[han]

This is a question for those who claim to know what SAYC is.

1C - (1H) - Dbl - (p)
1S


What does this auction show?

Does it (a) promise 4 spades, ( deny 4 spades, © neither promises nor denies.

If (a) then 2S would show extras, right?

If ( then 2S would not show extras, right?

If © then 2S would show... a sound hand?

[awm]

I'm sure this is not in the SAYC notes anywhere. I don't think it's in the SAYC book either (will check and amend if it is).

As far as I can tell, the standard is:

(1) 1♠ shows 3-4♠. If four spades it will be a pretty bad hand, certainly no better than a weak notrump.

(2) 2♠ shows mild extras. It could be a nice balanced 14 or somewhat more. It guarantees 4♠.

[whereagles]

I learned:

1♠ = 3 spades, min hand, unfit for 1NT (so usually unbalanced)
2♠ = 4 spades, min hand, no need extras

[mike777]

Here is a bit fuller descriptive version of what some call SAYC online.


"SAYC was originated in the late 80's by the ACBLwith the intent of providing a 'no frills' easy to use system with any pick up partner. The notes we offer reflect, for the most part, a standard summary of SAYC as it was originally intended. While the BRIDGE FORUM notes essentially adhere to standard SAYC, they also reflect several variations, which, while common and popular, are not considered "standard" in any published version of SAYC that we have yet seen. Where an "upgrade" to standard versions of SAYC is mentioned here, it will be presented in red with a notation as to the standard treatment it replaces. A more complete treatment of SAYC, including 14 lesson notes, is available from Bridge Forum International. BRIDGE FORUM teachers are also available to provide group, partnership, and individual lessons, including on-the-spot feedback and follow-up analyses of hands played. Just e-mail Ned Downey (ned-maui) at sngmaui@get.net or Caitlin at caitlin@bridge-forum.com,
http://www.swangames.../SAYC/sayc.html

Bids made after an opponent has intervened, in general, carry much the same meaning as those made without interference. Bids that carry special meaning are as follows:

A cue bid of an overcall by RHO [e.g. 1S – (2C) – 3C] is game forcing and asks for further clarification by opener. Often the bid is made as an attempt to get the partnership to 3NT (in the event opener holds a stopper in the overcalled suit) or as a game-forcing raise in opener's suit. Further bidding will usually clarify matters.
Negative Doubles are employed through 3S [In some standard versions they are used only through 2S]. In general, negative doubles show values in the unbid suits - - most particularly the majors - - and insufficient strength and/or length to bid naturally.
1C – (1D) – Double: shows 4-4 or better in the major suits.
1D – (1H) – Double: shows four spades. A bid of 1S in this auction promises a five-card suit.
1D – (1S) – Double: shows four+ hearts.
Responses:

Minimum rebids show less than 16 points and are non-forcing.
Jump rebids show a good 16-18 points and are non-forcing.
A cue bid of the opponent's suit shows 19+ points and is game forcing.
A pass, albeit rare, is for penalty."

[foo]

Hannie, on Dec 21 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

This is a question for those who claim to know what SAYC is.

1C - (1H) - Dbl - (p);1S

What does this auction show?

Does it
a= promise 4 spades,
b= deny 4 spades,
c= neither promises nor denies.

If a then 2S would show extras, right?

If b then 2S would not show extras, right?

If c then 2S would show... a sound hand?

My understanding is that your given sequence promises 4 ♠'s. Choice A.

My understanding of the SAYC response structure here:
1C - (1H) - Dbl - (p);??

1s= minimum with 4 ♠'s
EDIT: Opener may have no choice but to bid 1S under pressure with
=3145 not strong enough to reverse. That doesn't make having 3 ♠'s systemic!
1n= minimum with ♥'s stopped. Denies 4 ♠'s
2c= minimum with 6+C or an exceptional 5+C
2d= A Reverse, perhaps just a _tad_ weaker than an uncontested reverse.
2h= Darn good hand.
2s= Good hand but not as good as the cuebid. This one promises 4 ♠'s.
2n= 18-19 flat with ♥'s stopped. Denies 4 ♠'s
3c= Your typical medium strength hand with 6+C
3d= Splinter in support of ♠'s
3h= Splinter in support of ♠'s

[lexlogan]

After 1C-(1H)-X-P, opener's 1S shows less than 16 points. It does not guarantee 4 spades, opener is merely supporting responder's suit and might reasonably do so with 3 cards as a least evil choice. Jumping to 2S would suggest 16-18 points in support of spades, and 4 card support. All of this follows from the discussions of opener's rebids (minimum rebids shows 13-15).

