[Fluffy]

Scoring: IMP

---

S.-.-N
1♠-2♦
??

As far as I know on basic SAYC 3♦ is not forcing, not that I agree with that (ok, I really hate it), but often online you have to deal with it.

So what am I suposed to bid with this simple hand?

[pbleighton]

Yes, it is a hole in the system. You don't have a bid. Rebid a mediocre 5 card suit, which is at least forcing, or bid a non forcing 3D.

I would probably bid 3D, but it stinks.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Friends don't let friends play SAYC

With this said and done, you have a wide variety of unpalatable rebids available to you.

3D is probably best.

With this said and done, i am intriqued by a 2H rebid and would probably do so at the table.

[the hog]

Try 2H in the hope that partner can bid 2N. If he raises to 3H bid 4D.

[mishovnbg]

The_Hog, on May 4 2004, 03:46 AM, said:

Try 2H in the hope that partner can bid 2N. If he raises to 3H bid 4D.

Hi Ron, even in basic SAYC, like in any natural system, your 4♦ bid will be slam try after raise of major.
Hi Fluffy, bid your natural raise 3♦ with your min for SAYC opening hand and sleep well if you lose game, because natural system have some flaws like example, but have also great advantages in simplicity.
Misho

[Flame]

I would bid 3nt (unless this shows 18-19), there is a good chance that this is the right contract.

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on May 3 2004, 07:07 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

S.-.-N
1♠-2♦
??

As far as I know on basic SAYC 3♦ is not forcing, not that I agree with that (ok, I really hate it), but often online you have to deal with it.

So what am I suposed to bid with this simple hand?

At imps, not vul, I would follow the herd here and bid 3♦ playing SAYC. At imps vul, I would bid 2♥,

Why the difference? Vulnerable at imps I don't want to miss game if there is any chance at all. And with what amounts to a bad 15 but a great fit, I am going to try very hard to bid game. My experience is 2♥ here is essentially forcing in sayc (and if it is not, it should be), while 3♦ is not. So if I was vulnerable, I would not want to risk a non-forcing 3♦ with what amounts to a a tremendous supporting hand. This hand is so good in support of diamonds, that even not vul, after 2♥, I will raise to 4♦ should partner rebid 3♦.

[Fluffy]

Ok, thx guys, was afraid I was missing something.

I didn´t think the vulnerability would be important, couldn´t remember so I just picked 1 randomly.

When it happened I bid 2♥ (following the rule: bid the cheapest voice forcing when you don´t know what to do ) and got punished by partner when he bid 3♥, it finished on a disaster of course :-(.

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on May 4 2004, 07:26 AM, said:

I didn´t think the vulnerability would be important, couldn´t remember so I just picked 1 randomly.

Well, this is a mistake. Vulnerability at IMP's is always important. At matchpoints, it is less so related to bid game or stay low, but more important as related to double their part-scores or not. Here is a suggestion, if you think vulnerability is not important, you need to spend some time studying how vulnerabilty and type of game (imps, total points, mp, board a match) affects bidding decisions related to:

Preempts,
Forcing pass,
sacraficing,
slam bidding
grand slam bidding
low level penalty doubles, and more

[EricK]

Fluffy, on May 4 2004, 12:07 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

S.-.-N
1♠-2♦
??

As far as I know on basic SAYC 3♦ is not forcing, not that I agree with that (ok, I really hate it), but often online you have to deal with it.

So what am I suposed to bid with this simple hand?

I think that in SAYC 3♦ is forcing. This follows from the SAYC "rule" that a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener bids a game. With a weaker hand you are meant to rebid your suit, and then, on the next round, bid 3♦.

I, of course, realise that when people say they play SAYC, they usually play something else - so there is a chance that responder with a minimum 2/1 will pass a direct raise to 3♦!

Eric

[Cascade]

I agree.

In the most comprehensive descriptions of SAYC that I have read it says that a 2/1 promises a rebid:

"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."

As EricK said the consequence is that

1♠ 2♦
3♦ is ill-judged with a minimum

as is

1♥ 2♣
2NT

[pbleighton]

Cascade and EricK are correct as to the oringinal SAYC, but from my experience most people who play SAYC (including me, when I play it), play that the opener's rebid of either
1) 2NT, or
2) A simple raise of the responder's suit
is not forcing.

Original SAYC also has the 2/1 response promising 11 points, and was originated when 1 level bids required 13/good 12.

Current practice of opening with 12/good 11 and responding with 10 is a different animal than the older approach, and has led to a softening of the responder's rebid requirement.

The term "SAYC" has changed its meaning, from a very specific system, to "5 card majors, strong NT, and a few common conventions - I hope we play the same ones, partner".

It deserves to die, but that's another thread

Peter

[Fluffy]

inquiry, on May 4 2004, 01:22 PM, said:

Fluffy, on May 4 2004, 07:26 AM, said:

I didn´t think the vulnerability would be important, couldn´t remember so I just picked 1 randomly.

Well, this is a mistake. Vulnerability at IMP's is always important. At matchpoints, it is less so related to bid game or stay low, but more important as related to double their part-scores or not. Here is a suggestion, if you think vulnerability is not important, you need to spend some time studying how vulnerabilty and type of game (imps, total points, mp, board a match) affects bidding decisions related to:

Preempts,
Forcing pass,
sacraficing,
slam bidding
grand slam bidding
low level penalty doubles, and more

Making fun of me Ben?

Of course I meant vulnerability wasn´timportant ON THIS DEAL.

I´ve read that matematic aplications about vulnerability and a % of chances to make your contrract to be worth it, sadly I can hardly calculate exact % after seeing dummy, so guess in the bidding at low level.... yes, vulnerable games are bid a bit more agresively, but I couldnt learn anything else.

[1eyedjack]

Fluffy, on May 3 2004, 07:07 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

S.-.-N
1♠-2♦
??

As far as I know on basic SAYC 3♦ is not forcing, not that I agree with that (ok, I really hate it), but often online you have to deal with it.

So what am I suposed to bid with this simple hand?

4♣ (splinter) is not that bad a bid in my view. Sure it takes you beyond 3N, but as has been pointed out nothing is perfect in the constraints provided.

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on May 4 2004, 08:02 PM, said:

Making fun of me Ben?

Of course I meant vulnerability wasn´timportant ON THIS DEAL.

I´ve read that matematic aplications about vulnerability and a % of chances to make your contrract to be worth it, sadly I can hardly calculate exact % after seeing dummy, so guess in the bidding at low level.... yes, vulnerable games are bid a bit more agresively, but I couldnt learn anything else.

Of course not.

What I was suggesting is that if I was vulnerable with this hand, I would not be willing to stop short of game after a 2♦ response at imps. Being not vul or playing matchpoints, however, I would be willing to invite game. So to me vulnerability is quite important. My rebid depends upon it. (BTW, I would like to see how 2♥ lead to disaster).

Calculating the percentages for game during bidding is too tuff for me at the table, so what I decide on in close hands (strongish game interest), I simple force to game. This also lets my partner know that when I am vul, if I invite, I have less than a strong invite. So he doesn't need to stretch too much to accept just becasue we are vul... because I will have already done sone.

You could, of course, reverse whio makes the light decision vul (I mean person issuing the game invite or accepting it, no which specific player), but it doesn't work well if both partners stretch to bid vulnerable games. Say you might normally pass or raise inivitationally. If you are vul, and you say, heck, can't afford to miss a vul game so you strech and invite. And your partner says, heck can't afford to miss a vulnerable game and he also stretches to accept. What happens? Too often down two, and certainly most of the time down one.

[dogsbreath]

Any takers for opening this hand 1NT? .. the suit texture isnt so wonderful and you do get the general texture of the hand across. Rgds Dog

[Trpltrbl]

If I was forced to play SAYC, I would open 1 NT.

Mike