I am repeating this question here from the MSDE topic

I have found a problem when linking a SQL Server 2000 table that contains an
auto incrementing integer into Access 2002 via ODBC. Access identifies this
field correctly as an "autonumber" field. However, when I add a record to the
table, I get an ODBC error that mentions a "Cast" error. In other words, the
ODBC driver is translating the field from SQL server (via Cast type
function?) but Access thinks that the number can exceed the limit of an
autonumber and we get the error. The only work around I have found so far is
to link access to a table with the same name and ODBC connection, but where
the SQL Server field is just an integer. Access then translates the field as
a long integer. Then I replace the SQL table with the one that has the
incrementing integer field, but don't refresh the link to Access. Records can
now be added and edited in Access without a problem. Anyone seen this bug?

Please do not post the same question in multiple newsgroups. Asked and
answered in msde.

--Mary

On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:35:33 -0700, "Monte"
<Monte@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I am repeating this question here from the MSDE topic
>
>I have found a problem when linking a SQL Server 2000 table that contains an
>auto incrementing integer into Access 2002 via ODBC. Access identifies this
>field correctly as an "autonumber" field. However, when I add a record to the
>table, I get an ODBC error that mentions a "Cast" error. In other words, the
>ODBC driver is translating the field from SQL server (via Cast type
>function?) but Access thinks that the number can exceed the limit of an
>autonumber and we get the error. The only work around I have found so far is
>to link access to a table with the same name and ODBC connection, but where
>the SQL Server field is just an integer. Access then translates the field as
>a long integer. Then I replace the SQL table with the one that has the
>incrementing integer field, but don't refresh the link to Access. Records can
>now be added and edited in Access without a problem. Anyone seen this bug?