[badderzboy]

Hi all,

Had an interesting discussion yesterday in BIL that I am convinced that 1S-p-2H always shows 5♥, an "Advanced" player (in BIL v.strange) was arguing it could show 4 which I strongly disagreed with although I normally play ACOL I was convinced it;s the same in SAYC.

Can someone confirm I am not talking rubbish and the reasons why it should / must show 5.

My thoughts are that it is better to show a 4 card minor and give opener a chance to bid 2H if they have 4 than to force the 1 Spade opener to bid 2S on a five card suit with a weak hand?

Steve

[Walddk]

I confirm that 2♥ shows 5+ cards. In the rare instance that responder has specifically 3433, it is recommended that you respond 2♣ (alternatively 2♦ if the club suit is very weak). You can always correct to spades later if opener supports the minor.

In all other instances, 2♥ definitely shows 5+. If not, the response is wrong, since you would bid 2♣/♦ with 4-4 in hearts and the minor.

Roland

[helene_t]

You're right, 2♥ shows 5. With 3433 you can bid 2♣. (Oops Roland was before me).

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2005-October-03, 04:30

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2H shows 5, with a 3-4-3-3 shape, you have a fit for partner,
which you should show as fast as possible.

Marlowe

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 3 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

Hi,

2H shows 5, with a 3-4-3-3 shape, you have a fit for partner,
which you should show as fast as possible.

Marlowe

I disagree that you should bid any higher than the 2-level with only 3-card support. 1♠ - 3♠ (or some kind of Bergen if you prefer) should show 4+ cards. It is my experience that it's much better to temporise with 2♣ if you have 3433 and partner opens 1♠.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Oct 3 2005, 05:42 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 3 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

Hi,

2H shows 5, with a 3-4-3-3 shape, you have a fit for partner,
which you should show as fast as possible.

Marlowe

I disagree that you should bid any higher than the 2-level with only 3-card support. 1♠ - 3♠ (or some kind of Bergen if you prefer) should show 4+ cards. It is my experience that it's much better to temporise with 2♣ if you have 3433 and partner opens 1♠.

Roland

Hi,

I agree, a limit raise should show 4 cards.

I dont know SAYC very well, but according to

http://www.swangames.../SAYC/sayc.html

you can make a limit raise with 3 card support playing SAYC.

Personnally I play forcing NT, so I dont have this problem,
i.e. I could bid 1NT.

But absent special agreements, I would always make the limit raise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Oct 3 2005, 04:53 PM, said:

ditto, though having to bid 2C with 3433 seems silly. 2N natural and forcing has more and more appeal every day

We're starting to diverge QUITE a bit from SAYC here, however, I'm not sure whether I agree with Justin's comment regarding using 2NT as a natural and forcing response to a 1♥ opening:

I certainly agree with his basic point: Being able to show a balanced hand with GF values is certainly useful, however, I question whether using a jump to 2NT to show such a common hand type is an efficient use of available bidding space...

You have a lot of hand patterns to worry about and not much space left below 3N

[kfgauss]

hrothgar, on Oct 3 2005, 03:57 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 3 2005, 04:53 PM, said:

ditto, though having to bid 2C with 3433 seems silly. 2N natural and forcing has more and more appeal every day

We're starting to diverge QUITE a bit from SAYC here, however, I'm not sure whether I agree with Justin's comment regarding using 2NT as a natural and forcing response to a 1♥ opening:

I certainly agree with his basic point: Being able to show a balanced hand with GF values is certainly useful, however, I question whether using a jump to 2NT to show such a common hand type is an efficient use of available bidding space...

You have a lot of hand patterns to worry about and not much space left below 3N

This is perhaps true if you try to respond to 2NT naturally. A bit of artificiality goes a long way, however, and I'm quite fond of a structure from Sher-Umeno's "Supernatural" system notes on Dan Neill's website (first version -- they've since switched to 2♣ GF relay and no 2/1's). I'll reproduce it below for the lazy.

Andy

Responses to 1M-2NT:

a. 3c = shows shortness, relay to 3d, may be the start of a slam try:
3h,3s,3nt=shortness, LMH
responder bids 3nt or passes 3nt w / appropriate holdings
3 or 4 M, shows 3 cd M support
new suit is showing concentration of values, denies 3 cd M support
slam tries can be made after showing shortness, bidding naturally
1s-2nt-3c-3d-3h-3nt-(4d,4h,4s all natural slam tries)
4c,4d = 6M and 4 of bid m, slam try short in other M, around 16-17 pts
4M = 6-3-3-1 slam try in M, around 16-17 pts, short in other M
4h / 1s opener = 6 spades, 4 hearts, slam try

b. 3d = 5+ M and 4+ either m:
3h = relay, could have 2/3 cd support, (with 3 cd supp, looking for strain), then:

3s=5+M and 4+c, then over 3nt by 2nt bidder,
4c = 5M and 4c, slam try
4d = 5M and 5c, mild slam try
3nt = 4+d (nf)
4c = 5M-4d, slam try
4d = 5+M - 5+d, mild slam try
4M = 6M - 4d slam try

3s = 3 cd support for major, extras, suit oriented

3nt = 3 cd support for major, min, suit oriented

c. 3other M = natural, at least 5M-4oM, natural responses

d. 3M = natural, asks for choice of games, if you bid over a 3nt choice, you are making a balanced slam try, with q-bids stronger than 4M
(either wk 6 cd suit or slam try, needing help in M)
responder bids 3nt or 4s with minimums, cue bids when accepting 4M and maximum (one suited balanced slam tries go thru 3M)

e. 3nt = choice of games, 5-3-3-2, or something that looks like that

f. 4c, 4d, 4h(over 1s) = strong slam try, 2nd 5 card suit, 17+
4M,4nt=signoff; all other bids are slam interest

g. 4M = to play

h. 4nt = 18-19 bal, slam invitational

PS:
Some tweaks might be in order, for instance I'd prefer c. to be 3H and d. to be 3S, so:
c. 3H = 5M-4oM, then:
3S agrees M
4m agrees oM, cuebid
rest natural (4M or 4oM are bad hands)

[cherdano]

Can we keep the the slam-try relay systems out off a B/I sayc thread maybe? Thanks.

[jillybean]

cherdano, on Oct 3 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

Can we keep the the slam-try relay systems out off a B/I sayc thread maybe? Thanks.

Its ok, we will take what we like (and can understand) and leave the rest!

I’m not at all surprised you heard this in the BIL, with the number of advanced/expert mentors available there is quite some difference of opinion as to what is ‘standard bidding’

jb

[pigpenz]

generally 99.999% of the time its 5 card support....but i could see an instance where maybe holding 3 spades and akqx(j) ♥'s it would be ok to bid 2♥

[pclayton]

I play 2N as natural in response to 1 of a major and I really like it. It adds definition to your 2/1's as well as your forcing NT auctions.

[awm]

One of the problems I've noticed is that a lot of people tend to believe whatever they play is "standard." Perhaps it is even standard in the region of the world where they live. The word "standard" can mean pretty much anything.

However, "sayc" is a fairly well-defined system. It happens to include a number of treatments that are not standard in most places and to most people. It's fairly easy to find official descriptions of sayc on the web. Some key items:

1M-3M is a limit raise, showing three or more trumps.

Neither forcing notrump nor bergen raises are part of sayc.

In sayc, a 2/1 call always promises a rebid unless opener bids a game.

1M-2m-2NT shows extras in sayc, and is forcing to game.

1M-2m-2M could be a waiting bid with minimum values, and does not show 6+ in the major in sayc.

1M-2m-2M-3M is a game force in sayc, because a limit raise would have bid 3M directly (even if 3 cards) and since 2M did not promise six, 3M should not be on doubleton.

And yes, 1♠-2♥ shows five in sayc.

[han]

Adam, whether you like it or not, from now on I will consider you a SAYC-expert!

[kfgauss]

cherdano, on Oct 3 2005, 05:31 PM, said:

Can we keep the the slam-try relay systems out off a B/I sayc thread maybe? Thanks.

Sorry about that. Should I start a new topic next time if I want to comment on something like what Richard said? (Or perhaps Richard should have started the new topic?) Didn't mean to clutter the B/I forum or to irritate anyone .

Andy

[pigpenz]

awm, on Oct 3 2005, 01:59 PM, said:

One of the problems I've noticed is that a lot of people tend to believe whatever they play is "standard." Perhaps it is even standard in the region of the world where they live. The word "standard" can mean pretty much anything.

However, "sayc" is a fairly well-defined system. It happens to include a number of treatments that are not standard in most places and to most people. It's fairly easy to find official descriptions of sayc on the web. Some key items:

1M-3M is a limit raise, showing three or more trumps.

Neither forcing notrump nor bergen raises are part of sayc.

In sayc, a 2/1 call always promises a rebid unless opener bids a game.

1M-2m-2NT shows extras in sayc, and is forcing to game.

1M-2m-2M could be a waiting bid with minimum values, and does not show 6+ in the major in sayc.

1M-2m-2M-3M is a game force in sayc, because a limit raise would have bid 3M directly (even if 3 cards) and since 2M did not promise six, 3M should not be on doubleton.

And yes, 1♠-2♥ shows five in sayc.

if all of these are considered standard features of SAYC then alot of people who play SAYC are in trouble

alot of these same things you posted are things that should be asked with a partner in any system wether you are playing SAYC, 2/1, or whatever. All system only lay down a framework on which to start a system, after that there are lots of forks in the road that need to be addressed with your partner.

[hrothgar]

pigpenz, on Oct 4 2005, 02:08 AM, said:

alot of these same things you posted are things that should be asked with a partner in any system wether you are playing SAYC, 2/1, or whatever. All system only lay down a framework on which to start a system, after that there are lots of forks in the road that need to be addressed with your partner.

WRONG...

SAYC is a bidding system which specifically defines a lot of sequences...
SAYC is a crappy bidding system but its actually pretty clear about all of the sequences that AWM lists.

The fact that you (and any number of other players who claim to play SAYC) haven't gone and learned the system does not mean that the system does not cover these sequences...

In short, there is a BIG difference between SAYC and "Standard American". I know that I tend to be quite anal about vocabulary, but precise use of language is what allows us to avoid these types of misunderstandings.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

SAYC is a crappy bidding system but its actually pretty clear about all of the sequences that AWM lists.

I disagree strongly with this, particularly his statements about the sequences 1S-2m-2NT, and 1S-2m-2S-3S. I'll agree that 2nt *ought* to show extras, given that a 2/1 guarantees a rebid, and that one will get better results by avoiding bidding 2nt on bare minimum openings. But a literal reading of the SAYC notes will find that 2nt has a range of "13-16", and it makes no mention of having extras to rebid 2nt. Certainly this is not "pretty clear". Also, although 1S-3S shows 3 or more trumps, there is no mention in the text of it being absolutely required with this strength range, with other sequences verboten. 1S-2m-?-(minimum spade bid) has always been non-forcing in traditional Standard American (as opposed to 2/1 GF), I see no reason to assume 1S-2m-2S-3S is forcing, although 1S-2m-2(H/D)-3S would clearly be forcing. Playing it forcing can be arguably a better agreement, but I hardly think it's clear that one should depend on this when your only agreement with a partner is "SA" or "SAYC".