[FakeName]

I always think the 3S here is non-forcing in SAYC.
However, one very experienced player insists that this is a forcing sequence in SAYC. He asked me to give him "proof" that it's non-forcing and I couldn't.
So what's your opinion?

[SoTired]

By definition - non-forcing. Check the SAYC document on www.acbl.org for proof. This is a common SAYC sequence, and anybody who claims to know both SAYC and 2/1 knows this. This sequence is the DEFINITIVE difference between SAYC and 2/1.

Also, if responder had rebid 2N. In SAYC it would be non-forcing and 2/1 it would be forcing.

[awm]

Let me explain why I think this is forcing in SAYC.

Responder cannot have a limit raise of spades. With a limit raise, the auction would go 1♠-3♠. There is no distinction between three and four-card limit raises in SAYC, and it is quite clear from the SAYC notes that 1♠-3♠ promises three or more spades and invitational values.

So the possibilities for the given sequence are a forcing spade raise and an invitational raise with two-card spade support.

However, we note that in SAYC a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener's second call is at the game level. So 1♠-2♣-2NT would have been forcing. Since responder could easily have a balanced 11-count we do not want to be forced passed 2NT on two balanced hands and 12 opposite 11. Thus opener should not bid 2NT here without extra values. So 1♠-2♣-2♠ has to be opener's rebid with 12-13 points and 5-3-3-2 shape. Also, 1♠-2♣-3♣ is forcing (again because responder promises a rebid) so 2♠ must be opener's second call with a minimum 5-2-3-3 or even 5-2-2-4. It follows that 1♠-2♣-2♠ does not promise a sixth spade in opener's hand. So raising 2♠ to 3♠ on doubleton is a very dubious proposition.

It then makes sense that 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠ should be a forcing spade raise. Also note that this is really the only way to show a slam try with 3-card spade support, since a direct 2NT is jacoby (promising 4+♠) and rebidding 4♠ over 2♠ tends to end the auction (showing a minimum game force in SAYC).

[inquiry]

1♠ - 2♣
2♠ - 3♠

is different from

1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 3♠

In the second aution, 3♠ was made with a jump and is GAME FORCING in SAYC. How about the first auction? As long as you follow the "official" SAYC system as outlined by the ACBL, the bid is clearly non-forcing. The definition of this is on page 4 of the ACBL's SAYC booklet. That page has the title

"SUBSEQUENT BIDDING BY RESPONDER" and includes this wording (intermediate text deleted and replaced with ellipse (...)

"If responder has bid a suit at the one level, he next determines whether he wishes to sign off in a partscore, invite game, sign off in game, or force to game and get more information about opener’s hand ...... Bids available for inviting game: 2NT, 3 of a previously bid suit: (it gives some examples)"

Then it goes on to talk about responders bids after a 2-over-1 initial response
"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"

A literal reading of these sections would suggest that the simple raise is NOT FORCING. Having said that (and forced to admit that I try not to play SAYC), I don't ever remember passing such a raise when I do play SAYC. But my reading suggest that it is not forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

Adam's argument could make sense if one is taking the position that SAYC is supposed to be a logical, coherently designed system. Or if one is trying to design an efficient system based on SAYC in a regular partnership.

But in reality, in a pickup partnership, I don't think those assumptions are reasonable. SAYC is system by committee and was designed for individual tournaments / convention limited events, & was obviously (to me) not designed to "make sense". Basically the assumption is Standard American combined with a hodgepodge of somewhat popular conventions. And in SA, this sequence has always been NF w/o special agreement, (vs. forcing in 2/1GF), just look in any of a dozen books about SA, so I don't think you can safely assume that it's forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing, how else to force with a
strong hand and 3 card support.

One requires 4 card support for 2NT,
for a splinter, and for a Soloway
Jump Shift.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: This does not mean, that a pickup
partner knows this.

[goobers]

awm, on Mar 26 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

Responder cannot have a limit raise of spades. With a limit raise, the auction would go 1♠-3♠. There is no distinction between three and four-card limit raises in SAYC, and it is quite clear from the SAYC notes that 1♠-3♠ promises three or more spades and invitational values.

Man, what the hell have I been playing all this time?

Playing with a pickup pard, I would assume 3S to be non forcing. I know the whole 2/1 responder promises a rebid routine, but I've always played it forcing UNLESS opener has rebid 2NT.

I don't know if this is good or even standard bridge, but I do see a lot of players bidding this way.

