SAYC FD is full of it

[glen]

As a sub in a tourney I find myself using the SAYC FD. It just described 1♣-1♠;-2♣-2♥ as 11+ non-forcing.

 

Not forcing?

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL's SAYC booklet:

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

 

The booklet does not mention responder's reverses, except over a 1NT rebid by opener.

 

Yeah, I know, the ACBL version is not necessarily the BBO version. Still, much as I dislike SAYC in any form, the agreement above makes a lot more sense than "not forcing".

[barmar]

I just looked at the SAYC card, and I think the problem is that all the 1-level opening bids were entered for seat "ANY". So it doesn't distinguish the sequences where responder is a passed versus unpassed hand. This was presumably done for convenience, since most sequences are the same. The only opening bids that are entered for specific hands are the preemptive bids, since they tend to vary more (3rd seat weak 2's are more likely 2 be 6 card suits, 4th seat 2 bids are not weak).

 

However, in the case of Glen's auction, I suspect it was just an oversight, and someone simply forgot to check the "forcing" box. If they thought they were entering passed-hand bidding, they would have said 11-12 HCP, not 11+.

 

I don't think this can be chalked up to a difference between variations of SAYC. "New suit by responder is forcing" is something SAYC inherited from vanilla SA, and which I think has been a basic principle of natural bidding for many decades (it's one of the first general bidding rules I recall learning). The exceptions only arised when you add conventional bids that create forces (e.g. New Minor Forcing); then when you bypass the convention you can make non-forcing bids (e.g. 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♥ is a non-forcing 5-4+ if you play NMF)