[straube]

I'm used to 2/1 GF or strong club systems and have been playing under the assumption that in Standard American a 2/1 promises a rebid. I like that in that it lets opener rebid 2M as a temporizing bid, usually but not necessarily showing weakness. So 1S-2H, 3H is GF but 1S-2H, 2S-2N, 3H is not.

Anyway, I was dealt Kx x AJxxx KTxxx and was a bit endplayed after 1S-2D, 2S. If I rebid 3C that would have to be forcing while 2N would misrepresent my hand. I chose 3S which ended in disaster.

Chatgpt says a 2/1 in SA doesn't promise a rebid, so I could simply pass 2S—which works well on this hand but not on lots of others.

I remember Adam has a version of SA that I liked (and maybe mistook for SA) but what is Standard American's treatment here?

[straube]

Found this. Is there a link to definitive sayc somewhere? I do wonder how my bidding should have gone. I guess 2N rebid (which seems quite awful)

3♦ is forcing. This can be seen by applying some reasoning to the SAYC rules. In particular:

(1) A 2/1 bid promises another call unless opener's rebid is at the game level. Thus 1♦-2♣-2♦ is 100% forcing.
(2) From the above, we know that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-2M and 1♦-2♣-3♣ would all be 100% forcing as well.
(3) A direct 1♦-2NT is forcing in SAYC. With a balanced invite lacking a diamond fit or a 4-card major, responder must start with 2♣.
(4) It follows that 1♦-2♣-2NT or 1♦-2♣-3♣ can'tt be bid on a minimum*. This would give responder no call on a balanced invite.
(5) We conclude that opener cannot bid above 2♦ when holding a minimum hand, and any other rebid must show extras.
(6) The sequence 1♦-2♣-2♦ therefore cannot guarantee extra length in diamonds**.
(7) Since 1♦-2♣-2♦ could still be based on four (or three!) diamonds, responder needs 4(5?) card support to raise.
(8) If responder had invitational values and sufficient support, he could've raised 1♦ to 3♦ directly.
(9) Therefore 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦ should be forcing.
(10) Note that similar reasoning applies to 1M-2x-2M-3M***.


* This seems to contradict the statement elsewhere that opener can rebid notrump at the cheapest level on a minimum. However, that statement is in the section talking about 1/1 sequences and is certainly not specific for 2/1 sequences. The impossibility of reconciling this with the clear definition that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing (in a part of the notes which is definitely about 2/1 sequences only, 2/1 promising a rebid) suggests that the idea of rebidding notrump being okay on a minimum was for 1-level auctions.

** The vast majority of people who claim to play SAYC do not know this. Of course, they also think that 1♦-2♣-2NT and 1♦-2♣-3♣ are NF. There is often a difference between a detailed understanding of SAYC in the hands of experienced players and the casual "standard american" played (sometimes while claiming to play SAYC) in the main bridge club. Use at your own risk!

*** Again, a lot of people don't know this. But in SAYC 1M-3M only shows three-plus card support. It makes no sense for the 2/1-then-raise sequence to show exactly the same hand type that could've been shown by 1M-3M, and showing the forcing hand in this way takes a lot of pressure off in slam try auctions.

[awm]

For what it’s worth, I’d have bid 3c over 2s here. Slight overbid, but seems less likely to get me in trouble than 2nt. Invitational 5/5 hands are typically difficult in most methods.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

for what's it worth: I dont think a 2/1 promises a rebid in Standard American, whatever this may mean, it does in SAYC.
Now the question comes down, is Standard American the same as SAYC, in theory the answer is No, in practice lots of
peoble may say yes.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

I've tried a few ways to play this, but the simplest is
1♠-2♦
2♥ min. - 2♠ 2♠/2N short ♠ NF
Other bids by opener are GF as below.
2♠ 5♠
2N 6/7♠ semi-balanced
3♣ 6(331)
3♦ 6x(4x)
3♥ 64xx
3♠ self-sustaining unbalanced
Others 6(511) & 6(520) can also be shown

Goren's 5-card Major 1985 book I seem to remember had 1N as forcing in a SA framework so if your 1N is forcing then this hand could be an exception to the 2/1 GI approach given it should comfortably play in 4m with a fit

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2025-June-17, 00:15, said:

I've tried a few ways to play this, but the simplest is
1♠-2♦
2♥ min. - 2♠ 2♠/2N short ♠ NF
Other bids by opener are GF

Goren's 5-card Major 1985 book I seem to remember had 1N as forcing in a SA framework so if your 1N is forcing then this hand could be an exception to the 2/1 GI approach given it should comfortably play in 4m with a fit

After a 2/1, back when Goren wrote his own books, any rebid by opener above two of their original suit promised 16+ points (NEVER hcp unless explicitly said)) and was forcing. This meant that sometimes opener had to rebid a 4-card suit, "It's better to lie about a deuce than about a king."