As a side note, notice how annoying emoticons can be. I routinely disable them to avoid b) or c) turning into something other than a list.

[neilkaz]

lexlogan, on Dec 21 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

After 1C-(1H)-X-P, opener's 1S shows less than 16 points. It does not guarantee 4 spades, opener is merely supporting responder's suit and might reasonably do so with 3 cards as a least evil choice. Jumping to 2S would suggest 16-18 points in support of spades, and 4 card support. All of this follows from the discussions of opener's rebids (minimum rebids shows 13-15).

As a side note, notice how annoying emoticons can be. I routinely disable them to avoid or c) turning into something other than a list.

My understanding is much different. I play that when responder bids 1♠ over a 1♥ overcall he has 5+ and think that is rather standard here in N.Am.

So for me, responder's negX after the 1♥ O/C guarantees 4♠ unless he is GF and has other plans.

If my PD responds 1♠ to my negX with only 3, I am likely to leave and walk the dog that I make certain I let all know I don't have a dog.

I should add that my understanding, although from what I am reading here I may be wrong or this is not current main stream, is that after after opening 1♣ when I respond 2♦ to PD's neg X I am not reversing and can do it with minimum strength. Perhaps this is the reason many prefer to open 1♦ when 4-4 in the minors.

[jdonn]

This question was asked a couple years ago by Stephen Tu, and maybe other times as well. The consensus was that there is no consensus, but the answer given by Adam was probably the most common.

[foo]

I've certainly seen openers make the best of a bad situation and bid
1C-(1H)-X-pa;1S

with =3145 not strong enough to reverse; but I've never considered that systemic. More like "Responder forced me to make a decision and I'm doing the best I can under pressure."
(after all, what else are you going to do in this situation?)

Other than these sort of pressure situations, and admittedly this is a commone enough problem that there exist gadgets to later differentiate between opener having 3 card vs 4 card ♠ support, I'd say that systemically 1S should show a 4 card suit.

[y66]

Opener's 1S bid is not discussed in the ACBL Jan 2006 version of SAYC, the Downy / Pomer book or Marty Bergen's book on Negative Doubles.

In email, Marty sez "1S shows a limited hand, usually 4 spades - occasionally 3 good ones".

[neilkaz]

y66, on Dec 22 2007, 08:20 AM, said:

Opener's 1S bid is not discussed in the ACBL Jan 2006 version of SAYC, the Downy / Pomer book or Marty Bergen's book on Negative Doubles.

In email, Marty sez "1S shows a limited hand, usually 4 spades - occasionally 3 good ones".

Hmm...apparently I need to appologize for my reply to lexlogan last night as it seems that I am wrong about never bidding 1♠ with three (although you can be really stuck for a reply on this sequence)

However, I am suprised that this isn't covered in Bergen's book !!

[han]

What do people bid with Kxx xx Axxx AQxx?

[pclayton]

I agree with Adam, but I think 1♠ to show 3 and 2♠ to show 4 is a better treatment.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

What do people bid with Kxx xx Axxx AQxx?

1S

Another great question.

I thought one was suppose to open 1d and rebid 2 clubs here over the neg x?

[neilkaz]

mike777, on Dec 22 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

What do people bid with Kxx xx Axxx AQxx?

1S

Another great question.

I thought one was suppose to open 1d and rebid 2 clubs here over the neg x?

Wow !! having to rebid 1♠ with this hand is awful (at least to me) !! PD then cannot be sure whether you are on a 44 fit or a 43 fit in later levels of what may end up being competitve bidding.

This thread has really enlightened me as to why S/A wants us to open 1♦ rather than 1♣ when 4-4 in the minors and min strength. I think the main reason is to aviod this problem.

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[han]

I think 1S is normal on that hand, and fits awm's definition. It's the 1D..2C route that I find disgusting.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

I think 1S is normal on that hand, and fits awm's definition. It's the 1D..2C route that I find disgusting.

I would sooner rebid 1NT than 2♣.

[han]

I can't imagine doing either so don't know what I would do sooner.