[shevek]

1♠   2♣
2♥   2NT
3♣

SAYC so 2♣ is not GF, then 2NT =11-12 inv

Can responder pass 3♣?
If not, what should opener do with

♠KJTxx  ♥KQxx  ♦x  ♣Kxx ?

[awm]

I'm pretty sure the SAYC notes don't say anything like this, so I don't expect any official answer.

I would tend to play 3♣ as non-forcing here, and 3♦ (4th suit) as the only three-level forcing call.

[jdonn]

Nothing else is forcing in SAYC so I don't see why this should be.

[mtvesuvius]

I would play this as NF, but the simple solution is to play a Forcing Pass with all your partners .

[helene_t]

Supporting clubs directy would be forcing so the way to end in 3♣ is by temporizing by bidding 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠.

Opener typically has 5404 but I suppose he could be 5413 also. Responder is probably 1345, maybe 1336.

[shevek]

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC?

Anyway, opener has

♠AQJTx  ♥AJT54  ♦—  ♣KQ9

What's best after
1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT NF

If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?
2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

[Cascade]

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC?

SAYC incorporates a principle that responder's 2/1 promises a rebid the corollory of which is that any simple rebid by opener is forcing.

[Codo]

1 ♠ 2 ♣
2♥ 2 NT

Now, as 3 ♣ is NF, I would try FSF and bid 4 ♣ over a possible 3 NT. This should show a lot from my hand:
5 Spades, 4 hearts 3Clubs and extra strength. Quite close.

When partner does not bid 3 NT but 3 Heart, I will try 3 Spade as a Slamtry and take it from there.
When he rebids 3 Spade, I try 4 Clubs
When he rebids 4 Club, I go salmming.

[RichMor]

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC?

Anyway, opener has

♠AQJTx  ♥AJT54  ♦—  ♣KQ9

What's best after
1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT NF

If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?
2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

I think 'what is best' would be:
1♠ - 2♣
3♥

[mtvesuvius]

RichMor, on Mar 11 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC?

Anyway, opener has

♠AQJTx  ♥AJT54  ♦—  ♣KQ9

What's best after
1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT NF

If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support?
2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

I think 'what is best' would be:
1♠ - 2♣
3♥

Did you see the end of Nick's post??

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

Anyway, I like Codo's ideas... 3♦ now for me.

[FrancesHinden]

I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not.

But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands:

AQJ10x
AQxx
Kxxx
-

Kx
xx
AQJx
Qxxxx

would start
1S - 2C
2H - 2NT
3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D
?

[I'm not an SAYC player, so I would say that 3C is forcing over 2NT and you have to pass on a 5413 minimum - which may be right anyway opposite a 1345 or 2344). But then in Acol-land 1S - 2C - 3C is not forcing, and I don't have all these bizarre opener's rebid problems]

[mich-b]

I would suggest that we remove the "SAYC / 2/1 ambiguity" temporarily,
by considering the sequence

1♥ 1♠
2♦ 2NT
3♠

I play this as forcing , and think this would be a popular position.
(This obviously has nothing to do with playing SAYC or 2/1).

Now , since in the original sequence , responder showed the same (invitational)values , and never implied that his 1st suit is longer than 4 cards,
I would suggest that 3♣ in the OPs hand is forcing as well.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not.

But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands:

AQJ10x
AQxx
Kxxx
-

Kx
xx
AQJx
Qxxxx

would start
1S - 2C
2H - 2NT
3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D
?

I believe no one would say that. Switch the system to 2/1 and we can talk.

[hanp]

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

Inferential? It either is a splinter or it isn't but I don't know how you can infer such a thing. I also wonder if 3H now would be forcing, honestly I have no idea. I think 3C would be NF.

I would bid 4C which I think (hope?) is forcing. I think my hand is really good.

[RichMor]

'Inferential splinters' ? Yikes !

AFAIK an SAYC 2/1 response is not forcing to game so responder needs various rebids to show strength and create a game force. That's old fashioned but so is SAYC.

1♠ - 2♣
2♥
is forcing for one round but not game forcing.

1♠ - 2♣
3♥
is game forcing and shows at least 5-5 in the majors.

[neilkaz]

shevek, on Mar 10 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

1♠   2♣
2♥   2NT
3♣

SAYC so 2♣ is not GF, then 2NT =11-12 inv

Can responder pass 3♣?
If not, what should opener do with

♠KJTxx  ♥KQxx  ♦x  ♣Kxx ?

I would think that in SAYC this is NF and opener has simply expressed a preference to play 3♣ rather than 2NT.

[Codo]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 12 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

I know nothing about SAYC, so I've no idea if this is forcing or not.

But: to those who are bidding 3D now and saying it's fourth suit forcing, and a good bid on a 5503, how many of you would be suggesting that the best auction on, say, these two hands:

AQJ10x
AQxx
Kxxx
-

Kx
xx
AQJx
Qxxxx

would start
1S - 2C
2H - 2NT
3D (natural) .... weeble.... 6D
?

[I'm not an SAYC player, so I would say that 3C is forcing over 2NT and you have to pass on a 5413 minimum - which may be right anyway opposite a 1345 or 2344). But then in Acol-land 1S - 2C - 3C is not forcing, and I don't have all these bizarre opener's rebid problems]

I think your example is flawed:

1. When 2 NT is non forcing, the south hand is too strong for this.
I think the bidding will be 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♥ 3 NT ap...

2. You can bid 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 3 ♦ and find the fit with convidence.
When pd has hearts and not diamonds, you can bid
1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 2♥ (A) 3 ♥ and show your 544o this way.

(WOf course, when you define the raise of the 4. suit different- quite a common possibility, you need other ways to show your shape.)

[shevek]

Cascade, on Mar 11 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

shevek, on Mar 11 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC?

SAYC incorporates a principle that responder's 2/1 promises a rebid the corollory of which is that any simple rebid by opener is forcing.

Thx Wayne.
Don't play SAYC much so now I know that

1♥  2♣
2♥

is forcing (according to ACBL summary).

Nick

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

AQJ10x
AQxx
Kxxx
-

Kx
xx
AQJx
Qxxxx

would start
1S - 2C
2H - 2NT
3D (natural) ....  weeble.... 6D
?

I believe no one would say that. Switch the system to 2/1 and we can talk.

Seems like a fine SAYC auction to me, provided that Mike777 can explain the 2NT bid to us

For those who think 3♦ is needed as FSF: I doubt that FSF applies here. Opener is supposed to bid naturally. Since responder's hand is well described, he can just place the contract with 3♣, or invite for slam with 4♣. Those who are used to 2/1 will be missing a way to show a mild slam invite without bypassing 3NT, but you do pay a price for not playing 2/1.

Not sure if 3♠ is forcing here. We has a similar discussion
1♥-1♠
2♣-1NT
3♥*
not so long ago, and the consensus was that it should forcing. (The discussion was not specifically in a SAYC context, though).