[kenberg]

Playing 1D-2C-3C as passable is pretty awful. It follows that when playing SAYC the raise of 2C to 3C has to show something beyond a dead minimum since the 2C bid might well be on four cards and 11 points (bidding 2N over 1D shows 13-15 balanced in SAYC so with four clubs and 11 points the call must be 2C).

It's a mistake to try to pin down SAYC with great precision (I know Caitland has a book on SAYC. I haven't read it and am not prepared to argue about her recommendations. By SAYC I mean the brief exposition on the acbl website). SAYC is meant to allow pick-ups to play together without ending up in a 3-2 trump fit through gross misunderstanding. It's a mostly natural system that provides reasonable bids for frequently occurring situations.

SAYC, for example, provides no forcing minor raise. A real bummer on some hands, so we punt when this comes up. There are other impossible situations as well. But after 1D-2C I don't (usually) have that much trouble in SAYC. With a minimum hand I just try to do something that won't get partner excited. Repeat three times to yourself "I am not playing an advanced scientific system" and make the best bid possible with the system you have. I would say that this means going easy on trotting out a 2S bid. Rebidding 2D or, if you cannot stand that, bidding 2N should be best. Partner can bid his four card major if he has one.

In 2/1 systems, whether 1D-2C-2M does or does not promise extras has the nature of a dogmatic religious debate with true believers, heretics, infidels, the whole array. I prefer that it does promise extras.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on May 6 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 22 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

The rebid issue after 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical quagmire in standard methods. Established expert partnerships usually develop special agreements for it.

Hi Mike,

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Sorry, jb, but in my view, this is 'terrible'

Most (I would say 'all' but experience shows that this would be an overbid) require some degree of extra values for a minor suit raise. The problem is that you have to be able to create a force, when you hold a fit and some extra values, below 3N: the most likely game.

This constraint, of staying below 3N on good but not huge hands (on huge hands, we can, in a well-designed method, force beyond 3N right away because we will be able to stop in 4N or 5 minor when slam proves too much), means that we need a way to show a fit and create a force, and the default method is the single raise.

This, in turn, means that we cannot/should not raise to 3♣ on mediocre hands with 3♣s.

Now, I am not a fan of SAYC or similar systems, in part because the methods force you into all kinds of distortions with various not-especially-rare hand types, this being one of them. So what do you bid with, say KJx xxx AKxx Qxx?

Some would say that you have to rebid 2N: an ugly choice: imagine partner with Ax Kx xxx AKJxxx: now we have wrong-sided 3N: we will still make much of the time, but it is frigid from partner's side.

My preference, as described earlier, is that 2♦ is a 'noise', a 'mark-time' bid, denying the ability to make a more descriptive systemic bid. This is not ideal, and others have developed other compromises.

BTW, while I dislike SAYC, it would be naive to think that any system has yet been invented, or will ever be invented, that is free from the need to create kludges to ameliorate similar issues.

Going back to where I began, 'extra values' can be in the form of shape as well as or instead of hcp.. but remember that responder will often be bidding 2♣ on some fairly flat hands and modest hcp... partner has no forcing ♦ raise and may have a hand just a bit too good for 1N and not good enough (not the right stoppers, for example) for 2N.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Apr 22 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Hi, easy question....

1♦:2♣
2♥

How much does opener need for her rebid?

(I'm going back to read the thread on reverses yet again)

If you are going to play soundish openings, I think 2H needs to show extra, above soundish.
That means 2D rebid can be a very wide range...minimum or extras.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on May 6 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

If 2NT promises 10-12, that should work, I suppose, but if it promises 13-15 as Yellow Card seems to have standard you're going to be in a world of hurt sometimes.

I play 1♦-1♥-2♥ as 4 card support or 3 with a singleton (or other ruffing value). I play 1♦-2♣-3♣ as showing the same level of support. So I might have only 3 on rare occassions, but if I'm going to play in a 4-3 fit at the 3 level, there'd better be a good reason!

