[bglover]

Qxxxxx
AKx
QJ
Ax

After 1S 2C you are going to get to game, so if you play 2S and 2NT as non-forcing, what are you going to rebid? 3S? 2H? 3C? 3NT?

Admittedly, this is a rare hand type to hold, and you might very well get away a non-forcing 2S, a manufactured 2H, an ingenious raise to 3C, a potentially wrong siding jump to 3NT, or indeed a jump to 3S. But I am sure you can see the benefits (on this hand at least) of having a forcing 2S available.

Whether one side outweighs the other is a question for debate. It probably depends on just how strong your 2/1 bids are, especially on potentially misfitting hands. If one wants to play SAYC as it is written, one should always try to have an extra point or two for a 2/1 bid if holding a singleton or void in partner's major. For pairs who don't want to make this sort of distinction, there is more reason to have ways to bail out at the two level.

I would have no problem rebidding 2S on the above hand,... the suit is an abomination and if partner cannot act over my rebid we probably aren't making game anywhere and if he rebids 2N my hand is now golden.

This is a great example of why one must apply judgment in any bidding situation... This 16 point hand may take a MAXIMUM of 3 playing trix if partner has a stiff low spade... don't fall in love with point count... that's the advice I give ALL my students... Long suits take tricks but this spade suit is so moth eaten it has the potential to take none at NT... Why should I force this hand to game? (presumably your answer is because it has 16 hcps and thus must force game...NO).

[JRG]

Caveat: I have not seen a formal write-up of SAYC. I was under the impression that SAYC was an ACBL mandated convention card that limited the allowed conventions to a minimum of popular ones (e.g. Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood (maybe RKCB)).

In which case, like 2over1, I understood none of the sequences in the original post to be forcing. My understanding of the 2/1 bidder promising a rebid is "The 2/1 bidder promises a rebid if opener bids a new suit". If opener makes a minimum rebid in his suit, makes a minimum raise of responder's suit, or makes a minimum rebid in NT, it is not forcing.

[hrothgar]

There are a number of copies of the original ACBL SAYC booklet available on the net. If you "google" for SAYC you can find a copy easily.

SAYC is extremely clear about this sequence

"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."

[bglover]

That is not in dispute Richard... what is in dispute is whether that is really the "best treatment for the sequence 1M 2x 2M"

There are at least 3 people in the world that do not play it as forcing (make that more like 10 when I include partners and more like 100 when I include students).

As a poster who has REPEATEDLY stated that you do not follow the book but your own judgment, I would like to know your take (not the "book").

I have given my reasons why I do not play it as forcing and frankly still think they are damn good ones... If the best answer anyone has for me is its forced by system, then I say that's fine, but MY system says I can pass with a bad hand if partner can't concoct a more forcing bid than a suit rebid.

[Codo]

Besides that there are better reasons:

You better call it 2/1 special SA or whatever. But if you call it SAYC and change one of the few fundemental rules in this book, you are simply wrong and worse:
If I met someone here, agree at SAYC and he passes inyour loved sequence, I will be highly unlucky.

So please, call your system SA or 5 card major with strong NT, because that is correct. But don`t call it SAYC

Kind Regards

Roland

[bglover]

As usual Roland you say nothing new and appear to be insulting while you do it.

Suggest you read one of my prior posts where I clearly acknowledge that I may not be following the book exactly and that I played this way before the book was even written.

And, BTW, feel free to blindly follow the system as written and if you continue to get bad results by forcing to the 3 level on a misfit then, by all means, continue to follow that system.

But, I will bet you anything you like that if we did a hand simulation that passing 2M wins out in the long run. Why? Because by the very definition of this discussion game is almost always out of the question (or at least unbiddable) and so therefore being in 2M wins EVERY time 3 goes down and 3 can only win in the rare instance where 2n plays better than 2M (and that is a really rare situation).

So, do whatever your system tells you to do... but at least do not insult me. And BTW, you would be very lucky to play with a partner smart enough to recognize a misfit and get out early, even if you cannot.

[Cave_Draco]

2/1 might be fine at IMPs, at MP ???

Why? Because 1NT is a GREAT contract if opps let you play there! Almost guaranteed top.

2/1 reduces the 1NT response to <shrug>.

[pbleighton]

Roland writes:
"So please, call your system SA or 5 card major with strong NT, because that is correct. But don`t call it SAYC"

Right except for the following fact:
SAYC includes conventions which many online players who ask "SAYC OK, partner?" don't play:
a) Jacoby transfers
Negative doubles
c) Michaels
d) Unusual 2NT
e) Doubles for t/o through 4D, penalty 4H and up (quite specific)
f) SOS redoubles
g) Gerber
h) Jacoby 2NT

All of these conventions are mandatory parts of SAYC. My estimate of the percentage of online players who say they play "SAYC" who play all of the above is that it is less than 20%. At least half don't play ANY of the above (as well as other bits of noncompliance).

So what does SAYC mean in the world of online bridge?

It means 5 card majors, 15-17 NT, and 2/1 shows invitational or better values, and is forcing for one round, and usually winds up in game.

In other words, any interpretation of Standard American (or standard anything else with 5 card majors and a strong NT).

That's what SAYC actually means, the booklet notwithstanding.

[bglover]

Twenty percent? You are dreaming! Five percent maybe!

When I play SAYC with a 1st time partner here I always make them spell out what they mean for exactly the reasons you stated. People do not really play SAYC basic or full or whatever and they don't even know it.

At least if someone puts Full SAYC on their card they should be playing xfers, neg x, J2nt, etc. yet I have sat with a large number of players who have no idea what a negative double is (for example) while professing full SAYC.

It's a catchphrase and it is easy to put on a card.. at least know the system if you are going to say you play it...

I read an interesting article on a different site re SAYC and its increasing popularity due to its "acceptance" in online bridge despite its relative limitations.

But my (and obviously your) experience has been people basically who play any five card major opening refer to it as SAYC...

[Codo]

Praises the lord! A wonder... I totally agree with 2over1.
8)
I was on my way to write about the 5 % myself but thought that that may be too harsh.
For the single conventions my experience is about:

a) Jacoby transfers 95 %
Negative doubles 99 %
c) Michaels 80 %
d) Unusual 2NT 80 %
e) Doubles for t/o through 4D, penalty 4H and up (quite specific) 5 %
f) SOS redoubles 50 %
g) Gerber 60 %
h) Jacoby 2NT 80 %

but just 10 % who knows the bidding after 1 Heart -2 NT.

And if you want to play c d e f and H, you better check this before you start playing...

Kind Regards

Roland

[hrothgar]

Quote

That is not in dispute Richard... what is in dispute is whether that is really the "best treatment for the sequence 1M 2x 2M"

As a poster who has REPEATEDLY stated that you do not follow the book but your own judgment, I would like to know your take (not the "book").

My views on standard are decidedly non-standard., however, I'll give this a try:

I think that there is a necessary relationship between the strength of a one level opening bid and the definition of a 2/1 rebid.

I am comfortable playing a 2/1 game force style if I am also playing a sound opening style.

I am happy playing 2/1 as constructive, but non-forcing playing a light opening system.

Opposite a SAYC type opening bid, I am most comfortable playing that a 2/1 response establishes an absolute force to 2NT, however, this is far from standard and I have found few partners who like this treatment.

I prefer to play the auction:

1M - 2X
2M

as forcing. I understand the advantage of keeping low opposite a misfit, however, this creates too much pressure on other parts of the system. I will note that the non-forcing treatment becomes much more attractive as you lower the requirements for a 1 level opening bid.

[bglover]

Good answer...

