Beginner's SAYC question

[boddecki]

Hi,

 

Playing SAYC (or BBO Basic), what can you tell about rules

of forcing in these simple sequencies:

 

1S - 2C

2S - ?

 

1. Can responder pass ?

2. Did opener promise 6 spades ?

 

1S - 2C

2NT - ?

 

Can responder pass ?

 

1S - 2C

3C - ?

 

Can responder pass ?

 

1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing ?

 

1S - 2C

2S - 3C

 

Is this forcing ?

 

TIA.

[mink]

I am not a sayc expert, but I answer as I understand the system

 

 

1S - 2C

2S - ?

 

1. Can responder pass ? no

2. Did opener promise 6 spades ? no

 

1S - 2C

2NT - ?

 

Can responder pass ? never ;)

 

1S - 2C

3C - ?

 

Can responder pass ? no

 

1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing ? I play it forcing, 4H is weak

 

1S - 2C

2S - 3C

 

Is this forcing ? no

 

Karl

[Codo]

Hi,

 

there are no yes or no answers. Most of these sequences are not written down in SAYC, so there are always big discussions and disasters. So, like Karl, I will just give you my view:

 

1S - 2C

2S - ?

 

1. Can responder pass ?

No

 

2. Did opener promise 6 spades ?

 

It depends. This is "simple" . You need one "catch all" bid and in my opinion it is a million times better to use 2 Spade for this then 2 NT. So in my view, 2 Spade is 12-15 HCPS and 5+ spade and 2 NT would be 16-18. Others prefer to play 2 Spade as showing 6 spades and 2 NT to show 5 Spades and 12-15 HCPs.

 

1S - 2C

2NT - ?

 

Can responder pass ?

 

This is not written down either. I guess most play it as the weak bid (12-15 HCP) and then you may pass.

But I very much prefer to play it as 16-18 HCPs

and Game forcing.

 

1S - 2C

3C - ?

 

Can responder pass ?

 

Again I would prefer to play it forcing. A non forcing Club raise could be:

1 S-2C-2S-2NT-3C

But I guess, that most here play it as invitational and non-forcing.

 

1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing ?

 

I like to play it like Karl and here I am quite sure, that most fellows play it that way.

 

1S - 2C

2S - 3C

 

Is this forcing ?

 

No

 

So sorry, no real answer to your great questions.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

My only disagreements with Roland are:

 

"1S - 2C

2NT - ?"

 

I play this as weak, and non-forcing.

 

"1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing?"

 

I believe most (including me) play it as non forcing. If forcing, how do you show heart support and a dead minimum hand? If you switch suits, you may get too high.

 

One note on rebidding a 5 card suit - I do it, but I try not to do it if the suit is less than KJ10xx, or something like that. My rule is that if I rebid, partner should feel comfortable raising with 3 small.

[bglover]

Playing SAYC (or BBO Basic), what can you tell about rules

of forcing in these simple sequencies:

 

1S - 2C

2S - ?

 

1. Can responder pass ? YES. A 2/1 response only requires 10 pts.. 2S shows a minimum hand and presumably 6 trumps... Pass with 10 and 2 spades!

 

2. Did opener promise 6 spades ?

 

1S - 2C

2NT - ?

 

Can responder pass ? YES. SAYC requires opener to limit his hand as quickly as possible! 2N limits hand to a bad 15 or less! Rebid 3n with a good 15 or more (but less than 19).

 

1S - 2C

3C - ?

 

Can responder pass ? Same as 1. Bad 10 count can and should pass. 3C shows max 15 (am assuming NT a problem here).

 

1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing ? NO. Same as above... but, you probably have enough for game here (as opposed to minor game which requires 1 more trick) so have a good reason to pass....

 

1S - 2C

2S - 3C

 

Is this forcing ? NO. MISFIT city... even in 2/1 this isn't forcing in some systems.

 

TIA.

[EricK]

In SAYC (but not neccesarily in other forms of Standard American) a 2/1 by responder promises a rebid unless opener rebids in game.

 

So the only non forcing sequence you quoted is

 

1S 2C

2S 3C

 

And opener hasn't promised 6 spades in this sequence. He must bid 2S with most minimum hands, even with support for responder's suit.

 

The case of 1S 2H 3H is interesting. This is forcing according to the SAYC rules, so to show support in a non-forcing hand opener must rebid 2S and then rebid 3H. However, since the 2H bid tends to show 5 hearts and it generally pays to stretch to games at IMPS, it is very unusual for opoer with 5S and 4H to want to stay out of game opposite a 2H response.

 

Note that a large number of people who play online don't realise that SAYC has this agreement about 2/1 bids promising a rebid. They seem to think that SAYC just means 5 card majors and 15-17 NT.

 

Eric

[bglover]

I disagree with Erick's statements. I fail to see the logic why a minimum rebid by opener is ever forcing even after a 2/1 response.

 

Use logic for just 1 minute... Opener can have 11-21 HCPs for his opening... His 2d bid allows him to futher refine his holding via a jump, a reverse, etc. Sometimes he has more to show but the bid isn't a natural reverse (example 6 spds and 5 haerts and reverse strength)... this is why a NEW SUIT is forcing after a 2/1 bid even if not a reverse. BUT, when opener rebids his opening suit he has shown his length AND his minimal values (he would jump rebid with more than a minimum).

 

So, the rebid of suit should not be foricng when responder is allowed to make a 2/1 bid on a mere 10 count. Why? Because partner, with 16 or more will either (a) jump in his own suit with extra length or (:) bid a new suit forcing partner to bid again.

 

I have played SAYC this way for years now (we play a new suit is always forcing 1 round, an immediate rebid of suit promises 6 or more, etc.). The context why is laid out above... In my opinion, requiring responder to take a 2d bid when there is a misfit and a lack of HCP strength would weaken the system (getting you a level too high on a known misfit).

 

Now, having said all this, in my experience 90% of the time a 2/1 sequence will end up getting you to game in any event. The pattern I laid out above is relatively rare but useful for part score bidding.

 

That, to me, is actually the one strength to SAYC... the abilty to stop in misfits quickly. Perhaps some play that responder is required to take a 2d bid always, and I certainly play that is the case in all cases EXCEPT when partner rebids his suit and this treatment has served me very well.

[pbleighton]

2over1 wrote:

"I disagree with Erick's statements. I fail to see the logic why a minimum rebid by opener is ever forcing even after a 2/1 response."

 

I agree, in practical terms (it's the way I play), but EricK is correct that many definitions (Bill Root's Commonsense Bidding, for example), say that a 2/1 response promise a second bid, with no qualifications. Unfortunately, this isn't practical, for the reasons 2over1 spelled out.

[Codo]

Hi 2/1, hi pb,

 

unplayable in a practical way?

No never ever. If you understand your bidding, you will only bid 2/1 with 11 HCPs or good 10. And then you are always safe to play in 2 NT.

The bidding with weak hands is so easy:

Opener rebids his major and pd bids 2 NT or rebids his suit with nothing more to say.

In the first case, the bidding will be:

1 Heart 2 Club

2 Heart 2 NT

 

Now opener can pass, correct to 3 Club, raise to 3 NT or repeat his major.

NO Problem at all. You are very very safe and can stop below game.

 

In the second case, responder repeats his minor and opener can now comfortably pass or correct or move on...

 

So practical problems do you have only in the way you play:

1 Major-2 Minor

2 NT

shows now 12-15 HCPS. So with very normal 11 or 12 HCPS responder has to guess whether he should bid 3 NT or pass. That is a big practical problem.

It is no problem at all to promise a rebid.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[bglover]

I can construct a myriad of hands where opener holds a minimum with a 6 card major and responder a scattered 11 count in the minors where 3n or 2n is unplayable, so what the heck is your point?

 

My point is and STILL is that being able to play 2 of a major is a GOOD THING the way I have laid it out.

 

Remember, I said most or the time a 2/1 sequence is going to require a 2d bid from responder AND that most of the time you are going tor reach game.

 

I stated ONE SPECIFIC SEQUENCE where it is great to be able to pass partner even after a 2/1 bid and I laid out the reasons why. Nothing in your post addressed how that problem hand is no longer a problem... only that it is likely to force us to a level too high, exactly the reason I propounded for why I do not play it as forcing for another round-- game is NOT in the offing, we have determined there IS a misfit... this is why I play it is PASSABLE even if you do not... and I'll stick to my method knowing it has served me well and is grounded in logic.

[pbleighton]

"unplayable in a practical way?

No never ever. If you understand your bidding, you will only bid 2/1 with 11 HCPs or good 10. And then you are always safe to play in 2 NT.

The bidding with weak hands is so easy:

Opener rebids his minor and pd bids 2 NT or rebids his suit with nothing more to say.

In the first case, the bidding will be:

1 Heart 2 Club

2 Heart 2 NT

 

No opener can pass, correct to 3 Club, raise to 3 NT or repeat his major.

NO Problem at all. You are very very safe and can stop below game.

 

In the second case, responder repeats his minor and opener can now comfortably pass or correct ormove on...

 

So practical problems do you have only in the way you play:

1 Major-2 Minor

2 NT

shows now 12-15 HCPS. So with very normal 11 or 12 HCPS responder has to guess whether he should bid 3 NT or pass. That is a big practical problem.

It is no problem at all to promise a rebid.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland"

 

I agree with you on the strength requirements for a 2/1 response, but:

 

My first post said:

 

"My only disagreements with Roland are:

 

"1S - 2C

2NT - ?"

 

I play this as weak, and non-forcing.

 

"1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing?

 

I believe most (including me) play it as non forcing. If forcing, how do you show heart support and a dead minimum hand? If you switch suits, you may get too high."

 

On this one:

"1S - 2C

2NT - ?"

 

If responder has a good 10/11 hcp, a balanced hand, and 2 hearts, he is stuck for a rebid. 2NT is where the contract belongs. Do you rebid clubs, with no sign of support from opener? Do you raise hearts with 2?

 

On this one:

"1S - 2H

3H

 

Is this forcing?"

 

What do you do if you have a minimum? If opener had more than a minimum, he could go to game. If opener's 3H doesn't show heart support and a dead minimum, how can he show it, and how can the partnership stop in 3 hearts if that is where they belong?

 

I think your approach can push contracts too high, or put them in inappropriate strains.

 

I agree with your point about the awkwardness of my (and many others) approach, but I think its considerable disadvantages are less than those of your approach. Bottom line: that's why 2/1 was invented ;D

[Codo]

Hi 2over1,

 

just to please me: You refered to one specific hand which you are talking above. Which one do you talk about? The one with 6 card in your major, no fit, opend with 11, pds 2/1 was with 10 and you played against silent opps?

 

YES YES YES, then and only then it would be wonderful to play it your way.

 

If you refer to another hand type, be so kind and excplain it please, then I must have missed something.

 

Or do you have more hand types to proofe your way right?

Of course, IF you take 2 of your major as the weak "catch-all" bid, (like I would) you are getting less accurate with this bid. Even my kid will understand this.

 

But I prefer it this way because of two big advantages opposite this disadvantage:

 

1. You can still play it the way the experts like, that the 2/1 promises a rebid if game is not yet reached...

 

2. You get much more accurate about playing 2 NT or 3 NT.

In your way, you have a problem with all 12-14 (15) HCP hands with a 5 card major AND a partner hand with 11-12 HCPs. You will bid 2 NT and he has to throw dices whether 3 NT is a good bet or not.

 

And these kind of hands do happen much more often then the ones you mentioned (weak 6carder opposite a weak no fit hand...)

 

But go ahead to play it your way. The gains and losses are not so big and nobody needs to learn new things if he is pleased with his old stuff....

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[Codo]

Hi pb,

 

On this one:

"1S - 2C

2NT - ?"

 

If responder has a good 10/11 hcp, a balanced hand, and 2 hearts, he is stuck for a rebid. 2NT is where the contract belongs. Do you rebid clubs, with no sign of support from opener? Do you raise hearts with 2?

 

These 10/11 HCP hands from responder are the reason why I play 2 NT as 16-18. Now he can easily rebid 3 NT with his hand. In my way, his pd with a weak hand (12-15) has an easy 2 Spade rebid and responder now will bid 2 NT showing 11-12.

