Forcing or not?

[Califdude]

In this sequence is the 3S bid considered non-forcing, invitational, or forcing?

1S-P-2H-P

3H-P-3S-P

?

 

Thanks for replies.

;)

[han]

3H GF

[helene_t]

Even if 3♥ is not forcing, 3♠ is a game force. If responder doesn't want to play game, he must pass 3♥.

[skjaeran]

Depending on agreements, 3♥ is GF or invitational.

Over an invitational 3♥ it makes no sense for 3♠ to be non-forcing.

[vuroth]

I would have guessed 3♥ was invitational.

 

I would also have said that it set trump as hearts. Ergo, if you can find a way to stop below game in hearts after 3♠, go for it. :D

[blackshoe]

2♥ says either "I have hearts and enough to invite game" or "I have hearts and enough to force to game". Disregarding the latter, if opener hears "I have hearts and enough to invite game" does it make any sense for opener to then say "I also have hearts and enough to invite game"? In practice, what can that possibly mean? Unless, I suppose, responder's "enough to invite game" is a lot wider ranging than I, at least, would expect.

[awm]

Forcing for two reasons:

 

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid. So 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing. Thus opener should have extras, giving our side enough for game. If opener has garbage with a heart fit he should bid 2♠ at second turn and then hearts over responder's rebid.

 

(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades; if it includes 3+♠ then it should also be game forcing values. By correcting 3♥ to 3♠, responder shows a spade fit and (thus) game values.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

 

The only question is, which suit is agreed to be trumps,

and how many spades 3S showes.

Because 3S could be interpreted as a cue bid, but the

cue should be based on a spade to honor, so there is

no big difference to 3S being a raise, although there is

one.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[NickRW]

Forcing for two reasons:

 

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid....

 

(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades...

Even in Acol, where the 2♥ bid (though F1) doesn't necessarily promise a rebid, the 3♠ bid still has to be taken as strong for the second reason you give.

 

I don't know of any commonly played natural system where a 2/1 can be weaker than Acol plays it - so I would think that has to be forcing in any natural system.

 

Nick

[vuroth]

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid. So 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing. Thus opener should have extras, giving our side enough for game. If opener has garbage with a heart fit he should bid 2♠ at second turn and then hearts over responder's rebid.

So confusing.

 

2 over 1 promises:

10 points or more, promises at least four of the suit.

 

Rebids with a minimum hand (13–15 points):

Raising responder’s suit at the lowest level (may have good three-card support);

 

NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand.

 

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that 3♥ was forcing. Ok, maybe the intent of SAYC is to force you to game with 23 combined HCP and a 7 card fit, but I doubt it.

[helene_t]

I thought 1♠-2♥-3♥ was the only exception to the rule that a 2/1 response promises a rebid. Not that it makes much sense. Agree with vuroth that the various descriptions of SAYC are confusing. Doesn't matter, though, as long as your agreements with partner are not confusing.

[ArtK78]

In very old-fashioned Standard American, 1♠-2♥-3♥ was not forcing and the subsequent 3♠ bid was also nonforcing.

 

I would guess that in SAYC, which is very similar to old-fashioned Standard American, the same is true.

 

In any other system without very specific agreements to the contrary, both 3♥ and 3♠ are forcing.

 

In the special 1♠-2♥ method that I play, 2♥ is not game forcing; 3♥ and 3♠ in this sequence are both invitational. Opener would have had to bid 2NT artificial and game forcing over 2♥ to prepare for a forcing heart raise (4♥ was available to bid game with no slam interest). Responder could bid anything other than 3♠ over 3♥ with a game force.

[jdonn]

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

[EricK]

There can be no mileage in playing this as anything other than forcing. Responder has inv+ strength and there is a double fit. How can opener possibly judge when it is right to pass?

[cherdano]

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.

 

(My usually wrong understanding of SAYC says 3♥ is forcing to game.)

[han]

Vuroth, 1S-2H shows 5 hearts.

 

If this and jdonn's comment (that SAYC and logic have nothing to do with eachother) are the only two things you remember from this thread then you will do well.

