Rebid Problem

[pbleighton]

Playing sayc with pickup pd, you hold:

 

AKx-KQxxx-987-xx

 

With opps silent, partner opens 1C, you respond 1H, he rebids 2C. What is your bid?

[luis]

2 spades almost automatic.

[inquiry]

Playing sayc with pickup pd, you hold:

 

AKx-KQxxx-987-xx

 

With opps silent, partner opens 1C, you respond 1H, he rebids 2C. What is your bid?

 

I disagree with luis on this one. Playing SAYC 2SPADES would cleary be a reverse and shows a "monster" hand. Playing 2/1 GF, I would be likely to rebid 2S, but never SAYC.

 

The only real options seem to be me to be 2D, 2H, and 2NT. Most SAYC players play 2NT also shows a good hand, I prefer it to show this type of junk. If your 2NT shows extra values, then your choice is between a two unsatisfactory bids. 2D on 9 hight (if I had an honor or two in diamonds, having 3 cards would not deter me from rebidding it) or 2H. I guess I would rebid 2H on this particular hand.

 

Ben

[luis]

Why would 2s show a "monster" hand? It is just forcing to game or better and that's what I have.

2NT without any card in diamonds is clearly wrong to me and it wrong-sides the contract.

2h is non-forcing! and you have 12 with 4 controls! C'mon do you really want to play 2h? You ar denying about an Ace and a King with that bid. How can pd take a good decision if you bid 2h with Ax, QJxxx, xxx, xxx and ALSO with AKx, KQxxx, xxx, xx.

I won't try to change your mind Ben but if you play with me when you have an opening bid and I open the bidding we are entitled to play some game.

I think 2s is so automatic....

[inquiry]

Your mistake, Luis, deals with a misunderstanding of sayc. There is no forcing 1NT, and 2C DOES NOT promise an opening hand as you suggest in your 2nd reply. Again, your 2S response, when playing 2/1 game force, is right. But when holding a bare 12 count, as flat a distribution as you can have for a 1H opening bid, and not even anything special in intermediate cards, this hand is not even close to an SAYC 2S rebid.

 

In sayc your partner could have as little as an 8 count with bunch of clubs. And in SAYC, a reverse after a 2-over-1 response is 100% game force and shows on the order of 18 hcp+ or comparable playing stregth. If the question had been what to bid playing 2/1... again, a 2S bid would be my choice, but never, ever playing SAYC.

 

Ben

[Dan_Neill]

Bidding is 1C-1H-2C-?, not 1H-2C-?

[pbleighton]

"Bidding is 1C-1H-2C-?, not 1H-2C-? "

 

Yes.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

Opps... my bad.. i thought I opened 1HEART... Yes, 2S is automatic.

[luis]

Gee :-) You scared me Ben :-))

[Codo]

why why why is 2 Spade almost automatic?

 

I would bid an automtic 2 Diamond, NMF. In my book this askes for:

1. Do you have 3 Hearts?

2. Do you stop diamonds?

3. What is your overall strength?

4. Anything else you may want to tell me?

 

Wow, ecaxtly the questions I need answers about.

SO why lie with 2 Spade if you have a simple easy rebid?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[luis]

NMF applies over a 1NT response unless you have a special agreement with pd.

[hrothgar]

why why why is 2 Spade almost automatic?

 

I would bid an automtic 2 Diamond, NMF. In my book this askes for:

1. Do you have 3 Hearts?

2. Do you stop diamonds?

3. What is your overall strength?

4. Anything else you may want to tell me?

 

Wow, ecaxtly the questions I need answers about.

SO why lie with 2 Spade if you have a simple easy rebid?

 

New Minor Forcing is a useful convention.

However, the original poster specified that the pair was playing SAYC

Your 2D response bid doesn't mean what you think it does.

[EricK]

why why why is 2 Spade almost automatic?

 

I would bid an automtic 2 Diamond, NMF. In my book this askes for:

1. Do you have 3 Hearts?

2. Do you stop diamonds?

3. What is your overall strength?

4. Anything else you may want to tell me?

 

Wow, ecaxtly the questions I need answers about.

SO why lie with 2 Spade if you have a simple easy rebid?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

 

 

Why does 2D ask "Do you stop Diamonds?" rather than "Do you stop spades?" or "do you stop "Diamonds and spades?"?

 

2S in any natural system (Acol, SAYC, standard Martian etc) shows GF strength, spades stopped, diamonds not stopped. Simple.

 

Eric

[inquiry]

In SAYC 2DIAMONDS is passable showing a diamond suit and non-forcing.

 

Ben

[bglover]

The question is, does responder have enough to force game? 2S creates a game force, showing a little more than this hand has. So, Luis' answer is not as offbase as Ben makes it out to be, but it does show more than a 12 count.

 

2D is problematic because it may lead to 3N without either hand having a stopper... 2H is out on strength issues as well as length issues. (Too strong and not long enough which is why I cant bid 3H either).

 

Therefore, thru a process of elmination I will bid 2S as the least of evils... partner cannot have 4 since he would have bid them, and with any luck he either raises hts or bids NT and then I am happy.

 

It's an imperfect bid whatever I choose.

[the hog]

"2S in any natural system (Acol, SAYC, standard Martian etc) shows GF strength, spades stopped, diamonds not stopped. Simple."

 

Most amusing! I would have thought that "2S in any natural system" including Standard Martian would show a S suit and lead to a decent 4S contract with say

 

AKJx-KQxxx-98-xx

 

facing

Qxx- A- xx- AKxxxxx

 

Perhaps natural is not so natural after all! At least Ben's explanation makes sense if 2D is nf. (As an aside, why on earth would you play 2D as nf in this sequence, even if it is "systemic"?)

[EricK]

"2S in any natural system (Acol, SAYC, standard Martian etc) shows GF strength, spades stopped, diamonds not stopped. Simple."

 

Most amusing! I would have thought that "2S in any natural system" including Standard Martian would show a S suit and lead to a decent 4S contract with say

 

AKJx-KQxxx-98-xx

 

facing

Qxx- A- xx- AKxxxxx

 

Perhaps natural is not so natural after all! At least Ben's explanation makes sense if 2D is nf. (As an aside, why on earth would you play 2D as nf in this sequence, even if it is "systemic"?)

 

Sorry. I wasn't complete in my response. 2S can also be made with a spade suit and opener should certainly raise to 3S on the hand you give (even in Standard Martian). But since opener has practically denied 4S, it doesn't make sense to reserve a 2S bid for hands with 4S.

 

And I don't think 2D is non-forcing in this sequence. It is natural, forcing, but may not be a genuine suit, just a stop (just like 2S, in fact!).

 

Eric

[bglover]

"And I don't think 2D is non-forcing in this sequence. It is natural, forcing, but may not be a genuine suit, just a stop (just like 2S, in fact!)."

 

 

This gets back to agreements. Some players (me included) play that, once opener rebids his suit showing a minimum, any subsequent bid by responder is non forcing IF it doesn't reverse his original suit or is a jump of some sort.

 

Not everyone plays this way, I know, but it is certainly not an uncommon treatment. I would play 2D as passable here with known partners, and assume it was forcing playing with a pick up partner.

[Codo]

Hi Ben et al,

 

1. In my notes it is never said, that a new suit by responder is nonforcing in SAYC. This is your opinion, not SAYC. If I am wrong, take my apologisze and show me the text. (but we had this discussion before :) )

 

2. Is there any sense in play it this way? How many hand can you construct, where 2 Diamond non forcing is a winner after this auction? You can pass or rebid 2 Heart with weak hands. After all: You denied long diamonds anyway with your first bid. 2 Diamond nonforcing is a good idea, if you play walsh, but this is def. no part of sayc.

 

3. Just to be sure, I wrote NMF into my text.

 

4. To our heros, who think, that a new suit bid show a stopper in the new suit: What do you do with a hand with values but no valuable stoppers in the both missing suits? F.E.: xxx,AKQxx,Jxx,AK

 

Find another small lie? I would have a very easy rebid and you?

 

Or what about a hand like AK, KQxxx, xxx,xxx?

Still bid 2 Spade showing four OR a stopper?

 

Any reasons besides the personal believe, that it is necessary to show stoppers then to ask for them for your approach?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[mishovnbg]

Hi Peter!

Rebids of responder after rebid form opener 2 in his opened suit is very difficulte bidding sequence. I played several gadgets, but dont like any of them. I will describe my favorite:

Cheapest new suit artifical forcing (Relay), inv+, dont promise bidded suit. It is similar to 1 minor - 1 major, 1NT - 2CL: Checkback. May be best way to bid, but very artifical and lose nat bid in relay suit. I can live with 2DI relay after 2CL rebid, but dont like 2HE/2SP relay after 2DI rebid.

 

Examples:

 

1CL-1HE, 2CL-?

2DI: Relay, inv+

2HE: NF, 5+HE

2SP: NF, 5+HE-4SP

2NT: NF, 5+HE-4DI

3CL: nat, inv

3DI: NF, 4HE-6+DI

3HE: inv, 6+HE

above: 3NT/4HE nat, autosplinters include in CL

 

1CL-1HE, 2CL-2DI(Relay), ?

2HE: min, 3 fit

2SP: max, 3 fit

2NT: max, no fit, stoppers

3CL: min, no fit

3DI: max, stopper+ DI

3HE: max, 3 fit

3SP: max, no fit, stopper+ SP

 

1DI-1HE, 2DI-?

2HE: NF, 5+HE, may have 4+CL

2SP: inv+, Relay

2NT: NF, 5+HE-4SP

3CL: NF, 4HE-6+CL

3DI: nat, inv

3HE: inv, 6+HE

above: 3NT/4HE nat, autosplinters include in DI

 

1DI-1HE, 2DI-2SP(Relay), ?

2NT: max, no fit, stoppers

3CL: max, no fit, missing stopper CL or SP

3DI: min, no fit

3HE: min, 3 fit

3SP: max, 3 fit

 

Misho

[luis]

I completely agree with Misho, auctions after 1m-1M;2m are very common and not handled well by sayc or natural systems.

I found that the use of an artificial forcing to game bid as misho suggest is easy to remember and behaves very well taking all the pressure away from the bidding.

I've posted in this same forum a message about Jeff Ruben's idea and got 0 answers/comments :-)

Maybe it is time to refresh that:

You can find the use of a relay after 1m-1M;2m as proposed by Jeff Rubens in this post:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...ay;threadid=581

[inquiry]

Hi Ben et al,

 

1. In my notes it is never said, that a new suit by responder is nonforcing in SAYC. This is your opinion, not SAYC. If I am wrong, take my apologisze and show me the text. (but we had this discussion before :) )

 

Ok.. I actually found the ACBL SAYC booklet online. The link is....

http://www.acbl.org/misc/sayc.htm

 

Upon reading these notes I discovered that SAYC plays...

 

1C-1H

1N-2D as non forcing,,,, but

 

1C-1H

2C-2D as forcing and showing a real diamond suit.

 

My recollection of SAYC on this point was, incorrect. But now we have a link to the "official" version of SAYC as stated by its creator (the ACBL) to solve future "what does an SAYC bid mean". The relative section as it relates to responders second bid states...

"Second-round forcing bids. A new suit response (other than after a 1NT rebid by opener) is a one-round force. If it is a fourth suit in the auction, it may be artificial."

 

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Hi Luis!

I carefully read TSAR - Jeff Rubens is one of my favorite theorists. As usually great technics!!! Thank you! I think TSAR is too complicate for SAYC players.

By the way, in relay I posted lovers of distributional bidding can continue with cheapest suit relay for real distribution. First answers are game oriented, but if responder can continue for slam by the way partnership like.

Misho

[EricK]

4. To our heros, who think, that a new suit bid show a stopper in the new suit: What do you do with a hand with values but no valuable stoppers in the both missing suits? F.E.: xxx,AKQxx,Jxx,AK

 

I would make a slight lie and bid 2D. If partner bids 2NT I will bid 3C. There is a lot of slam potential here (eg Axx Jx Kx QJxxxx).

 

Or what about a hand like AK, KQxxx, xxx,xxx?

Still bid 2 Spade showing four OR a stopper?

 

Absolutely. How can it go wrong?

 

Any reasons besides the personal believe, that it is necessary to show stoppers then to ask for them for your approach?

 

I don't believe it is necessary. Either approach will work. I believe it is "standard" in most natural systems, without discussion, that new suits show either length or values.

 

In your example hand xxx AKQxx Jxx AK, If I were playing asks without discussion I would be very unsure what the following showed/denied

 

1C 1H 2C 2D 2S, 1C 1H 2C 2D 2NT, 1C 1H 2C 2D 2H, 1C 1H 2C 2D 3C, not to mention higher actions by opener.

 

Playing "shows" rather than "asks" with a pick-up advanced/expert partner, I think I would know what the follow ups meant.

 

BTW, in my preferred methods, I like many others here, use eg 1C 1H 2C 2D as an artificial relay. But obviously this needs discussion, and is far from standard yet.

 

Eric

[Codo]

Hi Eric et al,

 

thanks for your nice replies. They opened my eyes. ;)

I hope some more comments are allowed:

 

4. What do you do with a hand with values but no valuable stoppers in the both missing suits? F.E.: xxx,AKQxx,Jxx,AK

I would make a slight lie and bid 2D. If partner bids 2NT I will bid 3C. There is a lot of slam potential here (eg Axx Jx Kx QJxxxx).

 

Sure, you can make the small lie and sure you have slam interest with a lot of pds possible hands, but I still belive, that an asking bid will have no problems here to find out the right destination....

 

I believe it is "standard" in most natural systems, without discussion, that new suits show either length or values.

It surely is till a decent level. But I cannot remember when I latest met a guy who played it this way in real life. I think NMF or some kind of checkback are much more common now. But this is not the question, the question was about SAYC, so 2 Diamond really should show a real suit. Time for me to turn down the "I play SAYC" in my profile....

 

1.1C 1H 2C 2D 2S,

2. 1C 1H 2C 2D 2NT,

3.1C 1H 2C 2D 2H,

4. 1C 1H 2C 2D 3C

I had bed, that this would show:

1. no 3 hearts, no diamond stopper, but spade values

or : no 3 hearts, diamond stopper, but nothing in spades... :)

2. both suits stopped. Maximum if nmf is a gf, minmum if not...

3. 3 hearts, minimum

4. no 3 hearts, no outside values, no 4 diamonds

 

I agree, that with the "showing" style, all these auctions should be pretty simple.

 

But you have to accept other problems instead.

Else, why did you and "anybody" else change this thing in their partnerships?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland