[Tim Ocean]

The official ACBL's booklet on SAYC says:

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.
1♠ — 2♣
2♦ = forcing one round. Responder can limit his hand by bidding 2♠, 2NT,
3♣, or 3♦ at this point. He should not pass, since opener could have 18
points (just short of a jump shift rebid)

The same writes Julian Pottage in his book on Standard American.

I have always had a problem with this agreement. I understand that bidding such as
1♠ - 2♣
2♦ - ?
should be forcing, because opener can have even 18 HCP. But what about rebid in his suit without jump such as
1♠ - 2♣
2♠ - ?
Is there a point in agreement that it is forcing?

I assume everywhere that 2/1 is SAYC-like, i.e. it is invitational+ (not GF).

[DavidKok]

Yes, very much so. If 1♠-2♣; 2♠ is NF this means opener will have to jump with even slight extras (approximately a 15-count facing the promised 10-count). This consumes a lot of bidding space while both level and strain are unclear. It is much more economical to give up on getting to 2M with a direct bid, and reserve that for a larger class of hands including those that may wish to investigate the degree of fit before committing to a choice of game or a slam investigation. The main cost is that you may sometimes have to play 3M when 2M was better, but this is both uncommon and might not be costly when it does happen.

[Tim Ocean]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-19, 08:11, said:

Yes, very much so. If 1♠-2♣; 2♠ is NF this means opener will have to jump with even slight extras (approximately a 15-count facing the promised 10-count). This consumes a lot of bidding

Ok, I see some sense in that.

Quote

The main cost is that you may sometimes have to play 3M when 2M was better

That's exactly what I have a problem with.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a question to ask yourself, what do you open 1NT or 1H / 1S with 5332.

In case you open the major, you have to ask yourself, what to do with those hands,
a 2NT rebid would show a weak NT.
If 2M cannot be passed, you can use the rebid as a waiting bid.

If 2M can be passed, you need to find an alternative.

As it is, playing 2M as NF is a playable style, it is similar to an Acol system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-19, 08:11, said:

The main cost is that you may sometimes have to play 3M when 2M was better

Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-19, 08:26, said:

That's exactly what I have a problem with.

• With 12 (this is the late '70s, remember, we don't open "random 11s" yet) opposite a decent 10, we should be comfortable at the 3 level, especially with a 6-2 or 6-3 fit. If you aren't comfortable in 2NT+, then you don't have an invitational hand, and shouldn't bid 2/1.
  
• If you have the fit, you can't expect (especially now, but even then) to be allowed to play 2M with 22-23 HCP. The opponents will compete, and will do better than -110 more often than not. Larry Cohen's quote (from some random vuGraph): "I'd rather be -1100 than -110". Yes, sometimes you can get them for +200 or +300 (or +1100), but it's hard, especially when you can expect your points in your trump suit will lead to fewer tricks than "expected". So you'll be in 3M more often than not anyway.
  
• 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; p still exists. You're not in a fit, but you still have 22-ish points.
  
• And there is all the benefits of being able to have 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♠; 4♣ "partner, I have potential slam opposite your no extras, cuebid". Not as nice as that auction in 2/1 GF (because now responder can also have extras, and not have to jump), but still useful.

Or, as David continues:

Quote

but this is both uncommon and might not be costly when it does happen.

[Tim Ocean]

Ok guys, and what about something akin to
1♥-2♦
3♦-?

What am I supposed to do with relatively flat hand (5332)? Bid 3NT? Looks like 2/1 is GF in such situation ;/ And we may not have strength for 3NT ;/

[P_Marlowe]

Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-19, 10:39, said:

Ok guys, and what about something akin to
1♥-2♦
3♦-?

What am I supposed to do with relatively flat hand (5332)? Bid 3NT? Looks like 2/1 is GF in such situation ;/ And we may not have strength for 3NT ;/

3♦ generates a GF, this means the raise promises enough, so that you should assume, that you can make 3NT on power.

[mw64ahw]

Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-19, 10:39, said:

Ok guys, and what about something akin to
1♥-2♦
3♦-?

