1C-1H-2NT-3C-3H-4C

[kgr]

1C-1H

2NT-3C

3H-4C

is this forcing in SAYC? (..If 3C was forcing?)

[blackshoe]

Hm.

 

"Forcing(F): partner must bid, I can pass next round".

"Forcing one round(F1): partner must bid, I owe him a rebid."

"Forcing to game(FG): nobody passes until game is bid."

"Forcing to game or 4 of a minor(FG/4m): nobody passes until game or 4 of a minor is bid."

 

It might be easier if we knew which one of these (if any) 3♣ is in SAYC. If 3♣ is F1, then 4♣ is not forcing. If it's FG/4m, then 4♣ is not forcing. If it's FG, then 4♣ is clearly forcing. F is less clear, but I think 4♣ is not forcing in that case, too.

 

If 3♣ is not forcing, then imo neither is 4♣.

 

I haven't looked in the SAYC booklet or any other written reference - this is all off the top of my head - so maybe there's some definitive statement somewhere. If so, I"m sure someone will mention it. :P

[gwnn]

I can't find a hand which would want to suggest 4♣ as a final contract to p. It's an unspeakably, amazingly narrow handtype. Actually, it just doesn't exist. Partner could have 3 clubs.

 

4♣=forcing forcing.

[skjaeran]

Playing more or less "standard" methods 4♣ would be a cuebid agreeing ♥'s to me. (3♣ would be some kind of check-back or whatever you'd call it.)

[helene_t]

CBS is not part of SAYC so I suppose 3♣ is NF. Then so is 4♣.

 

If 3♣ is forcing, it should be game forcing. I think it's a cue for ♥. To set clubs as trump, responder jumps to 4♣ over 2N.

[Guest Jlall]

CBS is not part of SAYC so I suppose 3♣ is NF. Then so is 4♣.

 

If 3♣ is forcing, it should be game forcing. I think it's a cue for ♥. To set clubs as trump, responder jumps to 4♣ over 2N.

umm hello, GERBER?!

[skjaeran]

If 3♣ is a natural call it doesn't make sense to me that is could be a sign-off. But suppose it could be. Then the 3♥ bid has to show 3-card support and game interest even opposite a s/o. In this scenario 4♣ should be a stop signal: We play here. I can't imagine playing like this though.

 

Assuming 3♣ is invitational, 3♥ is accepting and showing 3-card support. In this scenario I can't find any meaning for 4♣ at all. The possible bids should be 3NT, 4♥ and 5♣.

 

Assuming 3♣ is gameforcing, 3♥ must show 3-card support and suggest playing in hearts. In this scenario 4♣ say "We should play in ♣s, not ♥'s" and of course is forcing.

[kgr]

Assuming 3♣ is gameforcing, 3♥ must show 3-card support and suggest playing in hearts. In this scenario 4♣ say "We should play in ♣s, not ♥'s" and of course is forcing.

I meant it like that, but I'm used to play that 2NT is GF. That is probably not true is SAYC.

So what is the best bid to set ♣ and be able to RKC in ♣'s afterwards?

[helene_t]

RKC is not part of SAYC. Dono about Gerber :rolleyes:

 

Seriously, 4♣ over 2N could be minorwood. It doesn't make much sense to use 4N as kc ask for clubs, IMHO.

 

But now we're drifting away from SAYC.

[1eyedjack]

From the overview of SAYC in the official booklet:

"Few sequences are defined in the later rounds of “ACBL Standard Yellow Card”

auctions. Players are free to assign forcing, invitational or non-forcing meanings to

natural calls in such sequences."

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

 

So it is entirely possible that the sequence is undefined as a standard.

 

I can construct hands that would want to remove 2N to a suit partscore, but I would expect such hands to pass the correction to 3H, so the 4C followup sounds like the 3C was intended as forcing.

[Grazy69]

From ACBL Standard Yellow card booklet it says

"4♣ is Gerber over ant 1NT or 2NT by pd including a rebid of 1NT or 2NT"

so in the above sequence 4♣ over 2NT would be Gerber

So not minorwood unless a special agreement

Eh Voila

[cherdano]

Hm.

 

"Forcing(F): partner must bid, I can pass next round".

"Forcing one round(F1): partner must bid, I owe him a rebid."

"Forcing to game(FG): nobody passes until game is bid."

"Forcing to game or 4 of a minor(FG/4m): nobody passes until game or 4 of a minor is bid."

 

It might be easier if we knew which one of these (if any) 3♣ is in SAYC. If 3♣ is F1, then 4♣ is not forcing. If it's FG/4m, then 4♣ is not forcing. If it's FG, then 4♣ is clearly forcing. F is less clear, but I think 4♣ is not forcing in that case, too.

 

If 3♣ is not forcing, then imo neither is 4♣.

I agree, if we knew whether 4♣ was forcing in SAYC this question would be much easier to answer.

 

Anyway, I would take both 3♣ and 4♣ as forcing.

[helene_t]

From ACBL Standard Yellow card booklet it says

"4♣ is Gerber over ant 1NT or 2NT by pd including a rebid of 1NT or 2NT"

so in the above sequence 4♣ over 2NT would be Gerber

So not minorwood unless a special agreement

Eh Voila

Thanks. Then 3♣ followed by 4♣ presumably sets clubs as trump (or maybe 3♣ already set clubs as trump), since there is no other way of doing so. This means that 3♣ was forcing. At least if we can trust the system to be coherent.

[Stephen Tu]

CBS is not part of SAYC so I suppose 3♣ is NF

 

In traditional SA, unlike over 1nt, everything over 2nt is considered natural & forcing. Weak hands have to pass 2nt. The idea is you have less room left, & you get more value with forcing calls for choice of games/slam exploration than with NF calls to improve the partial.

[helene_t]

Right, Stephen. I stand corrected.

[ArtK78]

In traditional SA, unlike over 1nt, everything over 2nt is considered natural & forcing. Weak hands have to pass 2nt. The idea is you have less room left, & you get more value with forcing calls for choice of games/slam exploration than with NF calls to improve the partial.

I totally agree with this post.

 

A number of methods have been devised which would allow you to get out below game after a 2NT rebid (for example, Wolff signoff). But in most partnerships, any bid over the 2NT rebid is forcing to game.

[Gerben42]

Direct 4♣ = Ace asking for ♣, but opener should bid 4NT if he doesn't think we should play ♣.

 

Anyway, I think this sequence is invitational, i.e. NOT forcing.

 

Don't know about the Gerbil-convention... I thought the perpetrators only used it in sequences where NO suit was shown like 1N 4♣, and even if there are exceptions, when ♣ have been bid NATURALLY, another ♣ bid shows more of them!