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on May 7 2007, 06:25 AM, said:

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

Thats a different auction altogether 1♦:2nt for me promises 11-12 and probably both majors stopped or else better than 11-12. (edited)

Im not sure where the 4-3 fit comes into it, 1♦:2♣ promises 5 for me or a better hand and we'll play in ♦ or nt.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on May 7 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 7 2007, 06:25 AM, said:

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

Thats a different auction altogether 1♦:2nt for me promises 10-12 and atleast both majors stopped.

Sure, but if you play SAYC as written, it shows 13-15. That means those 3=3=3=4 12 counts end up bidding 2♣. In fact, even with your defintion, it sounds like 3=3=3=4 12 counts with one of the majors unstopped bids 2♣.

You can see the problem, when you have a:
4=2=4=3 12 count, and he has a
3=3=3=4 12 count.

3♣ is a really bad place to end up.

[kenberg]

SAYC certainly says 1D-2N is 13-15. Moreover, it seems right. The 11-12 range is needed by the 2/1 folks. If 1D-2C is absolutely forcing to game, if your partner opens 1D, and if you have 11 points and your only suit is clubs, you have to just go home if you cannot bid 2NT here (not that 2N will always be a great choice either). Playing SAYC, with it's 13-15 point range, you bid 2C when you have clubs, but you cannot wait for five.

There is no great intrinsic advantage playing 1D-2N as invitational. Usually no harm is done but assuming that you then also play 1D-3N as a balanced 13-15, it will sometines leave opener uncertain of the best spot to play and no practical way to explore. At any rate, 13-15 is what SAYC says, at least at the acbl website. I know many folks who "play SAYC" play it as 11-12. My main objection to this deviation is that it defeats the SAYC purpose of providing a basic system that can be played pick-up without discussion.

[pbleighton]

Quote

My main objection to this deviation is that it defeats the SAYC purpose of providing a basic system that can be played pick-up without discussion.

Ken, I understand what you are saying, but what percentage of players who "play sayc" do you think really play it, or at least 98% of it?

I'd say under 20%, perhaps way under 20%.

"SAYC" has come to mean:
1. 5 card majors (but not necessarily having 13 hcp).
2. 15-17 NT
3. Stayman, major suit transfers, and Blackwood)
4. 2/1 forcing for one round (but not necessarily promising a rebid)

That's about it. Is your experience different?

Peter

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on May 7 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

jillybean2, on May 6 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣  3♣

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Ummm...what do you have 2NT over 1♦ promise then?

If 2NT promises 10-12, that should work, I suppose, but if it promises 13-15 as Yellow Card seems to have standard you're going to be in a world of hurt sometimes.

I play 1♦-1♥-2♥ as 4 card support or 3 with a singleton (or other ruffing value). I play 1♦-2♣-3♣ as showing the same level of support. So I might have only 3 on rare occassions, but if I'm going to play in a 4-3 fit at the 3 level, there'd better be a good reason!

1d=2c(game force)
I would think if you are going to have a reverse show extra, then you must have 2d be any 5+ suit wide ranging rebid. That makes 2nt your default rebid with some 4243//4432, etc hands. that seems playable.

[neilkaz]

pbleighton, on May 7 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

Quote

My main objection to this deviation is that it defeats the SAYC purpose of providing a basic system that can be played pick-up without discussion.

Ken, I understand what you are saying, but what percentage of players who "play sayc" do you think really play it, or at least 98% of it?

I'd say under 20%, perhaps way under 20%.

"SAYC" has come to mean:
1. 5 card majors (but not necessarily having 13 hcp).
2. 15-17 NT
3. Stayman, major suit transfers, and Blackwood)
4. 2/1 forcing for one round (but not necessarily promising a rebid)

That's about it. Is your experience different?

Peter

Peter...this is exactly what SAYC means to most players, including many of the advanced SAYC pickups I play with.

BB could really use a few more SAYC-type standard cards, but most pickup types wouldn't bother to learn one, and would deviate slightly from any of them no matter which one they felt was agreed.

.. neilkaz ..