[vuroth]

Regarding the auction:

1♥ 2♣
2♥ ?

cherdano said:

jtfanclub, on Apr 7 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 7 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

He cannot bid 3♥, or this would GF also, per the SAYC booklet.

1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should not be game forcing...where did you see that it was?

It is GF in SAYC, since you bid 3♥ immediately with a 3-card limit raise

I almost posted my questions in the original thread, but decided my questions were on the dumb side, and that maybe other beginners might find this auction confusing/surprising too.

First of all, I've been over the SAYC booklet 3 times today, and I don't see it explicitly covering 2 level responses where opener rebids his original suit. Ergo, I can't find an explicit statement in the booklet that 3♥ is GF.

Arend's post seems to imply that it is incorrect to bid hearts on this auction with less than 3 hearts. Is this right? (To my Goren-raised self, it "feels" like partner should have 6 hearts, though I know that sometimes she might be forced to rebid with only 5....)

If so, how do you handle hands that look something like this: xx Qx QTx AKxxxx - i.e. hands that might make 4♥ opposite a maximum 2♥ bid with 6♥? Do you tend to 2NT with 2 card support, even if one of the suits (in this case spades) are wide open (maybe 2NT is better with xx xx xxxx xxxxx and 11 points somewhere therein?)? Do you retreat to clubs with this hand? What if partner has 6 hearts and 3 clubs and a minimum - aren't you going to end up in 3♣ instead of 3♥?

Since the SAYC booklet isn't answering my questions, what's the right way forwards in general with exactly 2 hearts and invitational values?

Thanks.

V

[awm]

Admittedly the SAYC booklet is not the clearest thing in the world. As I understand it, the major points applying here are as follows.

2♠ rebid by opener is a reverse and shows extra values. This would create a game force. Also, since a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener rebids at the game level, both 2NT and 3♣ rebids by opener would be forcing.

It follows that opener must bid 2♥ on many hands without four diamonds and with insufficient values for game. So 2♥ does not by any means require a sixth heart; it is the normal bid on a wide range of hands in the 12-14 point range (as well as the normal bid with six hearts). While this general style (do not bid beyond two of your initial major in a 2/1 auction without extras) seems not to be well-documented, I have heard a number of expert players comment that this is the right way to bid (both in SAYC and even in 2/1).

While it's not at all obvious that 3♥ by responder should be forcing, it follows from the fact that SAYC limit raises do not promise four trumps that this should not be a "three-card limit raise." And since the 2♥ rebid doesn't really suggest six trumps, the 3♥ bid should not be "two-card limit raise" either.

On the example hand I would rebid 3♣. My 2♣ call promised only four after all, and I have six. I'm not eager to commit to a possible 5-2 heart fit or to notrump with no spade stopper. Partner will know what to do over 3♣.

[vuroth]

I guess that makes for a tough answer to 1H holding something like

♠432
♥Q7
♦A76
♣KQ52

I guess you have to choose between underbidding 1NT now and bidding 2NT over 2♣ - 2♥?

(With 4/4 in the minors and no spade stop, you'd answer 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ over 2♥.)

Obviously every system has in-between problem hands. Fair enough. Always helps to know what they are I guess.

Thanks.

V

[jtfanclub]

vuroth, on Apr 7 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

I guess that makes for a tough answer to 1H holding something like

♠432
♥Q7
♦A76
♣KQ52

I guess you have to choose between underbidding 1NT now and bidding 2NT over 2♣ - 2♥?

(With 4/4 in the minors and no spade stop, you'd answer 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ over 2♥.)

Obviously every system has in-between problem hands. Fair enough. Always helps to know what they are I guess.

Thanks.

V

I am used to 3♥ showing a hand with an honor doubleton and fear of one of the unbid suits. Since we've already 'slow-bid' the hand, it's not like they're not going to figure this one out. The hand you have here is an OK example, if the 13th card is the ace of clubs.

432
Q7
A76
AKQ52

Yes, it's certainly possible that we'll end up at 3♥ in a 5-2 fit. Sucks to be me. Sucks less than ending up in game with no fit and no spade stopper. Sucks less than bidding 3NT over 1♥ and letting partner stew for five minutes while he tries to decide what to do with KJxxxx.

[awm]

Well there are a few points here:

(1) Slam interested hands with a heart fit are much more common than non-game-forcing hands with specifically Hx hearts and a weak side suit. If 3♥ is NF then it becomes really hard to bid these hands (I suppose you bid 4th suit force but then your heart rebid is at the game level).

(2) Even if raising to 3♥ showed Hx and a weak side suit, how does opener know which suit this is? Why is 3♥ likely to be a good partial if opener has a minimum with five hearts?

(3) When you have a balanced hand, at some point it makes sense to show a balanced hand, rather than making up suit fits. Sometimes partner has xxx spades opposite your xxx spades and 3NT rolls when the suit if 4-3 (suits with seven cards out usually break 4-3). Sometimes opponents don't find the lead. Sometimes partner has four good spades and just wasn't strong enough to reverse. And if we're going to game, partner has room to pattern out, he doesn't have to just bid 3NT like a robot.

[jillybean]

Oh oh Im thinking

1♥:2♣
2♥:3♥ is gf, slam interest asking partner to cue.

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Apr 7 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Oh oh Im thinking

1♥:2♣
2♥:3♥ is gf, slam interest asking partner to cue.

This is how I would play it (and I think this is SAYC).

