Your bid

[cherdano]

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

[jdonn]

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

I think that is exactly what he means, but specifically on minimum responder hands (supposedly hands that won't force to game unless we do).

[Cascade]

Wayne, I still don't know what "Game is well over 50%" means. Do you mean that double dummy, in over 50% of all deals there is at least one game that makes? (i.e. if we always bid to the best spot after looking at opponents' cards?)

I think that is exactly what he means, but specifically on minimum responder hands (supposedly hands that won't force to game unless we do).

This is exactly what I mean.

[pclayton]

2♠. This is more for helping pard to evaluate.

 

If pard has a minimum SAYC 2♣, he shouldn't have 4♠, since this hand starts with 1♠, not 2♣.

[fromageGB]

2♥. I think Mikeh has it right. I don't play Standard, but would have thought the concept of a "reverse" applies, and the danger of reversing on these faily minimal values is that it might drive partner too high. Sure you want to be in game, but 2♥ is forcing.

 

Playing 2/1 2♠ is right if your agreement is to show distribution regardless of strength, but in my methods that shows 15/16 so I still bid 2♥.

[kenrexford]

Something I don't know --

 

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

 

1♥-P-2minor-P-

2♥-P-2♠...

 

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

 

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

[jdonn]

Something I don't know --

 

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

 

1♥-P-2minor-P-

2♥-P-2♠...

 

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

 

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes

No

No

Unclear

[Cascade]

Something I don't know --

 

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

 

1♥-P-2minor-P-

2♥-P-2♠...

 

Is 2♠ forcing?  Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force?  COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

 

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes

No

No

Unclear

If I had four spades and five or more of a minor I would not bid 2m over 1♥ unless I was willing to introduce the spades later unless of course partner had denied four spades by say a 3♥ jump rebid.

[G_R__E_G]

Sorry for omitting some details - form of scoring was matchpoints. I believe we were white on white, but I don't have that information with me at the moment.

 

For what it's worth, I agreed with the majority of posters and felt the hand was worth a game force and bid 2♠. Partner then went to 3NT, which as it turns out did not work out very well. That was my reason for posting (but I wanted unbiased opinions so did not give the results). The comments at the table were that I shouldn't have reversed with that hand. I disagreed - but hey what do I know, we only finished with a 69% game. :)

[cherdano]

Something I don't know --

 

Playing SAYC, if the auction starts...

 

1♥-P-2minor-P-

2♥-P-2♠...

 

Is 2♠ forcing? Does SAYC require a jump to 3♠ here to force? COuld Opener pass with 3-4 spades and a stiff in the minor?

 

If 2♠ is forcing, will Responder not bid 2minor unless strong enough to complete pattern with 2♠ if Opener rebids hearts?

Yes

No

No

Yes he should only bid 2m if strong enough to force to game

[kenrexford]

I must not understand standard bidding any more.

 

According to the ACBL SAYC booklet, Opener cannot rebid 2♠ here unless he has 16+ HCP. However, Responder's 2♣ bid promises a rebid NO MATTER WHAT. So, if the auction is 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♥, the auction is forcing. Responder must make a call.

 

According to what I have seen so far, he cannot bid 2♠ unless he can GF. He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet. He cannot bid 3♦, or this would GF also. So, his only options are 2NT and 3♣.

 

This means, per force, that Responder cannot bid 2♣ with a hand that is less than GF unless he has long clubs (the 2/1 GF exception some have) or an otherwise balanced hand, without heart support. This seems to force 1♠ on these hands with spades and longer clubs unless GF.

 

That, however, is not how I learned standard years and years ago. I always understood a 2/1 call as forcing to at least 2NT. That allowed 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♦/♥-P-2♠ with a spade-club hand (longer clubs) and invitational+. We could stop in this sequence at 2NT, 3♠, or some other contract below game, if we wanted to.

 

Did this change at some point, or did I learn standard wrong?

[jtfanclub]

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

[cherdano]

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise...

[Cascade]

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise...

I don't think this is quite correct. What the booklet says is:

 

Bids available for inviting game: 2NT, 3 of a previously bid suit:

1♥ — 1♠

2♦ — 2NT, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ = 10–11 points, inviting game

 

...

 

If responder initially bids a new suit at the two level, the same rules apply EXCEPT that a subsequent jump raise of opener’s first suit to the THREE LEVEL is game forcing — responder should make a limit raise directly over the opening with 10–11 points and at least three-card support.

