1H - pass - 1NT - pass - 2D - pass - ?

[Adam1105]

I have not seen, or noticed, SAYC convention talk about this; but I could have missed it.

 

Bidding:

(D-South) 1H -- pass -- 1NT -- pass -- (south)2D -- pass -- ?

 

Some south players seem to just not want to be in NT and are happy to be at the two level in a suit and other souths are wanting their partner to bid on.

 

Is there any standard here?

[rogerclee]

Are you asking about what responder should do, or what opener has shown?

[awm]

This sequence by south shows something like 12-18 hcp (either a "minimum" or "medium" hand but not enough to force game) with 5+♥ and 4+♦.

 

North is allowed to pass. However:

 

(1) If north has equal length in the red suits or even 2♥ and 3♦, it is usually best to correct back to hearts. When partner shows two suits it is virtually always right to correct to the first suit if you have more length there.

 

(2) If north has a maximum 1NT response (8-10 hcp) then you could still have game. On these hands north should try to bid again, either raising the diamonds to 3♦ on four or more of them, or correcting back to 2♥ on two of those, or introducing a six card club suit (3♣).

 

(3) So the hands that pass are normally hands with 3♦-1♥ or with 4♦ and 5-7 hcp.

[andy_h]

Adam summed it up.

[ArtK78]

Except for the fact that Adam is wrong.

 

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC, then 2♦ promises only 3 diamonds, and could conceivably be a doubleton. For example:

 

Axxx QTxxx AK xx

 

A 2♥ rebid would promise 6, or at least a very good 5. The hand is not nearly good enough for a reverse to 2♠. And bidding 2♣ on xx of clubs is completely repulsive. So the 2♦ bid is the only reasonable call available.

 

It is totally normal to rebid 2♦ over a forcing 1NT response on any 3-5-3-2 hand without significant extra strength.

 

So, the bottom line is that opener typically has a 5 card heart suit, at least 3 diamonds (with rare exception, as noted) and 12-16 HCP. Normally, with 17 or 18 HCP opener will find some other call than 2♦.

[rogerclee]

Except for the fact that Adam is wrong.

 

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC, then 2♦ promises only 3 diamonds, and could conceivably be a doubleton. For example:

 

Axxx QTxxx AK xx

 

A 2♥ rebid would promise 6, or at least a very good 5. The hand is not nearly good enough for a reverse to 2♠. And bidding 2♣ on xx of clubs is completely repulsive. So the 2♦ bid is the only reasonable call available.

 

It is totally normal to rebid 2♦ over a forcing 1NT response on any 3-5-3-2 hand without significant extra strength.

 

So, the bottom line is that opener typically has a 5 card heart suit, at least 3 diamonds (with rare exception, as noted) and 12-16 HCP. Normally, with 17 or 18 HCP opener will find some other call than 2♦.

First of all, SAYC features a NON-forcing 1NT response to 1M. So Adam is completely right.

 

Second of all, I have never in my entire life bid 2♦ on a 2-card suit. 2♣ always! But otherwise I agree with what you said about 2/1.

[peachy]

Except for the fact that Adam is wrong.

 

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC, then 2♦ promises only 3 diamonds, and could conceivably be a doubleton. For example:

 

Axxx QTxxx AK xx

 

A 2♥ rebid would promise 6, or at least a very good 5. The hand is not nearly good enough for a reverse to 2♠. And bidding 2♣ on xx of clubs is completely repulsive. So the 2♦ bid is the only reasonable call available.

 

It is totally normal to rebid 2♦ over a forcing 1NT response on any 3-5-3-2 hand without significant extra strength.

 

So, the bottom line is that opener typically has a 5 card heart suit, at least 3 diamonds (with rare exception, as noted) and 12-16 HCP. Normally, with 17 or 18 HCP opener will find some other call than 2♦.

This is not true and not standard.

SAYC does not have a forcing 1NT. Also, when playing *1NT forcing* and opener holds 2-2 in minors, 2C is the prescribed bid. 2D shows at least 3 cards.

[andy_h]

...

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC

[snip]

If the OP intended 1NT as forcing, surely they would've told us. And in my book, 1NT forcing is not part of SAYC. 1NT is forcing in 2/1 because any 2-over-1 bid is a GF thus all the <GF hands bid 1NT which needs to be forcing as it can have up to 11 or a bad 12 count (ie. 3card limit raises too). In SAYC, a 2-over-1 bid is just like in acol, (9)10+ with 5+suit or w/e and 3 card limit raises bid a 2/1 then jump to 3M.

