[Adam1105]

Playing SAYC ... I open with this hand, 19HCPs, and
Partner says 2♦... so what exact bid (if there is one)
do bid to show 18-19 HCPs points (My partner will KNOW that
I have 18-19 points).

♠AKxxx ♥KQx ♦Ax ♣Kxx

Thank you very much for your help.

[kenberg]

First answer: I don't know.
But

SAYC sayas that after a 2/1 bid the responder promises another bid. It has never been clear to me that they mean that this applies over a 2NT rebid or not.

Easy part: If 1♠-2♦-2NT is not passable you are home free. You rebid 2NT. Partner cannot pass. More often than not he will bid 3NT. You then bid 4NT. That shows 18-19. If he crosses you up by doing something other than 3NT it may be less clear what to do, but imo a 4NT bid still shows this hand.


Now if 2NT is passable, obviously this doesn't work. Which would be one reason for playing it as non-passable. I doubt there is another route to making it clear what you have.


I am no authority on SAYC, but I have, on the forum, seen several people advocating the idea that 2NT is not passable here.

I don't think I would try it with a pick-up.

Playing this way, the 2NT rebid shows a balanced hand with either too little or too much strength to open 1NT

[Stephen Tu]

After 1♠-2♦, In SAYC, in theory you should be able to bid 2nt, forcing (2/1 promises rebid). Over partner's expected rebid you can then bid 4nt (natural, not blkwood) revealing your strength.

The problem with this is if you are playing with a pickup partner on BBO, the odds that they know SAYC thoroughly is very slim. They might pass you in 2nt! And even if they don't they might get thrown by 4nt thinking all 4nt calls are blkwood. So it might be more practical to just jump to 3nt with this. Of course partner has no idea whether you have 18-19 or some lesser hand. Playing SAYC with pickups is a guessing game, which is why better players favor 2/1GF instead of SAYC by a large margin. Then you are guaranteed a 2nd chance and rebidding 2nt is way more clear.

It would also be reasonable to agree 2nt as 15-17, and 3nt rebid as 18-19 (depending on whether you open 1nt with a 5 cd major or not). If playing strictly according to the SAYC booklet, supposedly 2nt = 13-15, 3nt=(?? unclear), which are odd non-sensical ranges given how light people open and 10-11 pt 2/1 bids promising a rebid. SAYC is not a sensibly constructed system, it was basically a hodgepodge of not totally compatible yet somewhat popular agreements that were thrown together on top of general SA without a ton of thought.

So with pickup partners, guess, and try to play 2/1 instead. With a regular partner, SAYC is OK (though most better players still prefer 2/1), but at least tweak and agree on the exact NT ranges after a 2/1 bid.

[Stephen Tu]

kenberg, on 2013-February-01, 21:17, said:

I am no authority on SAYC, but I have, on the forum, seen several people advocating the idea that 2NT is not passable here.

I don't think I would try it with a pick-up.

The booklet explicitly says that 2nt is not passable. But maybe 20% at most of pick-up players have read the booklet and know this?

[rmnka447]

If you are playing SAYC and have 15-17 balanced, you bid 1 NT even with hands that have a 5 card major.

So after 1 ♠ - 2 ♦ (opponents passing),

2 NT should show a 12-14 balanced hand with a likely ♦ doubleton, and,

3 NT should show a 18-19 balanced hand.


After the 2 NT rebid, responder may pass if holding the absolute minimum for the 2 ♦ bid, say something like ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ Q109xx ♣ Kxx. Responder can also sign off in 3 ♦ with a minimum response and 6+ ♦ length. Any other bid by responder is forward going.

[Stephen Tu]

rmnka447, on 2013-February-02, 00:40, said:

If you are playing SAYC and have 15-17 balanced, you bid 1 NT even with hands that have a 5 card major.

There's nothing in the booklet that says that it's required to open 1nt on all hands in range that have 5 cd major. It says it's allowed, says nothing about it being mandatory. History of SA suggests it's up to personal preference and judgment whether to do this.

Quote

After the 2 NT rebid, responder may pass if holding the absolute minimum for the 2 ♦ bid

Please don't teach inaccurate information. The SAYC booklet:
http://web2.acbl.org...gle%20pages.pdf
specifically says:
"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."

It does not say that he promises to bid again unless opener's rebid is 2nt.

