Forcing or not? Both majors bid and raised
#1
Posted 2008-December-01, 14:00
1S-P-2H-P
3H-P-3S-P
?
Thanks for replies.
#2
Posted 2008-December-01, 14:05
- hrothgar
#3
Posted 2008-December-01, 14:13
#4
Posted 2008-December-01, 14:27
Over an invitational 3♥ it makes no sense for 3♠ to be non-forcing.
Harald
#5
Posted 2008-December-01, 15:38
I would also have said that it set trump as hearts. Ergo, if you can find a way to stop below game in hearts after 3♠, go for it.
"gwnn" said:
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
#6
Posted 2008-December-01, 20:58
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#7
Posted 2008-December-01, 21:06
(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid. So 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing. Thus opener should have extras, giving our side enough for game. If opener has garbage with a heart fit he should bid 2♠ at second turn and then hearts over responder's rebid.
(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades; if it includes 3+♠ then it should also be game forcing values. By correcting 3♥ to 3♠, responder shows a spade fit and (thus) game values.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#8
Posted 2008-December-02, 00:24
The only question is, which suit is agreed to be trumps,
and how many spades 3S showes.
Because 3S could be interpreted as a cue bid, but the
cue should be based on a spade to honor, so there is
no big difference to 3S being a raise, although there is
one.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#9
Posted 2008-December-02, 06:11
awm, on Dec 2 2008, 03:06 AM, said:
(1) In SAYC, a 2/1 bidder promises a rebid....
(2) In SAYC, 1♠-3♠ is a limit raise and only promises three card support. So with a limit raise, you're supposed to bid 3♠. Thus 1♠-2♥ cannot be a limit raise in spades...
Even in Acol, where the 2♥ bid (though F1) doesn't necessarily promise a rebid, the 3♠ bid still has to be taken as strong for the second reason you give.
I don't know of any commonly played natural system where a 2/1 can be weaker than Acol plays it - so I would think that has to be forcing in any natural system.
Nick
#10
Posted 2008-December-02, 09:18
awm, on Dec 1 2008, 10:06 PM, said:
So confusing.
2 over 1 promises:
Quote
Quote
Raising responder’s suit at the lowest level (may have good three-card support);
Quote
Sorry, but I'm just not buying that 3♥ was forcing. Ok, maybe the intent of SAYC is to force you to game with 23 combined HCP and a 7 card fit, but I doubt it.
"gwnn" said:
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
#11
Posted 2008-December-02, 09:25
#12
Posted 2008-December-02, 09:48
I would guess that in SAYC, which is very similar to old-fashioned Standard American, the same is true.
In any other system without very specific agreements to the contrary, both 3♥ and 3♠ are forcing.
In the special 1♠-2♥ method that I play, 2♥ is not game forcing; 3♥ and 3♠ in this sequence are both invitational. Opener would have had to bid 2NT artificial and game forcing over 2♥ to prepare for a forcing heart raise (4♥ was available to bid game with no slam interest). Responder could bid anything other than 3♠ over 3♥ with a game force.
#13
Posted 2008-December-02, 10:17
#14
Posted 2008-December-02, 13:36
#15
Posted 2008-December-02, 14:20
jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 10:17 AM, said:
So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.
(My usually wrong understanding of SAYC says 3♥ is forcing to game.)
#16
Posted 2008-December-02, 14:27
If this and jdonn's comment (that SAYC and logic have nothing to do with eachother) are the only two things you remember from this thread then you will do well.
- hrothgar
#17
Posted 2008-December-02, 15:20
cherdano, on Dec 2 2008, 03:20 PM, said:
jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 10:17 AM, said:
So 3♥ is forcing to game unless we have a double fit. In the majors. Must be a great system.
The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.
#18
Posted 2008-December-02, 15:34
On the one hand, it is stated that a player who makes a 2/1 bid promises a rebid. That would mean that the 3♥ bid in the auction 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ is forcing. That does not mean game forcing, just forcing.
Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing. So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.
On the other hand, the system booklet does not show any examples of an auction which starts 1♠ - 2♥. And we all know that auctions that start out 1♠ - 2♥ are fundamentally different from all other 2/1 auctions.
So, unless your conclusion is that a partnership playing SAYC cannot stop in 3♥ on this auction but they can stop in 3♠, the ACBL SAYC System Booklet does not answer the questions raised in this thread.
#19
Posted 2008-December-02, 15:38
ArtK78, on Dec 2 2008, 04:34 PM, said:
!!!!!!
Quote
Furthermore, it is stated that if responder makes a simple (non-jump) bid in opener's first bid major after opener's rebid, it is not forcing. So, that would imply that the 3♠ bid by responder in this sequence is not forcing.
Illogical? Yes. Terrible system? Yes. SAYC? YES. You think it's not SAYC because they don't provide an example auction?
Edit: Ok I was quick, I see you edited your quote. So your answer is "It's SAYC if you believe the SAYC book", or something like that.
#20
Posted 2008-December-02, 15:50
If you were starting with someone new (living in North America), what 'naturalish' system would you have them learn out of the gate? BWS? 2/1? ACOL?
I'm not asking with any snark in my tone... I'm genuinely curious.