[the hog]

Except for the fact that Adam is wrong.

 

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC, then 2♦ promises only 3 diamonds, and could conceivably be a doubleton.  For example:

 

Axxx QTxxx AK xx

 

A 2♥ rebid would promise 6, or at least a very good 5.  The hand is not nearly good enough for a reverse to 2♠.  And bidding 2♣ on xx of clubs is completely repulsive.  So the 2♦ bid is the only reasonable call available.

 

It is totally normal to rebid 2♦ over a forcing 1NT response on any 3-5-3-2 hand without significant extra strength.

 

So, the bottom line is that opener typically has a 5 card heart suit, at least 3 diamonds (with rare exception, as noted) and 12-16 HCP.  Normally, with 17 or 18 HCP opener will find some other call than 2♦.

First of all, SAYC features a NON-forcing 1NT response to 1M. So Adam is completely right.

 

Second of all, I have never in my entire life bid 2♦ on a 2-card suit. 2♣ always! But otherwise I agree with what you said about 2/1.

Agree with Roger; Art this si the second post you have anwered where you have not bothered to read the op.

[cherdano]

Except for the fact that Adam is wrong.

 

Assuming that 1NT was forcing, as it is in SAYC,

Sorry Art, but this is too funny...

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with the others that Art sucked in this thread.

 

Oh there was some bridge content? Agree with Adam.

[helene_t]

Agree with Adam except that with equal length in the red suits IMHO responder should always take preference to hearts.

 

With two hearts and three diamonds and 8-10 points, responder takes preference for hearts as well since he is too strong to pass and 2♥ is more certain to be playable than 3♦. Besides 2♥ leaves more bidding space than 3♦. (In another thread a couple of us suggested taking preference to hearts even with four diamonds and two hearts).

 

With two hearts and three diamonds and <8 points, some take preference to hearts (especially at matchpoints) because 2♥ rates to be a better contract, while others pass to make sure that opener doesn't make a game try if he is 16-17.

[ArtK78]

I stand corrected. 1NT is not forcing in SAYC. However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

[cranebill]

I do

[hrothgar]

I stand corrected. 1NT is not forcing in SAYC. However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

If I have agreeed to SAYC, I expect that partner and I are both using a non-forcing NT...

[helene_t]

lolol 80% of those who pretend to play sayc cannot spel "forcing 1NT", let alone that they know what it means.

[mikeh]

I mostly agree with Adam: but my understanding is that the sequence 1♥ 1N 2♦ 3♣ is not forward going, as Adam suggested, but is a strong desire to play in 3♣... it is what one would bid with, for example, xx xx xx KQ10xxxx.

[jtfanclub]

I stand corrected.  1NT is not forcing in SAYC.  However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

If I have agreeed to SAYC, I expect that partner and I are both using a non-forcing NT...

I always love that....we've agreed SAYC, partner opens 1♥, I bid 1NT and put in the alert box "I don't know if this is forcing or not", and two passes later I change to "I guess not forcing".

 

Beginners are still taught NF NT here, so it's just a question of how complex a system they're playing.

[jillybean]

I stand corrected.  1NT is not forcing in SAYC.  However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

If I have agreeed to SAYC, I expect that partner and I are both using a non-forcing NT...

I always love that....we've agreed SAYC, partner opens 1♥, I bid 1NT and put in the alert box "I don't know if this is forcing or not", and two passes later I change to "I guess not forcing".

 

Beginners are still taught NF NT here, so it's just a question of how complex a system they're playing.

If youve agreed to play SAYC 1nt is NF, it has nothing to do with how complex the system is. Why muddle things when it cant be much clearer than this!

[helene_t]

my understanding is that the sequence 1♥ 1N 2♦ 3♣ is not forward going, as Adam suggested, but is a strong desire to play in 3♣... it is what one would bid with, for example, xx xx xx KQ10xxxx.

agree with that.

[Codo]

I stand corrected. 1NT is not forcing in SAYC. However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

You are in your funny mode today?

 

As others staed, it is just the other way round.

 

Okay, maybe you simply know noone who plays SAYC or SA.

[neilkaz]

I stand corrected. 1NT is not forcing in SAYC. However, I know that virtually no one who purports to play SAYC on BBO plays a nonforcing 1NT response to one of a major.

I suspect that the majority of those who play on BBO play 1NT is not forcing.

 

It certainly isn't forcing in SAYC which is widely played. What about standard French or Italian or ACOL or standard Turkish ?

 

.. neilkaz ..