SAYC Bidding Problem

[inquiry]

And I am stunned, that everyone except

me is bidding.

You do know that a new suit by responder is forcing in SAYC? I mean, we are not making this stuff up.

 

You do realize that if partner doubled 2♦ it would be for "takeout" suggesting 4♥ and longer clubs? So his 2♥ is stronger than the double in theory. And of course, 2♥ is a "reverse" forcing you to go to 3♣ if you like clubs better, so that in SAYC this should be game force.

 

The main issue is: On which hands do you

expect partner to dbl, and on which do you

think he ought to bid.

 

With the given partner hand, I expect partner

to double.

 

I don't worry about the "given partner hand, as I can not see that when finding my bid. But the hand shown is borderline between double and 2♥. It is a double if the 2♣ bidder does not want to force to game, it is 2♥ if he does. For his 2♥ bid he could easily have ♣Ace instead of ♣J and the same hand.

 

I wanna go plus, hence I pass.

 

You may rightful argue, that the above statements

are not valid in your partnership, thats fine with me

and I can understand that you bid on.

 

This really isn't a partnership problem, the question posed was "SAYC Bidding Problem" so SAYC bidding rules apply. I am not that familar with SAYC (although I play it if you hold a gun to my head), but one thing about SAYC is after a 2over1 response, a new suit by responder is forcing, and a responder reverse is forcing to game.

 

One can reasonable argue that partner should have doubled rather than forcing to game with dubious values. That would have worked out ok at imps. But it is not good to pass partners game forcing bids, and in SAYC, I think this one is.

 

Partner could easily have...

 

Ax KQJx void AQJTxxx and how would you feel playing 2♥ (if he will not make strong jump shift with two suiter).

[P_Marlowe]

And I am stunned, that everyone except

me is bidding.

You do know that a new suit by responder is forcing in SAYC? I mean, we are not making this stuff up.

<snip>

Hi,

 

I do, but I do also believe, that this problem is

not a real SAYC question.

SAYC does play a part, in that it makes

openers pass forcing.

Which is not 100% certain in other systems,

since it can be argued, that after a 2/1 response,

which may only be a 1 round force (a la Acol),

openers Pass is nonforcing.

 

I searched for the booklet, to find out, what one

should respond if one holds a 5 card minor and a 4

card mayor and 11-12HCP, I believe one

bids the minor, intending to show the mayor later

without (!) promising add. strength.

 

Relevant example seq. being:

 

1D - 2C

2D - 2H

 

and

 

1H - 2C

2H - 2S

 

I found the following link, but I could find nothing

to back my believes up, but also nothing to the contrary.

 

http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...yc%20booklet%22

 

=> It has to be partnership agreement.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

Actually SAYC is not as mysterious as some seem to think. Quoting directly from the ACBL docment to which P. Marlowe provided a link:

 

"After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing. If the new suit

is the fourth suit, the bid may be artificial/conventional."

 

So it seems clear that the 2♥ call in this auction is forcing. Whether it forces to game or just one round is less clear.... but don't pass it. :D

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would like to add another point:

Relevant in this discussion is also the meaning

of 2NT by either opener and responder, which

cant natural by either opener an responder, since

with a natural 2NT bid both can dbl, suggesting to

play 2Dx.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe