SAYC: forcing sequence ?

[at1839]

Suppose you're playing SAYC. Could add, with an occasional ptner, but I'm not interested into a "prudent" bid, just the "right" one. Unpassed hands ...

 

1♦ - 2♣ - 2nt - 3♦ - ??

 

Is ptner signin off? You already limited your hand, but is he inviting anyway? Or maybe asking you to further describe the hand ?

 

Paolo, at1839

 

Edit: Firstly, ty all for comments :)

I'd clear the field from the "inverted minors" thread. It's interesting, but not really relevant.

Reading your comments helped me (hope) to better understand the bidding sequence. I will post a follow up about.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

here the link to the booklet, although it wont help you alot.

http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...tem%20Notes.pdf

 

Playing SAYC, I would treat 3D as forcing, since I fail

in constructing a hand, which wants to sign of after an

intial response of 2C.

With 5-4 in the minors, he should either rebid his 5 card club

suit or he should have made the direct limit raise in diamonds.

With 4-4 in the minors, he should have made the limit raise in

diamonds direct.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

This is a muddy, undefined area of bidding. I don't know how sayc solves this, but there are schemes to bid precisely here.

[bid_em_up]

My vote goes to other. However, most people will treat it as forcing. Technically, the bid shows 10-12 and 4-4 or 4-5 in the minors and probably a major suit stiff. Opener, on a dead minimum, is free to pass. (A stronger hand could always raise to 3N, bid 4D, or bid a new suit).

 

This is one of the flaws in SAYC which many players solve via the use of inverted minors. If you are using inverted minors, 3♦ (after the 2N bid) is essentially a limit raise in diamonds, and a hand that it is not well suited for NT. A stronger hand with a diamond fit could have bid 2D forcing immediately.

[mikeh]

My vote goes to other. However, most people will treat it as forcing.  Technically, the bid shows 10-12 and 4-4 or 4-5 in the minors and probably a major suit stiff.  Opener, on a dead minimum, is free to pass.  (A stronger hand could always raise to 3N, bid 4D, or bid a new suit).

 

This is one of the flaws in SAYC which many players solve via the use of inverted minors. If you are using inverted minors, 3♦ is essentially a limit raise in diamonds, and a hand that it is not well suited for NT. A stronger hand with a diamond fit could have bid 2D forcing immediately.

Many players use a form of inverted minor raises in which the single raise is limit or better. So the inference that the 2♣ 3♦ sequence is limit, since with gf he'd bid 2♦ immediately, is not going to be valid for that population, which is (I think) the standard.

 

For me the sequence as posted has to be forcing, and bridge logic compells us to that conclusion.

 

Firstly, with purely invitational values and the desire to play in 3♦ opposite a balanced minimum, responder can make a limit raise rather than show the ♣s. It will be a relatively rare opening hand on which knowledge of the ♣ suit wil be of great help in deciding whether and where to move over 3♦. Furthermore, responder cannot be sure that he will get a chance to employ this subtle sequence, since opener may make some other call. Were opener to bid 2♦, for example, would 3♦ carry quite the same assurance of real ♦ support and full invite values? A limit raise should raise as soon as possible.

 

More importantly, there will be many strong hands on which responder, over 2N, has doubts. Doubts about the level: game or slam, and doubts about the denomination: ♦'s or notrump.

 

If 3♦ can be passed, then how can responder intelligently bid some good opening hands with 4=5 or 4=6 in the minors?

 

If he cannot bid 3♦ forcing, he must either gamble 3N or commit beyond 3N, via 4♦ (what an ugly sequence that is) or fake a reverse into a short(ish) major at the 3-level and hope to survive the guessing game that ensues.

 

So using the sequence as limit resolves a rare and often insignificant problem while using it as forcing solves common and very important problems.

[kenberg]

As it happpens, I had this auction yesterday. Pick up in the open room, first hand to appear, absolutely know discussion.

 

I took this as a decent hand, warning me off of NT. I held a 3-3-5-2 shape, a 14 count, with the ace of clubs, the ace of spades and Qxx in hearts.

 

So, I think

Axx

Qxx

Axxxx

Ax

 

Either that or close.

