3S Forcing or not

[kgr]

SAYC (you have not discussed if a direct 2♠ would be strong or weak):

bidding goes:

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♦)

P-(P)-3♠

or

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-3♠

 

Is 3♠ in SAYC forcing or limit? Do you prefer to play it forcing or limit?

 

My thoughts:

Without the 2♦ bid it could go:

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(P)-2♦-(P)

2NT-(P)-3♠

Showing a GF with 6-card ♠

 

but with the 2♦ bid it will go:

 

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-3♦-(P)

3NT-(P)-..

and you will have to bid 4♠ to show a 6-card.

[temp3600]

The SAYC booklet has this guideline for competitive bidding : "Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid". So in the auction

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-3♠,

3♠ should be invitational.

 

The booklet doesn't say anything about balancing, but I would be very surprised if 3♠ wasn't invitational in the sequence

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♦)

P-(P)-3♠.

It eases the load on the memory, plus responder is likely to have about the same strength in both sequences.

 

There is also X by responder at his second call to consider. Some people use it to show extras without a clear bid (I think it is described as an 'action double'), in which case it gives additional sequences and allows to differentiate more precisely between types of hands :

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-3♠

 

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-X-(P)

2♥-(P)-2/3♠

 

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P)

1NT-(2♦)-3♦-(P)

3♥-(P)-3♠

for example. Some discussion is obviously needed for the partnership here.

Others prefer to have the punitive X still available.

 

I hope this helps.

[helene_t]

I think it should be forcing since a direct 2♠ should be weak. But that isn't SAYC, I know.

[cherdano]

For me, all these bids are invitational.

 

Helene's argument makes sense if you play the jump to 2♠ as constructively weak (4-8), but I guess standard is more like 0-6, in the US at least.

 

Arend