Is this forcing in SAYC?

[Wackojack]

1♦ 2♣

2♦ 3♦

 

Thinking aloud I feel it should be non-forcing and invitational. If so then if opener next bids 3♠, does this show, 4 spades and longer diamonds? Or could it be a no-trump probe showing a stop in spades and no stop in hearts. It has to be the latter does it not?

 

However, if it is forcing, then it must be game forcing unless stopping in 4♦ is permisssable. However, now there is no invitational bid available except 2NT since:

1♦ 2♣

2♦ 2♥♠ will be game forcing.

 

I conclude that the first sequence should be non-forcing. And yet I am given to believe that many many play it as forcing.

 

Views?

[blackshoe]

This is a difficult auction in standard. I haven't looked at the SAYC booklet, but 2♣ is clearly forcing. The question is whether it is forcing to some level or just requires opener to make some kind of noise to keep the bidding open. In the latter case, 2♦ would be non-forcing, in which case 3♦ should be encouraging, but not forcing, and major suit bids after that would be NT probes.

 

One possible agreement in standard (again, I don't know what SAYC says about it) is that 2♦ is forcing to 2NT. In that case also I think 3♦ would be non-forcing. Which is pretty much what Truscott's Bidding Dictionary says: "Encouraging but not forcing".

[HeartA]

In SAYC, 3♦ is not forcing. 3♠ by opener can be 4 cards (7-4, for example) or stoppers. If responder has 4 cards of ♠, (s)he can bid 4♠ (let opener clarify by passing or correcting to 5♦), otherwise bid 3N or 4♦.

[Lurpoa]

1♦ 2♣

2♦ 3♦

 

Thinking aloud I feel it should be non-forcing and invitational. If so then if opener next bids 3♠, does this show, 4 spades and longer diamonds? Or could it be a no-trump probe showing a stop in spades and no stop in hearts. It has to be the latter does it not?

 

However, if it is forcing, then it must be game forcing unless stopping in 4♦ is permisssable. However, now there is no invitational bid available except 2NT since:

1♦ 2♣

2♦ 2♥♠ will be game forcing.

 

I conclude that the first sequence should be non-forcing. And yet I am given to believe that many many play it as forcing.

 

Views?

 

On the first sequence: 3♦ definitively, non-forcing... inviting.

On the second sequence, playing SAYC, I like to play the 2♥or♠ as only one round forcing. If P bids 2NT, 3 of your major, 3♣ or 3♦ you can pass. 2 in the other major by opener would be asking for a stop, to bid 2 or 3NT according to your strength (he can pass 2NT)

[gwnn]

3♣ and 2NT are both non-forcing.

 

I think 3♦ is forcing because with a 10-12 inv raise of diamonds you would bid 3♦ directly. 2♦ does not promise extra length in my understanding.

 

for all those who think this is NF what handtype are you thinking of? Why aren't they included in:

 

a.) a 3♦ initial raise

b.) a 2NT rebid

 

?

 

Perhaps you're thinking of 6 good clubs and 4 diamonds, but not quite GF strength? I'm OK with bidding 3♦ forcing now, or 3♦ initially.

 

Note that I don't play sayc, but I know the system reasonably well.

[the_dude]

3♣ and 2NT are both non-forcing.

 

I think 3♦ is forcing because with a 10-12 inv raise of diamonds you would bid 3♦ directly. 2♦ does not promise extra length in my understanding.

 

for all those who think this is NF what handtype are you thinking of? Why aren't they included in:

 

a.) a 3♦ initial raise

b.) a 2NT rebid

 

?

 

Perhaps you're thinking of 6 good clubs and 4 diamonds, but not quite GF strength? I'm OK with bidding 3♦ forcing now, or 3♦ initially.

 

Note that I don't play sayc, but I know the system reasonably well.

 

3♦ in SAYC is invitational unless you have some specific agreement.