Now, for clarification sake let me say that I PERSONALLY open virtually all 11 point hands when I play SAYC and when I play 2/1 I open only perhaps 5 percent of my 11 point hands (really only the ones that have a good rebiddable suit or some 4-4 major hands where the majority of the points are in those 2 suits).

This is the essence of why I also play that a 2M rebid is passable.. I like to open weak hands in SAYC and this style can lead to a disaster at the 3 level playing MPs.

That is important to note: SAYC has some distinct advantges at MPs... as someone noted, the ability to play 1NT is often good for a top in a field that is playing 2/1 mainly. The ability to open weaker hands (and thus open more frequently) is another advantage.

[pbleighton]

Richard wrote:
"I am happy playing 2/1 as constructive, but non-forcing playing a light opening system"

Do you mean non-forcing to game or non-forcing for one round? If the latter, do you use 1NT for all hands with GF values?

[pbleighton]

Just because I am in that type of mood today 8) I will quote the following from the SAYC booklet (gospel of the damned.....):
"Opener's rebids are natural and standard. Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):
Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level"

Roland, it appears that you are not playing "true SAYC" either ;D

Have a nice day!

BTW my 20% figure was actually "less than 20%", I was being generous, and also assuming that the compliance rate for those players who choose to play with an intermediate like myself would be less than the compliance rate of those you advanced/experts play with, but I guess not!

[Cave_Draco]

IMO, there are two types of pseudo-SAYC players.

Those who "profess" to play SAYC and those who "can" play it. I include myself in the latter category, ;D.

Of the listed conventions...
Negative Doubles - np, IF partner understands their implications with regard to re-opening doubles; in my experience, few do!
c) Michaels - a wasted bid; ok, ok, it's part of the system...
e) Doubles - Optional doubles are more useful but again it's part of the system...
g) Gerber - Fine, except for players that slip in Extended Gerber and then pass Blackwood!
h) Jacoby 2NT - I don't think I've ever needed/used it... another wasted bid, .

I "can" play SAYC & occasionally try... but I will get things wrong from time-to-time, .

[hrothgar]

Quote

Richard wrote:
"I am happy playing 2/1 as constructive, but non-forcing playing a light opening system"

Do you mean non-forcing to game or non-forcing for one round? If the latter, do you use 1NT for all hands with GF values?

Playing MOSCITO, almost all of responder's bids are natural and completely non-forcing.

For example, after a 1D opening (1D = 4+ Hearts, ~9-14 HCP, could have longer minor)

4H = to play
4D = Splinter raise
4C = Splinter raise
3N = To play (might conceal preemptive raise)
3S = Splinter raise
3H = "Value" raise, 4+ Hearts, non-forcing
3D = Fit showing jump, 6+ Diamonds, 3 Hearts
3C = Fit showing jump, 6+ Clubs, 3 Hearts
2N = Weak jump shift in either minor
2S = Game invite with 5+ Spades and 5+ cards in either minor
2H = Value raise, 3 Hearts
2D = 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs, ~ 7-11 HCP, NON FORCING
2C = 5+ Clubs and 4+ Diamonds, ~ 7-11 HCP, NON FORCING
1NT = Natural, non-forcing
1S = 4+ Spades, natural, forcing
1H = Strong, artificial, and forcing

[Codo]

Hi Peter,

"Opener's rebids are natural and standard. Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level"

got me and I really thougth, that I am the one and only true expert of SAYC and never ever fail...

So SAYC nearly forces you to game in this sequence? (Because of: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."

Bridge is funny..

Kind Regards

Roland

[bglover]

Revisiting this very old topic...

While looking for something, I came across the OK bridge notes on SAYC. The authors note that most versions of SAYC allow a player to pass a rebid at the 2 level after a 2/1 response, even if a new suit was bid.

Apparently there are versions out there that play it like I do... i.e., that a 2/1 bid does not necessitate another bid in a misfit.

That was certainly the "old" way to play Standard American and it has survived even with the advent of SAYC.

Any interested parties can find the statement in the notes to OKB SAYC.