SAYC - forcing or not ?

[petterb]

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 3♠

 

Is 3♠ forcing in SAYC?

[helene_t]

no. while it's true that a 3-card limit raise would have been shown in first round, responder could still have ♠Hx and 11 points.

[Bbradley62]

According to BBO's step-by-step SAYC convention card, 3♠ is invitational and shows three spades, since 2♠ is the trash rebid and doesn't show six.

[awm]

Forcing.

 

The SAYC booklet doesn't talk about this specifically. However, 2nt or 3c by opener would've been forcing (and thus must show extras). It follows that opener's 2s did not show six necessarily (he must bid it on minimum balanced hands for example). So 3s should show three (not two) card support. But 3-card invite bids 1s-3s directly in SAYC. So responder must be stronger than that, holding 3-card game force.

 

Generally responder's non-forcing less-than-game rebids after an initial 2-level response in SAYC are 2nt, 3 of responder's suit, or raising opener's second suit (if any).

 

I would not expect a typical pickup partner claiming to play "SAYC" to know any of this.

[Bbradley62]

But 3-card invite bids 1s-3s directly in SAYC. So responder must be stronger than that, holding 3-card game force.

I don't think this is necessarily true; can you not show your own suit with xxx, xx, xx, AKQxxx? (Mentally make whatever strength adjustments you need to make to classify this shape as game-invitational strength.)

[han]

Holding Kxx xxx xx AQJxx playing sayc I would start with 2C and raise 2S to 3S. But I wouldn't expect awm to know this.

[ArtK78]

The ACBL SAYC System Booklet is silent on this point. It does say that with invitational values one is supposed to make an immediate raise to 3 as a limit raise even with only 3 card support. Also, it says that if responder makes a 2/1 and then JUMP raises opener's first bid suit to the three level it is forcing (for example, the sequence 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♠ is forcing). But there is no mention of a non-jump raise to the three level after a 2/1 response.

 

The SAYC booklet also states that if, after a 2/1 response, opener bids a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing. So perhaps after 1♠-2♣-2♠ responder has to bid 3♦ or 3♥ to create a force.

 

Given that responder is supposed to make a limit raise of opener's major suit on 3 card support immediately, it follows that the non-jump raise to 3 after a 2/1 response should be forcing. But there is no statement to that effect in the ACBL SAYC System Booklet.

[Bbradley62]

Given that responder is supposed to make a limit raise of opener's major suit on 3 card support immediately, it follows that the non-jump raise to 3 after a 2/1 response should be forcing. But there is no statement to that effect in the ACBL SAYC System Booklet.

Please don't tell me that with "limit raise values" and 3622 shape responder is expected to hide his 6-card major and show 3card support. Failure to raise immediately cannot be an absolute denial of 3card support.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Bbradley62

[aguahombre]

Holding Kxx xxx xx AQJxx playing sayc I would start with 2C and raise 2S to 3S. But I wouldn't expect awm to know this.

That is what I would want to do with that hand, also...a nice prepared auction inviting game and showing where my stuff is.

 

However:

Given that responder is supposed to make a limit raise of opener's major suit on 3 card support immediately, it follows that the non-jump raise to 3 after a 2/1 response should be forcing. But there is no statement to that effect in the ACBL SAYC System Booklet.

So, I guess I just wasn't cut out to play SAYC. But, I still would want to use Han's sequence if we didn't play 2/1 G.F.; so we would just have to call it something else.

[Phil]

Are there any serious partnerships that play SAYC? If not, this seems like an interesting, but pointless discussion.

[aguahombre]

Are there any serious partnerships that play SAYC? If not, this seems like an interesting, but pointless discussion.

I think it is good for reasonable players whom have never met to start with something, on-line. It is also a condition for some individual live tourneys....

 

So, it can't hurt ---since this forum has SAYC in its title

[qwery_hi]

There are many serious partnerships that play SAYC. Just because they don't play in the BB, doesn't mean they are not serious.

Next time though, OP will remember to ask you before posting something that may lead to a pointless discussion.

 

Are there any serious partnerships that play SAYC? If not, this seems like an interesting, but pointless discussion.

[jdeegan]

:P That auction is sort of the quintessential non-forcing bid in SAYC. It is why 2/1 was invented for IMP games in order to get that extra level of bidding to facilitate slam auctions. Good bidders will outbid mediocre and bad bidders almost regardless of the systems used. I actually prefer SAYC for matchpoints. Indeed ACOL with weak NT and 4 card major openings is not a bad way to go at MP's here in the colonies. Even experienced opps sometimes have trouble coping with what to them are unfamiliar competitive bidding sequences.

 

If you want to max out your IMP scoring capabilities, then most of the top players use a strong, artificial club opener. 2/1 is a sort of a second rate compromise.

[MrAce]

 

If you want to max out your IMP scoring capabilities, then most of the top players use a strong, artificial club opener. 2/1 is a sort of a second rate compromise.

