Following both names of the partnership, this OVERVIEW Section begins with the General Approach which is often just the common name of the basis of the system of agreements being used. However if a system name implies a fixed and/or well-known set of agreements (such as SAYC), and the entries on this Form reflect having added to, subtracted from, or changed those recognized agreements, then the phrase used here should make any opponents viewing the card aware that there are differences from that system’s fixed or known definition.

Two lines which appeared in this Secion in the previous Form (and are still on the “Classic Form”) are removed this Form: Two Over One and Very Light.

Depending upon one’s definitions Two Over One is considered by some a specific system whose name now would be entered as the General Approach, or by others as simply a specific convention defining some responses to Opener which now would be included in the markings for those responses in the appropriate Section.

Very Light is a term concerning some conventions which was mentioned35 in the now outdated 4/2016 version of the ACBL Alert Procedure. If the partnership has such pre-alertable agreements I suggest they should be entered in the Bids That May Require Preparation field as described below.

Replacing the above two removed lines is a new line: Min Expected HCP when Balanced. This must identify the agreed minimum High Card Points (without distributional points) expected for both Opening and Responding balanced hands.

Like the previous Form any Forcing Open agreed to be used must then be indicated. The most common, expected, and thus non-alertable agreement is indicated by checking the box for the artificial Very Strong 2♣️ Forcing Open described in its separate Section of the Form. As I understand it, since it is expected and at the two-level it does not require a pre-Alert.

Any one-level Forcing Open indicated requires36 a pre-Alert if its agreed meaning is:

 • Not Natural (i.e. Artificial) for the suit bid, thus generally considered forcing, OR

 • Natural for the suit bid, but explicitly Forcing.

Note that a requirement for a pre-Alert is different from a requirement to alert or announce. A forcing 1♣ is the most common one-level Forcing Open and thus has its own red box to be checked which indicates it is also alertable. It may be agreed to be forcing as part of a convention or simply agreed to be Strong or Very Strong, either of which would be more clearly defined in the separate 1♣️ opening Section of the Form. Any Other alertable Forcing Opens, whether at the one or some higher level, should be indicated in this field and would similarly be more clearly defined in that opening’s Section.

The general level of strength of a 1NT Open must be checked, where ACBL’s definition of Str (Strong) indicates the minimum of the agreed range is 14+ HCP and any smaller minimum should be marked as Wk (Weak) regardless of the maximum. The Variable box would be checked to indicate the partnership agrees to use different HCP ranges for a 1NT opening depending upon vulnerability and/or seat as described more completely in that bid’s separate Section.

The field for Bids That May Require Preparation is like a “pre-Alert”, where significant non-common artificial conventions (e.g. Flannery) should be noted as a help to opponents.37 This should list conventions that the opponents at this event probably rarely encounter, and/or that likely require them discussing an appropriate defense to in advance.

In my opinion what is entered here should be whatever a partnership considers is likely helpful to the expected opponents. The Bulletin recommended that what bids are entered in this field be dependent upon the knowledge of the opponents that will be encountered during an event when using this card. For example, in some ACBL Clubs Flannery (or some other artificial convention) may be rarely encountered and thus should be listed as a notice and a help to any opponents. But I can imagine in other Clubs or event the convention may be played so regularly by such a majority of opponents it may not be of any help if listed in this OVERVIEW Section.

Other examples might include agreements which are unusual but might not be alertable, such as unusual “Very Light” calls: Openings, 3rd hands, Overcalls, Preempts, and T/O Doubles. (As described above these agreements used to have boxes in this Section on the previous Form.) This field should also include any pre-alerts which are required38 by the partnership’s agreements, e.g. Artificial Opening Preempts39 below 3NT.

More details about what is summarized in this Section will be entered elsewhere on the Form; this Section simply provides a quick general summary of the major special features of this partnership’s agreements.

Since a card reflects a specific partnership’s agreements, both Names (and ACBL membership numbers) are entered.

This example OVERVIEW Section identifies the General Approach of the agreements as “[Straight] Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC)”. If a partnership uses SAYC as a basis for their own system but simply decides not to play (or have to remember) some of its fixed conventions, I recommend being sure to exclude them from the card and identify the General Approach with a phrase like “Simplified SAYC”. If the card (also) reflects additions and/or changes to ACBL’s fixed set of conventions, enter something like on my partnership’s cards: “[Modified] Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC)” as a more appropriate help to opponents to understand our agreements.

For the value of Min Expected HCP when Balanced, straight SAYC system does not explicitly specify a minimum HCP for a balanced Opening hand which is too weak to open 1NT. Since SAYC requires40 at least 13 points (with distribution points) for opening a Major, this lower minimum would usually occur when opening a minor. The Convention Charts require41 at least Average Strength42 for any Natural opening bid in a suit. Therefore I chose43 10 HCP for this entry which seems to meet all relevant guidelines. The minimum SAYC expects44 for Responding with a balanced hand is 6 HCP (usually for a 1NT response or a minimal raise).

SAYC’s Forcing Open is identified in the heading45 of the Standard Yellow Card: “Strong Forcing Opening: 2♣”. (See also this opening’s SAYC example for the definition of this “very strong” bid.) As noted above this forcing open box is not colored red and does not to require an alert. As detailed in its example in the NOTRUMP Section below, an SAYC 1NT Open (not overcall) is Str (strong) since it is 15-17 HCP.

I believe straight SAYC has no Bids Which May Require Preparation by the opponents so that field is left blank. (Most opponents probably “should” already have adequate knowledge about the straight SAYC system and not need preparation against it if playing at any ACBL sanctioned event).

The options for the 1♣️ MINOR opening bid have been expanded to require identifying the agreed shortest possible Min (minimum) Length of this opening. If the agreed minimum length of a natural bid of this suit is short (fewer than 3) the appropriate box can be checked for its NF (Non-Forcing) meaning, and those short minimum lengths must be Announced52 such as “Could be two”. Note that this 1♣️ area now also has a non-forcing box for the explicit and Natural “4432 only” shape. That box should be checked (do not also check NF 2) if it is agreed that this is the only hand shape where the Club suit could be bid with as few as two, although many systems would instead open 1♦️ with this hand. As noted in the above MINORS Section Overview, the need for a “short” announcement may be required because the 1♣️ opening is agreed to be Quasi-Natural since any suit could be short. If so, although not explicitly required, as mentioned in this Sections’s Overview above I would probably indicate Quasi-Natural in the field below the field labeled Resp.

As described in the MINORS Section Overview, the options for this opening now include a box to indicate if its agreed alertable meaning is either Artificial (Art) and forcing such as a Strong Club opening, or natural and Forcing (F). If this box is checked the 1♣ box also should be checked in the Forcing Open line of the OVERVIEW Section as this opening includes the need53 for a Pre-Alert. If this opening is always artificial and thus alertable but not forcing I believe it should be indicated in the field below the field labeled Resp.

Responses

If the partnership has no explicit agreements about responses to this opening I suggest entering “Natural” in the “Resp” field, and then no other entries need be made in this area.

The remaining fields provide entries to check or fill in the required information about most common responses to a 1♣️ opening. [The agreements entered in these fields will also be used as the response agreements for the 1♦️ opening if the “Same as over 1♣️” box in the 1♦️ area is checked.]

There now is a box for specifying that the opening expects artificial Transfer Resp (Responses) from partner which the opener will announce when bid. (A box for this transfer convention has been added to the updated Classic Form in a manner where it would apply to both minor openings.)

Like the previous Form there is a separate 1♢ field to clarify any special agreement of this response, and a box to indicate whether it is agreed this response may be bypassed in order to show a 4+card Major (often called a Walsh agreement). Checking this box now indicates that such a bypass may occur when the diamond suit has 5+ length. Although this box was labeled 4+ on the previous Form, do not check this box if it is agreed Responder may bypass this response with exactly 4 diamonds to bid a 4+card Major, as an agreement about that smaller length now does not need to be indicated. Typically this bypass is only done with a mimimum hand so as to mention the 4+ Major in case Responder is unable to bid again. Otherwise most partnerships do not check this box as they agree Responder will show biddable suits “up-the-line”.

Fields are provided to enter the required information about agreed HCP ranges of 1NT and 2NT natural responses, but there is no longer a box to indicate whether a natural 2NT is forcing, and no fields for the range of a natural 3NT response. Any NT response that shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand is considered Natural54 and thus not alertable. [If any of these NT responses are agreed to have an uncommon meaning of artificial or forcing I presume that agreed meaning should be entered on the lines above.]

Concerning agreements about Raises, at least the first row should be checked. Note unless a Single Raise is agreed NF (Non-Forcing) the other response agreements are thus forcing and alertable.55 The other two rows could be left unchecked thus indicating No Agreement if the partnership agrees to never make a jump bid raise.

[If using the Inverted Minors agreement the Single raise would be checked Inv+ (Invitational plus), and the Jump raise would be checked Wk (Weak). Thus as shown by the Form’s colors both would be alerted.]

The previous Form’s options for Jump Raise agreements had similar boxes to the new Form to indicate general strength, but this new Form does not have boxes to indicate it is agreed to be forcing either when uncontested or After Overcall. (The updated Classic Form now shows an uncontested Force jump raise as alertable which the previous Form did not.) This Form still indicates that unless invitational (Inv) an uncontested jump raise is alertable.56 But the prior Force box for both jump raise situations has been replaced with a new box labeled “Mixed”, where that agreement is only alertable if uncontested, and is typically defined as having normal single raise values but with extra trump.

Similar to the 1♣️ opening the 1♦️ MINOR opening options have been expanded to require identifying the agreed shortest possible Min (minimum) Length of this 1♦️ opening. If the agreed minimum length is short (fewer than 3) the appropriate box can be checked for its NF (Non-Forcing) meaning, and those short minimum lengths must the Announced57 such as “Could be one”. As noted in the above MINORS Section Overview, the need for a “short” announcement may be because the 1♦️ opening is agreed to be Quasi-Natural. If so although not explicitly required, as mentioned in this Section’s Overview I would probably indicate Quasi-Natural in the field below the field labeled Resp. Whatever the opening’s meaning its minimum may be different than for a 1♣️ opening. Plus there is a new non-alertable Unbal box to indicate that this 1♦️ opening is agreed to show an unbalanced hand.

As described in the MINORS Section Overview, the options for this opening now include a box to indicate if its agreed alertable meaning is either Artificial (Art) and forcing, or natural and Forcing (F). If this box is checked this 1♦️ opening also should be entered as an Other Forcing Open in the OVERVIEW Section as it includes the need58 for a Pre-Alert. If this opening is always artificial and thus alertable but not forcing I believe it should be indicated in the field below the field labeled Resp.

Responses

While the previous Form only had one shared area for response agreements for both minors openings, the 1♦️ opening now has it own separate Section. Its set of boxes and fields, identical to the 1♣️ area, can now identify the required information of most common responses in case any are different than those for the 1♣️ opening. However partnerships who agree to treat responses to these two opening bids the same (usually because they simply open the “better or longer minor”) don’t need to fill out the responses in this 1♦️ area. Instead complete the required information about the shared response agreements in the above 1♣️ area, then in this 1♦️ area after the required identification of its opening’s Min Length just check the box “Same as over 1♣️”.

If any agreements for responses differ than for the 1♣️ opening then all responses must be explained. But if the only difference is that responses to the 1♣️ opening have agreements but the partnership has no explicit agreements about responses to this 1♦️ opening, then I suggest entering “Natural” in the “Resp” field and now no other entries need be made in this area.

An equivalent box to the one in the 1♣️ area indicating this opening expects Transfer Resp (Responses) from partner is not provided. If this is also an agreement for the 1♣️ opening and the “Same as over 1♣️” option is checked that is sufficient. Otherwise if there are separate response agreements for this 1♦️ opening and Transfer Responses is an agreement it would require writing it in. (A box for this convention has been added to the updated Classic Form in a manner where it would seem to apply automatically to both minor openings.)

Like the 1♣️ area the remaining fields provide the ability to check or fill in the agreed meanings of most common responses to a 1♦️ opening when they are different than those for a 1♣️ opening. The same fields are provided to enter the HCP ranges for 1NT and 2NT natural responses. Like the 1♣️ area there is no longer a box to indicate whether a natural 2NT is forcing, and no fields for the range of a natural 3NT response. Any NT response that shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand is considered Natural59 and thus not alertable. [Like for 1♣️ if any of these NT responses are agreed to have an uncommon meaning of artificial or forcing I presume that agreed meaning should be entered on the lines above.]

Concerning agreements about Raises, at least the first row should be checked, and unless a Single Raise is agreed NF (Non-Forcing) the other response agreements are thus forcing and alertable.60 As also noted for the 1♣️ responses, the other two rows could be left unchecked thus indicating No Agreement if the partnership agrees to never make a jump bid raise.

[If using the Inverted Minors agreement the Single raise would be checked Inv+ (Invitational plus), and the Jump raise would be checked Wk (Weak). Thus as shown by the Form both would be alerted.]

The previous Form’s options for Jump Raise agreements had similar boxes to the current Form to indicate general strength, but this new Form does not have boxes to indicate it is agreed to be forcing either when uncontested or After Overcall. (The updated Classic Form now shows an uncontested Force jump raise as alertable which the previous Form did not.) This Form still indicates that unless invitational (Inv) an uncontested jump raise is alertable.61 But the prior Force box for both jump raise situations has been replaced with a new box labeled “Mixed”, where that agreement is only alertable if uncontested, and is typically defined as having normal single raise values but with extra trump.

SAYC specifies opening in the MINORS only when there is no 5+ Major.62 However as noted in the OVERVIEW Section SAYC example, I believe SAYC allows a minor opening to be weaker (as few as 10 HCP) than a MAJORS opening (typically at least 13 points with distribution). Thus a weak hand with a weak 5-card Major suit might open a minor then rebid as appropriate. Regardless SAYC minor one-level openings show the longest minor or lowest if equal length, and SAYC has no artificial meanings, agreements, or conventions for these openings. As part of its simplification the Standard Yellow Card marks63 the promised length for both minors as 3+.

One Club Opening

Opening 1♣️ in SAYC is natural and non-forcing and is agreed to always show Min Length of at least 364, so that is the only box checked.

One Diamond Opening

Min Length for a 1♦️ opening in SAYC is agreed to usually be four. However in the one special case of shape [4=4=3=2] where neither Major is length 5+, diamonds may be bid with only 365 as still being the longest minor. To indicate this variable minimum I suggest following what was once recommended for entry on the previous ACBL Convention Card Form: check both the 3 and 4 boxes but write in66 a backwards arrow from 3 to 4, although simply checking 3 seems to be acceptable. In SAYC all 1♦️ responses are agreed to be the Same as over 1♣️ so that box is checked with no other entries in this Section beyond the above required indication of its Min Length.

Common Responses

Straight SAYC specifies67 in principle responding “up-the-line”. If there is no 5+ card suit then SAYC agrees68 to bid the cheapest 4+ card suit. Thus a 1♦️ response would indicate length 4+ even if the hand held a 4-card Major. Therefore a 5+ diamond suit is not bypassed to show a 4-card Major, so the Bypass box in the responses area is not checked. All NT responses are natural and standard thus their agreed HCP ranges are entered.69 Since the box on the previous ACBL Form to indicate a natural 2NT response as forcing is now missing and SAYC defines this response as game forcing (GF), I choose to write that agreement in. Likewise the line on the previous Form where the HCP range for the natural 3NT response70 could be identified is also missing, so I also choose to write in its SAYC agreed range on this Form.

The minimum support length for Raises of both Single and Jump responses are agreed to ensure at least a combined trump suit length of 8+ cards: i.e. for minors 5+ length for ♣️’s, 4+ for ♦️’s.71 SAYC does not include the common “inverted minors” convention, and there is no forcing minor-suit Raise in SAYC.72 Thus it defines the Single Raise as NF (Non-Forcing) 6-10 points.73 (A single raise over interference is a “free bid” and generally implies at least the same support length but more strength than an uncontested response.)

When not in competition the SAYC Jump Raise of a minor is agreed to be Inv (Invitational) and is defined as a limit raise, 10-12 points.74 The only SAYC agreement75 for a Jump Raise response in competition is after a double as the overcall, so the printed “Overcall” is marked out and replaced with “Double” to show this limitation. This Jump Raise response over a double shows good trump support but fewer than 10 points, which matches the new Mixed term so that box is checked. I also note this agreement in the separate vs TAKEOUT DOUBLE Section for clarity. [I can find no SAYC mention of using a jump raise of a minor over any other interfering overcall.]

Finally, SAYC agrees76 to use a Cuebid of the opponent’s suit after an interfering overcall that is not a double to show game values. This GF (game force) response is generally without clear direction and without “promising” support, and is entered in the special Resp (Responses) field. [Using this cue instead of a Jump Raise of partner’s suit often allows more bidding room to explore other lower level game contracts, and could be made with (possibly at most minimal) suit support.]

This MAJORS Section retains the boxes from the previous Form to require identifying the agreed minimum expected Lengths for opening a Major (not Overcalls). There are rows for the different opening seats as partnerships often agree to open a Major in later seats with only a 4-card suit. Note that if there is an agreement that either Major suit opening is not Natural or is Forcing it must be identified, probably in the bottom red underlined field of this Section, and the partnership must pre-alert that agreement.78 [If such a one-level opening is Forcing the Other box in the OVERVIEW Section on the Forcing Open line also should be checked and this opening bid entered in its field.]

Responses

If the partnership has no explicit agreements about responses to these openings then I suggest entering something like “Responses: Natural” in the bottom red underlined field and now no other entries need be made in this Section.

