[Fluffy]

This would be forcing for any serious partnership, however in plain SAYC I bet it is non forcing, nothing is forcing on that system

awm's logic is perfect and shows why if you are a serious player you should play it as forcing, however SAYC is not a consistent system, as long as I know SAYC is just an "I bid what I think I should now" system, and maybe I'll worry later.

[Wackojack]

Is Adams analysis a wind-up? I think it must be. The conclusions are all predicated on assumption (1) namely that “A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing”. I guess that is based on the ACBL SAYC Booklet revised January 2006 since this is all I can find. This says under the heading of “Responses to 1♥ or a 1♠ opening”, in a note at the end:

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. However, under the heading “Responses to a 1♣ or a 1♦ opening all it says is:

Responses and later bidding generally follow the ideas set down in the previous section.

OK Adams logic is impeccable. From it we get the monstrous conclusion that 1♦-2♣-2♦ could be a 3 card suit namely 12-14 4432. We surely know that a bridge system that was designed for the masses would not want to go against a basic precept that a suit rebid shows extra length. Indeed should any partnership adhere to these ideas it would be incumbent on them to alert this rebid. This logic reminds me of the question: How do you pronounce the word “Ghoti” The answer is “Fish” Those that do not have English as their first language might not work this out.

However, there is a “get out” weasel word in the SAYC Booklet and that is the word ”generally” Yes SAYC is badly defined and I recall forum posters saying that SAYC was “unplayable” I now understand what they mean.

Going further with these arguments on what is and what is not SAYC I feel is going to be unprofitable. So I would like to go back a step and see what conclusions can be drawn based on the premise that a 2 over 1 response must be at least a good 10 points combined with sound bidding principles.
**********

I have just gone back and seen later posts discussing these interpretations and a further post from Adam giving an example of a hand where adhering to precept (1) gives us an advantage. However, is this only an advantage because SAYC shoots itself in the foot by making 1♣-2NT a game force 13-15? If it were a sensible and intuitive 11 ish points then the example hand he gives ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦ xxx ♣ QJxx you would respond 2NT instead of 2♣. Perhaps I have been too strident in ridiculing the SAYC precepts as given in the booklet. However, if you do follow them, it does not look like a system for the masses that I thought it was designed to be.

Anyway thanks for all the contribution, particularly Adam’s that made us sit up and think.

[gwnn]

I've seen

1♦-2♣
2♦ as

(essentially) 12-14 any,

not just SAYC. I don't think it's a bad treatment.

[peachy]

In SAYC, yes.
Not many who say they play SAYC are actually familiar enough with it. There are important inferences to be drawn from the simple auctions as Adam explained.

[straube]

 awm, on 2011-January-26, 14:49, said:

The way I'd explain SAYC bidding in 2/1 auctions:

If you are opener, you cannot bid above two of your initial suit that you opened unless you have extras. If you do this, it's forcing to game.

Thus opener can rebid two of his original suit on any minimum hand where no cheaper call makes sense.

If opener did not game force, than the following actions at responder's second turn are not forcing: (1) Responder rebids his suit at the three-level (2) Responder rebids 2NT (3) Responder preferences to opener's suit at the two-level.

If responder wants to force at second turn, he should either bid a new suit (possibly artificial, especially in the case of the fourth suit) or raise opener's first suit to the three-level (since an invite would've made a limit raise at first turn to begin with).

----------

The reason SAYC is structured this way is that it allows opener to describe complicated hands. To give even a slightly complex one, say opener has ♠xx ♥AQ ♦KQxxx ♣AKxx. He opens 1♦ and hears 2♣ from partner. Unfortunately there are possible partner hands where 3NT is the best spot (say ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxx where he was planning a balanced invite). But there are also possible partner hands where we are cold for slam in clubs. What should opener do at second turn? If you play a style where all of 2♦, 3♣, 2NT are not forcing how do you show your fit with extras and not bypass 3NT? For me this is an easy 3♣ bid (forcing, shows extras) whereas a minimum hand with the same distribution bids 2♦ (forcing one round, planning to correct to clubs next if we are not in game).

That was a really good read.

Is this in the context of 1m-2N being a GF? And inverted minors?

I'm assuming 1H-2C, 2D-3D is invitational.

[mich-b]

I would like to ask the OP what is his purpose?

1. If it is scientific parsing of the official SAYC booklet - read carefully awm's posts and trust him.
2. If it is trying to guess better what a pickup partner's (who claims to be playing SAYC) bids mean
- read the posts here that explained what (the ignorant...) 99% of SAYC players think.
3. If your purpose is to agree ona simple, natural (and that "feels natural"), non 2/1 GF, reasonably effective (though far from perfect) system to play with a regular partner - I suggest you forget about the "official" SAYC and play a Standard American variation where :
a. Responder does not guarantee a rebid over a minimum rebid in NT, a minimum raise and a minimum rebid of openers suit.
b. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ is non-forcing and promisses 5 cards.
Maybe you should call it "5 card majors with Acol flavour". I think you will find this system easier to play , and less confusing than the SAYC (the booklet's style).


-

[Lurpoa]

 awm, on 2011-January-26, 14:49, said:

The way I'd explain SAYC bidding in 2/1 auctions:

If you are opener, you cannot bid above two of your initial suit that you opened unless you have extras. If you do this, it's forcing to game.

Thus opener can rebid two of his original suit on any minimum hand where no cheaper call makes sense.

If opener did not game force, than the following actions at responder's second turn are not forcing: (1) Responder rebids his suit at the three-level (2) Responder rebids 2NT (3) Responder preferences to opener's suit at the two-level.

If responder wants to force at second turn, he should either bid a new suit (possibly artificial, especially in the case of the fourth suit) or raise opener's first suit to the three-level (since an invite would've made a limit raise at first turn to begin with).

----------

The reason SAYC is structured this way is that it allows opener to describe complicated hands. To give even a slightly complex one, say opener has ♠xx ♥AQ ♦KQxxx ♣AKxx. He opens 1♦ and hears 2♣ from partner. Unfortunately there are possible partner hands where 3NT is the best spot (say ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxx where he was planning a balanced invite). But there are also possible partner hands where we are cold for slam in clubs. What should opener do at second turn? If you play a style where all of 2♦, 3♣, 2NT are not forcing how do you show your fit with extras and not bypass 3NT? For me this is an easy 3♣ bid (forcing, shows extras) whereas a minimum hand with the same distribution bids 2♦ (forcing one round, planning to correct to clubs next if we are not in game).

I have much sympathy for your viewpoint (awm, gwnn, ,....). And I have seen it is integrated in the imlementation of BBO SAYC under the convention card-tab on BBO.

It has many consequences. One of them is, that a repeat of the opener's color after a 2/1 response is showing not more than a 5card and a minimim hand (after 1♥ 2♣, 2♥=guarantees only 5card) ). Also, to make sequences as 1♥ 2♣, 2NT forcing, it means that 2NT can only be bid on at least 14H, and that responder, has at least 11H to go to the 2 level. I know that a lot of authorities adhere to this 11H to go to the two-level (not at the least: the Grant System), but the SAYC booklet is very specific: the 2level response promesses only 10H, and a 1NT response is 6 to 9 H (never 10).

Again, if my partner, before starting a game tells me « SAYC with a 2/1 force », I would be most happy to play it your way, but without any previous agreements, I prefer to stick to the more « basic, mainstream interpretation » of the booklet, with it's series of limit bids. Overall, I really think BBO SAYC goes to far in it's interpretation and can not be called SA.

[gwnn]

 straube, on 2011-January-26, 21:10, said:

That was a really good read.

Is this in the context of 1m-2N being a GF? And inverted minors?

I'm assuming 1H-2C, 2D-3D is invitational.

Yes
No
Yes

[kenberg]

From time to time I play in the acbl indy where SAYC is the default. Of course really the default is that we all do whatever and hope it works. Still, I try to be good.

I confess that I had not thought of 1D-2C-2D being on any minimum but I can very much see the point. Responder, with a 10-11 count, five clubs, otherwise balanced gets to bid 1D-2C-2D-2NT and give a pretty clear picture of his hand. Perhaps interestingly, Steve Robinson in his Washington Standard book makes all 2/1 auctions forcing to game with precisely one exception, that being the above auction (I think I am right about this).

And, of course, once we agree that the 2D bid can be on no great length it seems 3D had better be forcing. I would expect 3NT to be the next call on about 90% of the hands where this arises.

SAYC is often criticized for making 1m-2NT a game force. Personally, I am fine with this. Some hands should be played in the minors, maybe at the 5 level, maybe at the 6 level, and after 1m-2NT we may be able to sort this out. When, playing other options, the auction goes 1m-3NT(13-15) I sometimes have a very uncomfortable pass but since 3NT may be the last makable contract I have no choice. Further, since neither 1m-2m nor 1m-3m is forcing in SAYC, being able to bid 2NT gives a (not entirely satisfactory) way of perhaps coping.

Anyway, I appreciate Adam's thoughts. Not that it will really much matter in the indies. Mostly we engage in faith-based bidding there.

[Wackojack]

 mich-b, on 2011-January-27, 01:31, said:

I would like to ask the OP what is his purpose?

1. If it is scientific parsing of the official SAYC booklet - read carefully awm's posts and trust him.
2. If it is trying to guess better what a pickup partner's (who claims to be playing SAYC) bids mean
- read the posts here that explained what (the ignorant...) 99% of SAYC players think.
3. If your purpose is to agree ona simple, natural (and that "feels natural"), non 2/1 GF, reasonably effective (though far from perfect) system to play with a regular partner - I suggest you forget about the "official" SAYC and play a Standard American variation where :
a. Responder does not guarantee a rebid over a minimum rebid in NT, a minimum raise and a minimum rebid of openers suit.
b. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ is non-forcing and promisses 5 cards.
Maybe you should call it "5 card majors with Acol flavour". I think you will find this system easier to play , and less confusing than the SAYC (the booklet's style).

Yes 2 reasons.

1. I will be partnering a guy in the London Easter tournament who plays "Modified SAYC" as stated in his convention card that he sent me. I am compiling a list of questions to ask him.

2. A friend who has moved to Athens has been playing at the main club there where most play what they call SAYC (pronouncing it "psyche" incidentally) He has an Acol background (as I have) and was surprised when his partner said that 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ was forcing (along with some others there) and asked me about it as I play a 5 card major system not 2/1 with one partner. I am not sure they play official SAYC there but obviously it is not "5 card majors with an Acol flavour" As an excercise I will suggest to him to ask the question to the SAYC ers there "After 1♦-2♣-2♦, how many diamonds does opener guarantee?"

[awm]

Personally I don't really find methods with all these non-forcing bids particularly playable.

It seems okay when opener has a minimum, but what happens when opener has extras? He has to jump to 3♦ on hands with six diamonds because 2♦ would be non-forcing; this bid now has a range of something like 14-20, a wide range of suit quality, and could have basically any shape in the side suits. Opener has to jump to 3NT on good balanced 14s and also on 18-19 balanced because 2NT would be non-forcing. And if opener has support for responder's clubs and enough for game, he has to bypass 3NT in order to show it at the four-level.

All of these seem quite awful, and will frequently leave responder at a guess of what to do at his second turn on quite ordinary hands. I'd much rather play the SAYC style where two of opener's suit is waiting. Sure, you can't play in exactly two of opener's suit, but other than that small loss the approach solves a huge number of problems, especially on the hands where slam is in the picture.

[Elianna]

 the_dude, on 2011-January-26, 08:54, said:

99% of SAYC players have not thought through the ramifications of various 1♦-2♣ auctions .. for those folks 2♦ promises 5+ ♦ and the 3♦ raise is NF.

The 1% of SAYC players that HAVE thought it through (and yet are still playing SAYC) will have this auction defined and will have methods to get out with a bad hand .. for them 3♦ is forcing. But I certainly wouldn't assume it from a pickup partner.

AFAIK, that 1% typically play either 2NT by opener is a balanced minimum and can be passed and/or 2♦ by opener can be passed. I do not know a soul that plays 2♦ can be bid with a 3card suit but maybe my experience is just limited...

It may surprise you, but Adam and I play that 2♦ can be a 3-card suit. Now you know two people. There are others that also play this, but they don't post here, and they mainly play with me, so they may not count.

[Lurpoa]

 awm, on 2011-January-27, 13:09, said:

Personally I don't really find methods with all these non-forcing bids particularly playable.

It seems okay when opener has a minimum, but what happens when opener has extras? He has to jump to 3♦ on hands with six diamonds because 2♦ would be non-forcing; this bid now has a range of something like 14-20, a wide range of suit quality, and could have basically any shape in the side suits. Opener has to jump to 3NT on good balanced 14s and also on 18-19 balanced because 2NT would be non-forcing. And if opener has support for responder's clubs and enough for game, he has to bypass 3NT in order to show it at the four-level.

All of these seem quite awful, and will frequently leave responder at a guess of what to do at his second turn on quite ordinary hands. I'd much rather play the SAYC style where two of opener's suit is waiting. Sure, you can't play in exactly two of opener's suit, but other than that small loss the approach solves a huge number of problems, especially on the hands where slam is in the picture.

Indeed, that jump bid to 3♦ is a problem. And often it is done on too light a hand. It should only ve done on 18or more HP (maybe 17+).
The origin of that problem is the sequence 1♦ 2♣, which gives

[Lurpoa]

 Lurpoa, on 2011-January-28, 02:23, said:

Indeed, that jump bid to 3♦ is a problem. And often it is done on too light a hand. It should only ve done on 18or more HP (maybe 17+).
The origin of that problem is the sequence 1♦ 2♣, which gives

Sorry, this went wrong while I was writing: "posted" in stead of "preview". I correct:

No: after 1♦ 2♣:
2♦= 6 card ♦ 11-14HP
3♦=6card, 15-19+HP

[gwnn]

I don't like bidding the same nonforcing way with 11 and 14. If I have 14 and a 6 card suit I want to be in game. So I would be angry if partner passed me in 2♦. I suppose I'm alone with this.

[karlson]

I have definitely played 2♦ waiting (can be 3) in a 2/1 system (1♦-2♣ GF). It works quite well.

[han]

I believe those that claim that once upon a time SAYC was an abbreviation that had something to do with a booklet that was once written.

Nowadays SAYC is synonymous with Standard American AKA let's try to survive this without agreements. In this system, 3D is NF as it is too risky to bid it with a GF hand. This is obvious. Do not trust anybody who tries to persuade you otherwise with tactics such as logic. Logic does not apply.

[kenberg]

 han, on 2011-January-28, 06:35, said:

I believe those that claim that once upon a time SAYC was an abbreviation that had something to do with a booklet that was once written.

Nowadays SAYC is synonymous with Standard American AKA let's try to survive this without agreements. In this system, 3D is NF as it is too risky to bid it with a GF hand. This is obvious. Do not trust anybody who tries to persuade you otherwise with tactics such as logic. Logic does not apply.

Cynical. Also 100% true.

But abstract discussions of what the system would mean if it in fact had a meaning can be entertaining, and Wacko even envisions a practical use (good luck with that).

In the indies Partner opened 1NT and I, with six hearts and five spades, transferred to hearts at the two level and then bid 4H. In a hand that has an easy ten tricks partner went down two. At least we got to the right contract. This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.

[gwnn]

 kenberg, on 2011-January-28, 08:43, said:

Cynical. Also 100% true.

But abstract discussions of what the system would mean if it in fact had a meaning can be entertaining, and Wacko even envisions a practical use (good luck with that).

In the indies Partner opened 1NT and I, with six hearts and five spades, transferred to hearts at the two level and then bid 4H. In a hand that has an easy ten tricks partner went down two. At least we got to the right contract. This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.

You see, you should have transferred to spades and then bid 4H, then you'd have gotten to the right contract as well, but this time played from the right hand.

[Wackojack]

[This is irrelevant of course, except that SAYC really was laid out so that strangers can handle most hands without bidding disasters, and we did.
[/quote]

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

There is a book that I have been told about entitled ‘Standard Bidding with SAYC” by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying ‘…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.’ Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?