hrothgar, on Dec 7 2006, 10:23 AM, said:
csdenmark, on Dec 7 2006, 07:10 PM, said:
According to default convention cards from BBO, SAYC and 201, it is so:
1♣-2NT=INV (11-12) | No 4 card major | Balanced
1♣-3NT=GF (13-15) | No 4 card major | Balanced
Bug in default convention cards or misinformation?
Neither...
Susan Doty spent a lot of time designing FD files for a basic 5 card major system. She made a deliberate choice to define the sequence 1
♣ - 2NT as natural and non-forcing. From a system design perspective I see pluses and minuses to this choice. As I noted in an earlier posting, the SAYC community seems to be split regarding the meaning of this bid.
I just wish that she had called the system something other than SAYC.
I'd be happy with "Standard American" or "Standard" or "Bridge Base Basic" or even B^3... However, it seems a lot easier to sidestep the whole SAYC nomenclature.
Yes, but the notes we can quickly reach under BB-Basic show 1m-2NT as 13-15 and therefore forcing.
At the risk of beating a dead horse and I've done it in two threads about this, I must stress my strong opinion that any system that doesn't have a decent way to force in the opened minor suit has a serious flaw.
In SAYC 1m-3m is a limit raise, but playing the intended 13-15 2NT you can at least show support at the 4 level at some point to imply serious minor suit slam interest and/or doubts that 3NT is the best contract, when opener rebids something other than 3NT with a hand different than the basic balanced stuff.
In"SAYC" if we play 1m-3m as limit and 1m-2NT as 11-12 we don't have a way to show good support for the opened minor and a GF without inventing bids and suits along the way. This info can be critical to reaching minor suit slams and once in a while avoiding a hopeless 3NT when 5m is cold.
The system notes could use some serious refinement and expansion, and again, I'd be happy to help if wanted.
.. neilkaz ..