 

Interesting you say this, i know a lot of top pairs who play 2/1, with their own modifications in subsequent auctions of course just like all of us but professionally designed. But this doesnt change the fact that they play 2/1 or they build their system on the 2/1 structure. And i doubt these pairs would compromise a 2nd rate system.

 

Gittelman - Moss

 

Levin - Weinstein

 

Bocchi - Madala

 

Duboin - Sementa

 

Versace - Lauria

 

Hurd - Wooldridge

 

Fredin - Fallenius

 

Helgemo - Helness (they open 1♥ with 4 only except than that 2/1 structure)

 

Israel team

 

Bored to count now....list goes on and on....

[Flameous]

Not really claiming anything about sayc, but this is one point where I had special agreements in place when still playing 2/1 non gf.

 

We used this sequence as invitational (Either bal or with clubs, couldn't really differentiate them) and used responders reverse as descriptive GF raise with 3 card support.

 

So 3♦ here would be the GF raise, while over 1S - 2D - 2S, it's 3♥.

 

I think it's a quite good treatment, as you really just lose your way to describe 56 hands, a rare thing.

[jdeegan]

Interesting you say this, i know a lot of top pairs who play 2/1, with their own modifications in subsequent auctions of course just like all of us but professionally designed. But this doesnt change the fact that they play 2/1 or they build their system on the 2/1 structure. And i doubt these pairs would compromise a 2nd rate system.

 

Gittelman - Moss

 

Levin - Weinstein

 

Bocchi - Madala

 

Duboin - Sementa

 

Versace - Lauria

 

Hurd - Wooldridge

 

Fredin - Fallenius

 

Helgemo - Helness (they open 1♥ with 4 only except than that 2/1 structure)

 

Israel team

 

Bored to count now....list goes on and on....

:P I stand corrected. With enough bells and whistles 2/1 seems to be a match for anything. Personally, I am glad since it makes top level bridge easier to kibitz. Plus, you can play it almost anywhere with almost anyone.

[awm]

I will just say that unlike most (all?) other posters here, I have played SAYC in serious partnerships, including in regional and national-level events. Currently my most-frequent partnership plays methods which are close to SAYC (but with some "bells and whistles" so not by-the-book SAYC). In fact our methods are closer to the yellow card than the methods of many of these "2/1 pairs" are to the Lawrence (or Hardy) 2/1 book.

 

I am sure I would not know how Han likes to play SAYC. I've played against him a few times and kibitzed him on BBO a few times and he never seems to be playing anything even close to SAYC as best I can tell.

[han]

I never play on BBO with my regular SAYC partner.

[gnasher]

Holding Kxx xxx xx AQJxx playing sayc I would start with 2C and raise 2S to 3S.

I would do the same with Kx xxx xxx AKJxx, even though partner might have only five spades. If partner is passing my invitation, 3♠ by him is likely to be better than 2NT by me; if he is bidding game and happens to be balanced he can bid 3NT himself.

[helene_t]

I had Gnasher's hand in mind and I don't see why this isn't consistent with the SAYC booklet. Then again, a hand that wants to make a forcing 3♠ bid is obviously more frequent. So I suppose AWM is right.

[Stephen Tu]

awm's position is the "if SAYC was a logical system construction, this ought to be forcing" position. I'd agree that if one were trying to construct a logical system, playable in an advanced partnership given sayc's other parameters, this might be best played as forcing.

 

But my contention is that SAYC is NOT a logical system construction (look at things like no forcing minor raise, opener's rebid of 2nt defined as minimum 13-16 even though it's forcing and logically ought to be extra values), rather that it's traditional SA with a thrown on additional hodgepodge of somewhat popular conventions/treatments at the time of its publication. And in traditional SA this sequence was always non-forcing.

 

I think of SAYC as traditional SA ++, so definitely always assumed non-forcing here, though I gave up playing with random SAYC partners years ago. If I wanted to play this sequence as forcing I'd have agreed on 2/1 and been done with it!

[whereagles]

There's a good case for playing it as forcing and always use 1M-3M as the invite. You'd be out of forcing bids over 2S if you don't define it as forcing.

[gnasher]

There's a good case for playing it as forcing and always use 1M-3M as the invite. You'd be out of forcing bids over 2S if you don't define it as forcing.

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

 

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

[xxhong]

acol and SEF players play strong jumpshifts way more frequently than SAYC players. Also, many acol players just jump to 4m to show value and slam going raise in 4S in this sequence.

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

 

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

[helene_t]

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

 

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

SAYC is almost 2/1 GF, since a 2/1 promises a rebid there are not many sequences starting with a 2/1 that lead to partscores.

 

I disagree that Acol players manage to survive. IMO 2/1 sequences in Acol are a big mess. Then again, 1M-1NT is a big mess in 2/1. SAYC is a compromise between the two.