All boxes and fields other the above boxes indicating opening Lengths describe response agreements. First, if the 1NT response is agreed to be either type of forcing that box must be checked and the call announced79. Any non-forcing (and probably weak) NT response that shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand is considered Natural80 and not alertable and thus has no box. If F (Forcing) is checked then Responder expects Opener to bid practically 100% of the time. For Semi-F (Semi-Forcing) Responder can have up to invitational values, but Opener is then allowed to Pass and thus play in 1NT, usually when having only a minimum but otherwise balanced opening.

Bypass ♠ must be checked if it is agreed that Responder will routinely respond with 1NT over 1♥️ with four spades (usually because the pair plays the Flannery convention). Regardless of whether or not the 1NT is also forcing at some level, this bypass agreement must be announced81 with “could have four spades”. However if the agreement is [only sometimes?] to respond 1NT over 1♥️ with four spades and three hearts in a normal context [possibly to show a very weak hand] do not check this box for announcing the bypass.

There are boxes which would be checked for any agreements of the three responses whose meanings commonly are Artificial Raises and thus alertable82, each of which may have variations to their conventional meanings. The red underlined field labeled Other just below these boxes can be used to explain the meaning of the checked artificial raise (such as 2NT commonly meaning the Jacoby convention) or to indicate less common artificial and thus alertable response agreements, e.g. conventional raises such as Bergen. In comparison to the previous Form there is no longer a box or fields to indicate whether a natural 2NT response is agreed to be forcing or to show its range, and no lines for the range of a natural 3NT response over this Major opening. Only 2NT and 3NT responses agreed to be artificial raises have boxes on this Form.

Next are ways for a passed-hand Responder to indicate agreed meanings of 2♣ and 2♢ responses to Opener’s uncontested 3rd or 4th hand opening of a Major which may be weak, such as:

Pass - (Pass) - 1M - (Pass);
2♣/2♢ —OR—
(Pass) - Pass - (Pass) - 1M;
(Pass) - 2♣/2♢

If one or both of these minor responses are checked to indicate an agreement for the artificial Drury convention they are alertable. Even though Responder is limited in strength due to being a passed hand, these conventional responses can be used to show Responder has strength and support, and Opener’s conventional rebids now can indicate the strength of their own Opening. If Drury is (also/only) agreed to be used In Comp (competition) that box should be checked and the adjacent field can indicate how, and over what interference of partner’s Major Opening, e.g. only over doubles. Finally there are several variations commonly in use on the “type” of Drury, such as 1-Way, 2-Way, 3-Way, Reverse or not, and Fit (some of which had boxes on the previous Form). It is probably appropriate to indicate the variation of Drury being played, probably in the adjacent field, so as to minimize opponents having to ask.

The previous Form’s options for Jump Raise agreements had similar boxes to this new Form to indicate general strength, but this new Form does not have boxes to indicate it is agreed to be forcing either when uncontested or After Overcall. (The updated Classic Form now shows an uncontested Force jump raise as alertable which the previous Form did not.) This new Form still indicates that unless invitational (Inv) an uncontested jump raise is alertable.83 But the prior Force box for both jump raise situations has been replaced with a new box labeled “Mixed”, where that agreement is only alertable if uncontested, and is typically defined as having normal single raise values but with extra trump. Similar to the MINORS Section these two rows could be left unchecked thus indicating No Agreement if the partnership agrees to never make a jump bid raise.

Finally the two Other fields at the bottom generally are for indicating artificial and thus alertable response agreements not covered above, such as: 3/1 invitational, game-try agreements, or perhaps follow-up bids after forcing or semi-forcing 1NT responses.

SAYC defines Opening in the MAJORS as showing 5+ Length in any seat and generally shows either the longest Major or higher ranking of equal length.84 Further SAYC generally expects85 at least 13 points (with distribution points) for a Major opening.

Responses

Straight SAYC does not include the 2-over-1 response convention, so the 1NT response is not checked forcing in any way and thus does not require any announcement. (SAYC defines the 1NT response as natural, 6-9 points, less than 3-card support. It is the response used over a 1♥️ opening86 if the hand also has less than four ♠️s; and is also the response over 1♠️ with that point range and less than 3-card support.) Over a 1♥️ opening an SAYC Responder with 6+ points agrees to respond a 4+ spade suit and does not Bypass ♠ so that box is not checked. (Otherwise over a Major opening an SAYC Responder with 10-12 points and no support bids the longest 4+ new suit at the two level to show the points.87)

A 2NT jump response made without interference is the only SAYC agreement of an Artificial Raise of a Major and means88 the Jacoby convention: 13+ dummy points, 4+ support, Game Force. In addition to checking that box, since partnerships using other bidding systems may have other non-Jacoby artificial meanings for this raise I believe it is helpful to “Name” the SAYC agreed meaning of this artificial 2NT response by entering “Jacoby GF” in the field labeled Other below that box. In SAYC a 3NT response is not an artificial raise and thus is not checked. However this natural response has an alertable extra agreed meaning as described and entered below.

SAYC does not include the Drury responses agreement which is indicated by making no entries on this line. Instead SAYC agrees that whether or not Responder is a passed hand, a 2-level response of a minor is natural showing it as the next highest 4+ length suit. [Drury is generally not needed with SAYC. A 2-level minor response to a 3rd or 4th hand opening of a Major is agreed as stronger than a “waiting” 1NT response, since bidding that new suit at the 2-level shows89 10+ points.]

There are no boxes on this Form to indicate the agreed meaning of a single raise of a Major, which SAYC defines as non-forcing, 6-10 dummy points, at least 3-card support.90 A single raise over interference is a “free bid” and generally implies at least the same support length but more minimum strength (e.g. 10+ points) than an uncontested single raise response.

Similar to MINORS, when not in competition the SAYC Jump Raise of a Major is agreed to be Inv (Invitational) and is defined as a limit raise, 10-11 points.91 The only SAYC agreement92 for a Jump Raise response in competition is after a double as the overcall, so the printed “Overcall” is marked out and replaced with “Double” to show this limitation. This Jump Raise response over a double shows good trump support but fewer than 10 points, which matches the Mixed term so that box is checked. I also note this agreement in the vs TAKEOUT DOUBLE Section for clarity. [I can find no SAYC mention of defining a jump raise of a Major over any other interfering overcall, but note the meaning of the single raise after an overcall above.]

SAYC defines93 a natural strong balanced 3NT jump response as equivalent to SAYC’s 1NT opening but also showing exactly two-card support for opener’s Major. As this Form no longer even has a line to identify the defined range of this response I choose to enter this agreement in the bottom field. While the bid is natural, since the bid also shows an exact length in opener’s Major it is alertable.94

Finally, SAYC uses a Cuebid95 of the opponent’s suit to show game values, usually a GF raise, after an interfering overcall that is not a double, which is entered in the bottom field. [Using a cue instead of jump bidding partner’s suit allows more bidding room to explore other lower level game contracts, and could be made with minimal suit support. It also leaves a natural NT response over interference available to indicate strength in the opponent’s suit.]

ACBL requires entering the agreed range for a 1NT (one NOTRUMP) opening. Partnerships should also indicate the general meanings of the five 2-level responses the partner of the opener can make, even if those above the 2♣️ response are all simply marked natural (Nat).

ACBL restricts97 any range agreements to show at least 10 HCP and not be greater than a 5 HCP range. If the announceable HCP agreed range for a 1NT opening is the same for all seats/vulnerabilities then identify the HCP range in only the left fields. Some partnerships agree to an alternate HCP range when vulnerable versus not, and/or when opening in 1st/2nd seats (i.e. before partner has a chance to bid) versus 3rd/4th (i.e when partner has already passed). If an alternate range is used then first enter the “normal” range for opening 1NT in the left hand fields, next specify the (usually less often encountered) agreed (Seat/Vul) (seat and/or vulnerability) situations which use the alternate range, and finally enter the alternate range in the right hand fields. The two ranges should only be used in distinctly separate bidding situations. These two ranges should not both apply in any given situations as such a situation would then likely define a NT opening range larger than 5 HCP.98

If two different ranges are entered but all responses have the same meanings in all situations check ‘Y’ for Same Resp (same responses). Otherwise check ‘N’ to indicate there are different responses or meanings used with the alternate range than those entered on the Form. (My modified versions of this convention card Form prevent checking both boxes.) And if there is only one range leave both of these boxes unchecked. [It is not clear there would be sufficient room on the Form, but I believe, if possible, any different alternate response agreements somehow should be indicated.]

The balanced distribution of a natural NT opening is currently defined99 by ACBL as a hand with: no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an Ace, King, or Queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

[Thus as the most extreme examples I can think of (where ‘H’ is a singleton Ace, King, or Queen), this definition of balanced now allows a hand as unbalanced as with two suits 5-4 such as (5-4-2-2) and (5-4-3-H), or even with two suits 6-3 such as (6-3-2-2) and (6-3-3-H), and (in my opinion absurdly) even allows one seven-card suit (7-2-2-2)!]

If a 1NT opening hand is agreed that it may contain a 5-card Major then check that box, as normally such Major suits are agreed to have at most four cards with this opening, and only allowing a minor suit to have five cards. A partnership could agree to a more restrictive definition of no 5-card suits to force at worst 4-4-4-1, or also agree to no more than one doubleton instead of singleton thus ensuring only 4-4-3-2. However I believe any partnership agreement of a restriction beyond ACBL’s definition of a balanced distribution should be indicated on the Form.

Responses

The “Sys On vs” (System responses to remain On versus) field is used to indicate that 1NT conventional System responses marked in this area are agreed to remain “on” after the specific interfering calls identified in this field. Examples of such interfering calls might be a double or some specific 2-level bids. This field exists since by default if an opponent makes any bid or a double over the 1NT opening, then conventional System responses like Stayman and Transfers are assumed “Off”. Thus with interference other than that specified in this field all responses are now expected to be natural. For this reason this field lists those specific interfering calls which are agreed to allow the System response calls that are still available above that interference to retain their conventional meaning as marked in this area.

The Stayman box is checked if the agreement is to use that standard non-forcing convention implying the Responder has a 4-card Major. The Puppet box is checked instead if the agreement is to use that alternative Stayman convention which involves a method of finding out if Opener has a 5+ card Major. (Like the Same Resp boxes above, my modified versions of this convention card Form prevent checking both boxes.) Any agreements of the meanings of the 3♣/3♢/3♡/3♠ jump responses must be entered on the right, as well as the meanings of any Other special response bids or agreements.

Next on the bottom line indicate whether Responder’s Dbl (Double) of an opponent’s overcall of the 1NT opening is agreed to be a non-alertable100 Neg (negative) double through the specified level, or is a natural Pen (penalty) double, or even some Other alertable agreement (such as a stolen bid double). If Other is the specific agreement its alertable meaning must be indicated in the following field.

Finally check the Lebensohl box if agreeing to use this defensive convention over an intervening suit bid where responses can either show a stopper in that suit with a slow response or deny one with a direct response. For example a Responder’s 2NT response generally shows a stopper and slows Responder describing their hand by being an artificial Relay for Opener to bid an artificial 3♣. Responder can then use conventional bids to further describe their hand. Conversely a different response generally denies a stopper and directly describes something about Responder’s hand. If playing this Lebensohl convention in a non-standard manner and/or there are also agreed special artificial responses over interference other than 2NT, that should be indicated in the following field. [If the agreement is very non-standard I would probably enter something like “Ask” in the field.]

All 1NT (one NOTRUMP) direct openings in SAYC use the same 15-17 HCP range in all situations, so the second set of alternate range fields are not used and the Same Resp boxes are left blank. The SAYC definition101 of the opening NT bid includes being able to have a 5-card Major so that box is checked.

The SAYC system sources do not include its own system definition of a “balanced” hand for a natural NT opening. Thus I presume the definition102 in the latest ACBL Convention Charts of a natural NT opening bid or overcall which allows the one doubleton to be a singleton if that card is no less than a Queen would also apply to SAYC. Whether a partnership wishes a more restrictive definition of balanced which excludes this newly allowed singleton from their definition of NT openings, or requires it to be either an Ace or King, would be up to partnership agreement. I think it would be courteous to inform opponents of whatever is their agreement, but I don’t see any field which could be used to indicate this. I guess it “could” be included with the alert’s announcement of the range, e.g. “15 to 17, no singletons”, but I cannot determine if this would be appropriate.

Responses

For the “Sys On vs” (System responses to remain On versus) field about interference of the 1NT opening, the SAYC System Booklet includes the agreement103 that versus an interfering double (X) all system conventional responses are to remain on after the 1NT opening (although the Standard Yellow Card only explicitly notes Jacoby transfers remaining on over doubles).

Versus this specific interference of a double the SBwSAYC book defines104 an alertable105 artificial redouble (XX) response as an escape to mean a weak Minors Relay to Clubs similar to the conventional 2♠️ response. I entered this special defensive agreement in the Other responses field at the right. With this redouble response agreement the competitive auction remains one level lower than with the conventional 2♠️ response since Opener is now only being forced by the relay to rebid 2♣️. Like the conventional 2♠️ relay, if Opener’s 2♣️ rebid remains uncontested Responder either passes or corrects to 2♦️ for closeout.

[Since all SAYC system responses remain on versus double, the 2♠️ conventional response also can be considered still “on”. However versus this specific double interference a partnership could agree to modify the 2♠️ response to mean a stronger Minors Relay (to the higher 3-level) than the now available equivalent lower level Minors Relay using redouble. It could even now mean something completely different such as “natural”, but such agreements are not suggested in straight SAYC.]

Concerning the 2♣️ interference bid also included in the “Sys On vs” field in this example, see the more complete description of this agreement in the Modification comments below. This 2♣️ entry allowing “Systems On” automatically implies the defense agreement of an artificial alertable “Stolen bid” double of that 2♣️ interference to now mean Stayman. This is what allows all higher system conventional responses to remain on versus this interferring 2♣️ bid.

The 2♣️ response106 in SAYC means non-forcing standard Stayman so that box is checked, but the system also includes the common “Garbage” Stayman107 extension where Responder has a weak (0-7 HCP) balanced 3-suited hand short in Clubs and plans to Pass any uncontested rebid by Opener. SAYC does not use the alternative 2♣️ “Puppet Stayman” convention instead of standard Stayman so that box is not checked instead.

The 2♢/2♡ responses108 are the standard Jacoby announceable Tfr (transfers) to the next higher suit. The 2♠️ response109 is the weak alertable110 Minors Relay to 3♣️s where Responder will either Pass a 3♣️ rebid by Opener or raise to 3♦️ for closeout. The 2NT response111 is checked Nat (natural) which shows a balanced hand invitational to 3NT.

The 3♣/3♢/3♡/3♠ jump responses all are defined112 as natural 6+ length, where a minor is invitational to 3NT and a Major shows Game Force (GF) and slam invitation. If Responder is not strong enough to invite slam with a 3-level jump response in a Major they would simply first use a Jaboby transfer to show the suit. [The agreement of the 6+length being sufficient for inviting was based on the old ACBL definition of expecting at least two cards in every suit of a 1NT opening. Thus combined with 6+ length ensured a working trump suit of at least 8 cards. If the partnership agrees to allow a 1NT opening with a singleton the agreed minimum lengths of these jump responses may need to be reconsidered.]

SAYC does not include the Smolen responses so that box is not checked. Also none of the 4♣/4♢/4♡ jump responses as a type of Tfr (transfer) are checked, since the 4♣️ response is reserved for Gerber ace asking and the above strong and natural 3-level jump responses are used for appropriate invitations.

Concerning the “Cuebid:” entry in Other at the right, the following excerpt from the SAYC System Booklet mentions opponent interfering “bids” (which does not include the “call” of double). Defining any responses over such interfering bids, strict SAYC includes the following additional special response agreement [emphasis added by me]:

“If an opponent bids over your 1NT opener, conventional responses like Stayman and transfers are “off.” Bids are natural except for a cuebid, which may be used with game forcing strength as a substitute for Stayman.”113

Thus with an interfering bid over a 1NT opening, SAYC agrees that a cuebid response is a Game Forcing Stayman substitute to the now unavailable 2♣️ bid, as entered in the Other field on the right. Note that with the Modification agreement below if the interference is a 2♣️ bid Responder could either double for an invitational (lower level) Stayman or cuebid for a game force. [Since this cuebid must be made at least at the three-level it makes sense that Responder must have the values to force game, either in their Major with a fit or in NT.] Finally this agreement cocerning interferring “bids” implies that SAYC does not include the Lebensohl convention which could be identified on the line below.

Finally straight SAYC defines no special meanings for a Dbl (double) response over interference, so the Neg and Pen boxes are not checked. However, I believe the Modification described below which adds the defense of using an artificial alertable “Stolen bid” double when versus a 2♣️ interference bid to mean invitational Stayman is appropriate and could still be considered “straight” Stayman. Therefore I entered that alertable defensive agreement modification as an Other meaning for a double as the companion to including 2♣️ in the “Sys On vs” field above.

[Modification] I agree with the SBwSAYC book that having no defense to interference over 1NT other than versus a double is very limited when there are many useful defenses to other interference. That book recommends114 partnerships agree to use a double of an interference bid of 2♣️ to have an artificial alertable “stolen” conventional meaning which would be announced as “Stayman”. This “stolen” double of the now unavailable normal Stayman response is agreed to have exactly the same meaning and strength as making that stolen bid when uncontested. This provides a way in this one instance to bid a standard non-forcing invitational Stayman call at its normal level as an alternative to having to use the SAYC specified higher level game forcing cuebid for Stayman. The book further indicates115 that simply by agreeing to this defensive treatment versus that interfering 2♣️ bid (just as is agreed when versus an interfering double) all systems could now remain on for the other higher ranking system responses if they are made instead of this double over that 2♣️ interference.