[P_Marlowe]

vuroth, on Apr 7 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

I guess that makes for a tough answer to 1H holding something like

♠432
♥Q7
♦A76
♣KQ52

I guess you have to choose between underbidding 1NT now and bidding 2NT over 2♣ - 2♥?

(With 4/4 in the minors and no spade stop, you'd answer 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ over 2♥.)

Obviously every system has in-between problem hands.  Fair enough.  Always helps to know what they are I guess.

Thanks.

V

2NT, showing 11-12HCP.

Your are bal., show it.

If you cant bid direct 2 NT over 1H, since this would
show a bal. hand with 13-15 and force the partnership
to game,you have to use a slower route.

In the given sequence you deny a 4 card spade suit, i.e.
if partner has a spade shortage and is worried about
spades, he can still suggest a heart game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Back to the original question - if your side has at
least 23HCP and a fit in a mayor bid game, it is as simple
as that. 23 HCP you will have, if your openings are fairly
sound (SAYC is a sound opening system) and if your 2/1
responses have a certain min. strength, e.g. they promise
another rebid, as is the case in SAYC.
If you dont want to play 3H as forcing, than give up the
agreement that a 2/1 response promises another bid.

[vuroth]

Thanks, folks. It all makes a little bit more sense to me now.

V

[Stephen Tu]

I really don't think one can definitively infer from the SAYC booklet that 1h-2c-2h-3h is defined as forcing. That's a reasonable assertion if your claim is that SAYC is a coherently constructed system that's supposed to "make sense". But to me there is plenty of evidence in the treatments used that it is not, that it instead is a semi-random collection of somewhat popular agreements, and that one is supposed to use generic knowledge of traditional SA when something isn't specified. Although the booklet states that a direct limit raise only promises 3 trumps, there is no wording in there that it is mandatory with 3 trumps either.

And in traditional SA, 1h-2c-2h-3h was definitely non-forcing. I think the people who think it's forcing in SAYC are projecting their own feelings of what a properly constructed system ought to be in a established partnership rather than what can be rightfully assumed when it's a pickup partnership where both players have only the booklet to use as reference.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

Well there are a few points here:

(1) Slam interested hands with a heart fit are much more common than non-game-forcing hands with specifically Hx hearts and a weak side suit.

Yes, but they bid 2NT the first time. As far as I know, Jacoby 2NT does not require 4 card support in SAYC, just as limit raises do not. So all hands interested in a heart slam go through Jacoby.

[TylerE]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 8 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

2NT, showing 11-12HCP.

Your are bal., show it.

Except that 1♥ - 2NT in SAYC is Jacoby.

[neilkaz]

jtfanclub, on Apr 8 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

Well there are a few points here:

(1) Slam interested hands with a heart fit are much more common than non-game-forcing hands with specifically Hx hearts and a weak side suit.

Yes, but they bid 2NT the first time. As far as I know, Jacoby 2NT does not require 4 card support in SAYC, just as limit raises do not. So all hands interested in a heart slam go through Jacoby.

My understanding is that J2NT does require 4 card support in SAYC, but I won't claim to be certain.

This is many other vague understandings are a major reason why I MUCH prefer to play 2/1 GF.

[awm]

neilkaz, on Apr 8 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

This is many other vague understandings are a major reason why I MUCH prefer to play 2/1 GF.

I am not so convinced of this. If you sit down and agree "2/1 GF" then:

(1) Is 1m-2m inverted or natural? What is your forcing minor raise?
(2) Does 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♣ show a weak or invitational hand?
(3) How about 1♠-1NT-2♠-3m?
(4) Do single raises promise constructive values, or no?
(5) What do jump shifts mean?
(6) Does 1♠-2♦-3♣ promise extra values? Extra shape? Neither?
(7) How about 1♠-2♦-3♦? Or 1♥-2♦-2♠?
(8) Do you bid "up the line" over 1♣ or bypass diamonds to bid a four-card major?
(9) If you hold 4522 shape and it goes 1♥-1NT, do you rebid 2♣? Or 2♥?

Obviously you can discuss/answer all these things, but I think any system where you just sit down and agree to a name is woefully under-specified. Note that all of the above "issues" either do not exist in SAYC, or are clarified by the SAYC booklet.

[vuroth]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 8 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Although the booklet states that a direct limit raise only promises 3 trumps, there is no wording in there that it is mandatory with 3 trumps either.

The bottom line is that you want all of your ways of showing heart support to show DIFFERENT things. 1♥-3♥ and 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♥ should be different. Furthermore, each bid should be the most logical and natural that it can be, within the constraints of SAYC.

I don't think that the existence of a general consensus based on logic is unreasonable. Yes, the rules presented here are likely open to partnership agreement, but I'm personally satisfied by the logic presented here so far.

In the end, all "natural bidding" really is is bidding what is most logical and reasonable, within the confines of the system. The challenge and joy of bridge bidding is that sooner or later someone is going to use a sequence you've never bid before. Having the ability to reason out the most sensible interpretation and arriving at the same answer as your partner, absent a specific agreement, is going to be what's important.

0.02

V

[P_Marlowe]

TylerE, on Apr 8 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 8 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

2NT, showing 11-12HCP.

Your are bal., show it.

Except that 1♥ - 2NT in SAYC is Jacoby.

First of all, in my post, the responders 2NT bid occurred in
the 2nd round of bidding.
Second, Jacoby 2NT is not part of SAYC, ... but according to
http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf
you are right.
But playing Jacoby 2NT would just mean, that you cant bid 2NT direct,
i.e. you would need to go a slower route to show the 11-12 bal. hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe