1D:2C 2H how much?

[jillybean]

Hi, easy question....

 

1♦:2♣

2♥

 

How much does opener need for her rebid?

 

(I'm going back to read the thread on reverses yet again)

[SoTired]

what system?

[jillybean]

sayc!

[helene_t]

I think the SAYC papers say it's a full reverse. Most people play it slightly lighter, say 15+ or maybe 14+.

[jillybean]

(I'm going back to read the thread on reverses yet again)

Oh, these auctions were deliberately excluded during the discussion on reverses. Mike, we need another thread. Please!

[SoTired]

Personally, when I played SAYC or Std American, I played this sequence showed no extras. It seemed silly to me that a 2N rebid showed a min, but the cheaper 2M rebid showed extra strength. If you play this reverse shows extra, then if opener cannot support clubs, opener may only rebid only 2D or 2N, making it harder to find a 4-4 major fit.

[Flame]

In standard 2M is GF. With min bal you should bid 2NT and with unbalance bid 2D.

Not showign your 4 card M isnt a problem since with 10-11 5m4M partner suppose to bid the M so if he got 4M he is 12+ and can bid 3M over 2NT.

The problem is that if 2NT shows 12-14 responder with 11-12 hcp will have to guess wather he should pass or bid 3NT.

[jillybean]

If I were making the rules I'd like

 

1♦:2♣

 

2♦ poor hand, minimum

2nt good 13-14

2♥/♠ forcing but could be min 5♦/4M

3x game forcing

[pbleighton]

I rarely play SAYC any more, but I do play this in 2/1, where I play 1D-2C is F1:

2D, minimum, unbalanced, NF (could be a 4441 shape)

2M: unbalanced, GF (14/15+)

2NT: 12-14 balanced, NF, doesn't promise stoppers

3C: 4+ clubs, NF

3D: GF, 6+ diamonds

3M: splinter in support of clubs

3NT 18-19 balanced

 

Peter

[the hog]

Personally, when I played SAYC or Std American, I played this sequence showed no extras. It seemed silly to me that a 2N rebid showed a min, but the cheaper 2M rebid showed extra strength. If you play this reverse shows extra, then if opener cannot support clubs, opener may only rebid only 2D or 2N, making it harder to find a 4-4 major fit.

With all due respects this is totally illogical. Why is it harder to find a 4M fit? After a 2D rebid responder simply bids her Major. What IS poor imo is if the reverse does NOT show extra values. How can you possibly show extra strength in the minimum slam zone area?

[mike777]

Will let others explain sayc.

 

If 2/1, ongoing debate, but I expect responder to very often have the stronger hand so I just rebid my shape even with a dead minimum. In your example 5-4 shape, no extras promised, can be dead minimum.

 

Responder assumes I have a minimum at this point.

[pbleighton]

If 2/1, ongoing debate, but I expect responder to very often have the stronger hand so I just rebid my shape even with a dead minimum. In your example 5-4 shape, no extras promised, can be dead minimum.

 

Mike, when you play this is 1D-2C forcing to game?

 

Peter

[mike777]

If 2/1, ongoing debate, but I expect responder to very often have the stronger hand so I just rebid my shape even with a dead minimum. In your example 5-4 shape, no extras promised, can be dead minimum.

 

Mike, when you play this is 1D-2C forcing to game?

 

Peter

100%

 

Long one suited minor invite hands are the system hole.

At the table we bid 1nt or 2nt with those.

[the hog]

A question for those who "rebid their shape even with a dead minimum." How do you distinguish a 17/18 point hand from a 12/13 point hand? If you say you will bid on after partner signs off in game, don't you find that you often get to a non making 5? If you don't bid on don't you find that you can miss a fitting slam when pd has a nice 14-15? What do you do, wink at pd when you have the strong hand? That doesn't work with screens, ;-)

[mike777]

A question for those who "rebid their shape even with a dead minimum." How do you distinguish a 17/18 point hand from a 12/13 point hand? If you say you will bid on after partner signs off in game, don't you find that you often get to a non making 5? If you don't bid on don't you find that you can miss a fitting slam when pd has a nice 14-15? What do you do, wink at pd when you have the strong hand? That doesn't work with screens, ;-)

No way I am missing slam if I got 17-18 as opener and partner makes a forcing 2/1 bid. As I mentioned I expect responder to have the bigger hand very often.

 

Partner does not make a 2/1 on a normal 13 hcp. That is only an invite hand for us. (see system hole)

Keep in mind opener dead minimum that partner assumes can be:

xx...AJxx...AJxxx...xx

 

If I got 17-18 I have an easy bid on hand. ;)

 

As I said those playing sayc can explain how they do it.

[awm]

Well this is a reverse (it is higher than the cheapest rebid of opener's suit) so should show extras. Probably extras in an SAYC 2/1 auction means enough for game, so around 15 is enough.

 

The SAYC documents are actually somewhat ambiguous about the 2NT rebid; there are clear indications that 2NT can be a minimum, that 2♣ is the normal bid by responder with a game-invitational balanced hand and no major, and that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing since responder promises a second call.

 

It seems most playable (to me anyway) to have a simple rule that in a 2/1 auction, opener should never bid past two of her original suit unless holding game values; and rebidding two of the original suit does not promise extra length or shape. Under this approach 1♦-2♣-2♦ could still be a three or four card suit, and 2♥,2♠,2nt,3♣ are all forcing. I know this is the way Eddie Kanter used to play back in the days when not-always-game-forcing 2/1s were more popular in expert circles.

 

As to what one would assume in a pickup partnership, it's anybody's guess.

[mikeh]

Warning: the following discussion is not entirely suitable for the B/I thread ;)

 

The rebid issue after 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical quagmire in standard methods. Established expert partnerships usually develop special agreements for it. I know of several approaches: Richie Riesig has a good one. My preference is actually close to what JB suggested.

 

I use the 2♦ rebid by opener as essentially a noise: it may well only be on a 4 card suit, if opener is unable to make any other call within the confines of the method. This is, obviously, less than perfect, but there is no perfect, simple method here.

 

2Major is about a King more than a minimum... so, say a working 15 count, and guarantees 4=5 or better shape.

 

2N is balanced, with both majors stopped, and at least 2♣s. It does not deny a 4 card major, but if we have one, we are 4432 shape with a weak notrump hand.. this way, if responder reverses into a 4 card major at the 3-level, and catches opener with a raise, a lot is known about opener's hand (and opener can cue en route to 4Major with some hands)

 

2♦, the catchall, is not necessarily a minimum, alho as a matter of practice it often is, if bid with only 4 or 5 ♦s.

 

For those who play that opener should rebid a 4 card major on all habds possessing one, some my objections have already been voiced by earlier posts.

 

If we are playing SAYC, then 1♦ 2♣ has not yet established a gf. We need some way of doing so, and it will sometimes be opener who has to make that announcement. Since 2♣ promises 10+ hcp, it makes sense that opener have 15 or the playing equivalent to gf.. and this is one very cogent reason why opener's rebid of 2Major should show that strength: it creates a gf. If it did not, then the partnership will often be floundering on the next round. Responder, with gf values and a strong ♣ suit, cannot rebid 3♣ over 2major, if 2major could be a minimum, since opener may pass.. so does he have to invent an abominable 4th suit forcing?? Imagine: 1♦ 2♣ 2♠ 3♥.... with 3♥ a noise... we have destroyed an enormous amount of bidding space and yet have exchanged very little information!

 

Now, playing 2/1, particuarly a style in which 2♣ is gf, at least eliminates that difficulty. But 2/1 has its own areas of difficulty: especially with strong but not huge hands facing equally strong but not huge hands. Thus it is not uncommon for 2/1 players to reach 3N with 16 opposite 16, when opener was offshape for 1N (if playing strong notrumps). 1♦ 2♣ 2♠.. .if responder knows that this promises extras, then he will not be afraid to probe beyond 3N... and 3N is a kind of bidding trap for bridge players with no major suit fit. If 2♠ is wide-range, then responder will be leery of reaching 4N on 12 opposite 16... yes, it may make, but the cost of going down 1 in a voluntarily bid 4N makes most of us cringe.

 

I could go on... but I have some work to do.

[the hog]

The Poles have an interesting treatment for 2C over 1D. As Mikeh mentioned, this is unsuitable for this forum, so I will post it in the Expert forum.

[jillybean]

The rebid issue after 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical quagmire in standard methods. Established expert partnerships usually develop special agreements for it.

Hi Mike,

 

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

 

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

 

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

[Winstonm]

The difficulty in SAYC is that a 2/1 response does not promise enough combined values to make game an expectation. Therefore, some type of accomodation must be made by opener, assuming partner has a minimum 2/1, to create a game force when extras are held.

 

The solution is to have reverses show enough opening strength to create a game force opposite the minimum 2/1 response.

 

The other problem is how to stop when the combined assets are insufficient to produce a reasonable game. IMO, the best solution is to assume that a 2/1 bid is forcing to 2N or 3 of opener's suit, hence responder must bid once more unless opener makes a minimum-showing rebid. This allows 4441 to open 1D and rebid 2N passably with a minimum opposite a minimum, and thereby retaining 2D as at least a 5-card suit.

 

One of the weaknesses inherent in SAYC is the necessity to jump bid to create game forces, wasting room, but due to the reasons for utilizing 2N as weak and passable (if you open a 12 pt weak NT 1D and get a minimum 2C response, 2N is the place to play most likely.)

 

The question of the 1D-2C-3C is that it should be a 1-round force - else it becomes too convoluted to play - not ideal as you may reach 4C with no play, but then these are some of the weaknesses that 2/1 attempted to eliminate - which it did, but created a whole new set of problems in doing so. :P

[kenberg]

Playing 1D-2C-3C as passable is pretty awful. It follows that when playing SAYC the raise of 2C to 3C has to show something beyond a dead minimum since the 2C bid might well be on four cards and 11 points (bidding 2N over 1D shows 13-15 balanced in SAYC so with four clubs and 11 points the call must be 2C).

 

It's a mistake to try to pin down SAYC with great precision (I know Caitland has a book on SAYC. I haven't read it and am not prepared to argue about her recommendations. By SAYC I mean the brief exposition on the acbl website). SAYC is meant to allow pick-ups to play together without ending up in a 3-2 trump fit through gross misunderstanding. It's a mostly natural system that provides reasonable bids for frequently occurring situations.

 

SAYC, for example, provides no forcing minor raise. A real bummer on some hands, so we punt when this comes up. There are other impossible situations as well. But after 1D-2C I don't (usually) have that much trouble in SAYC. With a minimum hand I just try to do something that won't get partner excited. Repeat three times to yourself "I am not playing an advanced scientific system" and make the best bid possible with the system you have. I would say that this means going easy on trotting out a 2S bid. Rebidding 2D or, if you cannot stand that, bidding 2N should be best. Partner can bid his four card major if he has one.

 

In 2/1 systems, whether 1D-2C-2M does or does not promise extras has the nature of a dogmatic religious debate with true believers, heretics, infidels, the whole array. I prefer that it does promise extras.

[mikeh]

The rebid issue after 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical quagmire in standard methods. Established expert partnerships usually develop special agreements for it.

Hi Mike,

 

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

 

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

 

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Sorry, jb, but in my view, this is 'terrible' :P

 

Most (I would say 'all' but experience shows that this would be an overbid) require some degree of extra values for a minor suit raise. The problem is that you have to be able to create a force, when you hold a fit and some extra values, below 3N: the most likely game.

 

This constraint, of staying below 3N on good but not huge hands (on huge hands, we can, in a well-designed method, force beyond 3N right away because we will be able to stop in 4N or 5 minor when slam proves too much), means that we need a way to show a fit and create a force, and the default method is the single raise.

 

This, in turn, means that we cannot/should not raise to 3♣ on mediocre hands with 3♣s.

 

Now, I am not a fan of SAYC or similar systems, in part because the methods force you into all kinds of distortions with various not-especially-rare hand types, this being one of them. So what do you bid with, say KJx xxx AKxx Qxx?

 

Some would say that you have to rebid 2N: an ugly choice: imagine partner with Ax Kx xxx AKJxxx: now we have wrong-sided 3N: we will still make much of the time, but it is frigid from partner's side.

 

My preference, as described earlier, is that 2♦ is a 'noise', a 'mark-time' bid, denying the ability to make a more descriptive systemic bid. This is not ideal, and others have developed other compromises.

 

BTW, while I dislike SAYC, it would be naive to think that any system has yet been invented, or will ever be invented, that is free from the need to create kludges to ameliorate similar issues.

 

Going back to where I began, 'extra values' can be in the form of shape as well as or instead of hcp.. but remember that responder will often be bidding 2♣ on some fairly flat hands and modest hcp... partner has no forcing ♦ raise and may have a hand just a bit too good for 1N and not good enough (not the right stoppers, for example) for 2N.

[mike777]

Hi, easy question....

 

1♦:2♣

2♥

 

How much does opener need for her rebid?

 

(I'm going back to read the thread on reverses yet again)

If you are going to play soundish openings, I think 2H needs to show extra, above soundish.

That means 2D rebid can be a very wide range...minimum or extras.

[jtfanclub]

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

 

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

 

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

 

If 2NT promises 10-12, that should work, I suppose, but if it promises 13-15 as Yellow Card seems to have standard you're going to be in a world of hurt sometimes.

 

I play 1♦-1♥-2♥ as 4 card support or 3 with a singleton (or other ruffing value). I play 1♦-2♣-3♣ as showing the same level of support. So I might have only 3 on rare occassions, but if I'm going to play in a 4-3 fit at the 3 level, there'd better be a good reason!

[jillybean]

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

 

Thats a different auction altogether 1♦:2nt for me promises 11-12 and probably both majors stopped or else better than 11-12. (edited)

 

Im not sure where the 4-3 fit comes into it, 1♦:2♣ promises 5 for me or a better hand and we'll play in ♦ or nt.