[twcho]

Playing SAYC, without interference from opponents, the bidding went:
1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ -?

Is 3♠ forcing here? How about bidding 2♥ first and then rebid 3♠ over partner's 2♠/2NT/3♣/3♦ rebid?

What is the difference between these two auctions.

If instead, the partnership is playing 2 over 1, what does 3♠ mean (an unnecessary jump)?

[blackshoe]

In SAYC, 3♠ is invitational with spade support in that first auction. Not forcing. 2♥ would be forcing, and possibly artificial, after which 3♠ would be forcing.

In 2/1, 3♠ would be a splinter in support of diamonds.

[awm]

I really think 3♠ should be forcing even in SAYC. Jumps show extras, and a 2/1 bid is already almost enough for game. 2♠ of course would be NF.

Also, SAYC has 1♠-3♠ as a limit raise with three or more spades, not necessarily four. So it's not clear what the hand is where you make a 2/1 bid and then want to "invite in spades."

[aguahombre]

awm, on Jul 18 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

I really think 3♠ should be forcing even in SAYC. Jumps show extras, and a 2/1 bid is already almost enough for game. 2♠ of course would be NF.

Also, SAYC has 1♠-3♠ as a limit raise with three or more spades, not necessarily four. So it's not clear what the hand is where you make a 2/1 bid and then want to "invite in spades."

I don't think it is quite that simple.

1S-2C
2D-? The SAYC responder could easily have, say, QX XXX XXX AKQXX, and if allowed to rebid 2S with that would be way ahead of us 2/1 GF people who had to bid 1NT (F) and then 2NT. This would mean that 2C, then 3S would still only be an invite ---showing clubs and 3+ spades.

In the original "book" 2/1:

1S-2C
2D-3S is slammish for spades with, say, KXXX AX XX AKQXX. However, lots of people just use J2N for eveything with four-card spade support these days, so the book has changed for them --maybe allowing Blackshoe's diamond splinter idea to work (I wouldn't try this on pard without discussion, though.)

[awm]

aguahombre, on Jul 18 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

I don't think it is quite that simple.

1S-2C
2D-? The SAYC responder could easily have, say, QX XXX XXX AKQXX, and if allowed to rebid 2S with that would be way ahead of us 2/1 GF people who had to bid 1NT (F) and then 2NT. This would mean that 2C, then 3S would still only be an invite ---showing clubs and 3+ spades.

But again, you are ignoring the fact that a direct limit raise in SAYC shows 3+♠ and not 4+♠. So there isn't an "invitational spade raise" that makes a 2/1 bid.

Obviously you could claim that there is some advantage to showing your side-suit on the way to making a limit raise, rather than making one directly (although arguably, opponents may also be helped quite a bit by such a sequence on defense). However, such a claim doesn't make it part of SAYC.

We have a system where the general rules include jumps showing extras and limit raises showing only three trumps. I don't think it's logical to assume that the sequence given doesn't show extras (making it the only jump that doesn't) just so you can show a particular hand type that is supposed to be shown via a direct limit raise.

It may also be worth mentioning that while the given sequence gives you a cheap 2♥ 4th suit forcing bid, the analogous sequence of 1♠-2♣-2♥ is much more awkward, and being forced to bid 3♦ (4th suit force) rather than 3♠ crowds your slam bidding considerably.

[cherdanno]

Yes 3S is forcing, this is how you look for slam with clubs and 3-card spade support in SAYC.

[Codo]

3 ♠ is forcing and looking for a slam.

[gnasher]

It's strange that people seem to prefer to speculate about what something means instead of just looking it up. From
http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

SAYC Booklet said:

If responder initially bids a new suit at the two level, the same rules apply EXCEPT that a subsequent jump raise of opener’s first suit to the THREE LEVEL is game forcing — responder should make a limit raise directly over the opening with 10–11 points and at least three-card support:
1♠ — 2♣
2♥ — 2NT, 3♣, 3♥ = invitation to game (10–11 points).
    — 2♠ = preference, not forcing. Responder
        has 11–12 points and a doubleton spade.
    — 3♦ = game force, could be conventional.
    — 3♠ = game force.

[Codo]

gnasher, on Jul 19 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

It's strange that people seem to prefer to speculate about what something means instead of just looking it up.

Hmm? We shall start to base our posts on facts and not on our own opinion?

Stop taking these drugs Andy.

Next think will be that you start to demand basic knowledge from posters....

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Jul 19 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

In SAYC, 3♠ is invitational with spade support in that first auction. Not forcing. 2♥ would be forcing, and possibly artificial, after which 3♠ would be forcing.

In 2/1, 3♠ would be a splinter in support of diamonds.

I find both of these comments weird. After a 2/1 response, surely Adam is correct and 3S is forcing. Secondly, the second sequence shows S support and is definitely not a splinter.

[Ant590]

I think this is what happens when one lets acol wee in the pool

[blackshoe]

I did look up the SAYC booklet before I posted. Apparently I can't read.

I didn't look up the 2/1 sequence anywhere, but I think that's what Max Hardy said in Standard Bidding for the 21st Century. I suppose I could be wrong about that too.

[gwnn]

sayc: strong hand with some clubs and some spades
2/1: strong hand with 6 good clubs and 4 spades

This illustrates neatly the difference in philosophy between the two systems. and sorry for trolling.

[blackshoe]

Yep, I'm wrong about both auctions. Sheesh. I'll shut up now.