NT point range

[pdmunro]

In SAYC, what is the point range for 3NT in the sequence 1S-2C; 3NT?

 

***********

I am assuming these NT point ranges:

1NT open = 15-17

2NT open = 20-21

 

1D-1H; 1NT = 12-14 (lowest NT rebid)

1S-2C; 2NT = 12-14 (lowest NT rebid)

 

1D-1H; 2NT = 18-19 (jump rebid to 2NT)

 

*******

So is the 3NT, in the sequence 1S-2C; 3NT, equal to 18-19 (jump rebid), or 15-17 (enough points for game), or something else?

[steve2005]

This is not something defined as part of SAYC.

18-19 seems the most reasonable agreement.

[apollo1201]

This is not something defined as part of SAYC.

18-19 seems the most reasonable agreement.

I would also add better be 5332 w/ club doubleton. Jumping consumes a lot of Space, partner strenght is not limited, so hiding a potential fit will not help partner to move or not above 3NT.

[steve2005]

I would also add better be 5332 w/ club doubleton. Jumping consumes a lot of Space, partner strenght is not limited, so hiding a potential fit will not help partner to move or not above 3NT.

If your playing SAYC i disagree. You don't have the luxury of 3♣ being GF. So even 5323 or 5233 as long as you have a stopper in the doubleton your doing ok. You want to do better don't play SAYC.

[helene_t]

18-19.

 

This is a bit confusing since 2c is not gf. So it would seem logically that 2nt is 12-13 and then maybe 3nt should be 14. The sayc booklet is a bit murky about the 2nt rebid (we have had lots of arguments about this) but in any case, 3nt is 18-19.

[pdmunro]

Did a bit of searching with "My BBO > Convention Cards" re the sequence 1H - 2C; 3NT, Found this:

 

System - Meaning of 3NT

BBO Advanced (2/1): 3NT = 15-17 doubleton or less in clubs

SAYC: 3NT = Non-forcing

Std English ACOL: 3NT = Non-forcing. 19HCP Balanced to play.

Goren KISS: 3NT = Non-forcing. 19-20 bal

 

I know that at the club I have done the jump to 3NT with 16 pts (and a feeling of unease).

[steve2005]

Did a bit of searching with "My BBO > Convention Cards" re the sequence 1H - 2C; 3NT, Found this:

 

System - Meaning of 3NT

BBO Advanced (2/1): 3NT = 15-17 doubleton or less in clubs

SAYC: 3NT = Non-forcing

Std English ACOL: 3NT = Non-forcing. 19HCP Balanced to play.

Goren KISS: 3NT = Non-forcing. 19-20 bal

 

I know that at the club I have done the jump to 3NT with 16 pts (and a feeling of unease).

BBO convention cards are a horrible source of info. SAYC lists 3N as NF but 2N is listed as 14+ GF. This may or may not be an improvement but it is not SAYC!

The others i didn't look at as the poster asked about SAYC.

 

If you jumped to 3N on 16 then you likely either don't believe in opening 1N with a 5-card major, thought hand was unsuitable for 1N even though 5332 or chose not to show a 4+ card suit or fit

[Tramticket]

System - Meaning of 3NT

Std English ACOL: 3NT = Non-forcing. 19HCP Balanced to play.

 

Standard English Acol doesn't really apply, since this assumes a weak (12-14) NT structure.

 

But as a diversion, it is interesting that in old-fashioned Acol 2NT would be non-forcing and show 15-16 and a jump to 3NT would be to play showing 17-19. This is very inefficient since in the sequence 1♠, 2♣; 3NT responder might have a three-card spade suit and opener might have a five-card spade suit, but the eight-card spade fit is lost. For this reason most modern Acol players treat a 2NT rebid as 15-19 and forcing - giving the opportunity for responder to search for a spade fit (or a club fit!).

 

3NT then becomes a redundant bid in Acol. One possible use is that 3NT shows a balanced hand with four-card club support, as well as four spades - suggesting that clubs might be a better contract if responder is weak in the red suits. there are other possibilities, but I have never seen that 3NT shows exactly 19 points.

[Joe_Old]

This is not something defined as part of SAYC.

18-19 seems the most reasonable agreement.

 

It is absolutely defined in SAYC (but not in Standard American).

 

15 to 17, but unsuitable for a 1NT opener. Usually it is unbalanced, though it may be a balanced hand with a 5 card major if the partnership has agreed not to open 1NT with a 5 card major.

 

The reason it is not 18-19 or 18-20 is that range is usually better defined by a jump shift (with an unbalanced or semi-balanced hand).

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have said, "defined", because the ACBL SAYC booklet doesn't have a definition for the bid. I should say, "defined by implication" because the system doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

Note also that many play the 2NT rebid (by opener) as 2 way in the 2/1 system (12-14 or 18-19) since the 2club call is forcing. That can't apply in SAYC since you often want to stop in 2NT.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Joe_Old

[GrahamJson]

The description of SAYC on the ACBL website says the following:

 

Rebids with a medium hand (16–18 points): Jump raise of responder’s suit or jump rebid of opener’s suit; Reverse in a new suit, i.e., bid a new suit at the two level which is higher ranking than the opening suit; Non-reverse bid in a new suit (this has the wide range of 13–18 points).

 

With a maximum hand (19–21 or 22 points) opener must make a very strong rebid: Jump in notrump; Double jump raise of responder’s suit or double jump rebid of opener’s suit; Jump shift in a new suit.

 

 

Based on this I guess the jump to 3NT should show 19-21, but I imagine few would play it that way, using it for 18-19.

[0deary]

Sensible advice already offered in my view: ~17/19 (2C shows 9+ and we seek 26 for game so 3NT has 17. With 20+ you open 2NT etc

 

So I’ll just offer a thought on the position of the 2C hand now. Let’s say has extras, What now?

 

The point is that usually we don’t want to be in a slam missing an Ace and a King

 

The reason is that with balanced hands you will usually lose the A and if you have to rely on finessing for the K that’s a 50/50 chance. And mum tells us need 75% for a slam

 

How to avoid missing an Ace and a K?

 

Well if the 2C has 17+ and you know partner has 17-19 then we are sure we are not missing an A and K. 17+17=34, so opponents only have at most an Ace and a Queen out). A perfectly decent contract in 6NT

 

Any more on the 2C hand?

 

Well, a straight 4NT after the 3NT is often quantitative- partner is saying if you have 17 pass but if you have 18/19 bid 6

 

Not every would agree with me on this incidentally, they would treat is a Blackwood, but they treat it that way they are not much better off. The point was to avoid bidding 6NT missing an A and a K

 

So 1S-2C-3N- ? 6= I have 17+ and 4= I have 16 exactly, your hand is in 17-19 range, so pass with 17 but bid 6 with 18/19

 

Incidentally there are plenty of hands that make slam with other combinations but this is the basis for slam bidding balancing hands relying on points

 

Good hunting!

 

0Deary

[Vampyr]

Standard English Acol doesn't really apply, since this assumes a weak (12-14) NT structure.

 

But as a diversion, it is interesting that in old-fashioned Acol 2NT would be non-forcing and show 15-16 and a jump to 3NT would be to play showing 17-19. This is very inefficient since in the sequence 1♠, 2♣; 3NT responder might have a three-card spade suit and opener might have a five-card spade suit, but the eight-card spade fit is lost. For this reason most modern Acol players treat a 2NT rebid as 15-19 and forcing - giving the opportunity for responder to search for a spade fit (or a club fit!).

 

3NT then becomes a redundant bid in Acol. One possible use is that 3NT shows a balanced hand with four-card club support, as well as four spades - suggesting that clubs might be a better contract if responder is weak in the red suits. there are other possibilities, but I have never seen that 3NT shows exactly 19 points.

 

Yes, 3NT as some sort of raise is most common,

 

It has always seemed to me that 2/1 GF and Acol-style 2/1 are pretty straightforward, and that problems start when 2/1 promises another bid, is forcing to 2NT, or occupies some other middle ground. If someone can find a few experts who play this style, then fine; otherwise I believe that the system should no longer be taught.

[NickRW]

It has always seemed to me that 2/1 GF and Acol-style 2/1 are pretty straightforward, and that problems start when 2/1 promises another bid, is forcing to 2NT, or occupies some other middle ground. If someone can find a few experts who play this style, then fine; otherwise I believe that the system should no longer be taught.

 

That's a bit drastic. 1NT as a decent 14 to a bad 17 that includes 5M332 shapes, with 2/1 f2NT I found to be perfectly playable. Not perfect - but neither is 2/1 nor Acol.

[helene_t]

Auto-forcing is quite common among French experts. I don't have much experience with it myself (I do play SAYC with pick-ups on BBO but have never had elaborate system discussions with any of them), but it seems to be a reasonably well-defined concept, and does seem to be a reasonable compromise between overloading the 2-level responses (Acol) and overloading the 1NT response (2/1). I certainly wouldn't be opposed to playing it if a new partner wanted to.

[Vampyr]

That's a bit drastic. 1NT as a decent 14 to a bad 17 that includes 5M332 shapes, with 2/1 f2NT I found to be perfectly playable. Not perfect - but neither is 2/1 nor Acol.

 

True, no system is perfect. When you play f2NT does responder promise another bid? Either way it seems to me that it requires an awful lot of discussion about how to force to/stay out of game.

[NickRW]

True, no system is perfect. When you play f2NT does responder promise another bid?

 

Effectively yes. We played opener's 2NT rebid as (17)18-19 and therefore GF. Consequently opener with a weak NT hand would have to find a lower rebid. And in which case responder was still in his/her own force.

 

 

Either way it seems to me that it requires an awful lot of discussion about how to force to/stay out of game.

 

It is true that it requires significant thought and discussion. However I don't see the problems as particularly insurmountable. There are pros and cons to it.

[NickRW]

... and does seem to be a reasonable compromise between overloading the 2-level responses (Acol) and overloading the 1NT response (2/1)...

 

Prezunctly. This sort of thing was exactly what attracted me to the general strategy.

[fromageGB]

True, no system is perfect. When you play f2NT does responder promise another bid? Either way it seems to me that it requires an awful lot of discussion about how to force to/stay out of game.

Precisely. I "always" play 2/1 GF but had to play as a stand-in partner in a club teams match. She played a 2/1 as "forcing". When pressed, she said "forcing to 2NT". I then asked about a sequence 1♠ 2♦, 2♠, which she said could be passed.

 

I think many normal players don't think about it or have it defined. They just expect things to work out. We agreed for the match that it was forcing to 2 of opener's first major, and had to live with that.