 

Most modern interpretations of SAYC require the 2/1 bidder to bid a second time whether he likes it or not. So 3♦ can be any hand that can't make another invitational bid (ie 2NT).

 

Further more, the responder with an invitational hand should have bid a 4 card major instead of 2♣ .. therefore if he has a 4card major then he also has a GF hand. Opener need not be worried about missing a major fit on this auction - responder would have bid it on the first round with a Inv hand and the second round with a GF hand.

[gwnn]

What hand type? I don't see the hand type you're thinking of. I know that 2D is forcing in SAYC (there is only one system called SAYC that I know of, not one system with several 'interpretations') but I don't know what hand type you're thinking of. I don't see the reasoning in support of your viewpoint.

[awm]

3♦ is forcing. This can be seen by applying some reasoning to the SAYC rules. In particular:

 

(1) A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing.

(2) From the above, we know that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-2M and 1♦-2♣-3♣ would all be 100% forcing as well.

(3) A direct 1♦-2NT is forcing in SAYC. With a balanced invite lacking a diamond fit or a 4-card major, responder must start with 2♣.

(4) It follows that 1♦-2♣-2NT or 1♦-2♣-3♣ can'tt be bid on a minimum*. This would give responder no call on a balanced invite.

(5) We conclude that opener cannot bid above 2♦ when holding a minimum hand, and any other rebid must show extras.

(6) The sequence 1♦-2♣-2♦ therefore cannot guarantee extra length in diamonds**.

(7) Since 1♦-2♣-2♦ could still be based on four (or three!) diamonds, responder needs 4(5?) card support to raise.

(8) If responder had invitational values and sufficient support, he could've raised 1♦ to 3♦ directly.

(9) Therefore 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ should be forcing.

(10) Note that similar reasoning applies to 1M-2x-2M-3M***.

 

 

* This seems to contradict the statement elsewhere that opener can rebid notrump at the cheapest level on a minimum. However, that statement is in the section talking about 1/1 sequences and is certainly not specific for 2/1 sequences. The impossibility of reconciling this with the clear definition that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing (in a part of the notes which is definitely about 2/1 sequences only, 2/1 promising a rebid) suggests that the idea of rebidding notrump being okay on a minimum was for 1-level auctions.

 

** The vast majority of people who claim to play SAYC do not know this. Of course, they also think that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-3♣ are NF. There is often a difference between a detailed understanding of SAYC in the hands of experienced players and the casual "standard american" played (sometimes while claiming to play SAYC) in the main bridge club. Use at your own risk!

 

*** Again, a lot of people don't know this. But in SAYC 1M-3M only shows three-plus card support. It makes no sense for the 2/1-then-raise sequence to show exactly the same hand type that could've been shown by 1M-3M, and showing the forcing hand in this way takes a lot of pressure off in slam try auctions.

[gwnn]

in other words you agree with gwnn (but you phrase better) :)

[gwnn]

Yes, I'm OK with rebidding 2NT with that; sure it would be nice to have stoppers in all suits or at least one suit but at least I get to play 2NT when opener is minimum and in your version opener has no idea how many diamonds his/her partner is showing and responder has no way of setting diamonds in a forcing way other than 4♦... Playing a possible 3-3 fit on the 3 level after a constructive auction is also not my cup of tea.

[mich-b]

3♣ and 2NT are both non-forcing.

 

I think 3♦ is forcing because with a 10-12 inv raise of diamonds you would bid 3♦ directly. 2♦ does not promise extra length in my understanding.

 

for all those who think this is NF what handtype are you thinking of? Why aren't they included in:

 

a.) a 3♦ initial raise

b.) a 2NT rebid

 

?

 

Perhaps you're thinking of 6 good clubs and 4 diamonds, but not quite GF strength? I'm OK with bidding 3♦ forcing now, or 3♦ initially.

 

Note that I don't play sayc, but I know the system reasonably well.

 

Something like

[hv=pc=n&n=s642h83daq6ckq754]133|100[/hv]

I don't play SAYC (except in very casual BBO pickup games) so don't claim to know it well.

