[tooncestdc]

After an auction like 1♥-2♣, what's the SA-YC or preferred meaning for the following bids?

2♥ -
2NT -
3♣ -
4♣ -

Is responder requided to make a 2nd bid in all cases?

[awm]

A good reference on SA-YC can be found here: SAYC Reference.

The identical document can be found in several other places online, for example: here.

It states that

NOTE: 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.

Thus all of the rebids described below must be forcing (by inference since responder promises to bid again). The meanings are:

2♥ - Rebid of opener's major is a catch-all. This is necessary since a bid of 2NT or a raise of responder's minor would be forcing. So this bid could show six hearts, or a balanced hand too weak to bid a forcing 2NT, or a bad raise of responder's minor (wanting to stop at the three-level). Continuations by responder other than 2NT and 3♣ would be forcing.

2NT - natural (probably balanced, stoppers in unbids). This is forcing so opener should have game values opposite a 2/1 call. Presumably this is a game-forcing auction, since it doesn't make much sense to force game opposite the balanced 2/1 call but want to stop in 3♣ opposite a one suited hand.

3♣ - Must be forcing one round, natural raise. Responder's next call probably a stopper.

4♣ - Again forcing. Since 3NT is bypassed, should be a serious slam try in clubs. Responder's next call is a cue.

Of course, I am aware that a lot of people who play "standard american" use opener's 2NT and 3♣ rebids as non-forcing. A minority even treat 2♥ as non-forcing. However, this is not SAYC bridge -- the yellow card is a very specific and well-specified system.

[helene_t]

Now I'm confused. This seems more like a description of SEF than of SAYC.

I thought that
1M-2m
3m

and
1M-2m
2NT

were non-forcing in SAYC.

Is there somebody who knows this for sure?

[cherdano]

2/1 promises a rebid in SAYC, unless opener bids game. So yes, these are forcing.

Arend

[pdmunro]

helene_t, on Jun 28 2005, 03:29 AM, said:

Now I'm confused. This seems more like a description of SEF than of SAYC.

I thought that
1M-2m
3m

and
1M-2m
2NT

were non-forcing in SAYC.

I agree. This is how I play SAYC.

For me,

1M-2m
2NT = "Partner, if you have any more points than the bare 11, bid 3NT. If you only have a bare 11 (10 HCP + 1 for your 5th minor card), then pass."

Years ago the 2NT counted as a reverse and showed a game-forcing hand. But, nowadays, my experience is that SAYC players commomly use 2NT as an invite to 3NT.

1M - 2m
2M = "I have opened with 12-15 points and long hearts. Just be aware that I might only have 12 points and 5 hearts. There you know my hand, partner, so don't get too carried-away. You decide what to do. You can PASS. You can bid a new suit to get me to bid again. You can bid 2NT to invite me to 3NT; you can jump to 3NT yourself if you have the points. You can bid 3M to invite me to game in the Major; you can jump to game in the Major. Goodness knows, you might even have enough for slam. I have described my hand. You decide. "

1M-2m
3m = "I have 5M and 4m, and a minimum opening hand, 12-15. There you know my hand, partner. Look at your hand and decide what to do. You can pass. You can bid 4m to invite me to game. You can bid 3NT if you have the right cards."

1M-2m
4m =" I have 5M and 4m. I have about 16 points, counting 3 points for a singleton. We have at least 26 points: we can make 4m. If you have 13 points, we can make 5m. You make the decision, partner."

[mr1303]

This looks more Acol based to me. Unless something drastic has changed recently, all of those sequences are forcing.

I'm not sure if 1H 2C 2NT 3C is forcing or not. I certainly hope that it is.

[david_c]

From what I can remember of previous discussions, the sequence 1M:2m,2NT is forcing, but opener may have a dead minimum hand. Of course, this is absolutely nuts, but apparently that's the way things are in SAYC.

If you change things slightly, so that 2NT promises a little extra strength and is forcing to game, then I think it becomes a perfectly playable system. (Am I the only person who prefers this to 2/1 GF?) But I don't think that this can be referred to as SAYC.

[helene_t]

It's a little strange. A 2/1 response promises a second bid, but at the same time it looks as if a rebid of 2NT or a raise of responder's minor does not promise extras. Presumably, you will end up in 3NT with 12+11 HCPs. It's probably best not to rebid 2NT with 12 HCPs.

1M-2m
2M
is certainly forcing in any system with a strong 1NT opening (and therefore 2m promising at least 11(10) HCPs). Otherwise you would have to rebid 3M with 14 HCPs.

[pdmunro]

Let's compare two SA-YC sites.

Site 1 http://mania.floater...stems/SAYC.html

"NOTE: 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."


Site 2 http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc01.htm

"NOTE: In an uncontested auction any new suit bid (where it is not preemptive) at the 3 level is 100% forcing - This applies to both opener’s and responder’s calls. SAYC, in common with all versions of Standard American, adheres to the new-suit forcing principle ie., a new suit by responder is forcing for 1 round, unless reponder has previously passed or either player has bid notrump. (my emphasis) Having said this, very few 1st/2nd round bids in uncontested auctions are 100% forcing in SAYC – J2N, a jump shift, and a new suit bid at the 3 level are forcing. If responder makes a 2 level first round bid then he usually promises a rebid."

OK I don't want to write a whole bidding book. I want to keep this short.

Site 1 (from a booklet on the ACBL site!) is WRONG. Responder has bid a new suit at the 2-level. This forces opener to bid again. It is NOT a promise by responder that he will make any further bids. Of course, he often does, but that is not the point of his bid. He wants his partner to further describe her hand.

If EITHER player wants the other to keep bidding, he bids an unbid suit. This says his points are not-yet limited. Partner is required to keep bidding.

If EITHER player wants to limit his points, he rebids his suit or supports his partner's suit. Rebids and support bids are non-forcing.

Examples:
Opener wants responder to bid again, so he changes suit.
1M-2C
2D = forcing

Opener limits his hand.
1M-2m
2M = a minimum opening, non-forcing

This is what site 2 is explaining.

[david_c]

[rant warning]

Last term I had to teach Analysis to some first-year undergraduates. They often have difficulty distinguishing a statement from its converse. The same problem occurs in trying to teach bridge. Some examples:

1. Beginners are often taught that if they have 12 points they must open the bidding.
This does NOT imply: An opening bid promises 12 points.

2. Playing Acol, people are taught that you should always support partner's major with 4 cards.
This does NOT imply: A raise of partner's major promises 4-card support.

Now we have a new example.

3. "the new-suit forcing principle"
This does NOT imply: bids in old suits are not forcing.

Indeed, if whoever wrote the quote from "site 2" intended to say that 1M:2m,2M is not 100% forcing, then they have put the word "usually" in the wrong place.

[end of rant - thank you for listening]

[helene_t]

All of these sites are unclear about this issue but especially site 2.

It looks as if opener could rebid 2NT or 2M non-forcing even when he knows that his partnership had at least 27(26) HCPs. This is absurd so there must be a mistake somewhere. The quote may even suggest that 1♠-2♣-2♦ is non-forcing allthough opener could have 18 HCPs. But change "forcing" to "forcing to game" and it makes a lot more sense.

Also, it looks as if 1♠-2♣ promises a 4-card but that can't be true since responder would have no bid with a 3433 and 13+ HCPs (A response of 2NT is Jacoby).

Allthough there might be some differences between the ACBL version and the OkBridge version, I think we can better trust site 1 and the ACBL who state that a 2/1 promises a second bid.

[HeartA]

cherdano, on Jun 28 2005, 03:53 AM, said:

2/1 promises a rebid in SAYC, unless opener bids game. So yes, these are forcing.