In turn, this meant responder had to plan a rebid when holding fewer than three cards in opener's suit.

[WasWinM]

To answer the original question, yes, a 2/1 is forcing to 2nt.

[P_Marlowe]

WasWinM, on 2025-June-17, 07:55, said:

To answer the original question, yes, a 2/1 promises a second bid unless opener limits his hand with his second bid.
If responder can determine there is insufficient strength in the combined hands for game, no further bid is required.

The question now is, which seq. limit openers hand

1♠ - 2D
2NT

And now, only IF 2NT showes 11-14 bal., opener would have limited his hand.
I think a two way meaning of 2NT is not part of Standard American, but the seq. was forcing in SAYC, although I also believe,
that SAYC did not use a two-way meaning of 2NT, ... I have never read the pamphlet, but this was may take away from the endless
discussion on the forums.

The following seq. is a lot more tricky, but is related to the above.

1♠ - 2D
2♠ ...

Is this also a seq. that limits opener to at most 14/15?

It gets messy and it also touches the famous Q, do you open 1H/1S or 1NT with 5332 and being in range.

My personal def of Standard American is: Acol with 5 card major and 15-17NT, works well, covers a lot of bases,
and makes a 2/1 only a 1-round force, i.e. no rebid promised. But I am German, and have never visited North America.

[straube]

I'm starting to realize that there is a difference between Standard American and Standard American Yellow Card. I like the explanation/treatment that Adam gave for SAYC and view it as very playable, in some situations better than 2/1 GF. If Standard American doesn't promise a rebid (I think Acol doesn't either), I think that's much less so.

What is the common understanding in BBO for pickup partnerships? Are they playing 1S-2C, 2S as forcing or not?

[smerriman]

 straube, on 2025-June-17, 14:01, said:

What is the common understanding in BBO for pickup partnerships? Are they playing 1S-2C, 2S as forcing or not?

The most common understanding for BBO pickup partnerships is that they don't have a clue.

[jillybean]

You face a complete guess when playing with pickup partners. No matter what, if anything, is written in their profile or what they claim to play, we all have our own style and interpretation of "insert convention". Without discussion, it's a guess. I doubt anyone plays pure SAYC. "Standard American" is a catchall for 15-17nt and anything that isn't 2/1 or Precision, Fantunes.

[awm]

The official SAYC document is here. Note that this is not very complete and in some cases a bit contradictory; the rules in straube's second post above are my understanding of how it's supposed to work, but there's not a lot of explanation of the 2/1 sequences in SAYC in the document. There's actually a book about SAYC bidding but this doesn't really explain anything further; it's basically the document with a large number of example hands (none of which hit any of the ambiguous areas).

Of course, none of this is relevant to play with pick-up partners online, many of whom claim to play "SAYC" but have not even read the short document.

In my experience, most American "standard american" players will treat 1♠-2m-2♠ as forcing one round (this is different from Acol players of course), but will treat 1♠-2m-3m and 1♠-2m-2NT as non-forcing (despite what it says about promising a rebid in the SAYC document).

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-June-17, 14:08, said:

You face a complete guess when playing with pickup partners. No matter what, if anything, is written in their profile or what they claim to play, we all have our own style and interpretation of "insert convention". Without discussion, it's a guess. I doubt anyone plays pure SAYC. "Standard American" is a catchall for 15-17nt and anything that isn't 2/1 or Precision, Fantunes.

I have an even more cynical interpretation: almost anyone who claims to want to play SAYC either doesn't know what they are talking about or assumes I will not. I do know a bit, but dislike it intensely and always found the experience frustrating.

[WasWinM]

At one point in American bridge Charles Goren was the acknowledged authority on all things about bidding. The bidding was based on simplicity. Standard American grew from that source and partnerships began to tinker with meanings. When the USA team kept being owned by the Italians, Schenken figured out the problem was the obsolete bidding of the Americans and that began the changes.

[jillybean]

Last night I jumped into a random table.
The bidding went (1H) X (P) P
Fortunately, RHO XX and I could bid 2C

At the conclusion of the hand I expressed suprise that partner had passed on 3343 and I was told that he played SAYC and did not bin on zero points.

[jillybean]

Last night I jumped into a random table.
The bidding went (1H) X (P) P
Fortunately, RHO XX and I could bid 2C

At the conclusion of the hand I expressed suprise that partner had passed on 3343 and I was told that he played SAYC and did not bid on zero points.

[mikl_plkcc]

WasWinM, on 2025-June-17, 07:55, said:

To answer the original question, yes, a 2/1 is forcing to 2nt.

I have also heard another version which can stop at 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠, i.e. promises a rebid under 2NT.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-19, 03:42, said:

I have also heard another version which can stop at 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠, i.e. promises a rebid under 2NT.

Yes that's similar to my post above
I play 2♦ as wouldn't accept an invitation in Diamonds, with 2♥ being GF asking for opener's shape, which responses mirroring opener's positive rebids