 

I considered rebidding 3NT but I figured that would not be listening to what partner was trying to tell me so I bid 5D.

 

Wrong, as partner's diamonds were only Kxx and we had two heart losers. Make one of partner's hearts a diamond and 5D is a better bet than 3N.

 

Anyway, I took it as forcing at least one round and a suggestion we play in a minor rather than 3NT.

 

 

Added: Given my hand, at imps, it seemd likely 5D would be easy, 3NT iffy. But wrong, as I said.

 

Ken

[bid_em_up]

Many players use a form of inverted minor raises in which the single raise is limit or better. So the inference that the 2♣ 3♦ sequence is limit, since with gf he'd bid 2♦ immediately, is not going to be valid for that population, which is (I think) the standard.

 

For me the sequence as posted has to be forcing, and bridge logic compells us to that conclusion.

 

<sarcasm>I guess you missed the part where I said that MOST people will treat it as forcing?</sarcasm> :)

 

I do not like the limit or better version of inverted minors for this reason. Treating an inverted raise as 99% game force (see 1% below) eliminates this problem and allows for much more precise minor suit slam bidding (and NT as well).

 

Firstly, with purely invitational values and the desire to play in 3♦ opposite a balanced minimum, responder can make a limit raise rather than show the ♣s. It will be a relatively rare opening hand on which knowledge of the ♣ suit wil be of great help in deciding whether and where to move over 3♦.

 

Furthermore, responder cannot be sure that he will get a chance to employ this subtle sequence, since opener may make some other call. Were opener to bid 2♦, for example, would 3♦ carry quite the same assurance of real ♦ support and full invite values?

 

Technically, no. Since 2D should be 6+ (but possibly only 5), 3D could be only 3 card support. But with only a limit raise and only 3 card support opposite a hand that just limited itself, pass of openers 2D rebid is always an option (where are you going?). So in your suggested sequence (1D-2C-2D), 3D would/should be forcing, not limit.

 

More importantly, there will be many strong hands on which responder, over 2N, has doubts. Doubts about the level: game or slam, and doubts about the denomination: ♦'s or notrump.

 

If 3♦ can be passed, then how can responder intelligently bid some good opening hands with 4=5 or 4=6 in the minors?

 

If he cannot bid 3♦ forcing, he must either gamble 3N or commit beyond 3N, via 4♦ (what an ugly sequence that is) or fake a reverse into a short(ish) major at the 3-level and hope to survive the guessing game that ensues.

 

So using the sequence as limit resolves a rare and often insignificant problem while using it as forcing solves common and very important problems.

 

While you may feel this way, it may help to explain that most of my partnerships will open 1C on 4-4 minor hands, and bid 4 card suits up the line. We also open 1C on 2+ and 1D is always 4. Now opener is known to hold 4+ diamonds instead of "could be 3".

 

Personally, I think that the use of inverted minors is much better suited for minor suit slam exploration, checking for controls first, stops for NT second, and lastly 5 of a minor although you can stop in 4 of a minor if it is determined that a stop is lacked in a side suit and both hands contain 3 dead cards in the suit lacking a stop. By using it this way, you are never left in doubt whether the bid is "invitational" or whether its forcing. If you have a game force raise (essentially opening hand with diamond fit and no 4+ card major), you start with 2D immediately, since you didnt, it must be invitational and non-forcing.

 

And why is 3N necessarily such a gamble with an opening hand opposite opening hand? We do this all the time....

[mikeh]

 

Technically, no.  Since 2D should be 6+ (but possibly only 5), 3D could be only 3 card support. But with only a limit raise and only 3 card support opposite a hand that just limited itself, pass of openers 2D rebid is always an option (where are you going?). So in your suggested sequence (1D-2C-2D), 3D would/should be forcing, not limit.

<snipped>

And why is 3N necessarily such a gamble with an opening hand opposite opening hand? We do this all the time....

2 points arise (well, more than 2, but these are the ones I am responding to).

 

The first is your suggestion that responder, in SAYC can pass 2♦ with only limit values.

 

Wow. SAYC 2/1 responses by an unpassed hand promise a rebid. So you cannot pass.

