shevek Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 1♠ 2♣2♥ 2NT3♣ SAYC so 2♣ is not GF, then 2NT =11-12 inv Can responder pass 3♣?If not, what should opener do with ♠KJTxx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣Kxx ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure the SAYC notes don't say anything like this, so I don't expect any official answer. I would tend to play 3♣ as non-forcing here, and 3♦ (4th suit) as the only three-level forcing call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Nothing else is forcing in SAYC so I don't see why this should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 I would play this as NF, but the simple solution is to play a Forcing Pass with all your partners ;). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Supporting clubs directy would be forcing so the way to end in 3♣ is by temporizing by bidding 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠. Opener typically has 5404 but I suppose he could be 5413 also. Responder is probably 1345, maybe 1336. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? Anyway, opener has ♠AQJTx ♥AJT54 ♦— ♣KQ9 What's best after1♠ - 2♣2♥ - 2NT NF If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? SAYC incorporates a principle that responder's 2/1 promises a rebid the corollory of which is that any simple rebid by opener is forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 1 ♠ 2 ♣2♥ 2 NT Now, as 3 ♣ is NF, I would try FSF and bid 4 ♣ over a possible 3 NT. This should show a lot from my hand:5 Spades, 4 hearts 3Clubs and extra strength. Quite close. When partner does not bid 3 NT but 3 Heart, I will try 3 Spade as a Slamtry and take it from there.When he rebids 3 Spade, I try 4 ClubsWhen he rebids 4 Club, I go salmming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichMor Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? Anyway, opener has ♠AQJTx ♥AJT54 ♦— ♣KQ9 What's best after1♠ - 2♣2♥ - 2NT NF If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.I think 'what is best' would be:1♠ - 2♣3♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? Anyway, opener has ♠AQJTx ♥AJT54 ♦— ♣KQ9 What's best after1♠ - 2♣2♥ - 2NT NF If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.I think 'what is best' would be:1♠ - 2♣3♥Did you see the end of Nick's post?? 2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter. Anyway, I like Codo's ideas... 3♦ now for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not. But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands: AQJ10xAQxxKxxx- KxxxAQJxQxxxx would start1S - 2C2H - 2NT3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D? [i'm not an SAYC player, so I would say that 3C is forcing over 2NT and you have to pass on a 5413 minimum - which may be right anyway opposite a 1345 or 2344). But then in Acol-land 1S - 2C - 3C is not forcing, and I don't have all these bizarre opener's rebid problems] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich-b Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I would suggest that we remove the "SAYC / 2/1 ambiguity" temporarily, by considering the sequence 1♥ 1♠2♦ 2NT3♠ I play this as forcing , and think this would be a popular position.(This obviously has nothing to do with playing SAYC or 2/1). Now , since in the original sequence , responder showed the same (invitational)values , and never implied that his 1st suit is longer than 4 cards, I would suggest that 3♣ in the OPs hand is forcing as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not. But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands: AQJ10xAQxxKxxx- KxxxAQJxQxxxx would start1S - 2C2H - 2NT3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D? I believe no one would say that. Switch the system to 2/1 and we can talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter. Inferential? It either is a splinter or it isn't but I don't know how you can infer such a thing. I also wonder if 3H now would be forcing, honestly I have no idea. I think 3C would be NF. I would bid 4C which I think (hope?) is forcing. I think my hand is really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichMor Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 'Inferential splinters' ? Yikes ! ;) AFAIK an SAYC 2/1 response is not forcing to game so responder needs various rebids to show strength and create a game force. That's old fashioned but so is SAYC. 1♠ - 2♣2♥is forcing for one round but not game forcing. 1♠ - 2♣3♥ is game forcing and shows at least 5-5 in the majors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 1♠ 2♣2♥ 2NT3♣ SAYC so 2♣ is not GF, then 2NT =11-12 inv Can responder pass 3♣?If not, what should opener do with ♠KJTxx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣Kxx ? I would think that in SAYC this is NF and opener has simply expressed a preference to play 3♣ rather than 2NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not. But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands: AQJ10xAQxxKxxx- KxxxAQJxQxxxx would start1S - 2C2H - 2NT3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D? [i'm not an SAYC player, so I would say that 3C is forcing over 2NT and you have to pass on a 5413 minimum - which may be right anyway opposite a 1345 or 2344). But then in Acol-land 1S - 2C - 3C is not forcing, and I don't have all these bizarre opener's rebid problems] I think your example is flawed: 1. When 2 NT is non forcing, the south hand is too strong for this.I think the bidding will be 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♥ 3 NT ap... 2. You can bid 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 3 ♦ and find the fit with convidence.When pd has hearts and not diamonds, you can bid1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 2♥ (A) 3 ♥ and show your 544o this way. (WOf course, when you define the raise of the 4. suit different- quite a common possibility, you need other ways to show your shape.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? SAYC incorporates a principle that responder's 2/1 promises a rebid the corollory of which is that any simple rebid by opener is forcing.Thx Wayne.Don't play SAYC much so now I know that 1♥ 2♣2♥ is forcing (according to ACBL summary). Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 AQJ10xAQxxKxxx- KxxxAQJxQxxxx would start1S - 2C2H - 2NT3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D? I believe no one would say that. Switch the system to 2/1 and we can talk. Seems like a fine SAYC auction to me, provided that Mike777 can explain the 2NT bid to us :rolleyes: For those who think 3♦ is needed as FSF: I doubt that FSF applies here. Opener is supposed to bid naturally. Since responder's hand is well described, he can just place the contract with 3♣, or invite for slam with 4♣. Those who are used to 2/1 will be missing a way to show a mild slam invite without bypassing 3NT, but you do pay a price for not playing 2/1. Not sure if 3♠ is forcing here. We has a similar discussion1♥-1♠2♣-1NT3♥*not so long ago, and the consensus was that it should forcing. (The discussion was not specifically in a SAYC context, though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.