[allias]

in the 3 following unopposed auctions: 1C 1D 1H
1C 1H 1S
1D 1H 1S

does the rebid by opener show a 5.4 hand?
i.e would opener rebid NT with a 4432 shape?
in the last example opener would not have 4H, but if he was e.g 4S 2H 4D 3C would he not bid
either 1 or 2NT depending on his strength? rather than 1S

[blackshoe]

SAYC is a "four card suits up the line" system. In such systems, if you bypass a suit you could bid at the one level in order to bid 1NT, you deny four cards in the bypassed suit. Looking at each of your three auctions, then:

1. 1♣-1♦-1♥: opener has 4 or more hearts and 3 or more clubs. He may or may not have 4 spades.
2. 1♣-1♥-1♠: Opener's 1♠ rebid simply shows 4+ spades and tends to deny 4 hearts - opener might still have 3 or 4 clubs.
3. 1♦=1♥-1♠: same as #2, except opener tends to deny 4 hearts. He can be 4=2=4=3 - bidding 1NT would deny 4 spades.

[CamHenry]

Another hand type to consider is 4441, with a singleton in responder's suit. I don't know SAYC guidelines on which suit to open, but I tend to open the suit below a red singleton: so either 1♣-1♦-1♥ or 1♦-1♥-1♠ could very easily be a 4441 pattern.

[helene_t]

In SAYC you open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, hence the only (4441) hand that is opened 1♣ is when the singleton is diamonds.

Blackshoe is right except that I think "tend to deny four hearts" is an understatement, I think it denies four hearts when you don't support them. However
1♣-1♦
1♠
does not deny four diamonds - opener could have 4045

[allias]

helene_t, on 2014-March-14, 03:12, said:

In SAYC you open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, hence the only (4441) hand that is opened 1♣ is when the singleton is diamonds.

Blackshoe is right except that I think "tend to deny four hearts" is an understatement, I think it denies four hearts when you don't support them. However
1♣-1♦
1♠
does not deny four diamonds - opener could have 4045

I agree like you that "tend to deny 4 hearts" is wrong,and that it would absolutely deny a fit
However as I understand it 4 cards up the line is responders perogative not openers
Also as say in sayc 1D 1H 2C would definitely show 5/4 or better, why not at the 1 level too?
[yes I understand that major fits can be missed-as could be the case opening the same hand a weak NT as say in acol]
[and that again major fits can be missed opening a strong NT]

On the other side of the coin playing sayc 1C 1H 1S and opener has 5C and 4S and responder holds 4H and 4C and opts for
1NT instead of 2C would often lead to a poor result

[helene_t]

Because otherwise you can miss a 4-4 fit in spades. So if responder bids 4-cards up the line, opener has to do it as well.

Some bypass 1♦ as responder and bid a 4-card major suit first even if they have longer diamonds. This is called "Walsh" style and is not part of SAYC. If you play that way, opener must rebid 1NT after a 1♦ response with any balanced hand because responder has in principle denied a 4-card major.

In any case, you rebid 1♠ with a balanced hand with four spades if responder bids 1♥. You might make an exception with 4333, especially if the spade suit is weak. This is not really SAYC but it is more a style issue than a system issue.

1♦-1♥-2♣ shows five diamonds. In some styles you bid this way with some hands that have four diamonds and five clubs. Again, this is not really SAYC although I would say it is a style issue.

1♦-1♠-2♣ could be 1444 so it doesn't 100% guarantee five diamonds.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-13, 11:11, said:

SAYC is a "four card suits up the line" system. In such systems, if you bypass a suit you could bid at the one level in order to bid 1NT, you deny four cards in the bypassed suit.

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 11:24, said:

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

The question here is not "what would be best", but rather "what does SAYC (a detailed system documented by ACBL) call for".

[Stephen Tu]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 11:24, said:

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

So why do you think this is very poor? In my view there are clearly both pros and cons to opener bidding up the line. SAYC clearly would be improved with an official check back mechanism, and good players all agree to add one. But even with a checkback available, sometimes responder isn't strong enough to use it, and superior 4-4 fits can be missed in favor of a failing 1nt. Bypassing to rebid 1nt has some concealment advantages, but it isn't very clear to me that one or the other is "very poor".

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2014-March-14, 13:59, said:

The question here is not "what would be best", but rather "what does SAYC (a detailed system documented by ACBL) call for".

Yes, but there is no law that says that if someone else has written up a system, you have to play it exactly their way.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 18:18, said:

Yes, but there is no law that says that if someone else has written up a system, you have to play it exactly their way.

If you make modifications, you are no longer playing SAYC; you are playing your own version of Standard American. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Thank you, Seinfeld.) If you are playing in a game where playing SAYC is specified, or you have simply agreed to play SAYC without having made other specifications, then you should expect that your partners are playing SAYC in the prescribed way, and you should endeavor to do the same. And you should know what that entails.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 11:24, said:

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

I agree with Stephen, but more so. I think that playing matchpoints it is very poor to bypass a 4 card major when potentially partner is not strong enough to bid over 1NT.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 11:24, said:

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

Playing weak NT I can believe that it is better to bypass spades. With a 16-count you owe partner a third bid but you don't really want to play 2NT opposite a 6-count. So it is better to get the 15-17 points across without raising the level. Partner will often be able to bid on after 1NT and even if he doesn't at least you will have enough power to make 1NT.

Playing strong notrump I think it is better to bid spades.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-March-15, 05:59, said:

Playing strong notrump I think it is better to bid spades.

You may be right. I sometimes forget to take into account the implications of playing a strong NT.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-14, 11:24, said:

I think that this is very poor, and it would be better if you added a way to check back, so that you could rebid 1NT with these balanced hands.

Oh, I quite agree. Convince some of my partners, will you?

[blackshoe]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-March-14, 15:01, said:

SAYC clearly would be improved with an official check back mechanism, and good players all agree to add one.

And then they are no longer playing SAYC.