However with the above hand , playing SAYC I assume I am supposed to respond 2♣ and after opener's 2♦ I am sure my best option is to raise to 3♦ even if his 2♦ did not show extra length.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

First Seq. Forcing.

 

I doubt that this is described in the booklet, but unless you play conventions,

e.g. inv. minor - are they part of SAYC (I doubt it), you dont have a forcing

way to raise diamonds.

The only way you have is to go via bidding a new suit.

 

Playing Standard - the influence of Acol is huge, and in classical Acol the

first seq. is clear NF.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mich-b]

Yes, I'm OK with rebidding 2NT with that; sure it would be nice to have stoppers in all suits or at least one suit but at least I get to play 2NT when opener is minimum and in your version opener has no idea how many diamonds his/her partner is showing and responder has no way of setting diamonds in a forcing way other than 4♦... Playing a possible 3-3 fit on the 3 level after a constructive auction is also not my cup of tea.

 

Since 3♦ would show an invite with exactly 3♦s , opener will be well placed to pass (very often our best contract, unreachable with your approach) or bid 3NT. I would suggest that 3NT from partner's hand may turn out to be a better contract than 2NT from yours...

[gwnn]

I retract that objection then. Opener knows exactly how many diamonds the partnership holds, but now he is forced to accept the invite whenever he has weak or short diamonds, i.e. when opener has a weaker hand than he could. I don't like this - I like invitations that can be accepted with good hands (ones with long/good diamonds) and rejected with bad hands (ones with short/bad diamonds). Furthermore, I like to show a game-forcing raise below 3NT. I like catering to invitational hands and I also like "game before slam" considerations, along with rightsiding etc, but this is too much, responder needs a good raise as well.

[the_dude]

99% of SAYC players have not thought through the ramifications of various 1♦-2♣ auctions .. for those folks 2♦ promises 5+ ♦ and the 3♦ raise is NF.

 

The 1% of SAYC players that HAVE thought it through (and yet are still playing SAYC) will have this auction defined and will have methods to get out with a bad hand .. for them 3♦ is forcing. But I certainly wouldn't assume it from a pickup partner.

 

AFAIK, that 1% typically play either 2NT by opener is a balanced minimum and can be passed and/or 2♦ by opener can be passed. I do not know a soul that plays 2♦ can be bid with a 3card suit but maybe my experience is just limited...

[gwnn]

For the people who have not defined their system, the system is undefined. The question was not 'what would you assume from a pickup partner?'. If that were the question, the answer is unfortunately quite sad - it is very little that you can assume, and in general you can expect at least five bidding misunderstandings a session, and so on, and so forth. So what? SAYC is defined by an ACBL booklet, readily available online. As several people have suggested in these forums, there are at least a few situations that are undefined or defined in contradictory manner in the booklet. However, it is made clear that a 2/1 bid promises another bid, therefore for example 2NT in the second round by opener cannot be passed, and 2♦ by opener cannot be passed. People who are playing 2NT nonforcing by opener or 2♦ nonforcing by opener, and have express agreements about this are not playing SAYC. People who say they are playing SAYC but have never read the booklet and do not know the definitions are playing a partial SAYC fantasy variation or are failing to play SAYC properly.

[Lurpoa]

3♦ is forcing. This can be seen by applying some reasoning to the SAYC rules. In particular:

 

(1) A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing.

(2) From the above, we know that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-2M and 1♦-2♣-3♣ would all be 100% forcing as well.

(3) A direct 1♦-2NT is forcing in SAYC. With a balanced invite lacking a diamond fit or a 4-card major, responder must start with 2♣.

(4) It follows that 1♦-2♣-2NT or 1♦-2♣-3♣ can'tt be bid on a minimum*. This would give responder no call on a balanced invite.

(5) We conclude that opener cannot bid above 2♦ when holding a minimum hand, and any other rebid must show extras.