Arend

This is not accurate. 2/1 promises another bid unless opener rebid 2NT. So 2NT from opener is NOT forcing, but shows a minimum balanced hand.

[Cascade]

HeartA, on Jul 6 2005, 06:08 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 28 2005, 03:53 AM, said:

2/1 promises a rebid in SAYC, unless opener bids game. So yes, these are forcing.

Arend

This is not accurate. 2/1 promises another bid unless opener rebid 2NT. So 2NT from opener is NOT forcing, but shows a minimum balanced hand.

The SAYC notes that I have include the following statement:

"NOTE: 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."

which certainly suggests that :

1M 2m; 2NT

1M 2m; 2M

1M 2m; 3m are all forcing.

However these are all minimum rebids:

"Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points):
Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level;
Raising responder's suit at the cheapest level (this can be done
with good three-card support if desired);
Rebidding a new suit (but not reversing);
Rebidding opener's suit at the lowest level."

Since the 2/1 promises only 11+ points.

Allowing for the fact these "points" might include some distributional values, playing all of these auctions as forcing seems to force the auction too high.

[FrancesHinden]

If you pass on balanced 12-counts, and need a decent 11-count to make a 2/1 when balanced, it's just about possible to play that 1M-2m-2NT is both forcing and shows a minimum. This is consistent with the above quote that a minimum hand is 13-16.

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

1M-2m
2M
is certainly forcing in any system with a strong 1NT opening (and therefore 2m promising at least 11(10) HCPs). Otherwise you would have to rebid 3M with 14 HCPs.

I'm sorry, this just isn't true.
2M is (so I understand) forcing in SAYC and 2/1, which answers the question relevant to this forum.

However there are perfectly playable systems where 1NT is strong and a 2/1 does NOT promise a rebid. I play one of them.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 5 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

If you pass on balanced 12-counts, and need a decent 11-count to make a 2/1 when balanced, it's just about possible to play that 1M-2m-2NT is both forcing and shows a minimum. This is consistent with the above quote that a minimum hand is 13-16.

But in SAYC you need 26 hcp to make 3NT

[tooncestdc]

So, I didn't expect this forum to have this much dispute, but I'm glad that it did. So, this what it sounds like is mostly the concensus:

1. In "official" SA-YC, all below-game responses over 1M-2m are forcing.
2. In "official" SA-YC, 2M is the catch-all bid, while 2NT is a game force and balanced (say, 15-18?). 3NT would show 19-21 balanced, I suppose.
3. Many players that also play 15-17 NT and do not play 2/1 GF play 2M, 3m, and/or 2NT as non-forcing bids, and are comfortable with that.

That being said, for those people that play system described in #3, what are the descriptions that you use for 2M, 2NT, 3m, 3M, 3NT, 4m, etc? If my partner and I switch to non-forcing bids here, what are we giving up in system strength?

[Stephen Tu]

"officially", in SAYC 2nt = 13-16, forcing, and 3nt = 17-19.

If you switch to more non-forcing rebids by opener, your main problems are going to be with opener not being able to temporize cheaply with non-minimum hands, giving maximum room to responder to make a second descriptive bid. (Generally, the more room you leave someone, the more options he has, and the more accurate the description can be). He'll have to make fragment bids in new suits often, which can lead to some more muddled auctions. Opener's rebids with strong hands will be less defined as you are using up more of your bids to describe minimum hands.

[Double !]

mr1303, on Jul 1 2005, 06:25 AM, said:

This looks more Acol based to me. Unless something drastic has changed recently, all of those sequences are forcing.

I'm not sure if 1H 2C 2NT 3C is forcing or not. I certainly hope that it is.

The degree to which ACOL impacted and changed american bidding back in the mid-to-late 60s, & early 70s would amaze you. (or, maybe not)

[Fluffy]

in SAyc 1M-2m-2NT and 1M-2m-3m might be forcing but they don't show extras .