Is this forcing in SAYC?

[mich-b]

I would like to ask the OP what is his purpose?

 

1. If it is scientific parsing of the official SAYC booklet - read carefully awm's posts and trust him.

2. If it is trying to guess better what a pickup partner's (who claims to be playing SAYC) bids mean

- read the posts here that explained what (the ignorant...) 99% of SAYC players think.

3. If your purpose is to agree ona simple, natural (and that "feels natural"), non 2/1 GF, reasonably effective (though far from perfect) system to play with a regular partner - I suggest you forget about the "official" SAYC and play a Standard American variation where :

a. Responder does not guarantee a rebid over a minimum rebid in NT, a minimum raise and a minimum rebid of openers suit.

b. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ is non-forcing and promisses 5 cards.

Maybe you should call it "5 card majors with Acol flavour". I think you will find this system easier to play , and less confusing than the SAYC (the booklet's style).

 

 

-

[Lurpoa]

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).

 

 

I have much sympathy for your viewpoint (awm, gwnn, ,....). And I have seen it is integrated in the imlementation of BBO SAYC under the convention card-tab on BBO.

 

It has many consequences. One of them is, that a repeat of the opener's color after a 2/1 response is showing not more than a 5card and a minimim hand (after 1♥ 2♣, 2♥=guarantees only 5card) ). Also, to make sequences as 1♥ 2♣, 2NT forcing, it means that 2NT can only be bid on at least 14H, and that responder, has at least 11H to go to the 2 level. I know that a lot of authorities adhere to this 11H to go to the two-level (not at the least: the Grant System), but the SAYC booklet is very specific: the 2level response promesses only 10H, and a 1NT response is 6 to 9 H (never 10).

 

Again, if my partner, before starting a game tells me « SAYC with a 2/1 force », I would be most happy to play it your way, but without any previous agreements, I prefer to stick to the more « basic, mainstream interpretation » of the booklet, with it's series of limit bids. Overall, I really think BBO SAYC goes to far in it's interpretation and can not be called SA.

[gwnn]

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.

Yes

No

Yes

[kenberg]

From time to time I play in the acbl indy where SAYC is the default. Of course really the default is that we all do whatever and hope it works. Still, I try to be good.

 

I confess that I had not thought of 1D-2C-2D being on any minimum but I can very much see the point. Responder, with a 10-11 count, five clubs, otherwise balanced gets to bid 1D-2C-2D-2NT and give a pretty clear picture of his hand. Perhaps interestingly, Steve Robinson in his Washington Standard book makes all 2/1 auctions forcing to game with precisely one exception, that being the above auction (I think I am right about this).

 

And, of course, once we agree that the 2D bid can be on no great length it seems 3D had better be forcing. I would expect 3NT to be the next call on about 90% of the hands where this arises.

 

SAYC is often criticized for making 1m-2NT a game force. Personally, I am fine with this. Some hands should be played in the minors, maybe at the 5 level, maybe at the 6 level, and after 1m-2NT we may be able to sort this out. When, playing other options, the auction goes 1m-3NT(13-15) I sometimes have a very uncomfortable pass but since 3NT may be the last makable contract I have no choice. Further, since neither 1m-2m nor 1m-3m is forcing in SAYC, being able to bid 2NT gives a (not entirely satisfactory) way of perhaps coping.

 

Anyway, I appreciate Adam's thoughts. Not that it will really much matter in the indies. Mostly we engage in faith-based bidding there.

[Wackojack]

I would like to ask the OP what is his purpose?

 

1. If it is scientific parsing of the official SAYC booklet - read carefully awm's posts and trust him.

2. If it is trying to guess better what a pickup partner's (who claims to be playing SAYC) bids mean

- read the posts here that explained what (the ignorant...) 99% of SAYC players think.

3. If your purpose is to agree ona simple, natural (and that "feels natural"), non 2/1 GF, reasonably effective (though far from perfect) system to play with a regular partner - I suggest you forget about the "official" SAYC and play a Standard American variation where :

a. Responder does not guarantee a rebid over a minimum rebid in NT, a minimum raise and a minimum rebid of openers suit.

b. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ is non-forcing and promisses 5 cards.

Maybe you should call it "5 card majors with Acol flavour". I think you will find this system easier to play , and less confusing than the SAYC (the booklet's style).

 

Yes 2 reasons.

 

1. I will be partnering a guy in the London Easter tournament who plays "Modified SAYC" as stated in his convention card that he sent me. I am compiling a list of questions to ask him.