(6) The sequence 1♦-2♣-2♦ therefore cannot guarantee extra length in diamonds**.

(7) Since 1♦-2♣-2♦ could still be based on four (or three!) diamonds, responder needs 4(5?) card support to raise.

(8) If responder had invitational values and sufficient support, he could've raised 1♦ to 3♦ directly.

(9) Therefore 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ should be forcing.

(10) Note that similar reasoning applies to 1M-2x-2M-3M***.

 

 

* This seems to contradict the statement elsewhere that opener can rebid notrump at the cheapest level on a minimum. However, that statement is in the section talking about 1/1 sequences and is certainly not specific for 2/1 sequences. The impossibility of reconciling this with the clear definition that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing (in a part of the notes which is definitely about 2/1 sequences only, 2/1 promising a rebid) suggests that the idea of rebidding notrump being okay on a minimum was for 1-level auctions.

 

** The vast majority of people who claim to play SAYC do not know this. Of course, they also think that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-3♣ are NF. There is often a difference between a detailed understanding of SAYC in the hands of experienced players and the casual "standard american" played (sometimes while claiming to play SAYC) in the main bridge club. Use at your own risk!

 

*** Again, a lot of people don't know this. But in SAYC 1M-3M only shows three-plus card support. It makes no sense for the 2/1-then-raise sequence to show exactly the same hand type that could've been shown by 1M-3M, and showing the forcing hand in this way takes a lot of pressure off in slam try auctions.

 

 

IMHO, your reasoning goes wrong at line one. Playing ACBL SAYC, 2♣ does not promess a rebid, it can be based only 10HP (or less, with long ♣) & the 2♦ rebid by opener is NOT forcing.

[Lurpoa]

For the people who have not defined their system, the system is undefined. The question was not 'what would you assume from a pickup partner?'. If that were the question, the answer is unfortunately quite sad - it is very little that you can assume, and in general you can expect at least five bidding misunderstandings a session, and so on, and so forth. So what? SAYC is defined by an ACBL booklet, readily available online. As several people have suggested in these forums, there are at least a few situations that are undefined or defined in contradictory manner in the booklet. However, it is made clear that a 2/1 bid promises another bid, therefore for example 2NT in the second round by opener cannot be passed, and 2♦ by opener cannot be passed. People who are playing 2NT nonforcing by opener or 2♦ nonforcing by opener, and have express agreements about this are not playing SAYC. People who say they are playing SAYC but have never read the booklet and do not know the definitions are playing a partial SAYC fantasy variation or are failing to play SAYC properly.

 

Read your contribution after answering awm. I think you are right, I got it wrong. Indeed: ACBL-booklet, p4:

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.

 

1♠ — 2♣

 

2♦= forcing one round. Responder can limit his hand by bidding 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ at this point. He should not pass, since opener could have 18 points (just short of a jump shift rebid).

 

This is big !!! First time I give it that interpretation ! 1 never would have passed a change of color, but a repeat of the color.... Whaw ! This gives me new insight in SAYC. It is so important !!!: why did the hide it at the end of a paragraphp, as a sort of supplementary note !

Good to have this dicussions here.

And sorry to awm: your 1st line is right !

[Lurpoa]

3♦ is forcing. This can be seen by applying some reasoning to the SAYC rules. In particular:

 

(1) A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing.

(2) From the above, we know that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-2M and 1♦-2♣-3♣ would all be 100% forcing as well.

(3) A direct 1♦-2NT is forcing in SAYC. With a balanced invite lacking a diamond fit or a 4-card major, responder must start with 2♣.

(4) It follows that 1♦-2♣-2NT or 1♦-2♣-3♣ can'tt be bid on a minimum*. This would give responder no call on a balanced invite.

(5) We conclude that opener cannot bid above 2♦ when holding a minimum hand, and any other rebid must show extras.

(6) The sequence 1♦-2♣-2♦ therefore cannot guarantee extra length in diamonds**.

