[jillybean]

mikeh, on May 6 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

jillybean2, on May 6 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 22 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

The rebid issue after 1♦ 2♣ is a theoretical quagmire in standard methods. Established expert partnerships usually develop special agreements for it.

Hi Mike,

One sequence not mentioned here is 1♦:2♣ 3♣

I never see it discussed, I dont think its a great bid but I do use it with 3 card support and no other bid available.

Good, bad, terrible, does anyone use it?

Sorry, jb, but in my view, this is 'terrible'

Most (I would say 'all' but experience shows that this would be an overbid) require some degree of extra values for a minor suit raise. The problem is that you have to be able to create a force, when you hold a fit and some extra values, below 3N: the most likely game.

This constraint, of staying below 3N on good but not huge hands (on huge hands, we can, in a well-designed method, force beyond 3N right away because we will be able to stop in 4N or 5 minor when slam proves too much), means that we need a way to show a fit and create a force, and the default method is the single raise.

This, in turn, means that we cannot/should not raise to 3♣ on mediocre hands with 3♣s.

Now, I am not a fan of SAYC or similar systems, in part because the methods force you into all kinds of distortions with various not-especially-rare hand types, this being one of them. So what do you bid with, say KJx xxx AKxx Qxx?

Some would say that you have to rebid 2N: an ugly choice: imagine partner with Ax Kx xxx AKJxxx: now we have wrong-sided 3N: we will still make much of the time, but it is frigid from partner's side.

My preference, as described earlier, is that 2♦ is a 'noise', a 'mark-time' bid, denying the ability to make a more descriptive systemic bid. This is not ideal, and others have developed other compromises.

BTW, while I dislike SAYC, it would be naive to think that any system has yet been invented, or will ever be invented, that is free from the need to create kludges to ameliorate similar issues.

Going back to where I began, 'extra values' can be in the form of shape as well as or instead of hcp.. but remember that responder will often be bidding 2♣ on some fairly flat hands and modest hcp... partner has no forcing ♦ raise and may have a hand just a bit too good for 1N and not good enough (not the right stoppers, for example) for 2N.

Trying not to repeat old mistakes, what do you bid here 2♥?

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ AT3 ♥ KT762 ♦ KT ♣ QJ8

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Pass  2♣    Pass  ?  

[jillybean]

'SA' ish not 2/1

[P_Marlowe]

2H plays its safe.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

This is another old chestnut, altho none the simpler just because it's a perennial topic.

There are a host of issues here (including some that merely drive home how inadequate SAYC is as a method).

Can responder pass 2N by opener? If 2♣ promises a rebid when opener bids below game, then 2N has to be forcing: has to show willingness to play game opposite a 3=2=3=5 10 count, as an example where responder cannot rebid 3♣, non-forcing.

If 2N is effectively a gf opposite that hand, then you have to decide whether the QJx of clubs plus the all-suits-stopped nature of the hand warrants a gf (frankly, I'd risk it with this hand... I have no fear of bidding 23 hcp games when I think we may have a play opposite a useful 10 count.

If you decide that 2N is forcing and that you don't think the hand is good enough, then you have to rebid 2♥. You cannot raise to 3♣ for all of the reasons I described in the context of 1♦ 2♣.

So that means that you have to agree that 2♥ is a stall.

Some prefer that 2N be non-forcing, and then 2♥ usually promises either 6 cards or a decent suit.

I don't know enough about SAYC to know whether the method has 2N as forcing, nf, or undiscussed.

If 2N is non-forcing, then I'd bid it here, even tho I'd also bid it if it were forcing! That's because I really think the hand is on the cusp, and I'd rather bid 2N than any other call.. if nf, then I probably won't mind dummy if he passes, and if forcing, then I may make game when he raises.

Of course, make the hand even a tiny bit stronger, and I'd have a real problem.

Not sure if I have helped answer the specific question, but I hope the discussion of the issues gives you some insight into how and what to discuss with partner.

[whereagles]

French standard bids 2♥ here. 2NT would be 15-17 and GF.

[1eyedjack]

Rebidding 2H increases your chances as opener of having an opportunity to show Club support next round (say, after 2N rebid by responder)

[helene_t]

A more general discussion of 1M-2m continuations in SAYC is going on here.

It is probably the most important thing to discuss with p after having agreed to play "SAYC".

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Oct 28 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

Not sure if I have helped answer the specific question, but I hope the discussion of the issues gives you some insight into how and what to discuss with partner.

Very helpful thanks. Will I put it into practice is another thing, time will tell

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Oct 28 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ AT3 ♥ KT762 ♦ KT ♣ QJ8

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Pass  2♣    Pass  ?  

I wanna declare, I'll bid 2NT.

If I wanted to be dummy, I'd bid 2♥.

Even if the diamond holding wasn't enough to convince me to declare, the tens would push me over.

[andy_h]

I'll bid 2NT

[awm]

Well there are several questions on this hand. I will try to give them, and then answer them.

Are bids beyond 2♥ forcing? Do they show extras?

Since SAYC states that "a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener rebids at the game level" it seems that bidding beyond 2♥ is forcing. Obviously one could agree otherwise, and the way a lot of folks at the club play "standard american" would be otherwise. However, I think the "SAYC way" is by far the best way to play in a system where 2/1 bids do not establish a game force (and worth consideration even if 2/1 bids do establish a game force, since finding extras is often key to slam bidding). So I will answer yes and yes to this question.

What is opener's "catch-all" with a hand that is not worth a game force?

Assuming bidding beyond 2♥ is forcing, we need some bid we can make with a random minimum. The standard answer here is "2♥ could just be a minimum without a biddable second suit." It's obviously possible to play that in the auction 1M-2♣, 2♦ is the "catch-all." But despite the many advantages to this treatment, it is not in any way standard and I don't advocate randomly bidding 2-card diamond suits without some special agreement to do so. So we will assume that 2♥ is the catch-all. If this hand is not worth a game force it seems clear to make the "catch all" rebid of 2♥.

Is this hand worth forcing to game?

Well we only have 13 hcp. But we have many tens and a fit for clubs. Game seems likely to be playable opposite many invitational hands with clubs, despite the meager 23-24 hcp.

Assuming this hand is worth a game force, should we bid 2♥, 2NT, or 3♣?

The advantage of 2NT is that it protects the tenaces from the lead, and that it immediately shows the balanced nature of this hand. Raising to 3♣, while it doesn't necessarily promise four cards, implies that the hand might be more suited to playing in clubs (i.e. aces rather than kings, a wide open suit or a short suit making 3NT dubious, etc). So I'd prefer 2NT over 3♣. Bidding 2♥ is also possible, since bidding 2NT might overstate the strength of the hand and lead partner to go slamming when it's wrong to do so. If 2NT is a normal rebid with a balanced 14, I'd say bid 2NT here. If it shows a better hand than that, I'd temporize with 2♥ but would not stop short of game in any case.

[gwnn]

awm, on Oct 29 2007, 10:04 PM, said:

Are bids beyond 2♥ forcing?
(...)
(...) it seems that bidding beyond 2♥ is forcing.

Just to make sure I understood your post, do you mean GF?