[hanp]

I was also thinking about 5H, but I was reluctant to respond as I don't know the system. Did 3H show extras? Did 4C show a good hand? Did 4C deny spade length or a spade control?

I don't think of 5H as an asking bid in this auction btw, I think it is a slam try without a spade control.

[pooltuna]

hanp, on Aug 25 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

I was also thinking about 5H, but I was reluctant to respond as I don't know the system. Did 3H show extras? Did 4C show a good hand? Did 4C deny spade length or a spade control?

I don't think of 5H as an asking bid in this auction btw, I think it is a slam try without a spade control.

and 4♠ would be a ♠ control asking about ♥ quality?

[hanp]

4NT asks about aces and heart quality.

[jillybean]

Han there is are no special agreements it's a p/u partner.
So I would say, 3♥ does not show extra's, 4♣ denies ♠ length but is silent
as to ♠ control.

[manudude03]

I would bid 5D, should say you have a very good hand for the bidding and lack a spade control.

[jillybean]

Would anyone pass?

[hanp]

jillybean, on Aug 25 2010, 11:52 AM, said:

Han there is are no special agreements it's a p/u partner.

Yeah I understood, but I have never played standard so I don't know what to expect. I have learned from awm that 1S - 2H - 3H is forcing, but I don't know what the consequences are.

But anyway, our hand is pretty good, especially if partner really showed slam interest with 4C. If we are going to bid on then 5H seems best, but 5D is also possible. In my opinion neither is an asking bid.

[neilkaz]

jillybean, on Aug 25 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

Would anyone pass?

I am thinking about passing but may want one last crack to try for slam, but note that partner has made a slam try with 4♣ but then can olnly bid 4♥ after I cooperate with 4♦.

Obviously ♠ is the problem but it seems unlikely that we can't take 11 tricks in ♥ if we have no slam.

Tough call to me.

[ArtK78]

Did anyone notice that the partnership claims to be bidding "Standard" and yet opener, with KQJxx of hearts, rebid 3♥ over partner's 2/1 in hearts. Unless I am mistaken, 3♥ is nonforcing.

Unless 2♥ is game forcing, opener should rebid 4♥. Now, if there is a slam, it is partner's obligation to move on.

[hanp]

That's what I get for trusting awm, now it turns out that 3H is NF! I am so glad that I don't play a system where 1S - 2H - 3H is NF, it seems impossible to me.

[jillybean]

hanp, on Aug 25 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

That's what I get for trusting awm, now it turns out that 3H is NF! I am so glad that I don't play a system where 1S - 2H - 3H is NF, it seems impossible to me.

Me too but it was either play std or not play at all, it was my first time using the partnership desk at a tournament and it is extremely difficult to get a partner when you have 50 monster points.

Anyway, I won't prolong the agony.

I was sitting at the other side of the table holding void, AT762,K72,AKQT7

1♠:2♥
3♥:4♣
4♦: should I make a move here?

I will post more hand later, for now I must get some lunch before the afternoon/evening sessions with my regular partner,

[neilkaz]

jillybean, on Aug 25 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

hanp, on Aug 25 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

That's what I get for trusting awm, now it turns out that 3H is NF! I am so glad that I don't play a system where 1S - 2H - 3H is NF, it seems impossible to me.

Me too but it was either play std or not play at all, it was my first time using the partnership desk at a tournament and it is extremely difficult to get a partner when you have 50 monster points.

Anyway, I won't prolong the agony.

I was sitting at the other side of the table holding void, AT762,K72,AKQT7

1♠:2♥
3♥:4♣
4♦: should I make a move here?

I will post more hand later, for now I must get some lunch before the afternoon/evening sessions with my regular partner,

For sure I'd move and if I was given only 1 call it would be 6♥.

As for how to proceed I trust partner won't think 4♠ now is to play, but if you fear he does, you can bid 5♣

[ArtK78]

The reason that 3♥ is nonforcing in Standard is that the 2♥ bid only promised 5 hearts and 10 HCP. 2♥ is a one-round force, but the raise to 3♥ just shows a minimum opening bid with heart support. So responder could pass.

That is why the hand given - xxxxx KQJxx A Jx - is too good to bid only 3♥.

[ArtK78]

Deleted.

[hanp]

ArtK78, on Aug 25 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

The reason that 3♥ is nonforcing in Standard is that the 2♥ bid only promised 5 hearts and 10 HCP.  2♥ is a one-round force, but the raise to 3♥ just shows a minimum opening bid with heart support.  So responder could pass.

I understand that 2H can be a 10-count but I would still prefer 3H to be forcing. I understand that that would sometimes get me too high when we find a major suit fit after a 2/1 auction, I can live with that. I cannot live without a forcing way to raise hearts. Playing 2/1 forcing for one round I would still choose to play that 1S - 2m - 2H - 3H is forcing.

I thought SAYC defined it as forcing as it does with 1M - 2m - 3m, but I am sure that you know better than I do. SAYC might also not be standard.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Aug 25 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

Did anyone notice that the partnership claims to be bidding "Standard" and yet opener, with KQJxx of hearts, rebid 3♥ over partner's 2/1 in hearts. Unless I am mistaken, 3♥ is nonforcing.

Unless 2♥ is game forcing, opener should rebid 4♥. Now, if there is a slam, it is partner's obligation to move on.

I in turn may be mistaken, but my (old and dated) understanding of SA is that 3♥ was forcing. Maybe acolytes can pass, but not north americans

[ArtK78]

The SAYC system book states that responder promises another bid after a 2/1 response.

On the other hand, the SAYC system book also states that opener, with a minimum hand, can make a simple raise of responder's bid.

There are no examples of the sequence 1♠-2♥ in the SAYC system book. In fact, while there is a complete list of actions over a 1♥ opening bid, there is virtually nothing mentioned about actions over a 1♠ opening bid except to state that the actions are similar. Obviously, 1♠-2♥ is an exception to that.

As you correctly point out, SAYC is not "Standard." By "Standard," I mean what was once known as Goren, except with 5 card majors. I know that when I first learned the game, back in the early 70s, the sequence 1♠-2♥-3♥ was not forcing since the partnership did not guarantee 26 HCP - opener guaranteed 13 HCP and responder guaranteed 10 HCP. Therefore, it could not be forcing.

Whether it should be forcing is an entirely different argument. That would require opener to bid something else (probably 2♠) on a minimum hand with 3 card heart support. That is fine, but it is not 1970s style "Standard." It is more current style 2/1 where any direct raise of responder's suit to the three level promises extras.

[awm]

As others have mentioned, there is a difference between "standard" and "SAYC."

SAYC is specific that a 2/1 call promises a rebid unless opener's second call is at the game level. Thus 1♠-2♥-3♥ is forcing in SAYC, as is 1M-2m-3m, as is 1♠-2♥-2NT.

It's true that SAYC also says that a minimum opener can rebid notrump or raise responder's suit, which seems to contradict the above. However, it's somewhat implicit that this particular part of the notes refers to rebids after one-level responses, and every single example in the (rather long) recent book on SAYC in this instances involves a one-level response.

The SAYC style is that in 2/1 auctions, minimum opening hands should not rebid above two of opener's original suit. That makes the suit rebid a "catch-all" that could be on many minimum hands; it's forcing one round, but in many cases responder's next call (and/or opener's next call) will not be forcing. So with a bad opening hand you bid 1♠-2♥-2♠-something-3♥, and 3♥ is non-forcing unless responder has extras.

"Standard" is more nebulous, but the main rule seems to be that if "non-forcing" is at all a possible interpretation, then the call is non-forcing. Thus 1M-2m-3m and 1♠-2♥-3♥ are non-forcing, 1M-2x-2NT is non-forcing, 1M-2x-2M might even be non-forcing. I agree that "standard" is not particularly playable, whereas SAYC is a workable system (although much better with a few additions/modifications like new minor force and a forcing minor suit raise).