SAYC Responder's 2nd 2NT Bid

[Adam1105]

[hv=pc=n&e=st873hqtdaq76ckj6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1hp1sp2n]133|200[/hv]

 

What does West's 2NT bid mean, in terms of HCP, in SAYC?

 

Thank you.

[helene_t]

Approximately 11 points.

[barmar]

It's natural and invitational, 10-11 HCP. It also shows a stopper in the unbid suit, and denies support for either of opener's suits.

 

If responder doesn't have a club stopper, they can bid 2♣. This is fourth-suit forcing for one round.

[Tramticket]

It's natural and invitational, 10-11 HCP. It also shows a stopper in the unbid suit, and denies support for either of opener's suits.

 

It isn't my system, but does 2NT deny diamond support in the OP hand? What would you bid with ♠J6 ♥A974 ♦9842 ♣AQT?

[barmar]

It isn't my system, but does 2NT deny diamond support in the OP hand? What would you bid with ♠J6 ♥A974 ♦9842 ♣AQT?

With that responder could rebid 3♦, although with such good club stops he might prefer to emphasize NT. If 3NT is where you belong, opener may not be able to bid it after 3♦.

[Vampyr]

It's natural and invitational, 10-11 HCP. It also shows a stopper in the unbid suit, and denies support for either of opener's suits.

 

If responder doesn't have a club stopper, they can bid 2♣. This is fourth-suit forcing for one round.

 

Does the Yellow Card specify this? I don’t think anyone plays it anymore,

[barmar]

Does the Yellow Card specify this? I don’t think anyone plays it anymore,

Yes. Yellow Card is pretty old-fashioned. It also doesn't have any type of checkback after 1X-1M-1NT.

 

You can read it here: Yellow Card booklet

[Vampyr]

Yes. Yellow Card is pretty old-fashioned. It also doesn't have any type of checkback after 1X-1M-1NT.

 

You can read it here: Yellow Card booklet

 

It’s funny that when the Yellow Card came out, the events were quickly discontinued, but now the “system” is used around the world.

 

The chief failing of the Yellow Card was simply that it did not do what it said out to do. It was intended to be a simple system, but you could see that it was designed by committee, and everyone had their idea of what was an essential agreement, so they were all bunged in there. And there was no thought to creating a coherent bidding system, or in any case that idea was lost sometime during the process. Little thought was given to essentials like checkback, probably because It was not the pet convention of anyone on the committee. It’s often the overlooked things that are noticed only when they are missing, as in life.

 

In any case, it was never the intention of the ACBL or anyone else that the Yellow Card take on a life of its own, decades after the experiment was abandoned. Since it has, it is a pity that they did not specify continuations after reverses, because it would be nice if there was a default you could fall back on with an unknown or casual partner.

[msjennifer]

It's natural and invitational, 10-11 HCP. It also shows a stopper in the unbid suit, and denies support for either of opener's suits.

 

If responder doesn't have a club stopper, they can bid 2♣. This is fourth-suit forcing for one round.

Sir,i personally fully agree with your exact and detailed explanation.

[helene_t]

It was intended to be a simple system, but you could see that it was designed by committee, and everyone had their idea of what was an essential agreement, so they were all bunged in there. And there was no thought to creating a coherent bidding system, or in any case that idea was lost sometime during the process. Little thought was given to essentials like checkback, probably because It was not the pet convention of anyone on the committee. It’s often the overlooked things that are noticed only when they are missing, as in life.

I think that's a bit unfair. SAYC only contains these bidding conventions:

- strong 2♣ and the 2♦ relay

- Jacoby transfers

- 1NT-(p)-2♠=weak with a minor

- Jacoby 2NT

- Blackwood

- Gerber

- Stayman

- FSF

- Negative/t-o doubles

- Unassuming cuebid

- Michaels

- Unusual

 

I don't think you can dispense with any of those conventions. Maybe Gerber, but that is something that everyone in the target group loves.

 

I am sure there were plenty of committee members who had some pet convention (Lebensohl, Capp, inverted minors, splinters, Drury) that didn't make the cut either.

 

I think SAYC is as simple as possible, given the constraint that it must contain all conventions that everyone assumes without discussion. Arguably it is simpler than that: I would think that everyone would assume splinters.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=st873hqtdaq76ckj6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1hp1sp2n]133|200|

Adam1105 asks "What does West's 2NT bid mean, in terms of HCP, in SAYC?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

~11 HCP. Usually: only 4 ♥. stop in ♣. denies ♠ support.

The East hand should probably Pass

 

For reasons hinted at by Helene_T and Barmar, I prefer 2/1 to SAYC.

Also, more partners are familiar with 2/1. [/hv]

[Vampyr]

[hv=pc=n&e=st873hqtdaq76ckj6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1hp1sp2n]133|200|

Adam1105 asks "What does West's 2NT bid mean, in terms of HCP, in SAYC?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

~11 HCP. Usually: only 4 ♥. stop in ♣. denies ♠ support.

The East hand should probably Pass

 

For reasons hinted at by Helene_T and Barmar, I prefer 2/1 to SAYC.

Also, more partners are familiar with 2/1. [/hv]

So what different hand would you assume playing 2/1GF?

[Vampyr]

I think that's a bit unfair. SAYC only contains these bidding conventions:

- strong 2♣ and the 2♦ relay

- Jacoby transfers

- 1NT-(p)-2♠=weak with a minor

- Jacoby 2NT

- Blackwood

- Gerber

- Stayman

- FSF(not really a convention; used to be called “temporising”)

- Negative/t-o doubles

- Unassuming cuebid (sort of)

- Michaels

- Unusual

+splinters

 

I don't think you can dispense with any of those conventions.

 

I can dispense with everything above except the ones in blue, and it is pretty much as effective as any other natural-based system. (Not as easy getting someone to agree to play it). As for the Yellow Card, I would readily give up everything in black for some form of Checkback and if I want to push my luck, Jordan/Truscott.

 

(Splinters because you might as well have some use for the bids, and yes they do on occasion help you find the thin slams (but help the defence when slam in not reached). Perhaps I’ll take up Fruit Machine Swiss.

[nige1]

So what different hand would you assume playing 2/1GF?

2/1 is similar to SAYC -- but with more gadgets.

[barmar]

In any case, it was never the intention of the ACBL or anyone else that the Yellow Card take on a life of its own, decades after the experiment was abandoned. Since it has, it is a pity that they did not specify continuations after reverses, because it would be nice if there was a default you could fall back on with an unknown or casual partner.

The blame goes to the Internet, I think. When people started playing on OKbridge, SAYC was a simple system for people from all around the world to agree on. 2/1 was not generally being taught to beginners at that time, it was mainly used by "advanced" players.

 

I don't know exactly what was going through the committee's mind, but it always seemed like the intent was not to create a great system, just one with conventions that most players would be familiar with. It's a "least common denominator", not packed with anyone's favorite conventions.

[Vampyr]

2/1 is similar to SAYC -- but with more gadgets.

 

Oh, OK. I had thought that that comment was part of your answer, rather than an unrelated observation.

[Vampyr]

The blame goes to the Internet, I think. When people started playing on OKbridge, SAYC was a simple system for people from all around the world to agree on. 2/1 was not generally being taught to beginners at that time, it was mainly used by "advanced" players.

 

It’s interesting, that, because the fact that 2/1 auctions are so difficult in SA (how do you force to game? How do you stop below game? What is a 2/1 initially forcing to? etc) makes it a much more complicated system.

[barmar]

It’s interesting, that, because the fact that 2/1 auctions are so difficult in SA (how do you force to game? How do you stop below game? What is a 2/1 initially forcing to? etc) makes it a much more complicated system.

A number of years ago, Frank Stewart and Larry Cohen published a debate in the ACBL Bulletin on the merits of 2/1 (Cohen for, Stewart against). The debate starts on page 28 of the May 2013 issue; if you're an ACBL member you can access the Bulletin archives from the MyACBL web site.

 

Stewart's main point was that 2/1 is great if responder has a game-forcing hand, but not so great for invitational hands, because there's no way for responder to describe their hand so that opener can make an intelligent decision about whether to accept the invitation. E.g. auctions like 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♠ -- how does opener know whether the side suits will fit well together or not?

 

Experts love 2/1 because it's great for slam bidding -- responder shows a game force early, and you then have plenty of room to describe your hands.

 

I play 2/1 in most of my partnerships, but SA in my 19-year-old regular partnership. We use most of the gadgets that 2/1 players use (even Forcing NT), but we just use the traditional strength for 2/1 bids, and it's not a serious hardship.

[Vampyr]

Yes, I understand that 2/1GF is not very good when you don’t have a game-forcing hand. A bit of this can be mitigated by making the two most space-consuming 2/1 bids not GF. Anyway, I believe that the complexity of working out all possible 2/1 bids in SA is a bigger flaw.

 

I wouldn’t willingly play either system.

[pescetom]

I have played ACOL, Italian 4 card majors, SA and 2/1 GF, and find 2/1 both the easiest and the best overall. I detested SA.

I think the biggest price of 2/1 is needing more to open than the other systems.

[Zelandakh]

I think that's a bit unfair. SAYC only contains these bidding conventions:

Just because a convention does not have a name does not mean it is not one in practice. Things such as a 2/1 response promising a rebid requires a fair bit of thought if you just take it at face value. The first question any SAYC PUP needs to answer is whether 1X - 2Y; 2NT is forcing or not. If you go strictly by the booklet then it is, and it requires a reasonable amount of rearrangement elsewhere to make it work properly. Most think this is not forcing, thus directly ignoring one of the clearest instructions in the booklet. Whatever you think about this sequence, it shows the point that Stefanie is making, that the system is often not really coherent and making it coherent often involves turning it into a much more complex system than it was ever designed to be.

 

The only reason why SAYC is still even mentioned is that when internet bridge came along, it became necessary to have a simple system that could be agreed in a few words and that was widely available. Without any other Standardised SA system out there, SAYC was the default solution and it has remained so despite the best efforts of BBO and its rivals in internet bridge services to offer their own (considerably better) SA systems. And it is not only the Americans that have this issue, most countries around the world do not have a truly standardised bidding system (and those that do the system is often sub-standard) meaning that bidding often becomes more a matter of educated guesswork than a scientific process. It is almost enough to make one want to be Polish...

[pescetom]

And it is not only the Americans that have this issue, most countries around the world do not have a truly standardised bidding system (and those that do the system is often sub-standard) meaning that bidding often becomes more a matter of educated guesswork than a scientific process. It is almost enough to make one want to be Polish...

Or Turkish, lucky enough to have a standardised and effective 2/1 GF system.

 

Italy has made multiple official efforts to standardise 5-card majors, but so far they all failed due to inconsistent design and excessive ambition (the conventions Garozzo prefers are unlikely to suit the average club player). BBO Italia is a popular and effective system but is evidently too simplistic for the federation. Luckily the official teaching materials for beginners are in much better shape and offer a sound basis for 2/1.

[blackshoe]

"No, I do not know Precision, but I do know Standard American, and what better reason could I have for playing Precision?" -- The Hideous Hog, in The Hog Takes To Precision.

[Vampyr]

"No, I do not know Precision, but I do know Standard American, and what better reason could I have for playing Precision?" -- The Hideous Hog, in The Hog Takes To Precision.

 

I thought that this book was really well done, because instead of focusing on the weakness of precision, namely the strong club, it focused on a major strength, the limited one-level openings.