What went wrong

[kgr]

You play SAYC with a pick-up partner.

[hv=n=sqjt3h73dk8ca9853&s=skhat962da93ckj74]133|200|[/hv]

IMPs, All Vul and North deals - opps silent:

P-1♥

2♣-3♣

North should have bid 1♠ iso 2♣, but problem arise after the 2♣ bid:

You play SAYC but as a lot of people play it: a 2/1 bid does not promise a rebid!!

How do you interprete the 3♣ bid here, considering that partner first passed? You could also have passed the 2♣. Does this make the 3♣ bid highly invitational?

After the 2/1 South has enough points for 3NT. Should he bid someting else then 3♣, eg 3♦?

[pbleighton]

"North should have bid 1♠ iso 2♣, but problem arise after the 2♣ bid:

You play SAYC but as a lot of people play it: a 2/1 bid does not promise a rebid!!

How do you interprete the 3♣ bid here, considering that partner first passed? You could also have passed the 2♣. Does this make the 3♣ bid highly invitational?

After the 2/1 South has enough points for 3NT. Should he bid someting else then 3♣, eg 3D?"

 

3C is highly invitational in this auction.

 

South should have rebid 2D, which is forcing, or just bid 3NT, and damn the stoppers.

 

But the real problem is that if North had bid 1S, the auction would have gone 1H-1S-2C-3C-3NT.

 

Peter

[Kalvan14]

I agree: 3♣ is not forcing. OTOH, S had already passed. Can he have much more than this?

 

On the 3rd hand ( :blink: ) S would have been much wiser to bid 1♠. It would have resulted in a much smoother bidding.

[mikeh]

'I play Precision, but for me, 1♣ can be passed': nonsense? Yes, but so is claiming to play SAYC with a 2/1 response (by an unpassed hand) not promising a rebid.

 

However, a 2/1 response by a passed hand should not promise a rebid in my view. It does not deny a rebid: it merely does not guarantee one. Indeed, many players will stretch to make a 2/1 response with a hand with which they would have bid 1N were they unpassed. If not playing drury (as this pair did not), I would respond to a 1♥ opening with 2♣ on xx xx Kxx AQxxxx, whereas I would bid 1N if I were unpassed

 

As it is, the 3♣ rebid by opener was fine: with a minimum he would have passed 2♣, so he shows a useful hand in context. North should realize that he now has a decent hand. I would suggest 3♠, over which partner could upgrade the previously dubious ♠K and bid 3N, or 3N.

 

That is not to say that 3♣ was forcing: in my view it was invitational, and N simply undervalued his hand.

 

To play 3♣ as forcing places too much strain on S. He would have to choose bteween passing and forcing anytime he held an invitational hand. While it is true that there will be hands on which the forcing interpretation will work best, opener can usually find an acceptable force: splinter, jump raise, reverse, etc. BTW, this is especially true if you routinely open appropriate in-range 5332's with 1N rather than 1♥.

[Fluffy]

IMO 2♣ is perfect, 3♣ is forcing also.

[kenberg]

I guess if I held the south hand and if I was told that for some reason raising 2C to 3C is non-forcing I would just bid 3NT over 2C. Partner may have the spade Q, lho may underlead his ace, maybe both partner has the Q and lho underleads his ace, etc. If partner is gong to feel entitled to pass 3C, I think you need to bid a game pronto. 3N sounds the most likely. Of course it may go down, but your agreements require some leaps of faith.

 

mikeh's analysis has a lot going for it, but this is a pick-up. I bid 3NT.

[Codo]

I believe that there is no definition if this is forcing or not.

 

I strongly prefer the treatment, where this bid is forcing, because it makes life much easier .

[mike777]

I believe that there is a definition if this is forcing or not.

 

I strongly prefer the treatment, where this bid is nonforcing, because it makes life much easier.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if 2C does not promise a rebid,

than 3C can not be forcing.

 

If South wants to reach game,

he has to make a stronger move,

... but looking at the south hand,

I dont see an sensible alternative

to 3C.

 

But than, there is no wastage, even

the King of spade is not wasted, so

ignore the missed game, ... espesially

in a pick-up partnership.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: For me 3C would be forcing, but we

dont change our responses, if we are passed

hand, which certailnly is not optimal, .... with the

exception of memory load, which overrules a lot

for me.