over1 is right... 3H over 3D would show extra value and DBL of 3D would be for penalty (not takeout). This is why I DONT play SAYC unless my partner is unable or unwilling to play something else. With my regular partners I try to follow Robson/Segal rules and 3H would be competitive and DBL would be takeout...but I am fully aware that this is not how SAYC rules would go. I think in SAYC originally negative doubles for instance only went through 2Spades.

Ben

[Codo]

Hi Ben,

as a "no victim" of the ACBL I got to know SAYC much later and like it is now.
They have a very nice describtion of SAYC at ok-bridge, they had one, which differs slightly at swan and I guess that bbo basics is very close to what is played as SAYC today.
If my memory is right (which it is not often), there is nothing said about this special bidding sequence or at least about this kind of contersted bidding in any of these notes. (But correct me if I err).

I do know the history about SAYC quite well and I think that it was a real good try to find a very simple and easy system to get some tournements start for people who won´t play else. But it did not work as it was meant to be.

Anyway, I guess that if you agree "SAYC, pd?", it is nowadays more or less 5card major, 15-17 NT, weak twos and some easy gadgets like staymen and transfers.
But I guess too, that this is the thing we talk about: About SAYC like it is today and yes, that is very different from what it was.
So I for me can just accept your valid arguments for and against showing extra strength with a direct bid.

But I am sure, that, whenever I sit down with an unknown partner and this bidding will happen, I will have no clue, which way he will play. Because: There are no written notes about this issue.

Kind regards

Roland

P.S. I played some individuals and never won. I agree, that you need luck, but not just luck. You must be a very good player too.