In my opinion it is MUCH easier for opener to decide between 2 and 3 NT: His pd has a range from good 10 to lousy 12, about 1.5 HCPs.

If opener rebids 2 NT with 11-14 (12-15) this is a bigger range and it is a pure guess which contract will be right...

 

What do you do if you have a minimum? If opener had more than a minimum, he could go to game. If opener's 3H doesn't show heart support and a dead minimum, how can he show it, and how can the partnership stop in 3 hearts if that is where they belong?

 

Again, the same tool will work:

1 Spade-2Heart

2 Spade 2 NT

3 Heart

 

easy, isn`t it?

 

So I really know just the one hand type 2/1 mentioned, where you have a disadvantage: a 6 card major, slightly too strong for a weak two, but still in the lower range and a "strechted" Pd who was close to bid 1 NT and no 2/1 answer.

 

Bottom line: that's why 2/1 was invented

 

To solve one problem and earn a million others :)

 

I guess that any systems has his bigs ups and downs. 2/1 is very unpopular in Europe and maybe there are reasons for that?

 

Big club sytems are very common and a natural system called FES (Froum D here), which is pretty close to a detailed SAYC and works quite well too.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[EricK]

I disagree with Erick's statements. I fail to see the logic why a minimum rebid by opener is ever forcing even after a 2/1 response.

 

Use logic for just 1 minute... Opener can have 11-21 HCPs for his opening... His 2d bid allows him to futher refine his holding via a jump, a reverse, etc. Sometimes he has more to show but the bid isn't a natural reverse (example 6 spds and 5 haerts and reverse strength)... this is why a NEW SUIT is forcing after a 2/1 bid even if not a reverse. BUT, when opener rebids his opening suit he has shown his length AND his minimal values (he would jump rebid with more than a minimum).

 

So, the rebid of suit should not be foricng when responder is allowed to make a 2/1 bid on a mere 10 count. Why? Because partner, with 16 or more will either (a) jump in his own suit with extra length or (:) bid a new suit forcing partner to bid again.

 

I have played SAYC this way for years now (we play a new suit is always forcing 1 round, an immediate rebid of suit promises 6 or more, etc.). The context why is laid out above... In my opinion, requiring responder to take a 2d bid when there is a misfit and a lack of HCP strength would weaken the system (getting you a level too high on a known misfit).

 

Now, having said all this, in my experience 90% of the time a 2/1 sequence will end up getting you to game in any event. The pattern I laid out above is relatively rare but useful for part score bidding.

 

That, to me, is actually the one strength to SAYC... the abilty to stop in misfits quickly. Perhaps some play that responder is required to take a 2d bid always, and I certainly play that is the case in all cases EXCEPT when partner rebids his suit and this treatment has served me very well.

 

SAYC is a well defined system (at least in non-competitive auctions). It was designed so that any two people could sit down and say we play SAYC and not need any further discussion. It wasn't necessarily designed to be the most logical, or the best, or indeed the most anything system. But if you change any aspect of it then you are not playing SAYC - you are playing some other derivative of Standard American.

 

If you want to play as non-forcing certain sequences which SAYC define as forcing then you can do so, and you may very well be "right" to do so, but if you do then technically you are not playing SAYC anymore.

 

Unfortunately, many people now say they play SAYC when they really just mean 15-17 NT and 5 card majors, 2/1 not game forcing. This is likely to lead to mix-ups at the table, and certainly makes answering questions on this forum harder!

 

Eric

[pbleighton]

Roland:

 

You replies are very interesting, but I still have 2 issues outstanding. Please bear with me, so maybe I can understand your position (perhaps I'm being slow today :)).

 

1)

"1S - 2C

2NT - ?"

 

On this, you wrote:

 

"These 10/11 HCP hands from responder are the reason why I play 2 NT as 16-18. Now he can easily rebid 3 NT with his hand. In my way, his pd with a weak hand (12-15) has an easy 2 Spade rebid and responder now will bid 2 NT showing 11-12.