In light of the NOTE on the last page of the SAYC System Booklet permitting adding defenses, I choose to include this one simple and limited defense of the 2♣️ interfering bid on this example card (like the Bridge Winners “Modern Standard American” card also does). Thus I include the 2♣️ bid in the “Sys On vs” field, and add the entry “Stolen v 2♣️” as an Other agreed meaning of Stolen for a DBL versus (v) that interfering bid at the bottom of this 1NT area.

Additional defenses of direct interfering bids after the 1NT opening of 2♦️ or higher “could” be agreed as defensive modifications beyond straight SAYC, such as further stolen bid doubles of any 2-level bid. While I chose to have such agreements concerning some other intervening bids with some of my partners, I have not included them on this example card since, like not including Lebensohl, based on the above explicit quote I believe they would not be in the spirit of “straight” SAYC.

This Form requires entering the HCP range for a 2NT (two NOTRUMP) opening. The Bridge Bulletin article for this Section only has the [very limited and ambiguous] statement116 that the “expected” meaning of this bid is a “strong, balanced hand”. If the agreed meaning is not this expectation then the article indicates the Conv (Conventional) box below should be checked, and (since printed in red) the bid would be alertable, with an indication of its meaning entered in the following red underlined field.

While ACBL restricts range agreements for a 1NT opening, the ACBL article’s uncapitalized term “strong” for a 2NT opening seems to me ambiguous. I can find no equivalent clear ACBL restrictions on this expected “strong” range of a 2NT opening, neither its minimum value nor its maximum range. As I indicate in the discussion following ACBL’s definitions of strength (below within the 2♣️ opening Section) in cases of ACBL’s usage of the uncapitalized term “strong” I believe that term generically and collectively refers to both “Strong” and “Very Strong” definitions, thus perhaps suggesting it could show as low as 14-15 HCP. As a comparison 1NT must show at least 10 HCP. [As a guideline for our 2NT agreements the ACBL’s SAYC system range for its 2NT opening (20-21 HCP) is within the “Very Strong” definition. This seems to match well with its 1NT opening (15-17 HCP) range which is within the “Strong” definition. Further the Convention Charts explicitly state117 that if a 2-level or higher opening bid meets ACBL’s “Very Strong” definition it is allowed (and thus presumably expected).] If a partnership believes its agreed range does not meet ACBL’s “expected” definition of “strong” then I believe they should check the Conv box and alert the bid.

Since I can find no ACBL rules defining “balanced” which are specific to this 2NT opening, based on this article’s “expected” meaning of this opening I believe the ACBL’s definition of “balanced” for any natural NT bid (described above in the 1NT Section) should also be used for this opening. [As an example I note that the Convention Charts specifically allowed NT opening bids118 at the 2-level or higher would meet ACBL’s balanced definition if showing 5-4 in the minors and either 2-2 or 3-H in the Majors.] Thus if a partnerhip believes its agreed meaning of this opening does not meet ACBL’s “expected” definition of balanced then I believe their meaning should be indicated on the Form, and probably alerted. While they might choose to check the Conv box, they might simply enter something like “semi-balanced” in the red underlined field after that box.

This Form requires entering the HCP range for a 3NT (three NOTRUMP) opening. Again the Bridge Bulletin article only states119 the “expected” meaning is also a “strong and balanced hand”, thus implying the same comments about those two terms as above for the 2NT opening. Similar to 2NT the article states that the partnership should indicate any different agreed meaning than “expected”, such as checking the alertable (since printed in red) One Suit box or indentifying some other alertable meaning in the red underlined field following that box.

Responses

If the partnership has no explicit agreements about responses to these openings then no other entries need be made in this area to the right.

Basic Responses to 2NT are indicated in the remainder of that area and often have conventional agreements, many similar to 1NT responses. Like for 1NT ACBL assumes the 3♣️ response will normally mean one of the two artificial Stayman conventions which ask about Opener’s Majors, and thus either such meaning is not alertable.120 The 3♣️ response is assumed by ACBL to mean the standard Stayman convention asking Opener about any 4+ card Major so does not even have a check box. However Puppet should be checked if the 3♣️ response instead is agreed to mean the common alternative “Puppet Stayman” convention (a method of finding out if Opener has a 5+ card Major). If the 3♠️ response is not natural and not one of the two Stayman conventions check its box and indicate whatever is the artificial agreement. (Minor suit Stayman, or an artificial relay to 3NT are the most common 3♠️ alertable conventions.) Check the appropriate box if any 3-level (3Lvl) and/or 4-level (4Lvl) responses are agreed to be announceable transfers121 to a specific suit. The non-alertable122 Negative Double (Neg Dbl) box should be checked if that response is agreed to be used over interference, and any Other special response agreements, such as with interference to the 2NT opening, should be entered.

I presume there are no separate fields on this Form to describe responses to a natural 3NT opening as often it is considered a close out.

The SAYC agreed123 HCP ranges for these balanced 2NT and 3NT (NOTRUMP) very strong openings (which may contain one five-card suit) are: 2NT = 20–21; 3NT = 25–27. As I believe these are within the standard ranges and meanings the 2NT the Conv box is not checked, and the 3NT One Suit box is not checked.

If using SAYC with a balanced hand having no five-card Major and its HCP is between SAYC’s 1NT range and this 2NT range (i.e. 18-19 HCP), a one-level bid of the longest minor suit is made first, then opener jumps to 2NT if available.124 Likewise if such a balanced hand is between the 2NT and 3NT ranges (i.e. 22-24 HCP), the forcing 2♣️ strong opener is bid first showing the 22+ HCP, then opener rebids 2NT if available.125

Responses

The discussion by SAYC references of responses to either of the 2NT or 3NT openings is limited, as none indicate a specific special minimum HCP required, and varies by the reference. The simplified Standard Yellow Card126 only defines the Jacoby transfers for both of these higher-level openings. The SAYC System Booklet mentions127 and the SBwSAYC book implies128 both Stayman and Jacoby transfer responses are agreed, so both are indicated on the Form in the manner described below.

As a response (Resp) to the 2NT (20-21 HCP) opening SAYC defines 3♣️ as non-alertable129 standard Stayman130 so I entered that agreement for clarity even though it is supposed to be assumed, and did not check the alternative “Puppet Stayman” convention box. [I also did not find any SAYC artificial definition of a 3♠ response to 2NT, so I assume its agreement is natural and thus did not check that box.]

The Tfr: 3Lvl box is checked since all SAYC references define131 the 3♦️/3♥️ non-jump responses to 2NT as Jacoby announceable transfers (Tfr) to the next highest 3-level (3Lvl) suit. But as noted with its 1NT opening example above, SAYC does not use 4-level (4Lvl) jump transfers over any NT opening so that box is not checked. Note that SAYC only uses the Negative Double (Neg Dbl) up to 2♠132 as marked in the DOUBLES Section example, and its sources do not mention any Other conventional responses to 2NT so those two boxes are left blank. Further a 4♣️ jump response to a 2NT opening is defined133 as Gerber ace asking and is explicitly marked in the SLAMS Section example.

However SAYC explicitly defines134 the response of 4♣️ to the 3NT (25-27 HCP) opening as standard Stayman and explicitly excludes it from being Gerber ace asking over 3NT since it is not a jump. A non-jump Club bid over any 1, 2, or 3 level NT opener is consistently agreed in this system to always mean standard Stayman, even at this higher level. For this reason I choose to write in this Stayman agreement for both of these higher NT openings for clarity.

[The SAYC System Booklet defines a jump to 4♣️ to mean Gerber ace asking only when over partner’s 1NT and 2NT openers including rebids.135 Thus that SAYC jump requirement for the use of the Gerber convention leaves this non-jump 4♣️ response over a 3NT opening “available” for Stayman. However I have noticed that many partnerships who “think” they are using SAYC instead agree to play this 4♣️ response directly over a 3NT opening as Gerber ace asking even though that bid is not a jump. Such an agreement would be a non-standard modification of straight SAYC and would need to be noted, which was another motivation to enter these standard higher level Stayman agreements on this example card.]

SAYC also defines136 the non-jump responses of 4♦️/4♥️ over a 3NT opening as Jacoby announceable Tfr (transfers) to the next highest suit. As there is not a box to indicate that these 4-level responses mean transfers I also write this in for clarity on the only space provided.

[As a hand containing SAYC’s agreement of the HCP strength for a 3NT opening is rarely encountered, I suspect most partnerships are likely unaware that these 4-level transfers are explicitly defined for straight SAYC. Since such a 3NT opening would often be treated as a close out I find this a further motivation to enter both of these defined response agreements on this example card.]

Finally there is no “Sys On vs” field for either opening bid to indicate that the Standard Yellow Card defines137 systems on versus the interference138 of a double (X) of both these openings. For completeness I have added this agreement to both openings.

While the 2♣️ 2LEVEL opening is typically agreed to be used as an artificial opening it can have a variety of meanings and associated conventional responses. Whatever its meaning its agreed HCP range must be entered at the top. [If the agreed meaning for this bid relies on more or other than just the HCP range an explanation should be entered in the field following the range.]

In addition to entering its HCP range the opening’s general meaning must be indicated by checking boxes below the range. The previous Form simply had the two options of Strong and Other, where this new Form instead uses four boxes, at least one of which must be checked. If a partnership has no explicit agreement for this 2-level opening, that lack of agreement would imply the Natural meaning so the Nat box should be checked and the bid alerted as described below. If the partnership also has no explicit agreements about responses to this Natural opening, then they are also Natural and no other entries need be made in this area (but as noted below I suggest entering “Natural” in the Other field for explaining responses).

Meanings

The first two boxes indicate agreed meanings of the opening based on two ACBL strength definitions (described below). Very Str (Very Strong) is the expected conventional meaning and strength for this opening. A meaning of the weaker Str (Strong) strength is alertable but not allowed in all ACBL events. Finally if this opening has any meaning other than Very Strong or simply Natural, the Conv box should be checked. Any such Conventional agreement must be Alerted and its meaning indicated in the following red underlined field as described below.

Strength-based Meaning

A “Very Strong” artificial opening is considered the expected140 conventional meaning, thus only if the 2♣️ opening has that agreed meaning is it not141 alertable. Many commonly used systems have agreements for its minimum strength to be even stronger than this Very Strong term’s “at least” minimum defined below. [Since this convention is defined to be forcing if this convention is the partnership’s agreement it also must be checked on the Forcing Open line in the OVERVIEW Section, but as it is the expected meaning and a two-level forcing open it does not require a Pre-Alert.] However as emphasized in the recent article about an update to the ACBL’s Alert Procedure, since only a Very Strong 2♣️ opening is not alertable a simply “Strong” 2♣️ opening is alertable: “An opening 2♣️ bid that does not meet the definition of Very Strong requires an Alert”.142

Both of these strength terms are specified in the Bridge Bulletin article introducing this Section, and are officially defined143 in the ACBL Convention Charts.

“Strong”: A hand that contains:

 • at least 15 HCP; or

 • at least 14 HCP and meets the “Rule of 24” (HCP+2 longest suit lengths)144; or

 • at least 5 Control Points (Ace=2, King=1)145 and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands.

“Very Strong”: A hand that contains:

 • at least 20 HCP; or

 • at least 14 HCP and is within one trick of game, assuming suits break evenly among the other hands; or

 • at least 5 Control Points and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands.

This Bridge Bulletin article also includes the following comments about this pair of terms on this new Form for the strength of a 2♣️ opening bid.

“There are now ACBL restrictions on 2♣️ openers that didn’t exist before. Not all events allow a Strong artificial 2♣️ opening bid. If it is allowed it must be Alerted.”

[Note: I presume that the “restrictions on 2♣️ openers” refers to the requirement mentioned above that only if the opening is “Very Strong” is it not alerted. However I can find no current ACBL description of any type of event which mentions or allows an “only” Strong artificial 2♣️ opening bid. Both the ACBL Alert Procedure and the Convention Charts specify146 any word that is capitalized is defined in one of these two documents. While there is a case of the text “Strong (or Very Strong)” which obviously applies to both definitions, most entries in both references refer to the 2♣️ opening bid as “Very Strong” which clearly refer to only that definition. There is one Alert example147 for the 2♣️ opening referring to its responses which contains only the term “strong”, and has it both with and without capitalization. In addition there are many uses of the term “strong” without capitalization throughout both references. Based on these examples I presume that if it is the capitalized word “Strong” it refers to only that one specific definition, but in cases of the uncapitalized term “strong” it generically and collectively refers to both “Strong” and “Very Strong” definitions.]

Other Meanings

Following the two boxes for indicating one of the two most common strength-based meanings are boxes to indicate the two other possible agreed meanings of this opening. The Nat (Natural) box would be checked if the opening has this unusual alertable148 agreement of Natural regardless149 of its meaning. As noted above a partnership may need to mark this by default if they have no explicit agreement for this opening, or may need to mark it because they are using some strong club system like Precision where a 2♣️ opener is agreed to be Natural showing a limited hand with a five-card or longer club suit.

For any agreement of this opening other than Very Strong or simply Natural the Conv (Conventional) fourth box would be checked. If checked the bid must be alerted and its general meaning explained in the following field. [If the agreement for this opening is Natural due to some specific convention, such as a Precision, I suggest also checking this box and identifying that convention as an explanation.]

Responses

The boxes on the right side of this area define responses to a Strong (or Very Strong) opening. If a 2♢ response has the common artificial agreement to be simply Neg (Negative) and/or Waiting check the appropriate box(es) and no further explanation or an alert150 is required. If playing Steps (which are a series of meanings for artificial responses of increasing rank which begin with 2♢) check that box and alert those responses. Use the field after the box to indicate what these steps are agreed to show, e.g. levels of HCP or levels of Control Points (as defined above). If the 2♡ response is agreed to be a separate artificial Neg (Negative) response check that box and alert it.

Finally the red underlined field labeled Other should be used for a general identification of any other special agreements for responses not otherwise indicated, whether the meaning of the 2♣️ opener is Natural or conventional such as Very Strong. For example if either of the two 2♢ response boxes were checked but the partnership has no special agreements for responses above that, although probably not required I would suggest entering “Natural” in the field and announcing any such higher response as having that meaning.

The SAYC System Booklet and the SBwSAYC book both151 define the forcing 2♣️ 2LEVEL opener with the phrase “shows at least 22+ points, or the playing equivalent”. But the Standard Yellow Card instead “describes”152 this bid as “22+ Balanced Points or 9+ Tricks” which phrase I find easier to recognize and thus follow SAYC’s own convention card’s precedence for the entry I use in this example card. Both these definitions satisify the hand strength range defined above for the Form’s term of the Very Str (Very Strong) general meaning which is checked. Since it is forcing this opening is also marked in the example OVERVIEW Section.

Responses

SAYC defines153 2♢ as the standard artificial but non-alertable response, and meaning both Neg (Negative, 0-7 HCP, no biddable 5-card suit) and Waiting (expecting Opener to rebid) so both boxes are checked. [Yes, SAYC agrees this bid is to be made even with zero points since the 2♣️ opening is forcing.] If Opener rebids a suit, even with a “bust” hand the SAYC agreement is that the 2♦️ Responder is forced154 to rebid if necessary to keep the bidding open until at least one level less than game. If Opener directly rebids 2NT (showing155 a non-forcing balanced 22-24 HCP) over any 2-level response including 2♦️, then any non-Pass rebid by Responder is agreed156 to mean the same as the SAYC responses defined over an opening 2NT.

All other responses to the 2♣️ opener SAYC defines as Natural (Nat), thus neither boxes for artificial Steps nor the 2♡ Neg response are checked. All the other natural “non-jump” responses of 2♥️, 2♠️, 3♣️ and 3♦️ [note this last bid SAYC does not treat as a jump since the 2♦️ bid is reserved] show157 8+ HCP, a good 5+ card suit usually with two of the top three honors, and are GF (Game Forcing), as entered in the red underlined Other field. [Even though entered in this Other field these natural game forcing responses are not alertable.158 However I generally announce their strength, natural nature, and game forcing agreement as a courtesy to the opponents although I should probably wait until asked.] Finally the non-jump 2NT natural direct response shows159 a balanced 8+HCP hand and no biddable five-card suit.

The typical agreement for a 2LEVEL opening of a natural 2♦️/2♥️/2♠️ is weak and preemptive. Like the 2♣️ opener, in addition to entering the agreed HCP range at least one of the three boxes below the range indicating the opening’s general strength must be checked. A Weak (Wk) non-alertable 2-level opening allowed by the Basic Chart160 shows at least 4 HCP with a range not greater than 7 HCP, or allowed by the Basic+ Chart161 shows at least 3 HCP with a range not greater than 8 HCP. But to avoid being alertable any agreed range of a weak 2-level opening, except when opening in fourth seat, must be restricted162 to less than 12 HCP. Intermediate (Int) is generally agreed to mean something like 12-16 HCP, and Strong (Str) is defined163 as at least 15+HCP. (See also the PREEMPTS Section for documenting agreements about three- and four-level openings.)

If the 2♦️ opening is agreed to have a special alertable Conv (Conventional) meaning that box must be checked in addition to indicating the general strength. Example conventions are showing an opening hand with both Majors (Flannery), or showing opening strength with a three-suited hand (Mini-Roman). Similarly for the 2♥️ and 2♠️ openings there is an additional box to check if the agreement is a special but common alertable meaning which shows 2 Suits. If its Conv or 2 Suits box is not checked that 2-level opening is assumed to be Natural. Whatever the agreement, for each of these 2-level openings its meaning should be summarized in the field following the HCP range.

