Rich People have their troubles

[Kalvan14]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakjtxhqjdkxckjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1S - (P) - 2C - (P)

??[/hv]

 

System is SAYC. Make a bid.

 

Now change slightly the hand, moving a small card from Clubs to Diamonds. Is it a different bid?

[temp3600]

I would bid 3NT at Matchpoints with both hands. (at IMPs, 4C with the one displayed and 3NT with the second one)

[pbleighton]

An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner.

 

If the hand was 5233, it's tougher, and depends on what 3NT means (it has no defined meaning in SAYC). I think that the best meaning of 3NT is 18-19 balanced. If you don't have this agreement, then 3C is probably best, but see above.

 

Editorial: SAYC has its flaws, but in practice they are considerably magnified by the fact that most people who play it don't understand it.

 

Peter

[awm]

Well, Elianna and I play more or less SAYC, and for us this is an easy 3♣ call (natural and GF). Move one card and I'd bid 2NT (natural and GF). Both these calls should be forcing as responder promises a rebid.

 

Of course, most people who play standard american (and many who claim to play sayc) do not consider those rebids forcing. In that case I'd have to bid 4♣ and 3nt respectively, which seems like pretty awful methods to me. :)

[ArcLight]

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

 

What are forcing bids under SAYC? (I'm never sure.)

[pbleighton]

"What are forcing bids under SAYC? (I'm never sure.)"

 

Every rebid short of game is forcing. The rebids are not defined, however.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

 

What are forcing bids under SAYC?  (I'm never sure.)

Lord only knows...

 

Playing traditional SAYC, the 3♣ raise probably isn't forcing...

The 2♣ response does not promise enough strength to force to game

The raise to 3♣ promises a minimum opening...

Ergo, the 3♣ raise shouldn't establish a game force

 

In practice, very few SAYC players have actually bothered to learn the system and prefer to project their own prejudices regarding what is right and proper onto this pathetic excuse for a bidding system...

 

For example, lets looking onto the 2♣ response in a bit more detail:

In theory, the 2♣ response promises a rebid...

Accordingly, after the 3♣, responder is forced to either introduce a new suit at the three level, bid 3N, or raise to 4♣. In short, you're only way to stop short of game is bidding 4♣...

[EricK]

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner

 

What are forcing bids under SAYC?  (I'm never sure.)

Lord only knows...

 

Playing traditional SAYC, the 3♣ raise probably isn't forcing...

The 2♣ response does not promise enough strength to force to game

The raise to 3♣ promises a minimum opening...

Ergo, the 3♣ raise shouldn't establish a game force

 

In practice, very few SAYC players have actually bothered to learn the system and prefer to project their own prejudices regarding what is right and proper onto this pathetic excuse for a bidding system...

 

For example, lets looking onto the 2♣ response in a bit more detail:

In theory, the 2♣ response promises a rebid...

Accordingly, after the 3♣, responder is forced to either introduce a new suit at the three level, bid 3N, or raise to 4♣. In short, you're only way to stop short of game is bidding 4♣...

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

 

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

 

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

 

Eric

[pbleighton]

From the SAYC booklet:

 

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

 

So 1S-2C-3C is forcing, not that most people play it this way.

 

I play an F1 5cM system, where all rebids after 1M-2x are forcing except 1M-2x-2M. 2M is a minimum which wouldn't accept an invite to 3NT, and is frequently 5 cards. 2NT is a minimum balanced GF (we play a 10-13 NT and open 5 card majors in it), and 3NT is 18-19 balanced.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

 

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

 

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

 

Eric

I'm sorry... I could have sworn that the original post specified that they were playing SAYC...

 

Let me quote from the ACBL's description of SAYC

 

In the section documenting "RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1H OR 1S OPENING"

 

Opener's rebids are natural and standard.

 

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):

Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level;

Raising responder's suit at the cheapest level (this can be done

with good three-card support if desired);

Rebidding a new suit (but not reversing);

Rebidding opener's suit at the lowest level

 

I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

 

1. A pathetic bidding system

2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system

[pbleighton]

Richard, let me repeat:

 

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

 

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~arudys/bridge/yellow.html

 

This is in the "Subsequent Bidding By Responder" section, which is after the section you quoted.

 

I don't like it, I don't play it, but that IS SAYC.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Richard, let me repeat:

 

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's rebid is at the game level."

 

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~arudys/bridge/yellow.html

 

This is in the "Subsequent Bidding By Responder" section, which is after the section you quoted.

 

I don't like it, I don't play it, but that IS SAYC.

 

Peter

Hi Peter:

 

I should have been more clear:

 

I agree with you that SAYC defines the 3♣ raise as forcing.

However, I believe that it is unreasonable to do so...

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

Playing SAYC. 1S-2C-4C=strong, game forcing with 4 card support. :D

 

Since hrothgar posted that 3C was 13-16, my jump bid must show 17+ and four card support without side shortness. Aren't we describing our hand within a Jack of its value? witp?

 

Assuming I am playing SAYC with a decent player, even playing SAYC I follow classic bidding style of 'bidding' around the clock with side shortness.

 

1S-2C-2red-2NT-4C shows shortness in the unbid suit and shows 4 card support 'if a jump bid.'

 

If partner rebids 3C or makes some other bid that prevents my jump support, the 4C raise still promises shortness in the unbid suit and 3+ card support.

 

I am hoping that the big Ox across from me will cuebid an Ace or make some other smart move. If he trots out old Black(SAYC doesn't play RKC, I trust) I answer Aces. :)

 

SAYC and Goren are not my favorite systems by a very long shot, however, I still try to bid decently using any system with a competent partner. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[han]

This hand smells like 3NT, I'm going to make a forcing 3C bid.

[Fluffy]

Well, Elianna and I play more or less SAYC, and for us this is an easy 3♣ call (natural and GF). Move one card and I'd bid 2NT (natural and GF).

These sounds as french standard :blink:

[EricK]

But 3♣ does not show a minimum for the simple reason that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid. With a minimum hand you must rebid 2♠ (or introduce ♥ or ♦ where applicable) and then show support on the next round.

 

Similarly a 2NT rebid does not show a minimum.

 

Whether you like this treatment or not, it is very useful on this hand - you can simply raise to 3♣.

 

Eric

I'm sorry... I could have sworn that the original post specified that they were playing SAYC...

 

Let me quote from the ACBL's description of SAYC

 

In the section documenting "RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1H OR 1S OPENING"

 

Opener's rebids are natural and standard.

 

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):

Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level;

Raising responder's suit at the cheapest level (this can be done

with good three-card support if desired);

Rebidding a new suit (but not reversing);

Rebidding opener's suit at the lowest level

 

I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

 

1. A pathetic bidding system

2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system

If you bid 2M with the 12-14 hands and raise the minor with 15-16 points you are still bidding in line with that paragraph aren't you?

 

Since the document is deliberately short one has to "read in between the lines" to work out what it really means.

 

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

 

Eric

[Kalvan14]

I was expecting a more unanimous result.

I believe that the issues are: clubs are always a tricky suit; at MP, going beyond 3N may be a disaster.

 

I'm not a specialist of SAYC, and it is quite likely that my considerations are coming from the system I usually play (2/1 - one of the many :blink: ).

 

IMHO, the following should apply:

• 1M-2m-3m MUST be forcing (at least to 4m)
  
• 1M-2m promises another re-bid. I assume that 1M-2m-2N is limited with stoppers in OM/om: as such, I consider possible to pass it. 3m is forcing (as I said before) and any bid in OM/om is clearly forcing. This leaves the auction 1M-2m-2M which is a kind of default bid (since 1M-2m-3m is forcing, it must show extras. All minimum hands with fit in m must rebid 2M (or, rarely, 2N)
  
• The above effective means that a 2/1 in SAYC must be forcing until 2N or 3m (the following auctions might stop before game: 1M-2m-2N; 1M-2m-2M-2N or 3m; 1M-2m-2 (OM/om)-3m [Opener's rebid must not show a reverse].
  

Is anyone in agreement?

 

New question: how do you understand an auction 1♠-2♣-3♥?

 

The discussion is quite interesting. Sometimes i believe that SAYC is not a real system, but rather the Platonic idea of a system. On our fallen world, we always get a distorted reflection: the pure SAYC of the ideas realm is always polluted and demeaned :lol:

[pbleighton]

"Sometimes i believe that SAYC is not a real system, but rather the Platonic idea of a system."

 

It is a real system, but:

a) Many bids are undefined,

:rolleyes: Most people who say they play it don't

 

Playing "SAYC" with a pickup pd, 3C is a "correct" (forcing) but very dangerous, as the majority of people who play "SAYC" play it as non-forcing.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

Whatever floats your boat...

 

I have no interest in arguing about how SAYC should be played.

Its a piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities.

 

Its not "standard": No one has a clue what is/is not part of the system

Its not effective

Its not even easy to play/remember

[gotoshi]

What should beginners learn?

[Fluffy]

What should beginners learn?

Whatever people you can find to be your partners usually play is the best. You need to partne better players to improve

[Winstonm]

I don't play much SAYC, but when I do I have one simple suggestion that seems to increase accuracy: if responder makes a 2/1 he promises another bid unless opener's rebid is precisely 2N. So on this hand I would be free to bid 3C. Notice this agreement is not a game force, but a 1-round force - I don't see the value of playing a system that is designed to allow you to stop in precisely 3-of-a-minor, therefore, if you do raise responder's minor you should hold extra strength or extra shape and not the random 5323 with 3 card support.

 

Without this agreement, I'm going to bid 2D, which I know is forcing and allowing partner to better define his hand before I move again; hopefully, I'll be better placed after his next bid.

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

What should beginners learn?

Bridge - one of the few games you can play for a lifetime - that and Go Fish. :(

[awm]

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

Whatever floats your boat...

 

I have no interest in arguing about how SAYC should be played.

Its a piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities.

 

Its not "standard": No one has a clue what is/is not part of the system

Its not effective

Its not even easy to play/remember

Please, hrothgar, keep your insults to yourself.

 

Honestly I don't find it particularly enlightening to listen to you bad-mouth a system that you obviously (1) have never played and (2) don't really understand. Elianna and I play SAYC with only a few extra gadgets, and do consistently well in regional events (not to mention a respectable showing in the national mixed BAM). We used to play 2/1, and we switched to SAYC because we believe it to be simpler, easier to remember, and more effective. Our subsequent results have basically supported this.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to settle this via the adequate solver's club? So far it looks to me like Elianna and I (playing SAYC) have avoided a bad game that you bid using Moscito, and found a good slam that you missed... not half bad for a pair using a "piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities." Perhaps you will make up some ground on the later boards -- we had a couple near the end where our judgement was not best and we reached sub-optimal contracts, although none where our methods were in any way insufficient to reach the top spot in theory.

[Robert]

Hello klavan14

 

1S-2C-3H*=splinter, 4+ clubs if 2/1 forcing style.

 

In SAYC, majors, 5-5+ game forcing.

 

Hello Winstonm

 

What would you bid over 1M-2D in SAYC? There is no 'other minor' to bid below the 3C level.

 

Your 1M-2C-2D* bid was forcing and playable. :)

 

Regards,

Robert