 

As to 'where are you going', in SAYC, 2♦ can cover a lot of ground.It can certainly hold enough to make game opposite a limit raise hand. So, once again, the idea of passing 2♦ is nothing short of weird.

 

As for the second point: I suggested that responder needed a forcing 3♦ in order to deal with choice of games or choice of denomination issues, and your response seems to be that responder should not worry about choosing between 3N and 5♦...just bid 3N... we do it all the time.

 

Maybe you do it all the time, but most good players prefer to reach the better game when there is a choice available. Heck, some players have been known to want to reach a good 6♦ when available, rather than 3N. (sorry about the sarcasm, but I couldn't resist responding in kind :) )

 

Qxx Kxx AQxxx Kx opposite x AJx KJx AJ109xx I'd rather be in 6♦ than 3N... as would you, I am sure.

 

Over a forcing 3♦, opener bids 3♥, denying a clear stopper in the other major and off we go... to at least 5♦, which is far better than 3N.

 

However, the same responding hand opposite AKJ Qxx A109x xxx, I'm happy in 3N. If 3♦ is not forcing, tell me how you guess what to bid.

 

 

BTW, your point about 1♦ promising 4 is irrelevant. 1stly, it makes no difference to the auction and secondly this is a post in SAYC, not your own methods.... SAYC stipulates a 1♦ opening on 4=4=3=2, altho I personally share your preference for 1♣ on these hands.

[awm]

Perhaps we should back this up a step. In the auction:

 

1♦ - 2♣; 2NT

 

What did 2NT show? Can responder pass it?

 

This is actually a strange grey area in the SAYC notes. At one point there is an indication that one of opener's rebids "on a minimum" is notrump at the lowest level. At another point there is an indication that "responder's 2/1 bid promises a second call unless opener's rebid is at the game level." And in a third location we have the indication that 1♦-2NT would be forcing to game. If you put these together, it makes no sense because:

 

(1) 2♣ must be responder's bid on a balanced invite with no four-card major, since 2NT would be forcing and no other call is really suggested for responder anywhere.

(2) Opener's 2NT rebid could be on the worst possible opening hand.

(3) Even with the aforementioned balanced invite, responder cannot pass 2NT.

 

So what gives? In my experience the most common rule among strong players who use a basically "standard american" 2/1 style is the following:

 

After 1Y-2X, any rebid by opener which is higher than 2Y (two of his original suit) promises sufficient extras for a game-level contract. Therefore, opener may have to rebid 2Y when no lower call is available, as a "catch-all." This bid does not promise extra length in the first-bid suit, but could conceal quite a good hand not suited for any other call (i.e. extra length in the first suit but not sufficient strength in the suit to rebid 3Y, or a balanced hand unsuited to bidding notrump because of missing stoppers). Responder cannot pass opener's 2Y rebid.

 

Under such a rule, the 2NT rebid already showed extras which eliminates any issues here. Of course 3♦ is forcing. This does leave open the question of whether 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ would be forcing, but if 2♦ didn't promise a fifth or even a fourth diamond the problem becomes easier. An initial 1♦-3♦ is a limit raise, so why would responder start with 2♣ and then raise diamonds with a limit raise, keeping in mind that this can't be "three-card limit" or the like because opener's 2♦ could still be a three-card suit.

 

Anyways you're not going to get an official answer on questions like this one by consulting the SAYC document.

[bid_em_up]

The first is your suggestion that responder, in SAYC can pass 2♦ with only limit values.

 

Wow. SAYC 2/1 responses by an unpassed hand promise a rebid. So you cannot pass.

 

As to 'where are you going', in SAYC, 2♦ can cover a lot of ground.It can certainly hold enough to make game opposite a limit raise hand. So, once again, the idea of passing 2♦ is nothing short of weird.

 

As for the second point: I suggested that responder needed a forcing 3♦ in order to deal with choice of games or choice of denomination issues, and your response seems to be that responder should not worry about choosing between 3N and 5♦...just bid 3N... we do it all the time.

 

Maybe you do it all the time, but most good players prefer to reach the better game when there is a choice available. Heck, some players have been known to want to reach a good 6♦ when available, rather than 3N. (sorry about the sarcasm, but I couldn't resist responding in kind :D )

 

Qxx Kxx AQxxx Kx opposite x AJx KJx AJ109xx I'd rather be in 6♦ than 3N... as would you, I am sure.

 

Over a forcing 3♦, opener bids 3♥, denying a clear stopper in the other major and off we go... to at least 5♦, which is far better than 3N.

 

However, the same responding hand opposite AKJ Qxx A109x xxx, I'm happy in 3N. If 3♦ is not forcing, tell me how you guess what to bid.

 

 

BTW, your point about 1♦ promising 4 is irrelevant. 1stly, it makes no difference to the auction and secondly this is a post in SAYC, not your own methods.... SAYC stipulates a 1♦ opening on 4=4=3=2, altho I personally share your preference for 1♣ on these hands.

Mike,

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Or I havent said it clearly enough.

 

Assume for the moment the auction was 1D-2D-2N-3D. Limit? Forcing? I think it has to be limit for those that play Inverted Raises as "Limit or better". It appears that you are saying that 3D must be forcing? I dont think so.

 

This is not the same auction as 1D-2C-2N-3D. In this sequence, opener has limited his hand, and denied a 6 card diamond suit (and many would rebid 2D not 2N on your suggested hand of Qxx AJx AQxxx xx). He is also balanced in most cases (or 4-3-5-1 and lacking the values for a reverse).

 

To me, it is silly for this sequence to be forcing, WHEN playing G/F inverted minors. A game forcing diamond raise would have bid 2D immediately (not 2C). It also must contain at least 4 and probably 5 diamonds (since the sayc 1D opening may only be 3 as you pointed out.) This is why I was saying that since I open 1C when 4-4, you can make forcing D raise immediately when holding good hand and 4 diamonds, instead of needing 5 as SAYC normally would require. I realize that its not part of SAYC, it was just an explanation of why I treat it this way. Since the immediate G/F raise was NOT made, by default, the sequence is limited. Limited bids are non-Forcing, last time I checked anyway.

 

If you are NOT playing G/F inverted minors, then the sequence should be forcing.

 

Nor is it the same as 1D-2C-2D-3D. Of course, in this sequence, 3D is forcing. A limit raise of diamonds should pass at this point (over 2D), imo, which is what I meant by "where are you going?". Think xx xx KJx AQxxxx. This hand would bid 2C in sayc....but do you really think it should move over a 2D rebid? I dont.

 

The 3D bid cannot be both forcing, and limit at the same time, otherwise, how will opener know which one it is supposed to be?? What is opener to do holding a minimum hand? Pass? Bid on? Who knows?? You cant have it both ways. Yes, you may miss a game by passing the limit raise type of hand after the 2D rebid every now and then. But if you dont pass the limit raise here, then more frequently, you will simply end in 3N/5m going down, imo.

[kenberg]

The post begins "suppose you are playing sayc.." OK, so what is SAYC? There is an acbl write up, and that's it I guess. It seems to me that the purpose of sayc is to allow people to play together without much discsussion, getting to fairly reasonable contracts on most hands. A lot of sequences really are not defined. So we are left with: What sounds reasonable when encountered w/o discussion?

 

To me the auction

1D 2C

2N 3D

Pass

seems weird.

 

 

I can't say it is sayc, I can't say it is not sayc. To me the 3D bid shows values with most of the stuff in the minors. I cannot imagine I would pass. It seems to me that if 3D is raised to 4D, that can probably be passed. If a major is bid over 3D it shows a stopper and if responder now bids 4D then then that can be passed. Sayc seems to me to be "do your best with bids that can be worked out in a simple way" sort of system. No one says it's ready for international competition.

 

If you want definite meanings then discuss them with partner. It will be your extension of sayc. Maybe different from other peoples' extension of sayc.

 

Ken

[HeartA]

Many players use a form of inverted minor raises in which the single raise is limit or better. So the inference that the 2♣ 3♦ sequence is limit, since with gf he'd bid 2♦ immediately, is not going to be valid for that population, which is (I think) the standard.

With inverted minors, there are differences between direct 2D and 2C then 3D. A direct 2D raise shows 4+ cards support, while 2C then 3D guarantees 3-card only. Another difference is, direct 2D shows no interest in other suit contract (D or NT only), while 2C then 3D shows interests in C as well. For example, if I hold ♠?, ♥?, ♦Kxx(x), ♣AQJxx, I would bid 2C and then 3D, inviting game if pd is minimum, and slam in case pd has maximum and support for clubs and controls in majors.

[keylime]

In SAYC with strong NTs, I'd treat this as constructive, but invitational.

 

What some of the posters have glossed over is the fact that inverted minors are not part of the SAYC approach (whether inverted minors are good vs. bad in SAYC and/or 2/1 GF is another topic). Thusly a major component of the answer stems from whether 1♦-3♦ is forcing or invitational. We also must define if 1m-2NT is G/F or invitational as well.

 

With the pickups that I play with around here they tend to treat this sequence as non-forcing, because they want to play 1m-2NT as G/F and 1m-3m as invitational.

[Flame]

IMO this ahould be GF, qith invitational hand you have to find another sequence, just like after 1M-2X-2NT-3M.

however unlike after 1M this isnt slamish at first because after a minor opening there are more better games issuse to solve first.

[at1839]

1♦ - 2♣ - 2nt - 3♦ - ??

 

 

1♦ - 2♣ - 2nt ...

Opener was dealt a balanced minimum. With a medium size, he had opened 1nt. Unbalanced, he had to rebid 2♦.

 

To responder, now, its strenght is already unknow. Whit 10/11 against a balanced minimum, I suppose they need really a lucky day to make 5♦ on a 4/4. For 5♣ to make, responder must have at least 6 of them, I guess, and club's fit.

 

With a nice 12 and up, balanced or semi-balanced, responder will drive to 3nt 365 days a year :) but he did not. Questionnable sentence?

 

Can responder hown a HUGE, slammish one ? Actually I suppose yes, he do. On the end, I play responder for 10/11 barely invitational OR slammish. Not for a flat 3nt board ... Am I bugged? Further comments?

 

Paolo.

[kenberg]

1♦ - 2♣ - 2nt - 3♦ - ??

 

 

1♦ - 2♣ - 2nt ...

Opener was dealt a balanced minimum. With a medium size, he had opened 1nt. Unbalanced, he had to rebid 2♦.

 

To responder, now, its strenght is already unknow. Whit 10/11 against a balanced minimum, I suppose they need really a lucky day to make 5♦ on a 4/4. For 5♣ to make, responder must have at least 6 of them, I guess, and club's fit.

 

With a nice 12 and up, balanced or semi-balanced, responder will drive to 3nt 365 days a year :) but he did not. Questionnable sentence?

 

Can responder hown a HUGE, slammish one ? Actually I suppose yes, he do. On the end, I play responder for 10/11 barely invitational OR slammish. Not for a flat 3nt board ... Am I bugged? Further comments?

 

Paolo.

Suppose you hold a 2-1-4-6 shape with decent values. Partner opens 1D. In SAYC, 3D is invitational and your hand is too strong (not that bidding 3D is that great a bid even if it's forcing). So you bid 2C. Partner bids 2NT. Do you really want to make a unilateral decision as to whether this is to be payed in 3NT or 5D? I would prefer to now call 3D. Partner, with the majors well stopped, will bid 3NT. With weak stops in the majors he will go on in D. This seems like a common enough situation to warrant it being the best treatment. SAYC is, imo, devoted to handling the most common situations reasonably well. The above seems like a fairly common situation. If responder has values but a less shapely hand, he just raises 2NT to 3NT. If he has clubs and diamonds but only invitational values, he raises 1D to 3D immediately. It's when he has clubs, diamonds, and good values that he wants to explore the choice between 5D and 3NT. Even if you are playing matchpoints 3NT is preferable only if it makes.

[jdeegan]

:P Forcing to 4♣. Partner is showing 4-5 or 4-6 in the minors, so he is obviously a bit worried about one or both majors for a NT contract. If you play 3♦ non-forcing, then you are catering to only one rather rare situation.

 

Playing it forcing has more utility imo. The 3♦ bidder can investigate either slam or game depending on his hand strength. Once in a while, 4♦ will go down exactly one trick, but in return you get a flexible tool to investigate an otherwise tricky hand.