In my opinion it is MUCH easier for opener to decide between 2 and 3 NT: His pd has a range from good 10 to lousy 12, about 1.5 HCPs.

If opener rebids 2 NT with 11-14 (12-15) this is a bigger range and it is a pure guess which contract will be right..."

 

If I understand you correctly, the opener shouldn't rebid 2NT with a weak hand, that 2NT should show 16-18 (or 15-18, or 15-17). Do you also have a 1NT rebid after a 1/1 response also show 16-18, and 2NT after a 1NT response?

 

Are you then playing a weak NT? I have just started playing it with one partner, and like it very much, but this diverges from SAYC even more than a 2/1 response not guaranteeing a rebid (well, big deal!).

 

If you are not playing a weak NT, then it seems to me that on opening minimum 5332s you are either rebidding weak 5 card suits a lot, or bidding a lot of 3 card suits as a second suit. What do you rebid after 1S-2D, holding a 5332 with a mediocre spade suit? Bid hearts with 3, or bid 3 clubs, bypassing 2NT, which may be where the contract belongs.

 

Would you please clarify your NT opening and rebids for me, as it seems key to your approach?

 

2)

1S - 2H

3H

 

On this, you wrote:

 

"Again, the same tool will work:

1 Spade-2Heart

2 Spade 2 NT

3 Heart"

 

Do you mean that you would rebid your spades, no matter how bad a 5 card suit it was? Do your rebids of the first suit bid show anything, or are they your "waiting" bid, which could show AKQ432 or 65432?

 

In summary, you approach makes sense to me if:

a) You play a weak NT, and

:) A rebid of the major is purely a waiting bid.

 

If these two conditions aren't right, perhaps I need more explanation.

 

Curiously,

 

Peter

 

P.S. My comment on 2/1 was meant as a joke, though it does resolve some issues. I like the Precision variant I am learning more than 2/1, though people at the local club don't want to play anything other than 2/1 ???

[bglover]

Point taken and even agreed. I started playing Standard American long before there was a yellow card (I'm OLD) and by the time the YC had been developed I had long incorporated all of the options into my game as well as a few things that were not part of the yellow card.

 

The methodology I described (ie., that rebid of a major by opener is non forcing) was around well before the development of SAYC and I admit I have never played this bid as forcing playing any form of Standard American... It wasn't forcing when I took it up in the early 70s and any change in methodology since then that wasn't a convention addtion I may not be aware of.

 

However, admitting all of this doesn't change the basic logic espoused in my original post and my response to Roland... There is no good apparent reason why responder MUST take a second call on a minimum with a KNOWN misfit.

 

Roland's answers left gaping holes...one should keep in mind a bidder that takes a rebid in a bid suit usually does so because he has a BAD hand and opened it because he had a LONG suit. With a better hand opener has other options... and opt for NT just because I can as responder (i.e., i have no other bid but i have 11 points so I bid NT) is unpersuasive... I LIKE the option of passing knowing that the two level is safe and comfy.

[Codo]

Hi Peter,

 

Would you please clarify your NT opening and rebids for me, as it seems key to your approach

Playing SAYC I "must" and will play 15-17, even if I believe, that weak or "flexible" NT Ranges are better.

But playing SAYC I must and will bid 1 of a major with any 5332 Hand containing a 5 card major, even in the NT range.

This seems to get less and less popular, but it is still SAYC.

And I have seen still no statistic that proofes, that you should bid 1 NT with 15-17 balanced despite your 5 card major. (But there may exist one...)

 

After a 1/1 answer, you have no problem with rebidding 1 NT with 12-15. Pd can invite with a hand in the 10-11 HCP Range, pass with less and bid game with more.

 

Do you mean that you would rebid your spades, no matter how bad a 5 card suit it was? Do your rebids of the first suit bid show anything, or are they your "waiting" bid, which could show AKQ432 or 65432?

 

It is not a pure waiting bid. It denies any hand with 16+ HCPs or equal playing strenth.

it denies four cards in any suit which was biddable at the 2. level.

But yes, I would rebid 2 Spade with AKQJT with the same confidence then with 65432.

