[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]

♠

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2004, 06:47 PM, said:

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]

The_Hog, on Mar 19 2004, 02:37 AM, said:

"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]

McBruce, on Mar 17 2004, 03:12 AM, said:

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

[mikestar]

McBruce's second adjustment is perfectly correct given the conditions of contest. He gives the players the CC to look at before they sign up and if they refuse to do so, that's their problem. Whether or not SAYC in general restricts negative doubles to 2S or lower is utterly irrelevant--the particular CC given in the conditions of contest does.

Having everyone play identical CC's (not necessarily SAYC) is not a bad idea in individuals. It has been done in invitational individuals involving world-class experts--normally the sponsor sets the CC after consultation with the players, then all players adhere to it.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2004, 08:37 PM, said:

"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?

As a pedant you are correct.

However I think the standard assumption if you play negative doubles to some level is that above that level they would be penalties.

[McBruce]

"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?"

Yes I realized the 3D bid was an example. It was a bad example since there is no such explanation.

The rules of the tournament do not say you MUST make the book bid or I will adjust. They say that if you make a clearly non-sayc call, partner cannot act on that basis, and if he does and an advantage is gained, then (and only then) do I adjust. People make bids that are a point or two, or a card or two light all the time. I specifically tell everyone in the first round that I am not going to listen to complaints based on stuff like this.

It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?" If I let that argument stand, soon I would need to allow Kickback Keycard Blackwood 4♠ after 1♥ - 4♥, because the book doesn't specifically disallow it. Etcetera ad infintum, except that it isn't a sayc-only tourney any more, is it.

Explain to me why the North player should gain an advantage by assuming a bid to be a disallowed convention AND getting lucky, over the other N-S pairs who stuck to the spirit of the game and passed the South hand.

[the hog]

My last post on this as it is somewhat pointless if you don't answer questions:

You still have not answered whether you would penalise someone who bid 1S rather than find the -ve double. The sayc notes clearly say 5 S are required - they make no mention of any judgement being allowed.

You also still have not expained away the conundrum of how we can play in 3S when an immediate 3S bid is forcing and a x is penalties.

Incidentally
It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?"
This is exactly where I was headed.

[McBruce]

"My last post on this as it is somewhat pointless if you don't answer questions:"

Agree completely: it is pointless if you don't read my answers and draw the obvious conclusions from them.

"You still have not answered whether you would penalise someone who bid 1S rather than find the -ve double. The sayc notes clearly say 5 S are required - they make no mention of any judgement being allowed."

Perhaps not on that page, but on page one it says "Players may still exercise their bridge judgments." And when I write that "People make bids that are a point or two, or a card or two light all the time. I specifically tell everyone in the first round that I am not going to listen to complaints based on stuff like this" I think it is not a great leap for you to assume that my answer is no, I will not adjust.

"You also still have not expained away the conundrum of how we can play in 3S when an immediate 3S bid is forcing and a x is penalties."

How about passing and letting partner reopen the bidding with a double. Is that so hard?

"Incidentally
It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?"
This is exactly where I was headed."

You have a right to your opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[luis]

This thread degenerated in a very curious exchange of opinions.
I think nobody realizes that there're that a booklet can't be used to determine what to bid in each situation. Even playing negative doubles up to 2s if the auction starts 1c(3d) I'd take a double by pd as takeout. If my pd thinks the same we are not "fielding" anything, we are on the same wavelength of serious Bridge.

[mikestar]

luis, on Mar 19 2004, 12:41 PM, said:

... Even playing negative doubles up to 2s if the auction starts 1c(3d) I'd take a double by pd as takeout. If my pd thinks the same we are not "fielding" anything, we are on the same wavelength of serious Bridge.

I don't know about other NCBO's but in ACBL-land this will get a director call and a score adjustment. In absence of special conditions of contest, it is perfectly legal to play negative doubles in this auction--its common to play them higher than this, but if your CC is marked "Negative doubles thru 2S", then you have a mismarked CC which is an infraction. Such an indication on your CC tells an opponent that 1C-(1D)-X is a penalty double--not necessarily a trump stack, but requesting partner pass rather than bid.

Would it also be appropriate for 1N-2D to be a transfer and have your CC say it is natural?

This entire thread started as a question of "Law", not "Serious Bridge".

[Gweny]

I agree with you Luis, Mike....
this is TD director forum ... it start as thing on making adjustments

[zibuyu]

For the 2nd case, the player who openned 1C can bid of ccouse after partner's dbl. It would be so ridiculous if a player can not bid after partner's dbl 3c or higher. Should I pass after p's dbl when I believe 3NT or 4S or 6C better? According ot the Mc's rule, I can do nothing but pass p's dbl over 2S.

TD can do adjustment in some cases. Mcbruce can adjust score in the 2nd case just beacause they got a coincident contract, but not that player bidded after p's dbl 3D.