Responses and Rebids

Agreements about responses to these three 2-level openings are noted in the fields at the right and can vary. ACBL considers it a standard agreement for a response to a 2-level opening of a natural new suit bid below game to be forcing. Otherwise check the New Suit NF (Non Forcing) box to show this unusual and thus alertable164 agreement for this response. Check Other and summarize for any other kind of conventional and thus alertable response agreement.

The 2NT response is a common forcing response over preemptive openings and so is not alertable165 regardless of its meaning. It is assumed to be forcing and thus expects a rebid by Opener. Common agreements of a 2NT forcing response include the Optional Feature convention (which asks Opener’s rebid to show a high Honor card feature as an outside suit entry), or the Ogust convention (which asks Opener’s rebid to describe their suit and hand quality via artificial step responses). If this 2NT response is such an “asking” bid then the agreement of the general meanings of Opener’s Rebids over 2NT should be summarized in that separate field. [If the 2NT response is agreed to be non-forcing it is alertable166, but this Form does not provide a method to note that agreement. I would suggest some comment like “Non-forcing” in this “Rebids” field or some appropriate comment in the field above.]

These 2♦️/2♥️/2♠️ 2LEVEL openings in SAYC generally show167 a 5-11 HCP hand with a preemptive six-card suit of reasonable quality which the SBwSAYC book describes168 as having two of the top three honors or three of the top 5, and no void. This HCP range is the largest and highest which fits within the Basic Chart definition of Wk (Weak) noted above and thus that box is checked and the opening is not alertable. As noted in the SAYC System Booklet169 on rare occasions [usually in third seat] it may be a very good five-card suit, or even a poor seven-card suit not good enough to open as an SAYC three-level preempt, thus these rare alternative meanings are indicated in the adjacent field.

Responses

SAYC uses 2NT as a conventional170 artificial response (even if bid over an opponents double or 2-level bid). This response is agreed to be the Optional Feature convention which SAYC defines as forcing171, game invitational, and asks for Opener’s Rebids over 2NT to indicate their strength and optionally whether their hand has an outside Feature (Feat) defined as an Ace or protected King. With a minimum hand (5-8 HCP) Opener will172 always simply rebid their suit. If Opener has maximum strength (9+ HCP) they will optionally artificially bid173 an outside suit that has a Feature sufficient to be used as an entry. If maximum, and either lacking174 such a Feature or preferring NT, Opener will simply raise Responder to a natural 3NT to show the point count and letting them choose the contract. [The SBwSAYC book broadens this definition of a Feature to include a protected Queen175, but I believe that would need to be noted as a modification of the explicit definition published for straight SAYC.]

New Suit NF (Non-Forcing) is not checked as SAYC uses the standard non-alertable agreement where a new-suit response below game is176 forcing one round and shows at least a five-card suit. SAYC also defines177 rebids for Opener after this response to further describe their hand.

Among Other responses to a preempt SAYC uses the initialism RONF which specifies178 that Raises are the Only Non-Forcing responses and thus Opener should normally Pass any raise.

While it is not a raise but is a game bid, SAYC defines179 the natural 3NT response as also non-forcing as it is to play. Opener should normally Pass, although a partnership may agree that with a very unusual hand [e.g. no outside entries] Opener could instead correct but only to their own preempted suit which is to play.

This OTHER Section contains essentially the same fields (plus some others) to identify most of the same agreements as were entered in the Other Conv. Calls area of the previous Form. If your partnership never responds with a jump shift, do not have any of the special agreements described below, and have no other special agreements which cannot be indicated in other Sections, then nothing is needed to be entered or checked in this Section.

This Section consists of fields to enter agreements about four separate areas:

 • Jump Shift Responses by either Responder or Advancer,

 • specialized overcall defenses Vs (Very)Str Openings,

 • second round alertable conventional rebids by Responder,

 • plus two additional lines for other agreements that do not fit into other boxes or fields anywhere else on the Form but should be made available to the opponents.

Jump Shift Resp

The partnership’s agreements of the meanings of Jump Shift Resp (Responses) should be entered in the field provided. These are agreements about Jump Shift Responses made as the initial non-Pass response by either a Responder or Advancer, i.e. shifting to a different suit than partner’s opening and jumping to one level higher than the minimum required. [Defensive Jump Overcalls are described in its separate Section of the card.] The typical agreed meaning of a jump shift response is natural, weak, and usually preemptive, which had option boxes on the previous Form to indicate this specific meaning.

However modern bidding now has many possible meanings for natural jump shift responses which also might show a variety of strengths. While such natural responses do not require alerts, there is only this field to summarize whatever are the agreed meanings and strengths of such natural responses (whether as responses to Opener or as advances to Overcaller). [See also the vs TAKEOUT DBL Section where that indicated Jump Shift response agreement when over that specific type of interfering double may have a different meaning than the agreement in this Section.]

This entry’s label is in black on this new Form as all natural jump shifts no longer require an Alert, whether or not in competition and regardless of strength. As stated in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin January 2021 article “Updates to the ACBL’s Alert Procedure”181 and again mentioned in the article about this OTHER Section182 of this new Form: “In an uncontested auction, no natural jump shift (whether weak, intermediate or strong) requires an Alert.”

The previous Form had only two boxes for checking natural and weak jump shift responses (with only that meaning) which identified the two situations where that response was agreed to be used: In Comp (Competition) which did not require an Alert and Not in Comp which required an Alert. These latest changes to the ACBL Alert Procedure have removed from that document the Alert requirement for these natural bids when not in competition, and removed the assumption that it is weak. (The OTHER CONV. CALLS Section of the updated Classic Form still has the two old specific Weak Jump Shifts boxes but both situations are now printed in black.)

This field would also be used to indicate any of the many modern conventions which have an artificial meaning for the jump shift response, which now would be alertable because they are artificial (even though the label is black). Example conventions include fit-showing jumps, artificial raises, and mini-splinters. Many such conventions also have different meanings for the two situations when Responder (or Advancer) making the jump shift is a passed as opposed to an unpassed hand. The meaning of any such artificial agreements may need a note like “See below” in this field and be summarizied in the two red underlined fields at the bottom of this Section to have sufficient room to make its alertable meaning in each given situation clear.

Vs (Very)Str Open

This field labeled Vs (Very)Str Open (versus either a Very Strong or a simply Strong opening) is reserved for identifying interference agreements of special defensive overcalls which open the bidding for your partnership. These overcalls, whether natural or artificial, are different from normal defensive agreements identified in other Sections as they are specifically for use over openings defined as either Very Strong or simply Strong.

Note: The ACBL Convention Charts impose restrictions on the use of some artificial 1- and 2-level openings where the partnership is required183 to provide each opponent a written defense specific to such an opening because such openings “are particularly difficult to defend against”. Thus indicating defenses to such possibly (Very)Strong openings are probably not needed here unless your partnership’s defense is different than what would normally be provided.

I believe that any conventional defense specifically for use versus a (Very)Strong opening (especially a restricted defense) should be mentioned in this Section’s field even though it “might” (also) be able to be entered in another Section on the card. Examples include the restricted Suction defense and the CRASH defense mentioned in the Bridge Bulletin article for inclusion in this field where either “might” (also) be entered under a “Strong” column in the vs 1NT Opening Section.

If a partnership has multiple agreements for defenses versus (Very)Strong openings such as different defenses depending on the opening or its strength, or identifying the agreed defense needs more space than this short field provides, enter “See below” and use the two lines provided at the bottom of this Section to summarize these agreements.

Examples mentioned in the Bridge Bulletin article for this Section of typical defensive agreements of overcall conventions which might be entered in this field are:

 • a set of defensive artificial transfer184 overcalls,

 • the Mathe defense of a Strong 1♣️ (artificial step overcalls beginning with double which show the Majors, a natural suit, or the minors),

 • the CRASH defense of a Strong 1♣️ or 1NT (artificial step overcalls beginning with double which show a two suiter of the same Color, RAnk, or SHape),

 • the restricted Suction defense of a Strong 1NT (artificial step overcalls beginning with double showing transfers OR two suits).

Conventional Rebids

To the right of the Vs (Very)Str Open field are a series of boxes which can be checked to indicate agreeing to play several second round artificial alertable conventional rebids by Responder in uncontested185 auctions. First the partnership might agree to use one of three artificial second round 2-level rebids of a minor. Then are boxes for checking one of the two agreements about a rebid of the fourth suit.

The NMF (New Minor Forcing) is the first of two alternative agreements for a Responder’s 2-level rebid of a minor which are used following an uncontested auction ending where Opener makes a minimal 1NT rebid. This convention requires the auction to begin with the opening of a minor followed by the response of a Major, i.e. (1m - 1M; 1NT). With at least invitational values Responder makes a second round rebid of the new (other unbid) minor which is always agreed to be an artificial alertable forcing bid asking the Opener who did not show a Major to clarify their Major-suit holdings. Conventional rebids by Opener186 might show three- or four-card support for Responder’s Major, four in the other Major, or deny length in either Major.

The 2Way NMF (Two-way New Minor Forcing, aka Two-Way Checkback or xyNT) is the second of these two alternative agreements for a Responder’s 2-level rebid of a minor following a similar specific uncontested auction ending in Opener’s minimal 1NT rebid. For this convention it can be following the same auction as NMF, i.e. (1m - 1M; 1NT) or if agreed187 following the more general auction (1X - 1Y; 1NT). However this convention instead agrees that a rebid by Responder of either minor suit (whether or not it has been bid) is always an artificial alertable forcing bid which initiates invitational or conventional game-forcing sequences. Thus it agrees that if the 2-level rebid is of a previously bid minor it is not a raise. 2♣️ always means an artificial relay to 2♦️ and simply shows an invitational hand. 2♦️ always means simply an artificial game-forcing bid.

XYZ is the third of these three alternative agreements for a Responder’s 2-level rebid of a minor, but is used following the most general of the three uncontested auction by the partnerships which can have any three different one-level bids (1X - 1Y; 1Z) where Opener’s rebid (1Z) might not be a minimal 1NT. Its agreed artificial alertable forcing meanings of minor suit rebids are exactly the same agreed meanings as 2Way NMF above, i.e. 2♣️ and 2♦️ mean an invitational relay or game-forcing bid respectively. Thus following the example uncontested auction (1♣️ - 1♦️; 1♠️) a 2-level rebid of either previously bid minor is agreed to not be a raise.

Typically only one of the above three conventions of artificial second round 2-level rebids of a minor is agreed and checked. However, I observe that the XYZ definition of its most general preceding auction of 1-level bids includes the specific auctions of 1-level bids associated with both NMF and 2Way NMF. In their auctions X is usually a minor, Y is usually a Major, but Z is always a minimal 1NT. Since XYZ has the same meanings as 2Way NMF for the artificial minor suit rebids following the 1-level auction, checking only XYZ accomplishes the same as checking both if that were desired. But since NMF has a very specific auction and has a very different rebid meaning, I believe it could be checked to show its agreed meaning of the “new” minor rebid and its subsequent sequence of bids following its auction. But I think XYZ also could be checked to show its agreed meanings of the minor rebids and its subsequent sequence of bids following all other uncontested 1-level auctions without ambiguity. However having two such similar conventions might be confusing to remember.

The 4thSF (Fourth Suit Forcing) agreement is a common second round rebid method by Responder to simply force Opener to keep bidding. Somewhat similar to XYZ it follows an even more general uncontested auction of bids. But this auction must be bids of three different natural suits (1A - nB; nC). These bids are without jumps, but the auction might not remain at the one-level (e.g. 1♠️ - 2♦️; 2♥️). Responder’s rebid (nD) of the unbid “fourth suit” (e.g. 3♣️) is now agreed always to be an artificial altertable rebid. By agreement it is forcing, but it should be checked as either only 1Rnd (One Round) forcing or as a GF (Game Force). Again like all these conventions the rebids by Opener188 usually have specific agreed meanings. By having this 4thSF agreement note also that if this rebid is not used then any second round simple jump rebid by Responder, especially of one of the three previously bid suits, is now agreed to be only invitational and not forcing since the fourth suit is agreed to be used to force.

Other Agreements

The added lines at the bottom of this OTHER Section can be used for clarifications of the meanings of above agreements or to identify any other agreements that do not fit into other boxes or fields anywhere else on the Form. Examples of other agreements mentioned in the Bridge Bulletin article for this Section to include on these lines are:

 • defenses to opponent’s “unusual” bids, such as a Michaels cuebid or an Unusual 2NT jump overcall which both show a two-suited hand;

 • methods or agreements after reverses and 2NT rebids;

 • artificial agreed meanings of redoubles;

 • etc.

In this OTHER Section the SAYC agreements are entered for Jump Shift Resp (Responses), but its natural agreements are no longer alertable as noted in the above description of this Section. A Jump Shift response not in competition in SAYC is defined189 as a strong natural, 19+ HCP points hand (Nat: No comp= 19+ pts;), with a 5+suit and slam invitational.

[As this strong agreement takes up a significant amount of bidding space, many partnerships agree to a non-alertable weak meaning of this bid as a modification, and use other bids to show such strength. However I believe “straight” SAYC only permits adding defenses, not modifications of system defined meanings of informative bids. Thus the agreement of this bid has not been changed on this example card.]

However in competition, but only after an intervening takeout double, SAYC instead defines190 a jump shift response as preemptive (Comp only over T/O X= preempt). When bid at the 2- or 3-level it has the same agreed strength and length meaning as an SAYC weak two-bid or an SAYC preemptive three-bid opening. [Although this preemptive Jump Shift over a takeout double is also indicated in the vs TAKEOUT DBL Section by being checked Wk (Weak) I choose to repeat it here for clarity.]

SAYC includes no specific defenses Vs (Very)Str Open so nothing is entered there. As part of the SAYC System Booklet’s NOTE cited above concerning permitting adding defenses, the Mathe defense is specifically mentioned for possible use as part of SAYC over a big club which would be identified here if agreed. While including any added defense specific to such an opening could still be considered “straight” SAYC none are included on this example card.

Among the boxes for alertable second round rebid conventions by Responder, SAYC only includes191 the 4thSF (Fourth Suit Forcing) convention which is agreed to be 1Rnd (One Round) forcing.

Redouble (XX:) agreements in SAYC depend upon the meanings of both the opponent’s double and of partner’s bid being doubled. [I believe only those redoubles which are artificial are “designed” to be entered in this card’s OTHER Section, but I choose to record all of these here as a clear example of the system.]

SAYC has two Redoubles agreed to be artificial and both are non-alertable.

 • If it is of a takeout double of partner’s Opener, SAYC defines this non-alertable192 Redouble as simply showing193 general invitational strength of 10+ points (of T/O X = 10+ pts) when there is no more descriptive bid. [See also the SAYC example for the separate vs TAKEOUT DBL Section.]

 • If it is of a Penalty double of partner’s trump suit below the four level SAYC uses a Redouble for a hand with little or no support for partner’s suit but can support at least two of the unbid suits. In this case the SAYC defined meaning194 of this non-alertable195 Redouble is SOS (of Pen X of <4Lvl suit = SOS), an attempt to rescue the partnership from likely trouble by requesting partner bid a different suit which will usually be Passed.

The two SAYC Redoubles which are agreed196 as intending to play for Penalty (Pen), are not alertable197, and used when:

 • a partnership’s natural contract is doubled above the three level (of X nat>3Lvl = Pen) and the redoubler has support and believes the contract can make, or

 • a partnership’s artificial bid is doubled (of X of Art bid = Pen) and the redoubler is willing to play in that redoubled contract as that artificial suit happens to be a good suit in their hand.

A special other defense agreement in SAYC appropriate to be entered here involves a defense to opponent’s “unusual” conventional bids showing a two-suited hand, such as an Unusual 2NT jump or a Michaels cuebid. SAYC agrees that a cuebid of an opponent’s shown (usually the cheapest ranking) suit “indicated” by either of those two-suited hand conventions is simply defined198 as a general game force which implies a fit with support (Cue of one of 2-suit conv = GF fit). By default cuebids are assumed to be artificial and thus this conventional bid is not alertable. While not explicitly included in SAYC, more complete defenses against these two-suited conventional bids could be agreed such as Unusual vs. Unusual 2NT (also cited above concerning adding defenses), or simply a double showing support over Michaels to wait to hear their fit. But no additional other agreements are included in this example card.

This DOUBLES Section is similar to the previous Convention Card Form’s SPECIAL DOUBLES Section with boxes and fields for indicating agreements of the specific five Conventional Doubles with their situational use described above in the Doubles Overview but with some changes.

If the partnership agrees to never make any of the five low level Conventional Doubles, nor any low level doubles with unexpected non-Penalty meanings, nor any low level Penalty doubles, then nothing need be entered or checked in this Section.

Penalty Box

Like the previous Form there is a special Penalty box at the top which is seldom checked when playing most basic modern systems. I suggest it be considered first when filling out or reviewing this Section since any low level Penalty double is so rare that it requires an Alert.207 Checking this Penalty box informs the opponents that the partnership has at least one agreement to make an unexpected low-level Penalty double, possibly in a situation that appears to be one of the five non-alertable Conventional Double exceptions. While such a Penalty double must be alerted, I suggest it simply be announced as “Penalty”. From the limited description of this box in the Bridge Bulletin article about this Section I “assume” checking this box could indicate this unexpected Penalty agreed meaning in the defined situation of any or all of the five specific Conventional Doubles which are not marked as an agreement in this Section. But I believe any changed meaning of one of these five should be indicated in the red underlined Other field at the bottom of this Section. [Note that a low-level Penalty double of an opening NT is not208 alertable as noted in the vs 1NT OPENING Section.]

I assume that if the Penalty box is not checked, the only meanings of any low level doubles made by the partnership will be non-Penalty, possibly including any of the five Conventional Doubles’ non-Penalty meanings identified in this Section. As noted in the above Doubles Overview any low-level double made in the defined situation of one of these five ACBL exceptions which does not have that exception’s defined meaning is by default considered unexpected and should be alerted when the bid is made, whether or not its unexpected meaning is Penalty. In fact any agreed non-Penalty low level doubles with an unexpected meaning are Alertable and their meaning should be indicated in the red underlined Other field at the bottom of this Section.

NOTE: A partnership “could” have the simple all-encompassing agreement that all doubles (whether or not low-level) are natural and mean penalty. However if they “might” make a Penalty double at a low-level, they now must check this box and alert any such calls, especially since such a double otherwise may appear to be one of the five conventional exceptions.209 Alternatively (regardless of whether or not they have some agreed higher level conventional doubles) a partnership “could” have the agreement to never make any low-level doubles other than (possibly one or more of) these five conventional exceptions as defined and checked. In this (common) case the Penalty box would not “need” to be checked since no low-level Penalty doubles would ever be made which required an Alert.

Conventional Doubles Exceptions

The rest of the DOUBLES Section allows indicating agreements to the standard meaning of any of these five artificial conventional doubles when made in their specified situations. They are exceptions to alerting as defined in the above Doubles Overview: a Negative double made by Responder, a Responsive double made by Advancer, a Maximal double made by either partner, a Support double (or redouble) made by Opener, and a Takeout (T/O Style) double made by an Overcaller.

Negative Double

A Negative double is made by Responder (the partner of the Opener) in the situation after an interfering Direct Overcall bid by the opponents, and is not alertable.210 Enter in the following field labeled Thru the highest Direct Overcall bid over which the partnership agrees to use a Negative double. It is Responder’s first non-Pass call although they may have passed before partner Opened in third or fourth seat. It shows some artificial “negative” meaning which can be simple or extensive and depends on partnership agreement. However just like the previous Form, other than checking this box and identifying Thru to indicate agreeing to use a “negative” double, there is no place on this Form to indicate the partnership’s specific agreed meaning of “negative”. There are several books and on-line discussions going to great lengths (and often giving conflicting advice) concerning different possible artificial meanings of this conventional call. As a default the following description seems to agree with most sources and with the ACBL standard definition211 of a negative double: asking Opener to consider bidding an unbid (usually Major) suit, and meaning three negatives [hence the name]:

 • I do not have appropriate support for your (Opener’s) bid suit, and

 • I do not have enough points or length to bid my own unbid suit(s) at this available level, and

 • the (usually only 4-card) Major I do have is not one which has been bid.

Example:

 • The following denies Diamonds but shows a (usually only 4-card) Heart suit insufficient to bid at the 2-level.

1♦️ - (1♠️️) - Negative Double

[I suggest if the partnership’s meaning of a Negative double is significanly different than above it be clarified in the Other field at the bottom of this Section.]

Responsive Double

The Responsive double212 is made by Advancer (the partner of the Overcaller) as a response after interference of partner’s overcall in the specific case where that interference is a raise of the Opener’s suit. Enter in the following field labeled Thru the highest raise over which the partnership agrees to use a Responsive double. It is not alertable because it is a special type of a Takeout Double and both Opener and Responder (Interferor) have already made natural bids.213 It shows a two-suited hand of at least 4-4 distribution. It is used in the one situation when partner has made an overcall of Opener’s natural suit either with their own natural suit bid or a Takeout double, and then Responder raised Opener’s suit immediately after partner’s overcall. Thus the opening opponents have Only Bid And Raised (OBAR) one suit.

Advancer’s response is doubling Responder’s raise [hence the name]. It shows partner a “general” desire to compete in one of two unbid suits but like an ordinary Takeout double is asking Overcaller to “take out” the double and choose the suit. Which two suits shown depend upon the previous auction.

If Overcaller bid a suit, then the Responsive double is somewhat negative in that it generally denies the one suit bid by Overcaller and thus shows:

 • the exactly two remaining unbid suits. For example the following shows Clubs and Spades, and denies Diamonds.

(1♥️) - 2♦️ - (2♥️) - Responsive Double

If only one suit has been bid (i.e. Overcaller doubled), then it typically promises length only in two of the unbid suits (not all three). In this case Overcaller also may be showing only two of the three unbid suits, so hopefully one of Overcaller’s two suits will fit with one of Responder’s two unbid suits as identified by further bids. Generally when Overcaller doubled Advancer tries to show either both Majors if the opponents bid a minor, or both minors if the opponents bid a Major. Thus the Responsive double would usually show:

 • the two Major suits if the opponents bid and raised a minor. For example the following shows both Hearts and Spades, and denies Clubs which partner “may” have.

(1♦️) - Double - (2♦️) - Responsive Double

 • the two minor suits if the opponents bid and raised a Major. For example the following shows both Clubs and Diamonds, and denies Spades which partner “may” have.

(1♥️) - Double - (2♥️) - Responsive Double

Maximal Double

A Maximal double is made by either side in the auction as a type of weak own suit rebid most commonly used in the situation when your side has already agreed on a Major-suit fit in a competitive auction. Since Opener’s rebid is the earliest this call as defined could be made it is not alertable.214 It typically is made as a rebid by whichever partner first bid the agreed Major suit. It occurs in the situation immediately after their partner supported that Major using a raise or some other call and the intervening opponent has bid after that support. In other words it is the following auction sequence, usually at a low level, somewhere after first bidding a Major:

Example: call Supporting your Major - (interfering Bid) - Maximal double

It is used to distinguish stronger rebid calls which indicate a Major-suit game try in your agreed suit, from this weaker call which keeps the bidding level lower suggesting being merely competitive at the 3-level. The Maximal double shows an original weaker suit or hand where the supporting partner should only bid game if they have maximal support [hence the name]. Otherwise the supporting partner can compete but generally should sign off at the 3-level.

As another example, some pairs agree that any low level double made by Opener is Maximal regardless of the auction sequence. It thus is agreed to mean a Maximal double whether or not Responder supported their opening suit, and whether or not that suit is a Major. Thus Opener can show game “interest” with this double in a competitive auction with a weaker opening suit or hand without raising the bidding level, while also warning Responder to bid game only if they have maximal support. [I recommend indicating this specific variation in the Other field at the bottom.]

Support Double

A Support double, and possibly Rdbl (redouble), is made by Opener as a rebid to support Responder’s new suit. Just like Negative and Responsive doubles, use the following field labeled Thru to indicate the highest interfering bid (or bid which was doubled) of which the partnership agrees to make a Support double (or redouble). (Partnerships generally only agree to, and check, redouble if they also check this conventional double.) While these two doubles are printed in red on the previous Form, as noted in the recent update to the ACBL’s Alert Procedure: “Support doubles and redoubles no longer require an Alert”.215 (The updated Classic Form now prints the boxes for both these conventions in black.) This double is used by Opener in the situation when Responder bids a new suit (usually a Major) after which the intervening opponent bids (or doubles).

Examples:

1♥️ - (Pass) - 1♠️ - (2♦️);
Support Double

—OR—

1♥️ - (Pass) - 1♠️ - (Double);
Support Redouble

Opener’ double (or redouble) now shows exactly three-card216 Support [hence the name] for Responder’s new suit, i.e. Spades in the above example. So Responder probably should only proceed to game in this suit if their suit is 5+ to ensure an 8-card suit. This provides a call by Opener which takes up no bidding space but shows “some” Major suit support but warns it is only three card support.

TakeOut Double Style

The T/O Style (TakeOut double Style) field defines a forcing “opening” double made by a defending opponent as a Direct Overcall, and is not alertable.217 This one field now can identify the specific agreed style of the takeout and thus replaces the two specific “Card-showing” and “Min Offshape T/O” boxes on the previous Form. This field should summarize the partnership’s general agreements of their conventional meanings of a direct overcall double intended as takeout. [Non-double overcalls such as Direct OVERCALLS, NT OVERCALLS, and DIRECT CUEBIDS are described in their own Sections. Separate agreements about Direct Overcall Doubles of higher level openers are described in the vs Preempts Section.]

Generally a takeout double as an overcall is either the very first call of the opponent following the Opener:

(Open) - Takeout Double

—OR—

Pass - (Open) - Takeout Double

or the very first call of the unpassed opponent following the Responder when the partner following Opener has passed:

(Open) - Pass - (Bid) - TakeOut Double

It could even occur if the Opener was third or fourth hand where the doubler had originally passed:

Pass - (Pass) - Pass - (Open);

Takeout Double

Thus the situation of this Overcall is the first non-Pass call made by the opposition partnership.

The ACBL standard definitions218 of the forcing takeout double by Overcaller expects Advancer to bid if the next hand passes, i.e. to “take out” its penalty affect [hence the name]. It shows either simply the strength of a strong hand without promising support for all unbid suits, or more typically shows “some” length in at least two of the three unbid suits with only at least opening strength. Overcaller clarifies that this shows the strong hand instead of merely length in the unbid suits by a later rebid of their own suit, which shows a stronger hand than just overcalling their own suit in the first place. Some specific partnership agreements to mention in this field include the two takeout meanings that were boxes on the previous Form: simply “Card-showing” doubles, and “Min. Offshape” doubles with hands that are less than opening strength. [I note that the old Bridge Bulletin article219 describing that previous Form’s “Min. Offshape” box indicates experienced players consider this type of double to be poor.]

Other Doubles

Finally the Other field is used to enter any agreements of other (alertable) types of conventional doubles. This should include any agreed non-Penalty unexpected low level double, especially if it may appear to be one of the above five non-penalty conventional doubles but whose agreed meaning is other than the expected standard meaning.

SAYC includes agreements to only a few of these conventional DOUBLES. SAYC does not include doubling for penalty at a low level so the Penalty box is not checked. Thus any low level double is agreed to only have the meanings marked. [Doubles of Opening NT bids are described in the vs 1NT Opening Section.] SAYC also does not include Responsive, Maximal, or Support doubles/redoubles so those boxes and their fields are left empty.

The Responder’s Negative double is defined220 in SAYC as in use Thru 2♠️ interference and promising (at least) four cards in an unbid Major, so that box is checked and the level entered. Its meaning is the typical agreement mentioned above with its three negatives. (This weaker negative double is useful in SAYC because actually responding a Major at the two level or higher is agreed to show 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.)

The T/O Style field shows that an SAYC takeout double221 is the first non-Pass call made by the opposition of an opening partscore suit bid (of 4♦️ or lower). In SAYC the takeout double overcall normally shows222:

 • shortness in the suit(s) bid by the opponent(s), and

 • reasonable support for the unbid suits, and

 • roughly the equivalent of a direct overcall hand as this is the first non-Pass call of the partnership. The better the shape, the less is needed in terms of high card points.

A takeout double followed by a rebid of one’s suit instead shows a strong hand, and is stronger in SAYC223 than a Direct Overcall of that suit as that overcall could be a few as 8 points. There now might not be support for the other unbid suits.

As an Other agreement SAYC also defines a special double224 versus an opponent’s two-suited conventional bid (vs 2-suit conv), such as an Unusual 2NT jump or a Michaels cuebid. That double simply shows 10+ HCP, generally balanced (bal), with no better bid. As noted in the doubles overview, if this double is made against a low-level bid (e.g. made before Opener rebids) the double is alertable.

This direct OVERCALLS Section defines bids in a suit made by an opponent directly over a 1-level Opening bid. [Direct overcalls which are NT OVERCALLS, DIRECT CUEBIDS and DOUBLES for takeout are described in their own Sections. Overcalls of higher level openers are described in the vs Preempts Section.] This Section has several additions from the previous Form, and now also incorporates jump overcalls which was its own separate area on the previous Form.

As further described below, at minimum the pair of fields on the first and second lines should show the agreed HCP ranges of a non-jump overcall made at the one- and two-level, and the New Suit line should show the agreements concerning that Response to an overcall. Marking any of the remaining fields in this Section is only required if the partnership has agreements about making any of these other overcalls and responses.

Overcalls

The pair of fields on the first and second lines indicate the HCP range of making a non-jump overcall which can still be at the 1-Lvl (one level) versus a non-jump overcall having to be made at the 2-Lvl (two level). Check Often 4 Cards if the overcall suit is often bid with only four cards, as otherwise length 5+ is generally assumed.

The boxes for Jump Overcalls indicate their agreed strength of being either non-alertable Wk (Weak) [typically 4-11 HCP226], or the alertable meanings227 of Int (Intermediate) [generally 10-15 HCP] or Str (Strong) [higher minimum as defined above]. If a partnership agrees to never make a jump overcall then all boxes could be left blank.

Finally if a partnership has any artificial Conv (Conventional) agreements about jump overcalls, which therefore would be alertable, that box should be checked and their meanings should be summarized in this field.

Responses

Responses to overcalls which are made by Advancer (partner of the Overcaller) are often a topic with a wide variety of agreements. [Responses to opening bids are documented in the Sections with those opening bids.]

Again since most partnerships are likely to overcall in some auction, at least the agreement of the nature of a response which is a New Suit should be checked, such as: F (Forcing), NF Const (Non-Forcing Constructive), strictly NF (Non-Forcing), or even an announceable Tfr (Transfer228).

Likewise the strength of any agreement for a Jump Raise by Advancer of Overcaller’s bid suit can be checked as one of the common and non-alertable levels showing some extra value than a single raise: Wk (Weak, but usually preemptive), Mixed (single raise values with extra trump), or Inv (Invitational strength).

The agreed meaning of any artificial Cuebids by Advancer which are Responses to the overcall should be entered, including cuebids which are jumps e.g. “(1♦) - 1♥ - (Pass) - 3♦”. The Support box should be checked if the response cuebid generally (or also) indicates support of Overcaller’s bid suit. Since Advancer is bidding after both the Opener and Responder have bid, any cuebid response by Advancer is not alertable.229 [Most common meanings of a response by the Advancer that is a cuebid of a natural bid is showing either some type of support and/or strength230, or possibly the unbid suits. For meanings of cuebids which are direct overcalls instead of responses to overcalls see the next Section DIRECT CUEBIDS.]

Finally any Other artificial alertable conventional agreements for overcalls, or responses to overcalls, should be described in this field.

SAYC defines a 1-Lvl (one-level) direct OVERCALL of a suit on the Yellow Card231 as a “simple overcall” limited to 8-16 HCP (where a direct Takeout Double and then bidding the suit being stronger). If made as a reopening or “balancing” bid SAYC says232 it “can” be lighter, but there will not usually be a game. The SAYC book233 suggests that a major-suit overcall “may” be only 4 cards. But this would be with a rare holding of exceptional quality, so I do not check the Often 4 Cards box as this SAYC wording implies it would not be “often”. Consistent with 2-Lvl (two-level) bids in SAYC generally implying at least 10 points, a two-level suit overcall typically shows234 10-16+ HCP and a suit of at least five cards.

Jump Overcalls are checked Wk (weak) as SAYC defines235 them as “preemptive” and intending to show the same shape and value as an opening at the level which is bid, such as a weak two-bid or a 3- or 4-level preempt. This definition is also reflected in examples in both the SAYC booklet and SBwSAYC.236 Therefore only one meaning of an initial jump bid whether opening or overcalling needs to be remembered for both bidding situations. I am unaware of any other special Conv (conventional) agreements in SAYC for a suit overcall, so that box and field is left blank.

Responses

If the immediate Response to an overcall by an Advancer (partner of the Overcaller) is a New Suit, in SAYC it always denies a fit.237 If Advancer is a passed hand their strength is already limited. So with Opener and partner showing about opening points, most agree a new suit in this situation which denies a fit is generally a desperate offer of an alternative trump suit and would be NF (Non-Forcing).

However the strength of an unpassed Advancer is not yet limited, so that New Suit response is F (Forcing) in SAYC. Since the strength agreements are different for these two situations I probably “could” check both the F and NF boxes. However I choose to record the agreement for the passed hand here and thus only check the NF box. I then identify the unpassed hand’s different agreed meaning for this response in the Other conventions field below because it also allows indicating the amount of the force.

In SAYC the Jump Raise response to a suit overcall is checked Wk (weak) as its agreement238 shows only 6-10 HCP and preemptive support [4+ trumps]. With both Opener and Overcaller bidding it is more likely that Advancer is weak but willing to preemptively interfere.

In SAYC a Cuebid of opener’s suit is normally the only forcing response to partner’s suit overcall. Its agreement239 is generally 1RndF (Forcing one round) showing Support for partner’s suit (so that box is checked) with Limit Rs (limit raise) or better (10+ HCP) strength, and asking240 the overcaller to show the quality (i.e. minimum, or 11+ points) of their overcall with their rebid.

The Other field indicates the SAYC agreement241 about the case noted above of an alternative New Suit response by an unpassed Advancer. This response still denies a fit and is searching for a better contract, but is now 1RndF (Forcing one round) as Advancer’s hand strength is not already limited.

DIRECT CUEBIDS are direct overcalls of an Opening 1-level bid which now bids Opener’s suit, e.g. (1♥️) - 2♥️. [Direct OVERCALLS, NT OVERCALLS, and DOUBLES as overcalls for takeout are described in their own Sections. Overcalls of an opening bid above the 1-level, including overcalls which are direct cuebids, are indicated in the vs Preempts Section.] If a partnership has no agreements or intentions for making a direct overcall by bidding the same suit as the Opening whatever its meaning, then there is no need to make any entries in this Section. However I suggest such a partnership enter something like “No Agreements” in the bottom Describe field.

As partnership agreements of the meaning of a direct cuebid overcall versus (Vs) an Opening could depend upon the meaning of that Opening bid, there are several COLUMNS on this new Form to indicate that Opening’s meaning. These columns of boxes permit there to be different agreed meanings for direct cuebid overcalls depending on the meaning of the opening. Note that the Art (Artificial) and Quasi (Quasi-Natural) meanings of 1-level openings are only attributable to 1♣️ and 1♦️ openings. [Whether that minor opening is Artificial or Quasi-Natural should be clear from its required alert, and possibly its pre-alert, as noted in the MINORS Section Overview. Further the “Art F” box should be checked in that opening’s Section of the opponents’ Form.] Any 1♥️ or 1♠️ Major opening is always treated as Nat (Natural).

The first column deals with an Art (Artificial) 1♣️ or 1♦️ opening whose meaning could be most anything. The actual meaning of the artificial opening does not matter when checking the overcalling partnership’s agreed meaning of the cuebid of that opening. All that matters is that the opening being cued is known to be artificial.

The second column deals with Quasi (Quasi-Natural) 1♣️ or 1♦️ openings, which are openings that mean243 either Natural for the minor suit bid or are balanced in at least the manner which meets the definition of the distribution pattern of a Natural NT opening. Again all that matters for checking the meaning of the cuebid of that opening is that the opening is known to be “Quasi”.

The meanings of the openings labeled Nat (Natural) in the third and fourth columns are obvious.

The ROWS of boxes identify three types of possible agreed meanings of the direct cuebid overcall itself. Check the appropriate box to indicate any column’s type of opening where that row is the agreed meaning of cueing that opening.

The first row indicates the Michaels convention which is the most common agreed meaning of a direct cuebid overcall so it has its own row. The ACBL standard meaning244 of a Michaels cuebid is non-alertable regardless of the meaning of the opening it is cueing. It shows a two-suited hand with some Length245 in two of the unbid suits (whether or not the bid suit is natural). At least one of the suits is an unbid Major and the second is either the other also unbid Major or “some” unbid minor. [This agreement is often paired with the Unusual 2NT jump overcall convention which generally shows a two-suited hand of the two lowest unbid suits, where at least one of the suits is usually a minor.]

Example: (1♥️) - 2♥️ shows both a ♠️ suit, and either ♣️’s or ♦️’s.

NOTE: I can find no standard agreement on the meaning (Michaels or something else) of a direct cuebid overcall after opponents bid two suits at the 1-level, so this situation needs partnership agreement. ACBL specifies246 that when both opponents have bid, any cuebid of the same suit as the Opening Bid or Response or in a suit shown by the Opening Bid or Response is not alertable. [Whatever is the agreement after two bid suits probably should be indicated in Describe and be different than the agreed meaning of a paired Jump to 2NT overcall convention after two 1-level bid suits.]

Example:

(1♦️) - Pass - (1♥️) - [2♦️ or 2♥️]

shows???

or worse:

(1♥️) - Pass - (1♠️) - [2♥️ or 2♠️]

shows??? as this second auction cannot be Michaels as there is no unbid Major!

The second row indicates the meaning of the cuebid is Natural. Since an artificial or quasi-natural 1♣️ or 1♦️ opening is commonly short in that bid suit, desiring to overcall that suit as Natural, which results in a direct cuebid overcall, is also considered likely. Such a Natural cuebid is non-alertable over those openings.247 But a Natural direct cuebid overcall of a Nat (Natural) opening is unexpected and thus alertable248 as such a cuebid would normally be expected to be artificial.

If an agreed meaning of the direct cuebid overcall is neither Michaels nor Natural, then check Other in the third row, summarize its meaning in the red underlined field labeled Describe, and alert the overcall at least over Natural openings. An example common alertable agreement is for the cuebid to mean an artificial Strong Takeout. (This Other row replaces the Strong T/O row on the previous Form to indicate an agreement of this specific artificial meaning. That Form had black boxes for this convention versus all openings, but now has red boxes on the updated Classic Form versus natural bids like this new Form to show it is alertable).

Finally any direct cuebid overcall which is a jump, e.g. (1♥️) - 3♥️, is non-alertable249 whatever its meaning or the meaning of the opening, but I suggest its meaning should be indicated in the red underlined field labeled Describe.

SAYC indicates that a DIRECT CUEBID overcall [not a cuebid response showing support of partner’s overcall] of a 1-level bid is a one-round force. When opponents have bid only one suit (including an opener and a raise) it is agreed to mean the standard Michaels cuebid showing a two-suiter.

Example:  (1♥️) - 2♥️ —OR—
(1♥️) - Pass - (2♥️) - 3♥️

SAYC defines250 the minimum Length required for this cuebid overcall convention as showing at least 5-5 in the two suits, and specifies the two suits and strength as: the two Majors and 8+ points if cueing a minor, or the other Major and an unspecified minor and 10+ points if cueing a Major since the response is likely forced to a level higher.

Several responses by Advancer to a Michaels cuebid are defined251 in the SBwSAYC book. For example Advancer with no support for any unbid Major and support for the unbid minor(s) may bid an artificial 2NT over the cuebid to ask for partner’s minor. [The book notes that if the auction is beyond 2NT as in the second example above, if partner cuebid a minor Advancer should simply bid the one unbid minor with support. If both minors are unbid (since partner cuebid a Major) Advancer bids 4♣️ which partner may correct to ♦️’s.] For direct cueing SAYC does not distinguish between natural or artificial meanings of the Opening suit being cued. Thus the Michaels boxes are checked for all columns.

While some partnerships agree to define Michaels as a “mini-maxi” bid252 where a rebid by the Overcaller will clarify whether it is weak or strong, maxi is not included in straight SAYC. This overcall is generally near the minimum required for the level of the bid. While Michaels is typically used over a 1-level Opening, SAYC even includes the agreement253 of this convention as a direct overcall defense of a preemptive opening, e.g. (2♦️) - 3♦️, as is also noted in the Defense vs PREEMPTS Section.

Cue when Two Suits were bid

As noted above SAYC explicitly defines using the Michaels cuebid when opponents have bid only one suit. Further SAYC does have a defined agreement for the special case of cuebidding one of opponents two bid suits: the meaning254 of that direct “cuebid” overcall is Natural in the bid suit for either suit the opponents bid regardless of that bid suit’s meaning.

Example:

(1♣️) - Pass - (1♦️) - [2♣️! or 2♦️!]

Cuebidding either bid suit is agreed to mean Natural. The cue is alertable if the meaning of the bid suit is natural.

Being able to have the cuebid of one of opponents’ two bid suits (whether a Major or a minor) to show that bid suit as natural at this low level in the auction is often useful as either of the opponents’ two bid suits may be short or artificial. Since this bid’s natural meaning is now not an expected artificial cuebid and thus is altertable if the cued suit is natural, a check of Natural in all columns indicates the existence of this situational agreement which is explained in the Describe field.

In the example above of two bid minors, although the unbid suits are both Majors and thus a Michaels “could” show “at least” one unbid Major, SAYC instead has this Natural cuebid agreement. But a defined SAYC overcall can be used to show a two-suited hand of those remaining two unbid Majors. The artificial Unusual 2NT direct jump overcall convention is defined as showing the two strictly lowest unbid suits, and in the above example auction the Majors are the only two unbid suits and thus are the lowest. Like Michaels, SAYC’s use of the Unusual 2NT also shows those two Majors as at least 5-5.

This Section defines the agreements for Style (length and strength) for Opening PREEMPTS at the 3-Level or 4-Level. (For two-level opening preempts see the area in the 2Level Section describing opening two diamonds/hearts/spades.) Typically, these higher level opening preempts promise a hand below normal opening strength with a seven-card or longer suit. Obviously if a partnership has no agreements or intentions for making high level preempts nothing need be marked in this Section. However I suggest such a partnership enter something like “N/A” in the Style field for both levels.

Suit quality and length needed for such a bid can depend on the Opener’s seat and vulnerability (Seat/Vul). The Style field for each of these two auction levels should note the partnership’s agreed general preempting philosopy as well as any dependency on seat or vulnerability at that level.

There are also fields to indicate the agreed meanings of Resp (Responses) to each level of these openings. A raise below game is expected to be non-forcing, thus an agreement of a below-game raise that is either invitational or Forcing is alertable256, although it may be a delayed alert. Typical forcing responses could be a natural new suit, a control bid showing support, or even ace- or key card-asking. If a response by an unpassed Responder of a new suit below game is agreed to be non-forcing, then it is alertable257 as such a response is expected to be Forcing for an unpassed Responder with an unlimited hand.

The 4♣/4♢ Tfr box should be checked if a partnership has the agreement that opening bids of 4♣️ and 4♦️ are transfers258 to 4♥️; and 4♠️, respectively. This convention is called Namyats [Stayman spelled backwards].

For either of these three and four level opening bids if there is a second way to show the same suit at the same level,259 or if they have an agreed meaning other than a natural preempt, they are alertable and the agreement should be summarized in the red underlined field labeled Other.

Since SAYC defines a 2-level preempt opening as having a six-card suit of reasonable quality, these higher level opening PREEMPTS are normally expected to have a suit even longer. As the SBwSAYC book suggests260 they will ideally show a decent seven-card suit at the three level, with eight cards or fewer losers at the four level, and generally two out of the top three or three out of the top five honors in the suit, with most of the points of the hand in that suit.

SAYC states261 that opposite an unpassed partner, the suggested strength of a 1st or 2nd seat three- or four-level preemptive opening, assuming likely distribution of the remaining cards in the suit, depends on vulnerability (/Vul):

 • unfav (unfavorable) vulnerability: Sound [within two tricks of the bid]

 • = (equal) vulnerability: Equal [within three tricks of the bid]

 • fav (favorable) vulnerability: Light [within four tricks of the bid].

If opposite a passed partner made as a 3rd or 4th seat reopening or as “balancing” preemptive opening it still depends as above on vulnerability so is marked “all seats/” for “Seat”, but SAYC indicates262 it “can” be lighter than those guidelines although there will not usually be a game.

The SAYC System Booklet is silent on Responses to these higher level preempts but the SBwSAYC book’s chapter describing responses for three-level preempts263 indicates any raise is non-forcing like for a 2-level preempt, and generally should be passed, where 3NT is to play. Partner is taking control with any other bid. Four-level preempt responses are not mentioned in either SAYC reference other than the common bids over any suit bid which would suggest slam, such as ace calls.

[Note that SAYC defines a direct jump overcall at these higher levels as showing the same shape and value264 as defined above for a preemptive opening of that suit at that level. Therefore only one meaning of a jump bid when opening or overcalling needs to be remembered for both bidding situations.]

This NT OVERCALLS Section is nearly identical to the previous Form. I believe most partnerships will need to complete at least the first two lines of this Section to indicate the HCP ranges and Systems On agreements for these two most common auction situations where this overcall is made. If there are no unusual or other agreements for NT overcalls, no other entries are required.

It should be noted that for both Direct and Balance Natural NT Overcalls ACBL now has fewer restrictions on their meaning, hand shape, minimum HCP strength, and range than are required for a Natural NT Opening. For example neither the minimum HCP nor the width of the range is explicity restricted for either NT Overcall, although it may be alertable. In addition neither range requires an announcement so the fields are not underlined in blue. Further neither of the two Natural NT Overcalls any longer266 have the same shape (distribution) requirements to match a Natural NT Opening. Essentially the partnership now simply needs to agree that the shape of any hand used to bid a Natural 1NT Overcall suggests267 playing the final contract in NT.

The Open and Open+ Charts do not allow268 an Artificial direct 1NT overcall after a Natural suit opening bid unless it shows one of the following. By inference I presume bidding a 1NT overcall with any of the specified hands would be considered Artificial and thus would be alertable. As a corollary I presume that a direct 1NT overcall under any chart may not be considered Natural if the bid explicitly has any of the following agreed precise meanings, even if the bid suggests playing the final contract in that denomination.

 • A Strong hand; or

 • At least three cards in all of the unbid suits; or

 • At least 4-4 shape in two known suits; or

 • At least 5-4 shape in two suits, at least one of which is known.

The Direct 1NT overcall agreed HCP range should be entered in the fields. However the overcall could be agreed to show less than 10 HCP and/or a range greater than 5 HCP, neither of which are permitted269 for a NT opening. Note that the Bridge Bulletin article for this Section of the Form states: “…most people play that a direct seat overcall of 1NT shows just what it would if you opened a strong notrump” thus suggesting agreeing to a similar range and even a similar shape. However I also believe that many partnerships agree to a range a little bit wider and higher than an opener, and possibly also agree for it to show some strength in the Opener’s suit(s). But note that while allowed, a Natural direct 1NT overcall made over either a Natural 1-level opening, or a Quasi-Natural 1-level minor opening, whose range does not show at least 14 HCP is alertable270 when bid. Since I do not believe this weak Natural 1NT overcall qualifies as a “conventional” bid I would not check the Conv box below. But while I also do not believe it is explicitly required I would recommend entering a note in the red underlined field after that box like “weak NT range”, not only as a courtesy to the opponents but also as a partnership reminder when reviewing the card that this is Alertable.

Check Systems On if the partnership agrees to use some form of Stayman and/or Transfers271 as Responses to this overcall.

Neither this nor the previous Form has fields to indicate the agreed responses to any NT overcall, whether direct or balancing, nor which System responses are On. Note that the Convention Charts allow272 any artificial response, and the Alert Procedure indicates a Stayman response to the overcall is expected273 and thus not alertable. Therefore I presume that the responses, systems played, and the systems that remain On “versus” which interfering calls, would be expected to be the same as those entered in the One No Trump Opening area of this Form. Otherwise I believe some indication of any differences should be noted in this Section.

As for ACBL restrictions on a balancing seat274 (Balance) 1NT overcall, in Basic chart events275 all Natural calls are allowed, and in Basic+ chart and higher events276 all calls are allowed whether Natural or Artificial. Like for a direct 1NT overall the agreed HCP range for this overcall in this situation should be entered and may be different. In contrast to a direct overcall I believe many partnerships would have agreements that after a one-level opening bid by LHO followed by two Passes, a 1NT overcall made in the balancing seat could have a lower minimum and probably wider HCP range, and even a more flexible shape. In this auction where opener’s partner did not respond it is likely that defender’s partner has “some” values thus encouraging a competitive balancing bid. As above check Systems On if the partnership agrees to use any System conventions such as Stayman and/or Transfers277 as responses to this overcall.

Some partnerships have Conv (Conventional) agreements for either a Direct or Balance 1NT overcall, or both, which mean something other than a natural balanced 1NT hand. A common example is “sandwich notrump” overcall generally showing a two-suited hand of the remaining two unbid suits after the two opponents have bid two suits at the one level and partner has passed. This is often used to show those two unbid suits when too weak to either bid a takeout double or to use the direct Jump to 2NT overcall showing unbid suits described below. Check this box to indicate such an alertable artificial conventional agreement. The field following the Conv check box should be used to indicate the meaning of such artificial NT conventions. It can also be used for a note about any Natural NT overcall which still requires an Alert, such as a weak HCP range mentioned above. For this reason I have made the field next to this box underlined in red on my modified versions of this convention card Form since most entries will be alertable.

The direct Jump to 2NT overcall over a natural 1-level bid, often called the Unusual 2NT, is a convention whose purpose is to show a two-suited hand containing the 2 Lowest Unbid suits where usually at least one of the suits being shown is a minor. [It is often paired with the Michaels direct cuebid overcall convention which shows a two-suited hand of two unbid suits where at least one of the suits being shown is a Major.] Check its box only if the agreement for this 2NT jump overcall is the non-alertable278 ACBL standard meaning279 of showing a two-suited hand of lengths at least 5-4 in the two strictly lowest unbid suits. Typically this convention is agreed to show a distributional weak hand, around 9-12 HCP.

Note that when either minor is the only bid suit, the Spade suit as the second of the two unbid suits along with the “other” minor cannot be shown with this 2NT Jump’s standard strictly “lowest” meaning. This limitation is generally not an issue as most partnerships prefer to first overcall a 4 or 5+ card Spade suit at the 1-level, which generally denies a 4+ Heart suit, with the possibility of later showing the “other” minor.]

I can find no explicit agreement on the meaning of a two-suited Jump to 2NT overcall after opponents bid two suits. The Bridge Bulletin article about this Section of the Form indicates bidding this conventional jump overcall in this situation would simply show the two remaining unbid suits. This makes sense to me as they now are the two strictly “lowest unbid” suits. [If the two suits bid are both minors this agreement now allows showing both Majors. Further it also now allows a bid of one of those minors to have an agreed different meaning (such as Natural) than its probably expected Michaels direct cuebid meaning.]

Example: (1♦️) - Pass - (1♥️) - 2NT

generally agreed to show at least 5-4 in both ♣️’s and ♠️’s

or even: (1♣️) - Pass - (1♦️) - 2NT

agreed to show at least 5-4 in both ♥️’s and ♠️’s

If the Jump to 2NT overcall is over a natural bid but does not mean the two strictly Lowest Unbid suits then this box should not be checked. This unexpected meaning for that overcall is alertable and should be entered in the Other field below. For instance if it means a natural 2NT Strong hand (e.g. the equivalent of a 2NT opening) that meaning should be entered in the field and it is alertable.280 Other examples include agreeing to show the lowest and highest unbid suits, or always the minors whether or not a minor was the opening. For example a 2NT jump overcall of a natural minor opening which is agreed to explicitly mean both minors is altertable since it is showing a “bid” suit. (The previous Form included a box labled Minors in black for a common agreement of showing those two suits regardless of the opening suit or whether it was natural. The updated Classic Form now prints that Minors convention box in red as alertable since it does not always mean the two strictly Lowest Unbid suits over a natural bid, and can imply a bid suit.)

