[Califdude]

In this sequence is the 3S bid considered non-forcing, invitational, or forcing?
1S-P-2H-P
3H-P-3S-P
?

Thanks for replies.

[han]

3H GF

[helene_t]

Even if 3♥ is not forcing, 3♠ is a game force. If responder doesn't want to play game, he must pass 3♥.

[skjaeran]

Depending on agreements, 3♥ is GF or invitational.
Over an invitational 3♥ it makes no sense for 3♠ to be non-forcing.

[vuroth]

I would have guessed 3♥ was invitational.

I would also have said that it set trump as hearts. Ergo, if you can find a way to stop below game in hearts after 3♠, go for it.

[blackshoe]

2♥ says either "I have hearts and enough to invite game" or "I have hearts and enough to force to game". Disregarding the latter, if opener hears "I have hearts and enough to invite game" does it make any sense for opener to then say "I also have hearts and enough to invite game"? In practice, what can that possibly mean? Unless, I suppose, responder's "enough to invite game" is a lot wider ranging than I, at least, would expect.

[awm]

Forcing for two reasons:

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid. So 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing. Thus opener should have extras, giving our side enough for game. If opener has garbage with a heart fit he should bid 2♠ at second turn and then hearts over responder's rebid.

(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades; if it includes 3+♠ then it should also be game forcing values. By correcting 3♥ to 3♠, responder shows a spade fit and (thus) game values.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing.

The only question is, which suit is agreed to be trumps,
and how many spades 3S showes.
Because 3S could be interpreted as a cue bid, but the
cue should be based on a spade to honor, so there is
no big difference to 3S being a raise, although there is
one.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[NickRW]

awm, on Dec 2 2008, 03:06 AM, said:

Forcing for two reasons:

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid....

(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades...

Even in Acol, where the 2♥ bid (though F1) doesn't necessarily promise a rebid, the 3♠ bid still has to be taken as strong for the second reason you give.

I don't know of any commonly played natural system where a 2/1 can be weaker than Acol plays it - so I would think that has to be forcing in any natural system.

Nick

[vuroth]

awm, on Dec 1 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid. So 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing. Thus opener should have extras, giving our side enough for game. If opener has garbage with a heart fit he should bid 2♠ at second turn and then hearts over responder's rebid.

So confusing.

2 over 1 promises:

Quote

10 points or more, promises at least four of the suit.

Quote

Rebids with a minimum hand (13–15 points):
Raising responder’s suit at the lowest level (may have good three-card support);

Quote

NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that 3♥ was forcing. Ok, maybe the intent of SAYC is to force you to game with 23 combined HCP and a 7 card fit, but I doubt it.

[helene_t]

I thought 1♠-2♥-3♥ was the only exception to the rule that a 2/1 response promises a rebid. Not that it makes much sense. Agree with vuroth that the various descriptions of SAYC are confusing. Doesn't matter, though, as long as your agreements with partner are not confusing.

[ArtK78]

In very old-fashioned Standard American, 1♠-2♥-3♥ was not forcing and the subsequent 3♠ bid was also nonforcing.

I would guess that in SAYC, which is very similar to old-fashioned Standard American, the same is true.

In any other system without very specific agreements to the contrary, both 3♥ and 3♠ are forcing.

In the special 1♠-2♥ method that I play, 2♥ is not game forcing; 3♥ and 3♠ in this sequence are both invitational. Opener would have had to bid 2NT artificial and game forcing over 2♥ to prepare for a forcing heart raise (4♥ was available to bid game with no slam interest). Responder could bid anything other than 3♠ over 3♥ with a game force.

[jdonn]

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

[EricK]

There can be no mileage in playing this as anything other than forcing. Responder has inv+ strength and there is a double fit. How can opener possibly judge when it is right to pass?

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.

(My usually wrong understanding of SAYC says 3♥ is forcing to game.)

[han]

Vuroth, 1S-2H shows 5 hearts.

If this and jdonn's comment (that SAYC and logic have nothing to do with eachother) are the only two things you remember from this thread then you will do well.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Dec 2 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

My (usually wrong) understanding of SAYC is that 3♥ is forcing because responder promised a rebid, but 3♠ is not forcing because there is no rule based on which it would be. I don't think Adam's logic is relevant to SAYC because, well, logic and SAYC have nothing to do with each other. Both his points 1 and 2 follow logically but not systematically.

So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.

The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.

[ArtK78]

I reviewed the ACBL SAYC System Booklet.

On the one hand, it is stated that a player who makes a 2/1 bid promises a rebid. That would mean that the 3♥ bid in the auction 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is forcing. That does not mean game forcing, just forcing.

Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing. So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.

On the other hand, the system booklet does not show any examples of an auction which starts 1♠ - 2♥. And we all know that auctions that start out 1♠ - 2♥ are fundamentally different from all other 2/1 auctions.

So, unless your conclusion is that a partnership playing SAYC cannot stop in 3♥ on this auction but they can stop in 3♠, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet does not answer the questions raised in this thread.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Dec 2 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

So, the bottom line is that the ACBL SAYC System Booklet does not answer the questions raised in this thread.

!!!!!!

Quote

On the one hand, it is stated that a player who makes a 2/1 bid promises a rebid.  That would mean that the 3♥ bid in the auction 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is forcing.  That does not mean game forcing, just forcing.

Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing.  So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.

Illogical? Yes. Terrible system? Yes. SAYC? YES. You think it's not SAYC because they don't provide an example auction?

Edit: Ok I was quick, I see you edited your quote. So your answer is "It's SAYC if you believe the SAYC book", or something like that.

[HeavyDluxe]

Ok, so we've officially decried SAYC as the Antichrist. Allow me, then, a momentary threadjack...

If you were starting with someone new (living in North America), what 'naturalish' system would you have them learn out of the gate? BWS? 2/1? ACOL?

I'm not asking with any snark in my tone... I'm genuinely curious.