[jdonn]

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.

The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.

[ArtK78]

I reviewed the ACBL SAYC System Booklet.

 

On the one hand, it is stated that a player who makes a 2/1 bid promises a rebid. That would mean that the 3♥ bid in the auction 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is forcing. That does not mean game forcing, just forcing.

 

Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing. So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.

 

On the other hand, the system booklet does not show any examples of an auction which starts 1♠ - 2♥. And we all know that auctions that start out 1♠ - 2♥ are fundamentally different from all other 2/1 auctions.

 

So, unless your conclusion is that a partnership playing SAYC cannot stop in 3♥ on this auction but they can stop in 3♠, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet does not answer the questions raised in this thread.

[jdonn]

So, the bottom line is that the ACBL SAYC System Booklet does not answer the questions raised in this thread.

!!!!!!

 

On the one hand, it is stated that a player who makes a 2/1 bid promises a rebid.  That would mean that the 3♥ bid in the auction 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is forcing.  That does not mean game forcing, just forcing.

 

Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing.  So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.

 

Illogical? Yes. Terrible system? Yes. SAYC? YES. You think it's not SAYC because they don't provide an example auction?

 

Edit: Ok I was quick, I see you edited your quote. So your answer is "It's SAYC if you believe the SAYC book", or something like that.

[HeavyDluxe]

Ok, so we've officially decried SAYC as the Antichrist. Allow me, then, a momentary threadjack...

 

If you were starting with someone new (living in North America), what 'naturalish' system would you have them learn out of the gate? BWS? 2/1? ACOL?

 

I'm not asking with any snark in my tone... I'm genuinely curious.

[kenrexford]

This seems like a somewhat stupid discussion, but I love stupid discussions.

 

1. SAYC makes no sense if Opener cannot raise hearts with a minimum but support. It also makes no sense if the partnership is forced to game even when Opener has a minimum. Therefore, 1♠-2♥-3♥ must be a non-forcing sequence, no matter what some stupid booklet says about it.

 

2. Once hearts are agreed, however, it makes no sense to back into spades for some arbitrary reason. Therefore, 3♠ cannot be non-forcing. That would be rather silly, even if some booklet, poorly written, suggests that this is so.

 

3. As to a jump at this point to 4♠, instead, I am less confident. I have no idea what this means with SAYC, and pure logic does not scream any specific direction.

[han]

Nope, you are overreacting. There is nothing really wrong with the basic ideas of SAYC (few conventions, 1X-2Y about 11+ and not forcing to game) but in order for the 2/1 auctions to be playable you will need to discuss exactly which auctions are forcing and which are not. There are several sensible choices that you can make, but common sense dictates that 1S-2H-3H-3S will definitely be forcing, regardless of whether 3H is forcing or not. The SAYC booklet won't be a big help to you.

 

I don't remember whether inverted minors are a part of SAYC but if not then that's another area where you need to change the system. I believe every good partnership needs a way to force over a minor without lying about their hand. Again there are plenty sensible ways to play and you will have to pick one of those.

 

Maybe I didn't answer your question because it isn't clear to me what you meant by "someone new".

[jdonn]

Ken, denial is a terrible thing. Which constitutional amendmant ever said SAYC has to make sense? It makes no sense that I have let my beer belly become so big, but that doesn't magically mean my gut is now small again.

[vuroth]

Vuroth, 1S-2H shows 5 hearts.

Brilliant. Makes total sense now that you mention it.

 

As for inverted minors, they're not in SAYC, but really, I think you only really need to have the right hand once before it's totally obvious why they're needed.

[ArtK78]

Ken, denial is a terrible thing. Which constitutional amendmant ever said SAYC has to make sense? It makes no sense that I have let my beer belly become so big, but that doesn't magically mean my gut is now small again.

AMENDMENT 28 (PROPOSED)

 

No law, varying the composition of Standard American Yellow Card ("SAYC") shall take effect, until a finding by the two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate shall be made that such law is rational and understandable.

 

Unfortunately, this Amendment was not ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the states.