[jdeegan]

I wish we could have nailed the rascals in 2♦, but I couldn't find a double of the overcall. It looked a lot like overcaller was a favorite to win six trump tricks despite (or because of) my four card holding. His chances of catching two additional tricks were too good despite my partner's two over one SAYC response.

[bid_em_up]

I would pass initially. Since the problem doesnt give me this option, I will bid 2♠ now.

[BudH]

Since I passed 2♦ and would nearly always rebid 2♠ on a 6-card suit or 2♥ on a 4-card suit (or longer), I think a heart raise should be expected to be on honor third.

I suspect 2♦ doubled may have been the best spot, but too late for that now. I'm rebidding 2♠, and expecting to bid 3♥ next.




Bud H

[inquiry]

Partner could have reopened with a double to show hearts, and modest values. This new suit by responder is forcing, and on this auction, really should be forcing to game. I will rebid 2♠ here and see what partner has to say, and will show delayed heart support next (playing in hearts in a 4-3 fit is not going to be good, given my four small diamonds. Diamond leads can force partner.

I am stunned that anyone playing sayc will pass this 2♥ bid.

[P_Marlowe]

inquiry, on Sep 7 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

<snip>
I am stunned that anyone playing sayc will pass this 2♥ bid.
<snip>

And I am stunned, that everyone except
me is bidding.
The main issue is: On which hands do you
expect partner to dbl, and on which do you
think he ought to bid.
With the given partner hand, I expect partner
to double.

For me partner in essence denied
a diamond holding worth a stopper
(he may hold the single Ace) => 3NT is out,
primary spade support => no 8 card fit in spades,
a strong 5-5 distribution => i.e. we have a 7 card fit
in hearts at best,
i.e. if I shall bid on, where do I wanna play?

I wanna go plus, hence I pass.

You may rightful argue, that the above statements
are not valid in your partnership, thats fine with me
and I can understand that you bid on.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[inquiry]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 7 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

And I am stunned, that everyone except
me is bidding.

You do know that a new suit by responder is forcing in SAYC? I mean, we are not making this stuff up.

You do realize that if partner doubled 2♦ it would be for "takeout" suggesting 4♥ and longer clubs? So his 2♥ is stronger than the double in theory. And of course, 2♥ is a "reverse" forcing you to go to 3♣ if you like clubs better, so that in SAYC this should be game force.

Quote

The main issue is: On which hands do you
expect partner to dbl, and on which do you
think he ought to bid.

With the given partner hand, I expect partner
to double.

I don't worry about the "given partner hand, as I can not see that when finding my bid. But the hand shown is borderline between double and 2♥. It is a double if the 2♣ bidder does not want to force to game, it is 2♥ if he does. For his 2♥ bid he could easily have ♣Ace instead of ♣J and the same hand.

Quote

I wanna go plus, hence I pass.

You may rightful argue, that the above statements
are not valid in your partnership, thats fine with me
and I can understand that you bid on.

This really isn't a partnership problem, the question posed was "SAYC Bidding Problem" so SAYC bidding rules apply. I am not that familar with SAYC (although I play it if you hold a gun to my head), but one thing about SAYC is after a 2over1 response, a new suit by responder is forcing, and a responder reverse is forcing to game.

One can reasonable argue that partner should have doubled rather than forcing to game with dubious values. That would have worked out ok at imps. But it is not good to pass partners game forcing bids, and in SAYC, I think this one is.

Partner could easily have...

Ax KQJx void AQJTxxx and how would you feel playing 2♥ (if he will not make strong jump shift with two suiter).

[P_Marlowe]

inquiry, on Sep 7 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Sep 7 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

And I am stunned, that everyone except
me is bidding.

You do know that a new suit by responder is forcing in SAYC? I mean, we are not making this stuff up.
<snip>

Hi,

I do, but I do also believe, that this problem is
not a real SAYC question.
SAYC does play a part, in that it makes
openers pass forcing.
Which is not 100% certain in other systems,
since it can be argued, that after a 2/1 response,
which may only be a 1 round force (a la Acol),
openers Pass is nonforcing.

I searched for the booklet, to find out, what one
should respond if one holds a 5 card minor and a 4
card mayor and 11-12HCP, I believe one
bids the minor, intending to show the mayor later
without (!) promising add. strength.

Relevant example seq. being:

1D - 2C
2D - 2H

and

1H - 2C
2H - 2S

I found the following link, but I could find nothing
to back my believes up, but also nothing to the contrary.

http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...yc%20booklet%22

=> It has to be partnership agreement.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

Actually SAYC is not as mysterious as some seem to think. Quoting directly from the ACBL docment to which P. Marlowe provided a link:

"After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing. If the new suit
is the fourth suit, the bid may be artificial/conventional."

So it seems clear that the 2♥ call in this auction is forcing. Whether it forces to game or just one round is less clear.... but don't pass it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would like to add another point:
Relevant in this discussion is also the meaning
of 2NT by either opener and responder, which
cant natural by either opener an responder, since
with a natural 2NT bid both can dbl, suggesting to
play 2Dx.

With kind regards
Marlowe