 

In the auction under discussion we are making a simple raise not a jump raise.

 

The booklet has a hole here and an inconsistency with the auctions that start with a 1/1 (1♥ 1♠ and a 2/1. There doesn't seem to be any real need for the inconsistency.

[kenrexford]

[Weird stuff]

There is a difference in the SAYC booklet between a 2/1 auction, and then 3♥, and a 1/1 auction, and then 3♥. This makes sense, as the sequences are different.

 

The distinction is that the 1♠...3♥ sequence is the parallel to another 2/1 GF sequence wherein Responder says, "I have a limit raise for your hearts, but I'm going to keep that a secret for a minute while I show you my spades, in case you care." This should apparently show a limit raise with 5♠/3♥ in SAYC.

 

That, however, does not impact the SAYC 2/1 in a minor...3♥ sequence as GF. SAYC does not allow you to show a limit raise with 3♥/5minor. That's silliness, to SAYC bidders.

[joker_gib]

2♥. I think Mikeh has it right. I don't play Standard, but would have thought the concept of a "reverse" applies, and the danger of reversing on these faily minimal values is that it might drive partner too high. Sure you want to be in game, but 2♥ is forcing.

 

Playing 2/1 2♠ is right if your agreement is to show distribution regardless of strength, but in my methods that shows 15/16 so I still bid 2♥.

I totally agree with this

[Cascade]

[Weird stuff]

There is a difference in the SAYC booklet between a 2/1 auction, and then 3♥, and a 1/1 auction, and then 3♥. This makes sense, as the sequences are different.

 

The distinction is that the 1♠...3♥ sequence is the parallel to another 2/1 GF sequence wherein Responder says, "I have a limit raise for your hearts, but I'm going to keep that a secret for a minute while I show you my spades, in case you care." This should apparently show a limit raise with 5♠/3♥ in SAYC.

 

That, however, does not impact the SAYC 2/1 in a minor...3♥ sequence as GF. SAYC does not allow you to show a limit raise with 3♥/5minor. That's silliness, to SAYC bidders.

1. (OT) Its non-trivial to know what the "weird stuff" is since posts are time stamped with the local time of the viewer but quotes are time stamped with the local time of the poster (quoter).

 

2. You maybe right. My primary point is that while the SAYC booklet is clear that a jump preference is forcing after a 2/1 it is silent on whether a raise is forcing or not. Similarly Downey and Pomer* are silent as far as I can see on whether a raise of opener's rebid suit is forcing or not.

 

3. Downey and Pomer do remark that the rebid of the original suit is 'rarely done with less (sic) than six cards in the suit'. This leaves open the possibility that a subsequent raise shows two-card support in an invitational hand.

 

4. Downey and Pomer also indicate that a 'three-level bid in a previously mentioned suit' is invitational. They note this is forcing if a jump preference.

 

* Standard Bidding with SAYC (2005) Masterpoint Press.

[kenrexford]

Standard American is dumb. Poopy dumb.

[Cascade]

Standard American is dumb. Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

[mike777]

Standard American is dumb.  Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

:)

 

 

So many WC players have told me 2/1 is the only system worse than sayc in the world...Just see how great you must be to win with it. :)

[mike777]

Standard American is dumb.  Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

:)

 

 

So many WC players have told me 2/1 is the only system worse than sayc in the world...Just see how great you must be to win with it. :)

[whereagles]

Well... the french team of Chemla/Perron won the 1997 bermuda bowl, beating meckwell in the final, playing a very, very straightforward french standard system, which is very similar to SAYC.

 

So it can't be THAT bad :(

[jtfanclub]

Well... the french team of Chemla/Perron won the 1997 bermuda bowl, beating meckwell in the final, playing a very, very straightforward french standard system, which is very similar to SAYC.

 

So it can't be THAT bad :(

SAYC was made by a committee. SEF was made by bridge players.

 

Seriously, why we still use SAYC and not SEF is one of life's greater mysteries.

[Fluffy]

A bit late to this post, I agree with everything mikeh said, 2♠ is a misdescription of strenght.

[Codo]

Seriously, why we still use SAYC and not SEF is one of life's greater mysteries.

You need some books to understand SEF, but just some notes to understand SAYC.

 

So SAYC was an invetion to give a quick and easy system to the masses and worked quite well in that way.