A lot of random players on BBO believe 2nt is passable, not having read the booklet. Although one should be aware that a random partner may pass 2nt, try not to teach a treatment that directly contradicts the published material.

[kenberg]

In my response above, I spoke of the 2NT bid with a bit of caution, as did Steven. In fact I have read the booklet, and I was aware that there was no exception for 1♠-2♦-2NT. Indeed, it says partner is to bid again. I think the confusion arises because one can't help but wonder whether they really mean it. Under "Rebids with a minimum hand (13-15 points)" they include 2NT. As for the diamond bid, we are told that "10 points or more, promises at least four of the suit". I play some in indies, some with pick-ups, generally I am fine with SAYC for a casual game (that was what it was intended for after all), but obviously there is a potential for getting too high with these agreement. Here I am with my 2=3=4=4 eleven count and partner opens 1♠. Uh huh. I guess I bid 2♦. Or maybe 2♣. Now partner rebids 2NT. Well, I guess if he has a 12 count I can put the blame on him since SAYC says he has 13 (in what universe foes a player wait for 13 these days?), but still I am not delighted. Of course if he really could have 15 points I guess I want to raise anyway. Maybe he plays the cards well.

Anyway, yes, I know SAYC says the 2NT bid is forcing. And yes, it probably should be. But in the pick-up world it is probably not forcing.

There are two ways of interpreting OP's question.
1. Playiong pick-up what should I do?
2. If I am going to play SAYC with a regular partner, what should we agree to?


I think the answer to 2 is that 2NT should be forcing just as the booklet says. The answer to 1 is punt.

[rmnka447]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-02, 04:39, said:

There's nothing in the booklet that says that it's required to open 1nt on all hands in range that have 5 cd major. It says it's allowed, says nothing about it being mandatory. History of SA suggests it's up to personal preference and judgment whether to do this.

The vast majority of players playing Standard American will open 1 NT with a 5 card major and a balanced 15-17 HCP. You're right that it is a matter of personal preference. If you choose not to open these hands 1 NT, then you have to figure a way to handle them after bidding one of a major.

That that is a problem is clearly shown in the history of SA. Back in the 1950's, the opening 1 NT range was 16-18 balanced. With the 15 point balanced hand, you treated it as a minimum opening bid. But because the range for minimum hands was a wide 11-15 HCP, it proved to be a problem getting to the proper results. An example, you open 1 ♥ with a balanced 15 and responder bids 1 ♠, you bid 1 NT. Responder may pass with 10 HCP and you miss a game. If responder invites with 10 HCP, you may have bid 1 NT with 11 HCP and are going down when 1 NT is cold. Another example, you open a balanced 16 HCP hand 1 ♠, responder bids 1 NT. Do you raise 1 NT to 2 NT? If you do, you may find responder had only 6 HCP and your going down, when 1 NT makes. If you don't, you may find that responder had a good 10 HCP and 3NT is cold. As a result of these kind of problems by the late 1970's, the opening range for 1 NT changed to 15-17 HCP to decrease the range of minimum opening hands.

For a less experienced player playing SAYC, it's much easier to simply open 15-17 balanced hands 1 NT even if they contain a 5 card major. The worst that can happen is occasionally playing a contract in NT instead of in a major, and also occasionally ending up in 2 of major with a 7 card fit (via a transfer) when you have an 8 card fit in the other major. However, by opening these hands 1 NT, you eliminate all 15-17 HCP balanced hands from your 1 of a major openings. As a result, it simplifies the whole rebid structure after you bid 1 of a major. Now, the minimum rebid in NT by opener shows 12-14 HCP and a jump rebid in NT shows 18-19 HCP.

My initial response to OP was with the thought that OP was a newer player.

Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-02, 04:39, said:

Please don't teach inaccurate information. The SAYC booklet:
http://web2.acbl.org...gle%20pages.pdf
specifically says:
"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."

It does not say that he promises to bid again unless opener's rebid is 2nt.

A lot of random players on BBO believe 2nt is passable, not having read the booklet. Although one should be aware that a random partner may pass 2nt, try not to teach a treatment that directly contradicts the published material.

First of all, I have never heard of SAYC ever including any wide ranging or split range 2 NT rebid after a non jump 2 level new suit response by responder. A 2 NT response just shows a balanced minimum opener without a fit for responder's suit.

A new suit at the 2 level promises at least 10 points total including distribution. For example, straight out of the basic ACBL bridge course, after partner opens 1 ♠, you should bid 2 ♥ with ♠ 73 ♥ AQ983 ♦ 1063 ♣ KJ10. Note this hand is worth 11 total points but has only 10 HCP. So what do you do if opener now bids 2 NT? Opener's hand should be an approximately balanced hand of 12-14 HCP. Adding in the 10 HCP in this hand you get a range of 22-24 HCP for the combined which is under the 25+ HCP required for normally making game at 3 NT. So the right action is to Pass.

The reason that 2 NT is passable is because opener has limited his hand and the only reasonable game is NT. The same logic applies if opener makes the other limited bid of 2 ♠. Presumably partner has shown 6+ ♠s by rebidding 2 ♠. The above hand is again only worth 10 points because you don't the distribution point in partner's suit if that's going to be trump. With a presumable 8 card ♠ fit and 22-25 total points, your choices are pass or 3 ♠.

However, if opener makes any other bids that don't limit his hand, you are obliged to bid again. Let's change the foregoing hand by swapping the ♣s and ♥s -- hence ♠ 73 ♥ KJ10 ♦ 1063 ♣ AQ983. Now over 1 ♠, you'll bid 2 ♣. If opener rebids 2 ♦, you'll bid 2 NT. If opener rebids 2 ♥, you'll bid 2 ♠ showing 2 ♠ and a minimum 2 level response.

[rmnka447]

kenberg, on 2013-February-02, 07:59, said:

In my response above, I spoke of the 2NT bid with a bit of caution, as did Steven. In fact I have read the booklet, and I was aware that there was no exception for 1♠-2♦-2NT. Indeed, it says partner is to bid again. I think the confusion arises because one can't help but wonder whether they really mean it. Under "Rebids with a minimum hand (13-15 points)" they include 2NT. As for the diamond bid, we are told that "10 points or more, promises at least four of the suit". I play some in indies, some with pick-ups, generally I am fine with SAYC for a casual game (that was what it was intended for after all), but obviously there is a potential for getting too high with these agreement. Here I am with my 2=3=4=4 eleven count and partner opens 1♠. Uh huh. I guess I bid 2♦. Or maybe 2♣. Now partner rebids 2NT. Well, I guess if he has a 12 count I can put the blame on him since SAYC says he has 13 (in what universe foes a player wait for 13 these days?), but still I am not delighted. Of course if he really could have 15 points I guess I want to raise anyway. Maybe he plays the cards well.

Anyway, yes, I know SAYC says the 2NT bid is forcing. And yes, it probably should be. But in the pick-up world it is probably not forcing.

There are two ways of interpreting OP's question.
1. Playiong pick-up what should I do?
2. If I am going to play SAYC with a regular partner, what should we agree to?


I think the answer to 2 is that 2NT should be forcing just as the booklet says. The answer to 1 is punt.

I think you're getting the idea right about the bidding issues. Just remember that the 13-15 range for minimum openers normally includes some distribution points. NT contracts are more solely dependent on HCP. So if your SAYC partner is opening 15-17 HCP balanced hands 1 NT, then the
minimum opening hand 13-15 is really limited to 12-14 HCP. You should also use HCP when deciding what to do over a NT rebid. Consider that each HCP point total for opener is about equally likely. If you have a non descript 10 HCP, then there's virtually no chance to get to the 25+ HCP normally needed to make a 3 NT game. If you have 11 HCP, you can get to 25 if opener has 14, so game is probably less than 50/50. If you hold 12 or more, game is better than 50/50. Two caveats to this approach. First, as weak NTers found out, the more evenly points are distributed between the two hands, the less that are required for a NT game. They found that 12 opposite 12 frequently yields a NT game. Secondly, it does depend on hand valuation. That is, whether your points are working together, have good intermediates, etc. For example, if the 2 ♣ bid was based on ♣ AKQJxx, just about every good player would bid 3 NT. But even something like ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ xxx ♣ KQJxx is enough to push on to 3 NT.

The only problem occurs when partner has an unbalanced hand with 15 HCP but no 2 level bid over your 2 level response. Say after 1♠-2♦, opener holds ♠ AKJxx ♥ AJx ♦ x ♣ Qxxx. Depending on your agreements, partner may bid 2 NT with this hand as the least onerous bid. But these hands don't come up that often.

[Stephen Tu]

rmnka447, on 2013-February-02, 22:32, said:

The reason that 2 NT is passable is because opener has limited his hand and the only reasonable game is NT.

Look, the way you advocate playing (open all 15-17 1nt w/ 5cd M, play 2nt as 12-14 nf after 2/1) is a reasonable, coherent way to play *SA*. It's also reasonable to play 2nt as 15-17 F as in French std (and how some play SA). But we are discussing *SAYC* here. SA is an umbrella term and covers a lot of ways to play, but SAYC is a specific documented variant. The document specifically says responder promises a rebid, and makes no exception anywhere for 2nt rebids. It is what it is. It's not particularly logical. There is also verbiage in there saying that opener's min NT rebid shows 13-15, and jump NT rebid shows 19-21. It's like whoever originally wrote the doc only considered 1/1 auctions, and furthermore cut & pasted from some book which played an older style 16-18 NT opening and 22-24 2nt opening and sounder 13+ openings and didn't adjust for the actual SAYC ranges and tendencies at the time. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe 3nt rebid should be assumed to be 18-19, I really have no clue what a random pickup is going to play as the range for 3nt.

But the doc is what is available and readily findable by players. Players have access to this, not a doc containing "SAYC with rmnka447's recommended deviations". Better to adhere to the doc as starting point, flaws and all, than deviate and hope partner is on same page.

Now, it's not particularly good to force to 3nt with 12 opposite 10, so my personal preference is to teach players to rebid 2M on 12-13/bad 14 (shouldn't promise 6cd M in either SA or 2/1 with std agreements, it's catchall so just make it catch a little more), so they leave room for responder's NF 2nt, and you can stay lower that way, without explicitly breaking the wording of the official document. I'd try to move them on to 2/1 ASAP and not play SAYC which just has tons of holes and logical inconsistencies.

Or, one can agree SAYC, but then *explicitly discuss* an exception for 2nt rebid after 2/1. That's more reasonable than people just ignoring something explicit in the document, and randomly hoping partner psychically agrees with them.

It would be nice if we could kill off SAYC and replace it with something more modern & logical, like Larry Cohen's "LC std". But what's the path to do so? It would take a concerted effort by a bunch of teachers to just stop ever teaching SAYC. It's hard to dislodge something that's been in place for 20+ years. I'd support an "SAYC must die" movement.

[kenberg]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-03, 03:11, said:

It would be nice if we could kill off SAYC and replace it with something more modern & logical, like Larry Cohen's "LC std". But what's the path to do so? It would take a concerted effort by a bunch of teachers to just stop ever teaching SAYC. It's hard to dislodge something that's been in place for 20+ years. I'd support an "SAYC must die" movement.

You can sign me up for this movement. SAYC is playable, sort of. Surely we can do better.

Here is a way to go, perhaps. I was not aware of this, but Fred has some fairly extensive suggested bidding agreements for beginners and intermediates.

http://www.bridgebas.../ltpb1setup.exe (beginners, but the bidding is here)
and
Intermediates: Beyond the basics (intermediates, the leads, signals, and so on are here)

I just started browsing, but there seems to be quite a bit there. I have not, however, found the answer to OP's question in these notes.

At least tentatively, I would endorse popularizing the idea that these bidding notes be the default when players online decide to play a few hands of bridge without discussing much. Ilfirst learned rubber bridge in 1961 by reading Goren. One of the great things was that if you sat down with someone you had never met, you could still be reasonably confident that the auction 1♠-Pass-3♠ meant that opener had four (yes, four, that's not a typo) or more spades and 13 points (including distribution) and responder had four or more spades and 13-15 points including distribution. This mostly worked most of the time, and everyone could concentrate on how to play the cards.

The fact that this is for beginners and intermediates need not be a deterrent for everyone using it as "default standard, playing w/o discussion).

Of course this means that I have to read it. I'll do so. Possibly we could set up some tourneys where everyone, expert or novice, would use this system. It might be a lot of fun.

[mgoetze]

Adam1105, on 2013-February-01, 20:50, said:

Partner says 2♦... so what exact bid (if there is one)
do bid to show 18-19 HCPs points (My partner will KNOW that
I have 18-19 points).

None. Fortunately almost all your bids are forcing so that you will be able to tell partner the good news later.

[mgoetze]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-February-03, 03:11, said:

It would take a concerted effort by a bunch of teachers to just stop ever teaching SAYC.