(7) Since 1♦-2♣-2♦ could still be based on four (or three!) diamonds, responder needs 4(5?) card support to raise.

(8) If responder had invitational values and sufficient support, he could've raised 1♦ to 3♦ directly.

(9) Therefore 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ should be forcing.

(10) Note that similar reasoning applies to 1M-2x-2M-3M***.

 

 

* This seems to contradict the statement elsewhere that opener can rebid notrump at the cheapest level on a minimum. However, that statement is in the section talking about 1/1 sequences and is certainly not specific for 2/1 sequences. The impossibility of reconciling this with the clear definition that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing (in a part of the notes which is definitely about 2/1 sequences only, 2/1 promising a rebid) suggests that the idea of rebidding notrump being okay on a minimum was for 1-level auctions.

 

** The vast majority of people who claim to play SAYC do not know this. Of course, they also think that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-3♣ are NF. There is often a difference between a detailed understanding of SAYC in the hands of experienced players and the casual "standard american" played (sometimes while claiming to play SAYC) in the main bridge club. Use at your own risk!

 

*** Again, a lot of people don't know this. But in SAYC 1M-3M only shows three-plus card support. It makes no sense for the 2/1-then-raise sequence to show exactly the same hand type that could've been shown by 1M-3M, and showing the forcing hand in this way takes a lot of pressure off in slam try auctions.

 

 

Yes, it seems that according the booklet your line 1 is correct. But line 2...

With the deepest respects for your opinion... but wanting to play the 2NT-rebid after 1♦ 2♣, as forcing is completely against my believes in SAYC. I am utterly confused, and indeed you speak about contradictions in the booklet. As said, some thing will need interpretation. In stead of the interpretation of limiting the non-forcing NT rebid to 1NT (and 2NT as forcing) I prefer the interpretation that 2NT by opener, a rebid of his color, or a raise of responder's color are NonForcing. It gives me more stability and if I want to play it differently, i will turn to a real 2/1-system.

I think your strict interpretation of the 2/1 response leads to too many Impossibilities. Therefore, I will go on playing, what seems to be accepted by a large spectrum of players: a chang of color by opener (after a 2/1) is Forcing.

[awm]

The way I'd explain SAYC bidding in 2/1 auctions:

 

If you are opener, you cannot bid above two of your initial suit that you opened unless you have extras. If you do this, it's forcing to game.

 

Thus opener can rebid two of his original suit on any minimum hand where no cheaper call makes sense.

 

If opener did not game force, than the following actions at responder's second turn are not forcing: (1) Responder rebids his suit at the three-level (2) Responder rebids 2NT (3) Responder preferences to opener's suit at the two-level.

 

If responder wants to force at second turn, he should either bid a new suit (possibly artificial, especially in the case of the fourth suit) or raise opener's first suit to the three-level (since an invite would've made a limit raise at first turn to begin with).

 

----------

 

The reason SAYC is structured this way is that it allows opener to describe complicated hands. To give even a slightly complex one, say opener has ♠xx ♥AQ ♦KQxxx ♣AKxx. He opens 1♦ and hears 2♣ from partner. Unfortunately there are possible partner hands where 3NT is the best spot (say ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxx where he was planning a balanced invite). But there are also possible partner hands where we are cold for slam in clubs. What should opener do at second turn? If you play a style where all of 2♦, 3♣, 2NT are not forcing how do you show your fit with extras and not bypass 3NT? For me this is an easy 3♣ bid (forcing, shows extras) whereas a minimum hand with the same distribution bids 2♦ (forcing one round, planning to correct to clubs next if we are not in game).

[Fluffy]

This would be forcing for any serious partnership, however in plain SAYC I bet it is non forcing, nothing is forcing on that system :)

 

awm's logic is perfect and shows why if you are a serious player you should play it as forcing, however SAYC is not a consistent system, as long as I know SAYC is just an "I bid what I think I should now" system, and maybe I'll worry later.

