when opponents make a jump overcall of 1NT in sayc

[helene_t]

Classic Sayc, of course you know, is 13-15, like BBO Standard. Classic Sayc has no bid for 11-12 very flat hands that can't respond one over one in a four card suit, rather embarrassing for such a venerable system, but there is a price to pay for simplicity.

With 11 points you respond at the 2-level and bid 2NT next time (or raise partner's suit if he repeats it). With 12 points you can probably force to game, I would assume sound openings if all we have agreed on is "SAYC". With 10 points I respond 1NT as opener, if he passes 1NT, has 12-14 balanced most of the time, but if a decent 10 count is worth a 2-level response in our style then that is fine, too.

 

So there is no problem here. Except that if opener has a (43)42 12-count and responder a 3334 11-count it looks as if we should bid

1♦-2♣

2NT-3NT

which can't be right. I think most forum people subscribe to AWM's interpretation, namely that opener must rebid 2♦ as 2NT shows a little extras, say 14 or a good 13. But I also think it is something you will have to check with your partner, even if you are confident that he has read the SAYC documentation.

[gwnn]

You are slightly confused Lurpoa. "han" and "hanp" are not the same letters.

 

also,

Schizophrenia is not the same thing as Dissociative identity disorder, namely split or multiple personalities.[261][262][263][264][265][266][267] Etymologically, the term "schizophrenia" comes from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") and is a juxtaposition proposed by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, which may have given rise to this common misconception.

[JLOGIC]

Deleted rude post that's just a personal attack - Rain

 

lol.

 

Yeah han and hanp are seperate btw, as my title says "aka hanp" but I am not han :(

[han]

I never saw the deleted post but if lurpoa thought that Justin and I are the same then I am deeply insulted. Hey, this might be the first time I agree with a decision by Rain!

[Finch]

Following JLOGIC my partner and I agreed last weekend to play that double is 4-5 spades (or 6+ with slam interest) and 3S shows a balanced hand without a spade stopper. To quote my partner: it is very unnatural to me to play that 3S shows spades in this auction.

 

Maybe we should try this. We play 1NT (3D) 3H as spades and 3S as hearts, but we haven't got to this treatment yet.

I'm usually a bit unconvinced about 'right-siding' issues because it's often a guess as to who should be declarer, but his is an auction where you definitely want the opener to be declarer.

[wickedbid1]

With 11 points you respond at the 2-level and bid 2NT next time (or raise partner's suit if he repeats it). With 12 points you can probably force to game, I would assume sound openings if all we have agreed on is "SAYC". With 10 points I respond 1NT as opener, if he passes 1NT, has 12-14 balanced most of the time, but if a decent 10 count is worth a 2-level response in our style then that is fine, too.

 

So there is no problem here. Except that if opener has a (43)42 12-count and responder a 3334 11-count it looks as if we should bid

1♦-2♣

2NT-3NT

which can't be right. I think most forum people subscribe to AWM's interpretation, namely that opener must rebid 2♦ as 2NT shows a little extras, say 14 or a good 13. But I also think it is something you will have to check with your partner, even if you are confident that he has read the SAYC documentation.

 

 

You are quite right in pointing out that compensating for the 3-3-3-4 fudge leads almost inevitably to one of two more coinflip guesses. I also prefer to play the "neutral" 2 di rebid, but many pards just won't let the di's go when u try to "cancel" the di rebid by pulling back to NT. And many pards will assume extras if one bids 2nt (without discussion i usually just bid 2nt on anything with a few tenaces, but i like to have extras...and would make this a firm agreement with a regular pard).

 

The premise of my discussion of SAYC is that one has not worked out these trickier agreements with one's partner -- the whole point of SAYC online & its f2f incarnation was to try to build a system where there would be minimal problems playing with minimal system discussion.

 

Since this particular sequence is annoying, I noted it in passing, as an example of the elegance of system simplicity resulting in sometimes embarrassing guesses.

 

If people want to put forward other candidates for a universal system, I am fine with that. But I think that SAYC has proven itself to be functional, overall, for this purpose. Little tinkers with it, like 1m --2nt (11-12), without changing the name, is exactly what will kill it, possibly leaving us with a tower of babble.

 

Let's not let SAYC go the way of "Goren" until we are fairly sure we know what is going to be the next BIG THING (Is there a "Classic 2/1" yet? Not quite.) We need to be firm about the distinction between "Classic SAYC" and private partnership preferences or geographically local tendencies.

[JLOGIC]

Maybe we should try this. We play 1NT (3D) 3H as spades and 3S as hearts, but we haven't got to this treatment yet.

I'm usually a bit unconvinced about 'right-siding' issues because it's often a guess as to who should be declarer, but his is an auction where you definitely want the opener to be declarer.

 

You also get to have an invite in spades this way which is nice.