But note that if the one-level opening is Artificial, or a Quasi-Natural minors bid (see the MINORS Section Overview), the 2NT jump overcall can remain not alertable281 as long as the agreed meaning does show a two-suited hand of some two suits. The agreement should always show the same explicit meaning for the two suits which might not mean the lowest unbid two suits. It might mean something like the “other” unbid minor and “some” other suit, or some other pattern, and even might always simply mean two unknown suits. For example a Jump to 2NT overcall of a Quasi-Natural minor opening now could be agreed to explicitly always show both minors regardless of which was bid. Even though now not alertable, I think such a “non-lowest unbid” meaning should still be indicated in the Other red underlined field.

For any Other agreements of non-standard meanings of any NT overcall use the field provided to explain and alert.

For NT OVERCALLS the SAYC Direct 1NT overcall is defined282 as a NT balanced hand, preferably with a stopper in opponent’s suit(s), with a 1 HCP wider and higher max 15-18 HCP range than the 15-17 HCP range for an opening 1NT. None of the SAYC references make any distinction on their meanings about whether the opponent’s bid(s) are natural, artificial or Quasi-Natural for these overcalls. SAYC does specify283 that the only conventional response agreed is the Stayman 2♣️ (thus not including transfers). Since there is no place to define which Systems On are agreed I add this system limitation to the Conv field associated with the 1NT overcalls.

SAYC defines284 the reopening or Balance 1NT overcall range of 10-15 HCP as much less and wider than a normal 1NT opening’s range. While not explicitly mentioned I presume the responses and Systems On are agreed to be the same as the direct overcall.

In SAYC the agreement285 about a direct overcall Jump to 2NT (Unusual 2NT) convention is the standard meaning of the 2 Lowest Unbid suits, so that box is checked. But identical to SAYC’s required lengths shown by a Michaels two-suited cuebid overcall, SAYC also requires lengths of the two suits shown by the Jump to 2NT to be at least 5-5. The SAYC defined responses286 by Advancer to this conventional overcall will show a preference for one of the unbid suits, and/or some level of strength of the Advancer’s hand.

SAYC explicitly limits the Michaels convention to a cuebid of one bid suit, but the SAYC references are silent on any restriction or agreement for the meaning of this Jump to 2NT after opponents bid two suits. However I presume it retains its agreed meaning to show at least 5-5 in the two remaining (which are the lowest) unbid suits whatever they are. This agreement is even suggested in the Bridge Bulletin article about this Section of the Form and described above. [I find it especially useful after opponents bid two minor suits to have this Jump to 2NT meaning show the two lowest (remaining) unbid suits (i.e. the Majors), where some systems might instead use a Michaels cuebid. This allows SAYC when two suits are bid to define a cuebid overcall as Natural in either suit.]

Example: (1♣️) - Pass - (1♦️) - 2NT

Agreed to show at least 5-5 in both ♥️’s and ♠️’s

Confusingly the SAYC references seem to disagree on the system’s meaning of the Jump to 2NT overcall of a 1-level opening when in balancing seat.

The only mention of the 2NT jump overcall on the Standard Yellow Card is the two-suited bid mentioned above, and the System Booklet’s mention of that jump cited above does not mention it as different for balancing hand. The System Booklet’s only mention287 of a balancing hand suggests to me that the 2NT jump overcall would retain its two-suited meaning: “A reopening bid means much the same as a direct seat bid, though it can be lighter at the minimum end.”

In contrast the SBwSAYC book explicitly claims288 (with bold italic print) that this overcall is now Natural:

“However, a jump to 2NT in the balancing seat is not Unusual Notrump. This shows a balanced 19-21 HCP.”

Further the book explains289 in the Summary of that chapter that this bid shows “a hand that would have opened 2NT.” While this adjusted range matches the Booklet’s suggestion of being lighter at the minimum end than a normal 2NT opening, I cannot find either this changed meaning or its range mentioned in the System Booklet. Further I believe being dealt such a strong hand following an opener, even in balancing seat, would be rare. As a result I do not believe this changed meaning qualifies as “strict” SAYC. Instead to show a 16+ strong hand (which would include this book’s proposed 2NT jump hand) the System Booklet suggests290 overcalling with a takeout double followed later by a rebid (e.g. NT). This seems to me more obvious and easier to remember than a changed meaning of the 2NT jump bid. Further I believe still being able to give partner a choice of two suits with one bid in balancing seat is likely more useful. Thus I did not include this alternate balancing seat strong meaning in this example Form, and leave it up to partnership agreement.

Finally, except for possibly requiring mention of the weaker natural meaning for Jump to 2NT in balancing seat to follow the SBwSAYC book’s suggestion, I am unaware of any other SAYC agreements which need to be mentioned in the Other field.

This vs 1NT OPENING Section is for indicating a set of conventional direct overcalls as a defense versus a 1NT opening. If the partnership has not agreed to use any defensive set of artificial overcalls versus that opening then I do not believe there is a requirement to make any entries in this Section. However in this case typically a Double means Penalty and all other overcalls mean Natural. As a courtesy to the opponents I suggest entering those (default) agreed meanings in the first column of this Section as versus “All” instances of this opening as shown in the SAYC example.

This Section is virtually identical to the DEFENSE VS NOTRUMP Section on the previous Form except for the addition of the line to also define the meaning of a 2NT overcall. Because many partnerships agree to play different defensive systems depending on the nature of the 1NT opening bid, there is a ‘Vs’ field at the top of each of the two columns where two different natures of this opening bid can be entered which would trigger the two different defenses described. Typically these ‘Vs’ entries indicate strength such as two HCP ranges, or simply two terms like Strong and Weak, but can even be two different situations for bidding the overcalls like Direct and Balance, etc. If the partnership has only one agreed system only the left-hand column need be filled out and it should probably be headed with the ‘Vs’ entry “All”. The Form provides no way to indicate the agreed strength of any of these overcalls.

While there is no field defined to enter them, many defenses to a 1NT opening have explicit names such as Astro, Brozel, Cappelletti (aka Hamilton or Pottage), DONT, Landy, Meckwell, etc. Do not simply enter the agreed convention’s name on the Form, instead indicate that convention’s meaning of every possible overcall listed. [However, I choose to also try to fit an abbreviated name of the defense in parentheses at the top in the Vs field as an courtesy to the opponents, e.g. “Str (DONT)” as shown in the SAYC example.]

For each listed overcall over 1NT, from Dbl (double) thru 2NT, indicate the agreed meaning of that interfering overcall. Note that even if this low-level overcall double [see the DOUBLES Overview] has the natural meaning of Penalty it is not292 alertable versus this opening.

This Form has no fields for indicating responses to these defensive overcall conventions as they will vary significantly depending on the agreed convention and overcall meanings.

Any meaning of an overcall other than Natural, or a meaning of a natural call which also indicates293 some information about a suit other than the one bid, is alertable. If there are other conventional overcalls agreed to be used over 1NT they should be indicated in the Other field and are also alertable.

The above two images of this vs 1NT OPENING Section are different examples of recording defensive meanings of overcalls to this specific opening. These examples demonstrate the two extremes of entries. First using only the SAYC defined agreement where all overcalls have their default Natural expected meanings, and second having two different system agreements, DONT and Cappelletti (Capp), each used based on two different strengths, Strong (Str) and Weak (Wk), of the 1NT Opening.

The Standard Yellow Card defines294 all overcalls of a 1NT opening as natural. The SAYC System Booklet does not even mention and, as the SBwSAYC book295 indicates, SAYC does not officially include any defense vs 1NT OPENING. The first example image documents this (lack of a convention) agreement which is what I include in my straight SAYC example Convention Card. It shows that versus ‘All’ 1NT openings a Double means Penalty and all other overcalls mean Natural. None of these overcalls with these meanings require an Alert. Even though these entries simply reflect having no defensive convention, rather than leaving the Section blank I recommend entering them on the Form (as is done on the Standard Yellow Card) for clarity to the opponents.

Adding one or more defensive system

Many partnerships ultimately discover that there is considerable defensive advantage to interfering between the opponent’s natural 1NT opening (or natural overcall) and their partner’s very informative conventional responses. Since most 1NT bids indicate above average HCP, most defenses define interfering calls which instead show distributional hands of one or two specific long suits. The second example image above documents agreeing to use two such distributional conventions which both fit well with the SAYC system: the Disturbing Opponent’s NoTrump (DONT) defense versus a strong (Str) NT Opening, and the Cappelletti (Capp) defense versus a weak (Wk) NT Opening. [When I played with an advanced partner we had this agreement of these two conventions as shown, which seemed to work well together.] Either or both conventions can be agreed as part of a straight SAYC system since as mentioned above it permits adding defenses.

The widely described DONT distributional defense was developed by Marty Bergen296, endorsed by Larry Cohen297, recognized as commonly used by ACBL298, and promoted by several299 on-line sites. Since all its overcalls are artificial including the Double, all are alertable. [Most of my partnerships generally prefer only playing DONT as the meaning of a suit bid includes that suit.]

The popular Cappelletti distributional defense is fully described in a separate chapter300 of the SBwSAYC book as a suggestion for use with SAYC. While it also “could” be used versus ‘All’ 1NT openings of any nature, it is especially appropriate versus weak 1NT openings as it retains the natural (non-alertable) meaning of Double as Penalty which can be appropriate over weak openings. All its other overcalls are artificial and thus alertable.

Since both conventions have the same agreement for a 3-level (3-lvl) overcall as a Natural preempt and showing a 7+ card suit, that agreement is entered “Vs All” in the Other field. However since both can also show a weaker preempt of the same minor suit with the 2♠️ relay, even though Natural these bids are Alertable.301

Any one or two of the many available and well documented conventions mentioned above in the overall description of this Section I believe could be a useful defense as part of straight SAYC. I highly recommend partnerships consider agreeing to use some defense versus a 1NT opening among the many available as an allowed and valuable complement to straight SAYC.

This Vs (versus) TAKEOUT DBL Section identifies Responder’s responses to Opener’s 1-level bid in the special situation when an interfering takeout double overcall is made by the opponent between the Opener and Responder. This interfering double generally indicates that the Overcaller (also) has about an opening hand. With the Opener and the Overcaller both showing opening values the Responder will want to describe their likely minimal hand as completely as possible with this one (probably conventional) response before the opponents interfere with any further bids.

This Section only has fixed entries for responses likely to have special meanings, although any response is now a “free” bid with whatever agreed meaning, such as more than minimum strength, is implied by not Passing. However, I believe most partnerships would likely need to mark their agreements for at least the first three lines.

This new Form has several differences from this same Section on the previous Form. The previous Form had a box to indicate a New Suit response at the 1-level over the double being Forcing yet not alertable, which does not appear on this new Form. ACBL expects a new suit response at the 1-level over an opponent’s double to be Forcing, so no longer provides a box to verify this agreement. Only a non-Forcing new suit response at the 1-level over an opponent’s double is now alertable.303 I presume that if a new suit response does not mean essentially the same as uncontested, or if not forcing at the 1-level, such an alertable response should be noted at the bottom in the Other field.

On this new Form ACBL only provides a box to indicate whether Responder’s 2-Lvl (two level) New Suit non-jump response is also F (forcing) like it is at the 1-level, e.g. 2-over-1. Whether forcing or not, a non-jump two-level response is not304 alertable.

If the New Suit forcing responses are agreed to be based on an artificial Tfr (transfer) response convention, check that convention’s box instead and note in the field the lowest response that will be bid over the double which is agreed to mean such a transfer. Any artificial response which is a transfer requires305 an announcement which names the single specific suit in which the bidder is primarily showing length and to which partner is expected to transfer. As noted in the explanation of a transfer, this announced suit does not have to be the next highest suit. Typically these transfers imply a minimal hand with no support for opener’s suit. (A similar box for checking this advanced convention has been added to the updated Classic Form.)

This very advanced “transfer” convention with several variations often has two different sets of artificial conventional response meanings based on whether partner’s opening bid is a Major306 or a minor307. For both sets only a few of the available responses in order starting with the indicated lowest (including redouble as a potential lowest) are transfers, other responses have other conventional meanings. With an opening Major typically the “lowest response” is 1NT used as the lowest of a set of transfer bids to the available 2-level suits. With an opening minor this “lowest response” is typically a redouble as the lowest of a set of transfer bids to the next available suit. In both cases a bid of an available suit above the lowest within the set of transfer bids is a transfer to that next available, etc. As opener’s suit is not “available” as the next suit this convention generally makes use of the lowest available bidding space and generally insures Opener will be declarer. If playing two sets this can result in two different “lowest” responses which should be indicated the adjacent field. Using the above examples the Tfr field might have: “M=1NT, m=XX”.

Check the appropriate box for the agreed meaning of the strength of a response which is a natural Jump Shift to a new suit: Wk (Weak), Inv (Invitational), or F (Forcing). (See the separate OTHER Section which also documents Jump Shifts and notes that all standard natural jump shifts no longer require an Alert, whether or not in competition and regardless of strength.) If the Jump Shift also shows a Fit for Opener’s suit that box is to be checked and the meaning of the Jump Shift is now artificial and alertable308 as it is also conveying information about another suit, i.e. Opener’s suit, than the one being bid.

Check the “Rdbl: 10+” (redouble: 10+ HCP) box if this response has this natural non-alertable309 agreement of simply showing general strength of 10+ HCP usually with insufficient support to raise. However, check the adjacent Conv (conventional) box instead if a Rdbl response has a specific alertable conventional meaning such as a transfer, or means a different strength than 10+, etc., and explain in the adjacent field.

After the intervening takeout double a jump response of 2NT Over Opener’s 1-level bid is often agreed to have one of two meanings: Nat(ural) or Raise. Which meaning is agreed can differ depending upon whether Opener’s 1-level bid is a minor or a Major suit. If the partnership agreement of the jump 2NT response has one of these two meanings, check the appropriate box specified by the labels associated with an Opening minor and/or Opening Major. Checking Nat (natural) for the jump 2NT response means a natural (and thus not alertable) balanced NT hand. If the meaning of the jump 2NT response is not a natural No Trump but is any type of conventional Raise [such as the Jordan (aka Truscott, or Dormer) convention showing a limit plus raise], it is artificial and alertable. For each type of Opener’s suit this Form also has fields to enter the actual HCP range shown by the 2NT response whichever meaning it has, rather than the previous Form simply indicating a Weak, Limit, or Limit+ strength.

If there are any other agreements or meanings about responses over a takeout double not able to be noted above, such as an agreed meaning of a 2NT jump response which is neither natural nor a raise, they should be identified in this Other field.

Concerning responses vs TAKEOUT DBL over partner’s 1-level opening, the SAYC System Booklet on page 7310 has the general rule that “Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid.” However for responses, separate examples on that page cited below, and also in a list311 under the separate topic heading “When the Opponents Make a Takeout Double” in the SBwSAYC book, suggest several agreements of bids with different meanings for the response than without this intervening takeout double. With two hands at the table already showing opening strength, most SAYC responses focus on preeemptive bids showing length rather than strength. But any response in this situation in SAYC is still a “free” bid which generally indicates 10+ points.

The SAYC agreement for a non-jump response of a New Suit over a takeout double at the one level is312 the ACBL standard non-alertable meaning noted above of forcing with point count not limited. The Standard Yellow Card clarifies313 that response as only a one level force. When made at the 2 Lvl it means314 natural and non-forcing so the forcing box is not checked, and shows only 6–10 points usually with a six-card suit.

SAYC does not include the very advanced Tfr (transfer) convention, so that box is not checked.

The Jump Shift response to a new suit is checked Wk (weak) as SAYC defines315 it as meaning natural, non-alertable, and preemptive, having the same agreed meanings of strength and length for its level as an SAYC weak two-bid or an SAYC preemptive three-bid opening. (For further SAYC descriptions of Jump Shift responses see also the system’s example agreements in the OTHER Section.)

With the above limited strength agreements for both the 2 Lvl non-jump New Suit response and the Jump Shift response, there is no SAYC agreed forcing response above the one level showing 10+ points and Responder’s own new suit. One of the following two SAYC conventions would have to be used to show that strength. With no fit such a Responder would Rdbl (Redouble) as shown below when the Opening bid has bypassed their suit at the one-level. With a fit they would bid the conventional 2NT (Jordon) as shown below. Using either unlimited response they may be able to show their own suit later in the auction.

The non-alertable “Rdbl: 10+” box is checked since the agreed SAYC meaning316 of a redouble response of the takeout double is an invitational 10+ points, probably balanced, and tends to deny a fit. It is used as a general purpose way to show a good hand with no support when no other bid is appropriate. [See also the SAYC example of redouble in the separate OTHER Section.]

The SAYC agreement317 of a 2NT jump response after a takeout double Over partner’s Opening is checked and is usually called the “Jordan” convention. The Standard Yellow Card includes318 identifying that response as a Limit Raise or better. It is artificial and thus alertable as it does not mean notrump but means (only) a limit Raise or better showing 10+ points. The suit length promised is at least the same as for a limit raise (e.g. at least 3+ for a Major, but over a minor typically promises 4 or 5).

The Jordan 2NT jump is similar to, but with a weaker319 minimum than, SAYC’s stronger game force agreement of a Jacoby 2NT jump for an uncontested raise of a Major. With both Opener and Doubler already showing opening strength, SAYC assumes this unlimited Jordan 2NT is a sufficiently strong raise as Responder is unlikely to have a hand with the greater stength shown by a Jacoby 2NT jump.

SAYC defines320 a non-alertable321 Jump Raise response over an intervening double the same as the new ACBL Mixed raise meaning, showing normal single raise values of less than 10 points but with extra trump. This agreement in this contested auction is weaker than SAYC’s normally invitational meaning when an uncontested jump raise. While I have modified the SAYC example Form for both the Minors and Majors Sections’ responses to show this agreement over a takeout double, I choose to also enter this meaning of this jump raise in this vs TAKEOUT DBL Section’s Other field for clarity.