[gwnn]

I've seen

 

1♦-2♣

2♦ as

 

(essentially) 12-14 any,

 

not just SAYC. I don't think it's a bad treatment.

[Wackojack]

Is Adams analysis a wind-up? I think it must be. The conclusions are all predicated on assumption (1) namely that “A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing”. I guess that is based on the ACBL SAYC Booklet revised January 2006 since this is all I can find. This says under the heading of “Responses to 1♥ or a 1♠ opening”, in a note at the end:

 

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. However, under the heading “Responses to a 1♣ or a 1♦ opening all it says is:

 

Responses and later bidding generally follow the ideas set down in the previous section.

 

OK Adams logic is impeccable. From it we get the monstrous conclusion that 1♦-2♣-2♦ could be a 3 card suit namely 12-14 4432. We surely know that a bridge system that was designed for the masses would not want to go against a basic precept that a suit rebid shows extra length. Indeed should any partnership adhere to these ideas it would be incumbent on them to alert this rebid. This logic reminds me of the question: How do you pronounce the word “Ghoti” The answer is “Fish” Those that do not have English as their first language might not work this out.

 

However, there is a “get out” weasel word in the SAYC Booklet and that is the word ”generally” Yes SAYC is badly defined and I recall forum posters saying that SAYC was “unplayable” I now understand what they mean.

 

Going further with these arguments on what is and what is not SAYC I feel is going to be unprofitable. So I would like to go back a step and see what conclusions can be drawn based on the premise that a 2 over 1 response must be at least a good 10 points combined with sound bidding principles.

**********

 

I have just gone back and seen later posts discussing these interpretations and a further post from Adam giving an example of a hand where adhering to precept (1) gives us an advantage. However, is this only an advantage because SAYC shoots itself in the foot by making 1♣-2NT a game force 13-15? If it were a sensible and intuitive 11 ish points then the example hand he gives ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦ xxx ♣ QJxx you would respond 2NT instead of 2♣. Perhaps I have been too strident in ridiculing the SAYC precepts as given in the booklet. However, if you do follow them, it does not look like a system for the masses that I thought it was designed to be.

 

Anyway thanks for all the contribution, particularly Adam’s that made us sit up and think.

[peachy]

In SAYC, yes.

Not many who say they play SAYC are actually familiar enough with it. There are important inferences to be drawn from the simple auctions as Adam explained.

[straube]

The way I'd explain SAYC bidding in 2/1 auctions:

 

If you are opener, you cannot bid above two of your initial suit that you opened unless you have extras. If you do this, it's forcing to game.

 

Thus opener can rebid two of his original suit on any minimum hand where no cheaper call makes sense.

 

If opener did not game force, than the following actions at responder's second turn are not forcing: (1) Responder rebids his suit at the three-level (2) Responder rebids 2NT (3) Responder preferences to opener's suit at the two-level.

 

If responder wants to force at second turn, he should either bid a new suit (possibly artificial, especially in the case of the fourth suit) or raise opener's first suit to the three-level (since an invite would've made a limit raise at first turn to begin with).

 

----------

 

The reason SAYC is structured this way is that it allows opener to describe complicated hands. To give even a slightly complex one, say opener has ♠xx ♥AQ ♦KQxxx ♣AKxx. He opens 1♦ and hears 2♣ from partner. Unfortunately there are possible partner hands where 3NT is the best spot (say ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxx where he was planning a balanced invite). But there are also possible partner hands where we are cold for slam in clubs. What should opener do at second turn? If you play a style where all of 2♦, 3♣, 2NT are not forcing how do you show your fit with extras and not bypass 3NT? For me this is an easy 3♣ bid (forcing, shows extras) whereas a minimum hand with the same distribution bids 2♦ (forcing one round, planning to correct to clubs next if we are not in game).

 

That was a really good read.

 

Is this in the context of 1m-2N being a GF? And inverted minors?

 

I'm assuming 1H-2C, 2D-3D is invitational.