 

2. A friend who has moved to Athens has been playing at the main club there where most play what they call SAYC (pronouncing it "psyche" incidentally) He has an Acol background (as I have) and was surprised when his partner said that 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ was forcing (along with some others there) and asked me about it as I play a 5 card major system not 2/1 with one partner. I am not sure they play official SAYC there but obviously it is not "5 card majors with an Acol flavour" As an excercise I will suggest to him to ask the question to the SAYC ers there "After 1♦-2♣-2♦, how many diamonds does opener guarantee?"

[awm]

Personally I don't really find methods with all these non-forcing bids particularly playable.

 

It seems okay when opener has a minimum, but what happens when opener has extras? He has to jump to 3♦ on hands with six diamonds because 2♦ would be non-forcing; this bid now has a range of something like 14-20, a wide range of suit quality, and could have basically any shape in the side suits. Opener has to jump to 3NT on good balanced 14s and also on 18-19 balanced because 2NT would be non-forcing. And if opener has support for responder's clubs and enough for game, he has to bypass 3NT in order to show it at the four-level.

 

All of these seem quite awful, and will frequently leave responder at a guess of what to do at his second turn on quite ordinary hands. I'd much rather play the SAYC style where two of opener's suit is waiting. Sure, you can't play in exactly two of opener's suit, but other than that small loss the approach solves a huge number of problems, especially on the hands where slam is in the picture.

[Elianna]

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...

 

It may surprise you, but Adam and I play that 2♦ can be a 3-card suit. Now you know two people. There are others that also play this, but they don't post here, and they mainly play with me, so they may not count.

[Lurpoa]

Personally I don't really find methods with all these non-forcing bids particularly playable.

 

It seems okay when opener has a minimum, but what happens when opener has extras? He has to jump to 3♦ on hands with six diamonds because 2♦ would be non-forcing; this bid now has a range of something like 14-20, a wide range of suit quality, and could have basically any shape in the side suits. Opener has to jump to 3NT on good balanced 14s and also on 18-19 balanced because 2NT would be non-forcing. And if opener has support for responder's clubs and enough for game, he has to bypass 3NT in order to show it at the four-level.

 

All of these seem quite awful, and will frequently leave responder at a guess of what to do at his second turn on quite ordinary hands. I'd much rather play the SAYC style where two of opener's suit is waiting. Sure, you can't play in exactly two of opener's suit, but other than that small loss the approach solves a huge number of problems, especially on the hands where slam is in the picture.

 

 

Indeed, that jump bid to 3♦ is a problem. And often it is done on too light a hand. It should only ve done on 18or more HP (maybe 17+).

The origin of that problem is the sequence 1♦ 2♣, which gives

[Lurpoa]

Indeed, that jump bid to 3♦ is a problem. And often it is done on too light a hand. It should only ve done on 18or more HP (maybe 17+).

The origin of that problem is the sequence 1♦ 2♣, which gives

 

 

Sorry, this went wrong while I was writing: "posted" in stead of "preview". I correct:

 

No: after 1♦ 2♣:

2♦= 6 card ♦ 11-14HP

3♦=6card, 15-19+HP

[gwnn]

I don't like bidding the same nonforcing way with 11 and 14. If I have 14 and a 6 card suit I want to be in game. So I would be angry if partner passed me in 2♦. I suppose I'm alone with this.

[karlson]

I have definitely played 2♦ waiting (can be 3) in a 2/1 system (1♦-2♣ GF). It works quite well.

[han]

I believe those that claim that once upon a time SAYC was an abbreviation that had something to do with a booklet that was once written.

 

Nowadays SAYC is synonymous with Standard American AKA let's try to survive this without agreements. In this system, 3D is NF as it is too risky to bid it with a GF hand. This is obvious. Do not trust anybody who tries to persuade you otherwise with tactics such as logic. Logic does not apply.

[kenberg]

I believe those that claim that once upon a time SAYC was an abbreviation that had something to do with a booklet that was once written.

 

Nowadays SAYC is synonymous with Standard American AKA let's try to survive this without agreements. In this system, 3D is NF as it is too risky to bid it with a GF hand. This is obvious. Do not trust anybody who tries to persuade you otherwise with tactics such as logic. Logic does not apply.

 

 

Cynical. Also 100% true.

 

But abstract discussions of what the system would mean if it in fact had a meaning can be entertaining, and Wacko even envisions a practical use (good luck with that).

 

In the indies Partner opened 1NT and I, with six hearts and five spades, transferred to hearts at the two level and then bid 4H. In a hand that has an easy ten tricks partner went down two. At least we got to the right contract. This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.

[gwnn]

Cynical. Also 100% true.