What am I supposed to do with relatively flat hand (5332)? Bid 3NT? Looks like 2/1 is GF in such situation ;/ And we may not have strength for 3NT ;/

This one I didn't used to treat as a GF in SAYC, but then again it's up to agreement.

In practice I play 1step up as minimum (could be a balanced 14) and after that either hand GF with 13+hcp. Other bids are GF

[Tim Ocean]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-October-19, 10:42, said:

3♦ generates a GF, this means the raise promises enough, so that you should assume, that you can make 3NT on power.

Thanks guys. That odd forcing rebid after 2/1 from SAYC was one of greatest misteries of bridge for me and you clarified it a lot. I switched to 2/1 with my permanent partner recently and this removes this idiosynracy but I wanted to understand this oddity. I try to give you pluses but this option seems to not work. :/

[pescetom]

Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-19, 11:07, said:

Thanks guys. That odd forcing rebid after 2/1 from SAYC was one of greatest misteries of bridge for me and you clarified it a lot. I switched to 2/1 with my permanent partner recently and this removes this idiosynracy but I wanted to understand this oddity. I try to give you pluses but this option seems to not work. :/

It will work when you have posted a bit longer.

[mycroft]

This is one of the reasons that 2/1 has taken over with any pair that can both play it. I remember a "US vs Europe" invitational tournament (I think "Buffett Cup?") where everyone played with different partners on the team every session - so they had a "default card" people on each team would play with each other.

The US's was 2/1, Europe's was not - but there were exactly 5 auctions that were not GF. That lasted 2 days; and then they switched to 2/1 always GF. Because this is HARD to be precise on, harder than the 1NT forcing game, even for pros.

The way I was taught it (by JD, who will be well remembered by any long-time D18 player), in Standard (not specifically YC) a 2/1 promises a rebid unless opener bids 2NT or game. That's pretty easy to remember. It also means that as P_Marlowe says, 1♠-2♦; 3♦ shows extras and is GF; with diamond support and no extras, opener would bid 2NT.

As always, SAYC doesn't go into this in detail, because despite how it's been used since Matt Clegg posted it to OKB (1995 or so) it was designed as a system "all flight A" players in 1970 could play, not "system new players can learn"; so a lot of what's in there is "here are the standard decision points, and this is the choices we have made fore each." All the "so that implies <all this>" stuff is -- implied, because "all 1970 Flight A" players are assumed to know all that.

[bluenikki]

Tim Ocean, on 2023-October-19, 07:55, said:

The official ACBL's booklet on SAYC says:


The same writes Julian Pottage in his book on Standard American.

I have always had a problem with this agreement. I understand that bidding such as
1♠ - 2♣
2♦ - ?
should be forcing, because opener can have even 18 HCP. But what about rebid in his suit without jump such as
1♠ - 2♣
2♠ - ?
Is there a point in agreement that it is forcing?

I assume everywhere that 2/1 is SAYC-like, i.e. it is invitational+ (not GF).

It's long forgotten, but in 1960 Goren, any rebid above two of the original suit showed 16+ "points" and was game-forcing. The only downside of this was that opener sometimes had to rebid a 4-card suit. "It's better to lie about a deuce than a king."

[helene_t]

I am curious what to make of the caveat "this applies when responder is an unpassed hand".

So which rebids by opener are forcing when responder is a passed hand?

Suppose you hold
Axxxxx
x
Ax
AKxx

You open 1♠ in 4th seat and hear a 2♣ response. If it is unclear what is now forcing, do you have to rebid 3♠ (or 4♣) as you would playing Acol?

GIB has the same issue. It plays 2/1 but when system is off (as after intervention, or opposite a passed hand) the forcing character of opener's rebids are unclear, and sometimes the passed hand will pass rebids that would be forcing even in stone-age Acol.

It seems to me that in SAYC, the forcing character of a 2/1 response should be the same by a passed hand (except of course that OPENER can pass anything). In 2/1 that wouldn't make sense since you can barely have a GF hand as a passed responder, but in SAYC I see no reason not to play the same system in all four seats.

[bluenikki]

helene_t, on 2023-October-23, 02:57, said:

I am curious what to make of the caveat "this applies when responder is an unpassed hand".

I believe the point is that a minimum opener might/should pass rather than raise. So the raise is forcing.