This Section identifies the meanings of specific conventional defensive direct overcalls which are vs PREEMPTS made by an Opening opponent. [General direct OVERCALLS are described in its own Section.] Many of the pre-printed entries in this Section, such as the 2NT Overcall, assume the preempt was only at the two level. Specific defenses versus higher level preempts can be noted in the Other field. The ACBL Alert Procedure is silent on most direct overcalls of a preempt so the default rule323 of non-alertable natural bids and alertable artificial bids applies.

While a partnership may have no special overcall conventions versus an opening preempt, I suggest that at least the second line should indicate the meaning of a Double of a preempt. Otherwise I believe any of the remaining entries could be left blank if the partnership has no agreement about, or does not expect to make, such an overcall versus an opening preempt.

A 2NT Overcall over a preempt could be agreed to be natural or artificial. If natural, indicate the HCP range and which, if any, “Systems On” are agreed as responses to the 2NT Overcall. If the 2NT Overcall is artificial identify its alertable agreement.

The second line defines the special agreed meaning of a T/O Dbl (Take Out Double) as an overcall of an opponent’s Preemptive opening. If its meaning is a non-alertable324 normal Take Out Double enter the highest preemptive bid in the field Thru which a double of that bid would have this meaning. [General DOUBLES for takeout are described in its own Section.] If a “highest bid” is entered in this field to indicate an agreement for a takeout double of a preempt, see also the 2NT Lebensohl Resp below. If doubles of preempts are agreed to be for Penalty and not takeout, check that box instead of entering a highest bid and alert325 that call. If a double overcall has some other meaning than Take Out or Penalty do nothing on this line and enter that agreement in the Other field below.

Checking the 2NT Lebensohl Resp (Response) box defines a specific convention which is only used by the Advancer in this auction when their Overcaller partner makes the above takeout double of a preempt. Therefore checking this artificial alertable agreement only makes sense if the partnership shows it also agrees to takeout doubles of preempts by entering a Thru level in the field above. This conventional response to that overcalling double is often very weak and asks the takeout doubling partner to describe their hand with conventional bids or bid 3♣️ artificial, semi-forcing, and alertable.

A Cuebid overcall of the preemptive suit can have many different agreements, such as stopper-asking or showing a two-suited hand. After a Natural Opening Bid at the 2-level or higher (e.g. a preempt), any direct overcall in the same suit (i.e. a cuebid) or in a suit shown by the Opening Bid, is assumed to be artificial326 so is not alerted. However, if a cuebid of a Natural opening at the 2-level or higher is agreed to be Natural for that suit bid, that cuebid overcall is unexpected327 and is thus alerted. Instead of indicating such a natural cuebid overcall agreement in this field, I suggest it be explicitly indicated in the Other field below to emphasize its unusual meaning. Enter in this field the meaning of any artificial cuebid of a preempt if the partnership has such a specific agreement. [General DIRECT CUEBIDS are described in its own Section.]

Enter the special agreement, if any, of the meaning and strength of Jump Overcalls when over a preempt in the field provided. [The general meaning of a direct jump overcall when not over a preempt is included in the OVERCALLS Section.]

There are many Other conventional artificial and alertable gadgets partnerships can agree to play after a prempt which can be identified in this field, often to show two-suited hands.

Although overcalls vs PREEMPTS require higher level bids, the agreed meanings of most such SAYC overcalls are generally similar, except possibly their strength, to an overcall without the preemptive level.

Concerning the 2NT Overcall the SAYC System Booklet defines328 any notrump overcall of an opening preempt as natural. However the Standard Yellow Card is more specific329 noting that (only) versus a 2-level preempt a 2NT non-jump overcall has a slightly higher and wider 16-19 HCP range than SAYC’s 1NT opening. Concerning responses to that overcall I choose to presume, and enter, what SAYC defines for all NT openings as shown in those opening Sections above: both Stayman and Jacoby transfers, with Systems On the same as the 2NT opening of only over a double.

The SAYC references are silent about a 3NT overcall of a 3-level preempt so I have not entered anything about that on this example Form. However, as an added defense to that preempt I believe it would be consistent with this SAYC defined 2NT overcall being similar to 1NT opening to also define a 3NT overcall as being similar to a 2NT opening but also a higher and wider range like 21-23 HCP. Any such added defense to a 3-level preempt is left to partnership agreements.

The Standard Yellow Card has boxes330 to indicate whether a double as an overcall is takeout versus a weak 2-level and/or a weak 3-level preempt, although neither box is prechecked on that Form. But as is also noted in the DOUBLES Section, in the System Booklet331 a double of any partscore opening of 4♦️ or lower is a Takeout double (T/O DBL). Thus Thru that same auction limit is entered here, and the Penalty box is not checked.

While the overcall can be a takeout double, SAYC does not use the 2NT Lebensohl response by the Advancer partner of a takeout double Overcaller so that box is not checked.

SAYC defines most other overcalls versus a preempt as natural, except for a Cuebid which SAYC defines332 as being its specific meaning of the 2-suited Michaels convention, even in balancing seat.

This Michaels convention is also identified by name on this new Form in the DIRECT CUEBIDS Section. As also mentioned in that Section, for cueing SAYC does not distinguish between natural or artificial meanings of an opening. Thus SAYC agrees that a cuebid overcall versus a preempt of a single suit, e.g. (2♦️) - 3♦️, still means333 showing at least a 5-5 two-suiter where at least one is a Major.

As noted in that DIRECT CUEBIDS Section several responses by Advancer to a Michaels cuebid are defined in the SBwSAYC book. Normally a 2NT response is used to ask for the Michaels Overcaller’s minor. But the preemptive auction with the cuebid is invariably past 2NT and at the 3-level. With no support for any unbid Major and support for the unbid minor(s) Advancer would simply respond334 with the one unbid minor with support, or respond 4♣️ showing support for both minors (if both are unbid) which partner may correct to ♦️’s.

The SAYC System Booklet is silent on the specific situation of Jump Overcalls versus preempts, but most bidding guides suggest “never preempt a preempt”. The standard SAYC agreed meanings of Jump overcalls are preemptive335, showing the same value as an opening bid at the same level, so I entered that meaning in this field for completeness. However to be a jump over a two-level opening an SAYC overcall would probably need to be the equivalent of at least a 3- or 4-level preempt as described in the PREEMPTS Section, where such a hand is likely very rare.

This SLAMS Section is for recording agreements to any of the common conventions and methods intended to lead to a slam contract as well as any other artificial bids associated with exploring for possible slam.

When trying to determine whether to bid a slam contract partnerships regularly use artificial conventions in their bidding. However many of these artificial bids which initiate a slam convention are so common in certain bidding situations that the ACBL has defined such bids, if they have that common agreed conventional meaning, as non-alertable. Even if this initiating conventional bid is non-alertable all subsequent artificial responses to these slam conventions are usually alertable. But since artificial slam biddding is generally made at high levels, ACBL defines most of these alertable responses as qualifying for a Delayed Alert, where their meaning is to be announced during the “Clarification Period” as described in some detail above.

As most partnerships are likely to agree to some form of Gerber and/or Blackwood, at least the appropriate entries in the first two lines should be completed as described below. This entire Section could remain blank if the partnership has no agreements for this Section’s conventions. However I suggest such a partnership enter something like “No Agreements” in the bottom “Other” field as a courtesy to the opponents.

An artificial 4♣️ bid is often agreed to initiate some form of the Gerber Ace-asking convention. Check any or all of the three boxes where you have that agreement. [For example with my current partner we check all three boxes.] The first two boxes are the most common agreements when the partnership’s auction has indicated no trump is the intended strain.

 • Check Directly Over NT if your agreement is that the 4♣️ bid initiates Gerber whenever it is bid directly over partner’s bid of notrump at any level. [Example: A 4♣️ bid by Responder made directly over partner’s opening bid of NT at any level is agreed to initiate Gerber. Or after an auction which begins with some set of bids where either partner now bids NT at any level, a 4♣️ bid made directly over partner’s NT bid is now agreed to initiate Gerber.]

 • Check Over NT Seq if the 4♣️ bid initiates Gerber when the partnership’s auction sequence of bids has indicated notrump is the intended strain for the contract, such as an auction sequence that started with an Opening No Trump, but partner’s last bid is not NT. [Example: After a 1NT opener, the auction sequence includes several non-NT bids such as using conventions like Stayman and Transfers, but now a 4♣️ bid by either partner is agreed to initiate Gerber.]

Since this convention in either of these two situations is so common in the auctions involving notrump the ACBL considers the 4♣️ bid meaning initiating Gerber in these two situations as non-alertable (thus these options are not printed in red).337

Check Non-NT Seq if a 4♣️ bid initiates Gerber Ace-asking after an auction has indicated a suit as the intended strain. Agreeing this meaning of a 4♣️ Gerber bid is unusual, artificial, and thus with this meaning alertable, but it is likely late enough in the auction to be a Delayed Alert. Usually the adjacent red underlined field should have an explanation of when this bid has this meaning, such as agreeing that to initiate Gerber the 4♣️ bid must be a jump following bids which show a fit in a suit (e.g. “Jump w/fit”).

[NOTE: Concerning this specific 4♣️ Gerber entry, there is an ACBL acknowledged error338 in the printing of that option on the new Form. The first two options are not alertable and are correctly printed in black. However the label Non-NT Seq, its check box, and its explanation field should be underlined in red. I have corrected this as shown in the above image on my modified versions of this Form. This option is explicitly indicating agreeing to use Gerber in a Non-NoTrump Sequence, i.e. when neither directly over a notrump bid nor over a notrump sequence. As only those first two uses are defined non-alertable this third artificial bid option with this agreement is alertable, but probably a Delayed Alert]

Whether in a NT or a suit contract, if 4♣️ initiates Gerber asking for Aces, then its set of uncontested artificial responses are alertable but alerts will be Delayed. Its set of four conventional responses identify the number of Aces only, with the agreed meanings: 4♦️ = 0 or 4, 4♥️ = 1, 4♠️ = 2, 4NT = 3. Gerber also defines several artificial rebids by the partner initiating the convention.

The field following the 4♣️ boxes can qualify the Gerber usage, or if no boxes were checked it could identify any other agreement of using 4♣️ as part of slam bidding.

An artificial 4NT bid is often agreed to initiate one of two types of Blackwood conventions asking for a count of Aces, and possibly other high cards, when the auction has indicated the contract is to be in a trump suit. In such an auction ACBL has defined this bid with that agreed general meaning as not alertable (thus its various options are not printed in red).339 Whatever information is agreed that the 4NT artificial bid asks, its uncontested artificial responses are alertable but their alerts will be delayed. Like Gerber all types of Blackwood also define several artificial rebids by the partner initiating the convention.

Check Blackwood if the agreement of the 4NT bid initiates the traditional Blackwood convention, one of the oldest methods to ask for Aces as part of a suit contract. Like Gerber its set of four conventional uncontested responses identify the number of Aces only, with the agreed meanings: 5♣️= 0 or 4, 5♦️= 1, 5♥️= 2, 5♠️= 3.

Check one of the remaining two boxes if the agreement is for an RKC (Roman Key Card) type of Blackwood convention instead of the traditional Blackwood convention. For these types of Blackwood the 4NT bid initiates an asking convention for Aces but also adds a “Key Card” (the King of the trump suit) to the count of Aces to determine the number to respond. Thus for RKC the set of four conventional responses now can indicate a number as high as 5 (4 Aces plus the King). Further, the final two artificial responses in the conventional set also indicate whether or not the partner responding holds the Queen of trumps as a Key Card.

The RKC convention has two different versions (hence the two boxes) which differ only in what the first two responses in the set of conventional responses mean. The four numbers of each convention version’s name refers to the two pairs of numbers shown by their first two ordered responses. The RKC 0314 version’s set of conventional uncontested responses mean: 5♣️= 0 or 3, 5♦️= 1 or 4, then 5♥️= 2 or 5 without the Queen of trumps, and 5♠️= 2 or 5 with the Queen of trumps. Alternatively the RKC 1430 version swaps the meaning of the first two responses, resulting in: 5♣️= 1 or 4, 5♦️= 3 or 0, then again 5♥️= 2 or 5 without the Queen of trumps, and 5♠️= 2 or 5 with the Queen of trumps.

Finally if none of the 4NT boxes are checked, the field on this line could identify any other agreement of using a 4NT bid as part of ace asking or slam bidding.

Control Bids of suits are used to indicate first or second round “control” of that suit. They are a bid of a controlled suit below game after a fit (either for a suit or for NT) has been established and the partnership is committed to game. Because a fit is established the controlled suit should be recognized as artificial and one round forcing. It can indicate an Ace or protected King (or, if in a suit contract, a void or singleton) to “control” whether opponents can immediately run the suit. Record in the field the agreements to show such controls. As noted above while their artificial meanings are alertable, the alert for a Control Bid at any level is always delayed.

The Vs Interference field is used to record agreements on how to respond to indicate the requested Slam information versus (Vs) any Interference by the opponents bidding directly over a bid initiating an Ace asking convention. As a result of that interference the responding partner generally is unable to bid at least some of the set of agreed uncontested conventional responses. The most common defensive conventions insert two artificial calls to communicate two number values as responses to the agreed Ace asking convention being used. An artificial Double can be used over any interferring bid [and Redouble340 over an interferring Double], then an artificial Pass can be used, as these two calls can be inserted immediately following the interference below any other available bids. After these two inserted responses the new conventional response set typically uses the cheapest step bids above the interference to show any remaining values required by the asking convention.

The inserted two responses of the most common defensive convention D0P1 [or R0P1] reflect the names and meanings of the convention: Double[Redouble] indicates zero (D0 [or R0]), and Pass indicates one (P1) respectively for the agreed Ace asking convention. The next cheapest bids are used in a new set of responses to indicate any remaining numbers. As noted in the explanation of Delayed Alerts below, because these two inserted responses are artificial calls they are not delayed and must be alerted when bid.

For Gerber and traditional Blackwood the new conventional set of four responses in a contested auction using this defensive convention now indicates the following number of Aces: Double/Redouble = 0 or 4, Pass = 1, then cheapest bid = 2, next = 3.341 For either version of RKC the new set of four responses typically342 now indicates the following Key Card numbers and meanings: Double/Redouble = 0 or 3; Pass = 1 or 4; then cheapest bid = 2 or 5 without the Queen of trumps, next = 2 or 5 with the Queen of trumps.

Finally the very different DEPO [or REPO] defensive convention versus interference is a much simpler use of these two inserted calls than the above D0P1 [or R0P1] convention. The convention uses only the two inserted responses over the interference: Double [or Redouble] simply means an Even number, and Pass means an Odd number. The response chosen is based either on just the number of Aces, or on the number of Key Cards, according to the agreed Ace asking convention. No other responses are used. So Double/Redouble = 0 or 2 or 4 (Even), Pass = 1 or 3 or 5 (Odd). The advantage of this defensive convention is that because possibly significant bidding space may be taken up by the interference, using only these inserted responses takes up no more bidding space. However the actual number of Aces or Key Cards indicated is less specific, and RKC no longer can show the Queen of trumps.

The Other field is used to record further less common partnership agreements for Slam bidding, such as “serious” or “non-serious” 3NT, etc.

As part of SLAM bidding the Yellow Card343 uses a jump to 4♣️ as initiating the Gerber ace-asking convention only when directly over any 1NT or 2NT opening, response, or rebid by partner. Thus only the Directly Over box is checked. Note that to be a jump it can thus only be bid over a 1NT or 2NT opening so does not initiate Gerber when bid directly over a higher level NT bid. As noted in the 3NT opening Section, a 4♣️ response to that opening is agreed to be the Stayman convention.

The SBwSAYC book344 also indicates the four conventional Gerber uncontested set of responses are used to show the number of aces. A rebid of 5♣️ now asks for the number of Kings, guarantees partnership holds all four aces, and any rebid other than 5♣️ is to play. This is entered in Other.

SAYC also uses 4NT to initiate the traditional Blackwood ace-asking convention when a fit in a suit has been established and the partnership is committed to game. The four traditional Blackwood uncontested responses show the number of aces. A rebid of 5NT now asks for Kings, guarantees partnership holds all four aces, and any rebid other than 5NT is to play.345 This is entered in Other.

In addition SAYC also defines346 a jump 4NT bid which is a direct raise (Rs) of a bid or rebid of 1NT or 2NT as natural and invitational to 6NT, and not Blackwood, so I entered that in the 4NT adjacent field.

While the SAYC System Booklet does not mention Control Bids, the SBwSAYC book347 has a separate section on this topic. I consider this topic a useful system enhancement for bidding. However I believe straight SAYC only permits adding defenses, not adding agreements for new conventional meanings of defined bids. Thus I do not enter anything on this example card for Control Bids. If using this convention I would probably enter in this field something like “after/Fit & GF: Suit=1st|2nd Rnd Ctrl, Slam Inv”.

The SAYC System Booklet is also silent on defensive conventions Vs Interference of slam bidding, but the printed Standard Yellow Card348 clearly includes the D0P1 convention as part of the system versus interference of either Gerber or Blackwood. While not otherwise mentioned it would seem consistent to also include its R0P1 companion convention introduced later in time than this card as it is essentially the same defensive convention as D0P1 and is described in the SBwSAYC book.349 Because I believe straight SAYC permits adding defenses, I have entered both350 on this example.

SAYC defines351 a jump to 5NT (and some non-jump 5NT bids when the auction is at the five level) as “Grand Slam Force” so that agreement is also entered in Other.. Partner is to bid a 7 of the agreed suit with two of the three top honors (A, K, or Q), otherwise bid only 6. As noted below concerning Delayed Alerts all these artifical responses to an ace call convention are alertable but are delayed to the Clarification Period, so I added reminders of that when reviewing the Card.