 

But abstract discussions of what the system would mean if it in fact had a meaning can be entertaining, and Wacko even envisions a practical use (good luck with that).

 

In the indies Partner opened 1NT and I, with six hearts and five spades, transferred to hearts at the two level and then bid 4H. In a hand that has an easy ten tricks partner went down two. At least we got to the right contract. This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.

 

You see, you should have transferred to spades and then bid 4H, then you'd have gotten to the right contract as well, but this time played from the right hand.

[Wackojack]

[This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.

 

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

 

There is a book that I have been told about entitled ‘Standard Bidding with SAYC” by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying ‘…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.’ Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?

[kenberg]

I have, with various partners, attempted to efficiently get to agreements by saying "Let's play whatsit as written up by whosit". Agreeing to play SAYC as written in this book would fall into this line of thinking. I have never looked at the book, if I wanted to go into detail on a system it probably would not be SAYC. But I do like the idea of just saying "If it says blank in our agreed reference then that is the meaning unless we have specifically agreed to an exception". Save time, saves quarrels.

 

Of course this only apples if your partner agrees to accept this book as the argument ender.

 

 

I saw this philosophy in action yesterday in an informal game where discussion was acceptable.

 

The opp's auction went

1♥ 2♣

2NT 3NT

 

The 2♣ bidder later opined that opener should have bid his four card spade suit over 2♣. He said he had a minimal hand. She said that they had agreed to play Hardy style. He agreed that was so. End of discussion. My preference is that 2♠ would show extras, but my real preference is to know what we are playing. In Hardy style, 2♠ does not show extras. Their discussion was short and productive.

[awm]

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

 

There is a book that I have been told about entitled ‘Standard Bidding with SAYC” by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying ‘…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.’ Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?

 

I have a copy of this book. It gives lots of example hands, talks a lot about hand evaluation, but it doesn't really present new systemic information that isn't in the booklet.

 

In particular, there is no discussion of 2/1 sequences like the one described in this thread.

[Lurpoa]

 

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

 

There is a book that I have been told about entitled 'Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying '…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.' Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?

 

 

 

No, not completely true... It is working fine... within limits...and for the purpose intended....

 

But if it did not work too well, it is because too many people have tried to define their own private (American) Standard. By definition a standard is something you adhere to 100%, and some players forgot that a standard is only working well if partner is playing that same standard.

 

Another reason it doesn't work too well is probably the lack of support to this standard by ACBL (at least, that is my humble opinion). Things like "after a 2/1 response, responder promesses a rebid " should be clarified. How old is the last edition of the booklet ?

 

PS: I am very much afraid that that book is one more attempt to to re-invent SAYC. Only the owner of a standard, here it is ACBL, can prescibe changes/clarifications/options to their standard.

[helene_t]

I think there is an alternative to AWM's interpretation.

 

An opening in a suit is 13-14 or 18-19 balanced, or unbalanced. But you add one length point for a five card suit, hence with a 5332 shape the ranges become 12-13 and 17-18. This narrow range means that responder, with a balanced hand, does not invite opposite the 13-14 variant. If he doesn't want to be in game opposite 13-14 he responds 1NT. So a 2/1 response is GF opposite the balanced minimum, at least if responder has a balanced. This does not answer the question whether

1♦-2♣

2NT-3♣

can/must be passed.

 

With this interpretation, it is not obvious if

1♦-2♣

2♦-3♦

but probably Han's point applies. It could be non-forcing so it is too dangerous to bid it with a strong hand.

[kenberg]

So a 2/1 response is GF opposite the balanced minimum, at least if responder has a balanced hand.

[/Quote]

 

I doubt that any such interpretation was intended by the authors. Give responder an 11 count and five clubs. Opener starts with 1♦. Opposite 14 responder wants to be in game, opposite less maybe not.

 

Responding 2NT is GF, so that's out. Responder bids 2♣. If opener rebids 2NT then responder is forced to bid again, but bid what? 3NT I suppose. If a GF was bid in this auction it seems it is the 2NT bid since it must show a hand that wants to be in game opposite a 2♣ bidder who has no extra length and no extra values. For that matter, the 2♣ might even be on four cards. If 3=3=3=4, I cannot see 1NT on an 11 count if partner may have 14. But after 1♦-2♣-2NT you have to bid again, the booklet says so. This means opener had better not rebid 2NT on his flat 13, and this appears to mean that the 2♦ rebid can be on no great length. And, of course, telling the modern player he cannot open his 12 count is a tough sell. Most adults know how to say one thing and do another.