 

And I will never understand, why it is so bad to rebid bad suits:

If you have a fit in spades with 23456 opps. 789, you may make 2 Spade tricks after loosing three to the honours. But you would hardly make any spade

trick in NT or if you play in another suit.

 

So, what is the problem with weak suits? Of course you are more comfortable, if your main suit is stronger. But otoh you did open the bidding, so for this lack of strength you will have strength elsewhere. Why should this be worse?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

Hi Roland:

 

You wrote:

"It is not a pure waiting bid. It denies any hand with 16+ HCPs or equal playing strenth.

it denies four cards in any suit which was biddable at the 2. level.

But yes, I would rebid 2 Spade with AKQJT with the same confidence then with 65432.

 

And I will never understand, why it is so bad to rebid bad suits:

If you have a fit in spades with 23456 opps. 789, you may make 2 Spade tricks after loosing three to the honours. But you would hardly make any spade

trick in NT or if you play in another suit"

 

Thanks for your reply. I now at least understand the logic behind your approach, even if I don't fully agree with it.

 

My problem with rebidding 65432 is that, while a 53 fit in a weak suit is fine at the 2 level, it is not so good at the 3 level, and at game I would rather be in 3NT than 4 of a major. Yes, you can correct to NT much of the time, but sometimes you will wind up playing in 4M making 9 tricks, when 3NT is cold.

 

BTW the weak NT (if partner agrees) seems to me to help this rebid problem (minimum 5332s with weak/mediocre suits get opened 1NT). Have you played weak NT in a 5 card major, 2/1 invitational or better system, and if so what do you think of it?

 

Peter

[EricK]

Point taken and even agreed. I started playing Standard American long before there was a yellow card (I'm OLD) and by the time the YC had been developed I had long incorporated all of the options into my game as well as a few things that were not part of the yellow card.

 

The methodology I described (ie., that rebid of a major by opener is non forcing) was around well before the development of SAYC and I admit I have never played this bid as forcing playing any form of Standard American... It wasn't forcing when I took it up in the early 70s and any change in methodology since then that wasn't a convention addtion I may not be aware of.

 

However, admitting all of this doesn't change the basic logic espoused in my original post and my response to Roland... There is no good apparent reason why responder MUST take a second call on a minimum with a KNOWN misfit.

 

Roland's answers left gaping holes...one should keep in mind a bidder that takes a rebid in a bid suit usually does so because he has a BAD hand and opened it because he had a LONG suit. With a better hand opener has other options... and opt for NT just because I can as responder (i.e., i have no other bid but i have 11 points so I bid NT) is unpersuasive... I LIKE the option of passing knowing that the two level is safe and comfy.

 

Being an Acol player myself, I agree that it makes sense for many bids (including a rebid of opener's suit) to be non-forcing.

 

The other side of the coin is say

 

Qxxxxx

AKx

QJ

Ax

 

After 1S 2C you are going to get to game, so if you play 2S and 2NT as non-forcing, what are you going to rebid? 3S? 2H? 3C? 3NT?

 

Admittedly, this is a rare hand type to hold, and you might very well get away a non-forcing 2S, a manufactured 2H, an ingenious raise to 3C, a potentially wrong siding jump to 3NT, or indeed a jump to 3S. But I am sure you can see the benefits (on this hand at least) of having a forcing 2S available.

 

Whether one side outweighs the other is a question for debate. It probably depends on just how strong your 2/1 bids are, especially on potentially misfitting hands. If one wants to play SAYC as it is written, one should always try to have an extra point or two for a 2/1 bid if holding a singleton or void in partner's major. For pairs who don't want to make this sort of distinction, there is more reason to have ways to bail out at the two level.

 

It is a shame that there isn't a simple system that people can play with strangers without the need for discussion. SAYC was an attempt to create one, but that attempt has failed.

 

Eric

[Codo]

Hi Peter,

 

I think we all agree, that any approach has its ups and downs. And the way you weight these is the key to which approach you choose. I have played it both ways and sometimes was really happy to have a "weak" 2 NT bid avaiable. But it is my belief, that I was happy more often to play it "my way".

But of course 2/1 has the same experience (and played much longer) the other way round...

