[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]

keylime, on Aug 8 2004, 07:45 PM, said:

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]

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2004, 06:08 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 06:48 AM, said:

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]

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 05:50 PM, said:

"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:

Quote

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]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2004, 11:00 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 05:50 PM, said:

"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:

Quote

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]

The_Hog, on Aug 9 2004, 06:36 PM, said:

"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:

Quote

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.