Or, for that matter, pretending that whatever they happen to teach is SAYC.

[Zelandakh]

The online booklet says that a jump rebid in NT after a 1M opening shows a strong balanced hand. That would appear to match the OP question. Am I missing something that overrules this in another section?

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-04, 06:07, said:

The online booklet says that a jump rebid in NT after a 1M opening shows a strong balanced hand. That would appear to match the OP question. Am I missing something that overrules this in another section?

I had always taken this to refer to 1♠-1NT-3NT, but perhaps that's just me.

One of the problems with SAYC is that there is no Mr/Ms SAYC. Goren was an authority on what the Goren method (he insisted it not be called the Goren system) was. Fred could be trusted as an authority on BBO Standard. The editors of BridgeWorld can settle arguments about the meaning of BWS. But SAYC is a booklet. It doesn't respond to inquiries.

Playing 1♠-2♦-3NT as 18-19 is probably playable although it would not fit my style all that well. Yes I open 1NT with a five card major, but not always. If I recall correctly, Mike Lawrence, in a 2/1 context, suggests that 1♠-2♦-3NT is 15-17 with a weak doubleton in diamonds. Of course in the 2/1 context he has an easy way to show the 18-19 balanced hand. Still, opening 1NT with five spades is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. A weak doubleton ups the chances of it being wrong. It's not the only thing I consider, but it is part of it. Put another way, saying that system allows me to open 1NT on 5=2=3=3 with the right point count is not the same as saying that system requires me to do it. I would prefer the doubleton to be in the minors, for example. They are less likely to lead it, and partner is less likely to transfer into it on a hand where he also holds three spades.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2013-February-04, 09:11, said:

One of the problems with SAYC is that there is no Mr/Ms SAYC.

We have Adam (awm) for this.

[fromageGB]

kenberg, on 2013-February-04, 09:11, said:

... and partner is less likely to transfer into it on a hand where he also holds three spades.

Really? If I have a 3532 shape it would not occur to me to not transfer to hearts. OK, I always open a 5 card major that has a top-3 honour, but even so. What would I be supposed to bid with this shape? Stayman?

[fromageGB]

Sorry, you are saying the doubleton would be a minor for you to open 1NT. Certainly a minor transfer is less likely, but with that hand, a 3 card major would not deter me at all.

[kenberg]

fromageGB, on 2013-February-04, 11:46, said:

Sorry, you are saying the doubleton would be a minor for you to open 1NT. Certainly a minor transfer is less likely, but with that hand, a 3 card major would not deter me at all.

I think we agree. Opening 1NT with five spades and three hearts is a lot more attractive than opening 1NT with five spades and two hearts, where it is very possible partner has a modest hand, three spades, five hearts, and transfers you to hearts and drops you there. Possible both 2♥ and 2♠ make, but maybe not and even if both make at matchpoints there may be a cost.

When I open 1NT with a five card major I like to feel that if partner bids 2♣ I will be comfortable responding at the three level in my major. For his 2♣ I expect partner to either have invitational values, and then he can bid 3NT if he doesn't fit my major, or else he is trying to get out but then I expect him to have both majors. If we have a nine card fit we should be ok, and if partner just couldn't resist a weak Stayman bid on a 3=4=5=1 then we might still be ok in our 5-3.

At any rate, I like to be able to open 1NT holding a five card major and I often do so. But sometimes I prefer to forgo the pleasure. As a result, I prefer 1♠-2♦-3NT to show 15-17.

Of course this is largely irrelevant. With a regular partner I would be playing 2/1, and with casual SAYC partners I would never have enough discussion to cover this.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2013-February-04, 12:13, said:

Opening 1NT with five spades and three hearts is a lot more attractive than opening 1NT with five spades and two hearts

Opening 1♠ with 3 hearts is also more attractive since you can raise partner's 2♥ response. When I was younger I played a system where it was normal to open (a weak) 1NT with 5233 but 1♠ with 53(32). I prefer to open both types 1NT now.

kenberg, on 2013-February-04, 12:13, said:

If we have a nine card fit we should be ok, and if partner just couldn't resist a weak Stayman bid on a 3=4=5=1 then we might still be ok in our 5-3.

I used Stayman with a weak 3352 hand on Saturday. Shocking I know - I am very weak-willed. It did get us 72% for the board though.