 

Okay, for your questions: It is no problem to play a 1 NT opening with 12-14 with any 5 card major system. You basically switch the meanings of 1 minor-1any- 1NT and the 1 NT opening. That`s it.

 

Again you have your ups and downs, but I believe, that a weak NT will benefits much more often then the strong one.

I like most to play a 11-13 1 NT , but then you have to discuss the bidding with 14-18 HCPs and of course the X escape ways after they doubel your NT.

 

To play 3 NT inspite of a 8 card major fit is again another issue.

If you really have enoough strength for game and two total flat hands, then 3 NT is often better.

But in my view this is less a point about the strength of the suits, more about the distributions.

And I doubt, that you can always find out everything below the game level.

 

F.E.with

98765, AK,xx,AKxx opps.432,xxxx,AKxx,Qxx, two very flat hands and the lowest possible trumps, 3 NT has nearly no play, but there are good chances for 4 Spade with spades 3-2. Of course one hand never proofes anything, but still :)

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[bglover]

Qxxxxx

AKx

QJ

Ax

 

After 1S 2C you are going to get to game, so if you play 2S and 2NT as non-forcing, what are you going to rebid? 3S? 2H? 3C? 3NT?

 

Admittedly, this is a rare hand type to hold, and you might very well get away a non-forcing 2S, a manufactured 2H, an ingenious raise to 3C, a potentially wrong siding jump to 3NT, or indeed a jump to 3S. But I am sure you can see the benefits (on this hand at least) of having a forcing 2S available.

 

Whether one side outweighs the other is a question for debate. It probably depends on just how strong your 2/1 bids are, especially on potentially misfitting hands. If one wants to play SAYC as it is written, one should always try to have an extra point or two for a 2/1 bid if holding a singleton or void in partner's major. For pairs who don't want to make this sort of distinction, there is more reason to have ways to bail out at the two level.

 

I would have no problem rebidding 2S on the above hand,... the suit is an abomination and if partner cannot act over my rebid we probably aren't making game anywhere and if he rebids 2N my hand is now golden.

 

This is a great example of why one must apply judgment in any bidding situation... This 16 point hand may take a MAXIMUM of 3 playing trix if partner has a stiff low spade... don't fall in love with point count... that's the advice I give ALL my students... Long suits take tricks but this spade suit is so moth eaten it has the potential to take none at NT... Why should I force this hand to game? (presumably your answer is because it has 16 hcps and thus must force game...NO).

[JRG]

Caveat: I have not seen a formal write-up of SAYC. I was under the impression that SAYC was an ACBL mandated convention card that limited the allowed conventions to a minimum of popular ones (e.g. Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood (maybe RKCB)).

 

In which case, like 2over1, I understood none of the sequences in the original post to be forcing. My understanding of the 2/1 bidder promising a rebid is "The 2/1 bidder promises a rebid if opener bids a new suit". If opener makes a minimum rebid in his suit, makes a minimum raise of responder's suit, or makes a minimum rebid in NT, it is not forcing.

[hrothgar]

There are a number of copies of the original ACBL SAYC booklet available on the net. If you "google" for SAYC you can find a copy easily.

 

SAYC is extremely clear about this sequence

 

"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."

[bglover]

That is not in dispute Richard... what is in dispute is whether that is really the "best treatment for the sequence 1M 2x 2M"

 

There are at least 3 people in the world that do not play it as forcing (make that more like 10 when I include partners and more like 100 when I include students).

 

As a poster who has REPEATEDLY stated that you do not follow the book but your own judgment, I would like to know your take (not the "book").

 

I have given my reasons why I do not play it as forcing and frankly still think they are damn good ones... If the best answer anyone has for me is its forced by system, then I say that's fine, but MY system says I can pass with a bad hand if partner can't concoct a more forcing bid than a suit rebid.

[Codo]

Besides that there are better reasons:

 

You better call it 2/1 special SA or whatever. But if you call it SAYC and change one of the few fundemental rules in this book, you are simply wrong and worse:

If I met someone here, agree at SAYC and he passes inyour loved sequence, I will be highly unlucky.

 

So please, call your system SA or 5 card major with strong NT, because that is correct. But don`t call it SAYC B)

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland