[Miron]

The bidding goes:

1♣ - pass - 2♦ -pass
2♠ and further on to 3NT

Opp complained that 2♦ should be weak in sayc and asked for AV-+.
The 2♦er had 11 with 5♦, the openner about 15 with clubs and spades and two diamonds.

Is this just misclick, discovered by openner (that was my conclussion). Or anything else (what in individual?)?

[Walddk]

Even if the agreement was that 2♦ is a weak jump shift, responder is entitled to bid whatever he likes. It is definitely not for the opponents to decide what he should have bid with his hand.

I would tell them, politely of course, that they are wasting my time and that they should get on with things.

Roland

[helene_t]

2♦ is strong in sayc. 11 HCPs is propably not enough.

Bad bids happen. No adjustment. I suppose the reason for setting up a SAYC-only tournament is to protect players from "diabolic" methods. Even if 2♦ was by agreement only invitational, it hardly counts as "diabolic".

Btw, was there any evidence that the players had any beyond-sayc agreement about this?

[Miron]

helene_t, on Jul 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

2♦ is strong in sayc. 11 HCPs is propably not enough.

Ooops, I always thought that 1♣-2♦ in sayc is weak 0-6...

Quote

Btw, was there any evidence that the players had any beyond-sayc agreement about this?

No. I have no idea how could i know about it ?

[helene_t]

Miron, on Jul 13 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

No. I have no idea how could i know about it ?

Well, in that case, and if the opps weren't even damaged, there's certainly no reason to adjust the score.

[jikl]

Whenever I get one of these, I immediately ask how the callers have been damaged, it is amazing how often there is no answer. You will find lots of people call the director because technically they can, many times they already knew something was wrong, but they wait to see the result of the hand before calling. I have little sympathy for this. You will quite often find that players will look for a highly gambling defense in this circumstance that will gain them a top if it works, then rely on the director to give them and ave+ if it doesn't work. I never reward someone aiming for a double-shot.

Sean

[helene_t]

Well said, jikl. Before you can adjust the score based on the use of a non-sayc agreement, all of the following requirements must be fullfilled:
- It must be non-sayc. If it's a style issue rather than a system issue (a somewhat light jump shift), there's no offense.
- The non-sayc bid must be based on an agreement. If 2♦ is just a bad bid, there's no offense.
- The opps must have been damaged. If there's no reason why 3NT couldn't have been bid and made after a normal SAYC auction, no basis for adjustment.
- The opps must still do their best to defend given the circumstances. If they try to "double-shoot", they loose their rights.

Finally (but this is my personal opinion), you can't expect players to know all details of SAYC. Some regular pairs may have some non-sayc agreements without knowing that they are non-sayc. For example, some don't play Jacoby 2NT. While this is technically an offense, I don't think you need to punish it. It's more about "diabolic" methods such as BSCs and mini-notrump.

[McBruce]

In a SAYC-only individual, a format I used to run, I had this rule:

If a bid has been made which is obviously not part of SAYC, AND the partner of the bidder 'fielded' this by taking an action which a SAYC player would probably not take, an adjustment will be made if the Director is called at the proper time. If the player making the improper bid is the dummy you should call before playing to trick two. If defender or declarer, you should call as soon as you know that there has been BOTH an improper bid and a responding non-standard action. I will adjust to the least favourable result for the offending side that might reasonably have been obtained if the non-SAYC bid had been treated as SAYC.

This sets an additional requirement to helene_t's list: the partner of the non-standard bid must have taken an unusual action, suggesting a non-SAYC agreement. It also allows the TD not to rule in cases where the non-offenders have discovered the non-standard bid and tried to get a better result instead of calling immediately.

[Gerben42]

So you adjust if people bid 1♣ p 2NT p p p on 12 opposite 11?

BTW I don't play "forced system" tourneys since I think they are fatally flawed.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Jul 21 2006, 11:47 AM, said:

So you adjust if people bid 1♣ p 2NT p p p on 12 opposite 11?

BTW I don't play "forced system" tourneys since I think they are fatally flawed.

I am sure Bruce would, but he also used to regularly point out rather unknown SAYC agreements like thiss in tourney chat.

I think a forced system is a very good idea for individuals.

Arend

[barmar]

If you polled BBO players who claim to play SAYC, asking them what strength 1m-2NT shows, I'll bet at least 75% would answer 11-12. This is what most bridge players play these days (assuming 2NT isn't conventional), so they assume this is what SAYC says.

And in the days when I used to play with intermediate pick-ups on OKbridge, I noticed that most of them didn't know that SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT!

[McBruce]

Gerben42, on Jul 21 2006, 01:47 AM, said:

So you adjust if people bid 1♣ p 2NT p p p on 12 opposite 11?

BTW I don't play "forced system" tourneys since I think they are fatally flawed.

Not so fast! If the 12 opposite 11 was still enough to make 9+ tricks in notrump unassailable, as it often is, I would not adjust anything.

But yes, passing a forcing bid that is itself not a bid that a SAYC would make is a clear violation. The issue here is that when players are limited to SAYC, it is unfair to allow one table to gain by not following the rules. You may think that the limit is a fatal flaw; that is perfectly fair. But I think that given the limits on TDs in the BBO software, the inability of many pairs to communicate their systemic agreements, and the difficulty in weeding out online cheats, this is the least problematic format for an online tournament. I read this forum and saw the problems people were having and decided on a format that would control things and make it fairly simple for me and for players. My personal opinion is that those who think limited-system games are not bridge have a very inflated opinion of the effectiveness of conventions: a good player should be able to win as often (maybe more often) playing SAYC in a SAYC-only field--and the records from the series pretty much proved this.

I guess I lost some players by following these rules, but I think I gained more by actually having rules, advertising them constantly, and sticking to them. There were actually very few situations where I had to make an adjustment for a non-SAYC bid: far more often I was able to rule that the infraction didn't change the result and give the offending side a warning.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jul 21 2006, 10:30 AM, said:

And in the days when I used to play with intermediate pick-ups on OKbridge, I noticed that most of them didn't know that SAYC includes Jacoby 2NT!

Some years ago I was introduced to a lady at the local club who was looking for a partner. "I play SAYC!" she proudly told me. "Good," sez I, "then you play Jacoby 2NT." "What's that?" she asked. Several years later we still weren't playing Jacoby. She just couldn't learn it.