[awm]

I should note that SAYC and Standard American are not the same.

Standard American is a relatively informal set of agreements based around five-card majors and moderately light (say 10+ point) 2/1 bids. It's the "assumed system" in the US. Playing Standard American it's a good bet that any sequence which is "not obviously forcing" is not forcing. For example 1♠-2♣-2NT and 1♠-2♣-3♣ would be NF.

SAYC is a precisely codified system described in a set of notes available all over the internet (for example the ACBL site has a copy). There are a few "holes" in the definitions (you can't really specify a complete system in a few pages) but many sequences are defined. In particular we have that a two-over-one call promises a rebid unless opener's second bid is at the game level or above and three-card direct limit raises are the norm, a two-over-one in a new suit cannot conceal a limit raise with three trumps. I would not assume either of those agreements with a "pickup standard american" partner.

In fact while I personally prefer SAYC to 2/1 if forced to take a system wholesale with no extra agreements, and I also prefer a system based loosely on SAYC with a lot of added conventions to a system based loosely on 2/1 with a lot of added conventions.... I still prefer 2/1 with pickup partners because a lot of people play Standard American and think they play SAYC and I don't want to have disasters when the sequences that are different in these two methods come up.

[FakeName]

SoTired, on Mar 26 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

By definition - non-forcing. Check the SAYC document on www.acbl.org for proof. This is a common SAYC sequence, and anybody who claims to know both SAYC and 2/1 knows this. This sequence is the DEFINITIVE difference between SAYC and 2/1.

Also, if responder had rebid 2N. In SAYC it would be non-forcing and 2/1 it would be forcing.

Thank you for your information:)

[FakeName]

awm, on Mar 26 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

Let me explain why I think this is forcing in SAYC.

Responder cannot have a limit raise of spades. With a limit raise, the auction would go 1♠-3♠. There is no distinction between three and four-card limit raises in SAYC, and it is quite clear from the SAYC notes that 1♠-3♠ promises three or more spades and invitational values.

So the possibilities for the given sequence are a forcing spade raise and an invitational raise with two-card spade support.

However, we note that in SAYC a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener's second call is at the game level. So 1♠-2♣-2NT would have been forcing. Since responder could easily have a balanced 11-count we do not want to be forced passed 2NT on two balanced hands and 12 opposite 11. Thus opener should not bid 2NT here without extra values. So 1♠-2♣-2♠ has to be opener's rebid with 12-13 points and 5-3-3-2 shape. Also, 1♠-2♣-3♣ is forcing (again because responder promises a rebid) so 2♠ must be opener's second call with a minimum 5-2-3-3 or even 5-2-2-4. It follows that 1♠-2♣-2♠ does not promise a sixth spade in opener's hand. So raising 2♠ to 3♠ on doubleton is a very dubious proposition.

It then makes sense that 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠ should be a forcing spade raise. Also note that this is really the only way to show a slam try with 3-card spade support, since a direct 2NT is jacoby (promising 4+♠) and rebidding 4♠ over 2♠ tends to end the auction (showing a minimum game force in SAYC).

Do we have to have 4 trumps to make a limit raise?

[FakeName]

awm, on Mar 26 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

I should note that SAYC and Standard American are not the same.

OK, this explains something.
I thought they were the same...

[goobers]

Ah, that clarifies it. I guess in SAYC, you only need 3 trumps to make a limit raise, in standard, it's however you and your partner have agreed to make limit raises

I've always made it on 4, that's where my confusion stemmed from. Stupid systems being basically the same but not.

[Stephen Tu]

SA-YC is a specific variant of the family of systems that fall under the SA umbrella. It codifies some of the ambiguous sequences (default assumptions may vary depending on age when learned the system, and expert/non-expert status; e.g. I'd never expect a good player to pass 1s-2c-3c with no agreements these days), but not all. And generally, unless a sequence is very specifically described in the booklet, I don't think one should make assumptions. E.g. there is no place where the booklet says "a two-over-one in a new suit cannot conceal a limit raise with three trumps". All it does is say responder "should" make the 3 cd limit raise. I don't know what percentage of people will assume that "should" == "must". Adam's conclusion is a logical extrapolation if the system is intended to be logically coherent. But there are so many other logical holes (lack of forcing minor suit raise, 2nt after 2/1 showing minimum, but still being forcing), that I cannot believe that the designers really made an effort to construct a coherent system. I think they assumed a lot of the informal ambiguities in SA in general would still apply, and people would just muddle through.

Basically, I think Adam's conclusions are what SA-YC ought to be, if the system's creators had been on the ball & more careful about writing a more complete document & logical system, rather than a reflection of what it actually is.

[Echognome]

awm, on Mar 26 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

Let me explain why I think this is forcing in SAYC.

Responder cannot have a limit raise of spades. With a limit raise, the auction would go 1♠-3♠. There is no distinction between three and four-card limit raises in SAYC, and it is quite clear from the SAYC notes that 1♠-3♠ promises three or more spades and invitational values.

So the possibilities for the given sequence are a forcing spade raise and an invitational raise with two-card spade support.

However, we note that in SAYC a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener's second call is at the game level. So 1♠-2♣-2NT would have been forcing. Since responder could easily have a balanced 11-count we do not want to be forced passed 2NT on two balanced hands and 12 opposite 11. Thus opener should not bid 2NT here without extra values. So 1♠-2♣-2♠ has to be opener's rebid with 12-13 points and 5-3-3-2 shape. Also, 1♠-2♣-3♣ is forcing (again because responder promises a rebid) so 2♠ must be opener's second call with a minimum 5-2-3-3 or even 5-2-2-4. It follows that 1♠-2♣-2♠ does not promise a sixth spade in opener's hand. So raising 2♠ to 3♠ on doubleton is a very dubious proposition.

It then makes sense that 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠ should be a forcing spade raise. Also note that this is really the only way to show a slam try with 3-card spade support, since a direct 2NT is jacoby (promising 4+♠) and rebidding 4♠ over 2♠ tends to end the auction (showing a minimum game force in SAYC).

Isn't this assuming that there is no duplication in bidding sequences?

That is to say, why can't 1♠ - 3♠ and 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♠ both show 3 card limit raises? We can define the first hand sequence to be for hands that have more scattered values and no good suit to bid, whereas the second sequence shows values in clubs and spades. This obviously helps partner evaluate his hand better in context.

I might choose to bid 1♠ - 3♠ with KQx Axxx Qx xxxx and 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♠ with Qxx Axx xx KJTxx.

[FakeName]

goobers, on Mar 26 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

Ah, that clarifies it. I guess in SAYC, you only need 3 trumps to make a limit raise, in standard, it's however you and your partner have agreed to make limit raises

I've always made it on 4, that's where my confusion stemmed from. Stupid systems being basically the same but not.

I just saw that.
I'm a four-card-limit-raise believer since all the teaching materials(books/softwares) about bridge I have tells me not to make a limit raise with 3 trumps.
I guess that's the reason I desperately need that 3S to be non-forcing here.

[Simpleboi]

Hi,

Hope this helps

http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ncherni.../std2over1.html

[Edmunte1]

In SAYC 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠ is invitational, but my opinion is that is poor bridge bidding. The frequency of forcing hands with fit is much bigger than invitational with fit and a 5+ card minor. And, another matter, playing this sequence (1♠-2♣-2♠-3♠) as invitational, how you should make a forcing bid? Bidding a new suit (3♦/3♥) than supporting spades to 4 level? Partner will not realise that you have a real fit, and will tend to pass most of the time. Also you will lose some vital space for cue-biding. SAYC is a set of common generic rules, some of them obviously not best and some not clearly defined. My advice is to use some low frequency bid (let's say 3♣) and use it as a 3 card fit and invitational hand,and keep all 2/1 bids then fit as natural an forcing.

[kenberg]

In casual partnerships I prefer playing SAYC and I hope partner then plays SAYC just as it is written down. A great system it is not, but on basic auctions you have a reasonable general idea of what's going on. To borrow a phrase, there is the right way, the wrong way, and the SAYC way. If playing SAYC, you play the SAYC way. 3S is invitational.

I am guessing that what happened here is that the 3S bid was on a strong two card holding, intended to offer a choice between 4S and 3NT. Rebidding a major does not promise six card length in SAYC, but there is a lot of difference between the auctions 1H-2D-2H and 1S-2C-2S. Opener had many options at his disposal and if he doesn't have six spades he must have a concentration of values there or some decent reason for this rebid. Seems to me that with Kx of spades and adequate values it's sensible to just call 4S. SAYC is not a scientific system and wishing that it were won't make it so.

[Al_U_Card]

I think that Rube Goldberg invented SAYC in his spare time.....

You go with the "If it looks like a duck....etc." philosophy and generally that works.

SAYC is a blunt instrument intended to bludgeon its way to an approximate goal.