 

 

When SAYC first came out, the Washington Bridge League distributed the books for free and held SAYC-nights to encourage it. Peter Boyd and Steve Robinson playing SAYC, no add-ons. The project got very little support.

 

People get dealt 11 counts fairly often. In a typical 2/1 system, if partner opens a major you bid 1NT and then, if opener does nothing dramatic, you rebid 2NT. If partner opens a minor you use an inverted raise as a one-round force or you bid 2NT invitational. SAYC, for better or worse, doesn't have those options. So you start with a 2/1 bid and then you need a way to get out. Adam/Elianna appear to have thought this through pretty well, but their approach is not widely played and so it's just, as Han says, "let's try to survive without agreements". For informal bridge that's fine. Most of the disasters in an indy are caused by errors that are beyond the control of any system.

[HeartA]

I have, with various partners, attempted to efficiently get to agreements by saying "Let's play whatsit as written up by whosit". Agreeing to play SAYC as written in this book would fall into this line of thinking. I have never looked at the book, if I wanted to go into detail on a system it probably would not be SAYC. But I do like the idea of just saying "If it says blank in our agreed reference then that is the meaning unless we have specifically agreed to an exception". Save time, saves quarrels.

 

Of course this only apples if your partner agrees to accept this book as the argument ender.

 

 

I saw this philosophy in action yesterday in an informal game where discussion was acceptable.

 

The opp's auction went

1♥ 2♣

2NT 3NT

 

The 2♣ bidder later opined that opener should have bid his four card spade suit over 2♣. He said he had a minimal hand. She said that they had agreed to play Hardy style. He agreed that was so. End of discussion. My preference is that 2♠ would show extras, but my real preference is to know what we are playing. In Hardy style, 2♠ does not show extras. Their discussion was short and productive.

2♠ over pd's 2♣ doesn't need to have extras.

[blackshoe]

2♠ over pd's 2♣ doesn't need to have extras.

Which is the argument for Hardy style. Nonetheless, some people choose to play that it does show extras.

[kenberg]

Right, Blackie.

Heart, my point was that some (Mike Lawrence, for example) play that it does show extras, some play that a it doesn't. By saying "We will play Hardy style" both players now know that, for them, it doesn't. I didn't mean to start a side issue on which way is best, I only meant to illustrate how choosing a reference and agreeing to interpret bids in that manner can be efficient.

 

From what Adam says about the Downey-Pomer book, I gather it does not resolve OP's original question. If a new edition is panned, they might add in such things. A long term partnership will have extensive agreements on many situations, but every partnership needs to know which bids are passable.

[LH2650]

* 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.

 

 

This is incorrect. The statement you reference appears after the discussion of 2/1 bids, and therefore the statement that a minimum notrump rebid can be made on a minimum opening bid applies to them. Therefore I take issue with most of your points, starting with [4]. With an invitational hand, responder is presumably forced to rebid his suit, but that should result in at least a 5-2 fit nearly all the time.

 

As for the original sequence 1♦ - 2♣ -2♦ - 3♦, I think that it is non-forcing. What rule does that violate? One problem with Standard American bidding, since its inception, is that responder occasionally has had to make a misdiscriptive rebid in order to force. The solution has been 2/1 GF.

[awm]

This is incorrect. The statement you reference appears after the discussion of 2/1 bids, and therefore the statement that a minimum notrump rebid can be made on a minimum opening bid applies to them. Therefore I take issue with most of your points, starting with [4]. With an invitational hand, responder is presumably forced to rebid his suit, but that should result in at least a 5-2 fit nearly all the time.

 

As for the original sequence 1♦ - 2♣ -2♦ - 3♦, I think that it is non-forcing. What rule does that violate? One problem with Standard American bidding, since its inception, is that responder occasionally has had to make a misdiscriptive rebid in order to force. The solution has been 2/1 GF.

 

The section on opener's rebids is not specific to two-over-one auctions. Indeed, several of the points seem not quite right for 2/1 sequences, such as suggesting that opener can raise a 2m response (which shows only four cards) to the three-level on "good three card support" on a minimum hand, or suggesting that opener can rebid 2NT (forcing) over what could easily be a balanced invite on a minimum hand. The suggestion that opener should jump-rebid his original suit on 16-18 points (rather than make a 100% forcing 2M rebid) also seems strange. It's obviously unfortunate that there is some lack of clarity here, but I think my interpretation (that not enough detail was given and that the "rules" which in no way distinguished between 1/1 and 2/1 were intended more for 1/1 sequences) makes more sense than your suggestion that you have to play in 5-2 fits at the three-level with great frequency because you can't stop in 2NT or 3m when opener has a dead minimum and responder has only an invite.