[joker_gib]

fromageGB, on Apr 6 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

2♥. I think Mikeh has it right. I don't play Standard, but would have thought the concept of a "reverse" applies, and the danger of reversing on these faily minimal values is that it might drive partner too high. Sure you want to be in game, but 2♥ is forcing.

Playing 2/1 2♠ is right if your agreement is to show distribution regardless of strength, but in my methods that shows 15/16 so I still bid 2♥.

I totally agree with this

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Apr 8 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

Cascade, on Apr 7 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

[Weird stuff]

There is a difference in the SAYC booklet between a 2/1 auction, and then 3♥, and a 1/1 auction, and then 3♥. This makes sense, as the sequences are different.

The distinction is that the 1♠...3♥ sequence is the parallel to another 2/1 GF sequence wherein Responder says, "I have a limit raise for your hearts, but I'm going to keep that a secret for a minute while I show you my spades, in case you care." This should apparently show a limit raise with 5♠/3♥ in SAYC.

That, however, does not impact the SAYC 2/1 in a minor...3♥ sequence as GF. SAYC does not allow you to show a limit raise with 3♥/5minor. That's silliness, to SAYC bidders.

1. (OT) Its non-trivial to know what the "weird stuff" is since posts are time stamped with the local time of the viewer but quotes are time stamped with the local time of the poster (quoter).

2. You maybe right. My primary point is that while the SAYC booklet is clear that a jump preference is forcing after a 2/1 it is silent on whether a raise is forcing or not. Similarly Downey and Pomer* are silent as far as I can see on whether a raise of opener's rebid suit is forcing or not.

3. Downey and Pomer do remark that the rebid of the original suit is 'rarely done with less (sic) than six cards in the suit'. This leaves open the possibility that a subsequent raise shows two-card support in an invitational hand.

4. Downey and Pomer also indicate that a 'three-level bid in a previously mentioned suit' is invitational. They note this is forcing if a jump preference.

* Standard Bidding with SAYC (2005) Masterpoint Press.

[kenrexford]

Standard American is dumb. Poopy dumb.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Apr 9 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Standard American is dumb. Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

[mike777]

Cascade, on Apr 8 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 9 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Standard American is dumb.  Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

So many WC players have told me 2/1 is the only system worse than sayc in the world...Just see how great you must be to win with it.

[mike777]

Cascade, on Apr 8 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 9 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Standard American is dumb.  Poopy dumb.

Is that as bad as 2/1?

So many WC players have told me 2/1 is the only system worse than sayc in the world...Just see how great you must be to win with it.

[whereagles]

Well... the french team of Chemla/Perron won the 1997 bermuda bowl, beating meckwell in the final, playing a very, very straightforward french standard system, which is very similar to SAYC.

So it can't be THAT bad

[jtfanclub]

whereagles, on Apr 9 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

Well... the french team of Chemla/Perron won the 1997 bermuda bowl, beating meckwell in the final, playing a very, very straightforward french standard system, which is very similar to SAYC.

So it can't be THAT bad

SAYC was made by a committee. SEF was made by bridge players.

Seriously, why we still use SAYC and not SEF is one of life's greater mysteries.

[Fluffy]

A bit late to this post, I agree with everything mikeh said, 2♠ is a misdescription of strenght.

[Codo]

jtfanclub, on Apr 9 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

Seriously, why we still use SAYC and not SEF is one of life's greater mysteries.

You need some books to understand SEF, but just some notes to understand SAYC.

So SAYC was an invetion to give a quick and easy system to the masses and worked quite well in that way.

[whereagles]

Codo, on Apr 10 2008, 06:40 AM, said:

So SAYC was an invetion to give a quick and easy system to the masses and worked quite well in that way.

So did SEF and SEF works

Well, ok, SAYC also works. But SEF is more well-thought out and more systematic. That becomes more clear as sequences get less straightforward.

[skjaeran]

Pisagor22, on Apr 5 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

[♠KJxx ♥KQTxx ♦A ♣Jxx

And if your partner's hand is like :
♠ATxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AQxxxx

after your 2♥ bid you force him to gamble :

That's not a possible hand for 2♣, that's a 1♠ response. You can't bid 2♣ with 4c♠ if you're too weak to GF.

[skjaeran]

For me this is a clear 2♥ rebid. I don't think the hand is strong enough for a reverse here.

Another sequence upthread:
1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ I've always played as GF since I quitted using diapers.
Not sure what's standard, but I'd guess it's invitational in Acol and SA.