[MarcusJ649]

Hello:

This is my first post so not sure if I am asking in the correct fashion or of this is the correct forum for me to ask in.

If a bridge partners (NS) are playing SAYC then what does the following bidding sequence indicate in terms of shape and points for NS? North is dealer.

North East So West
Pass Pass 1D Pass
2H

If I am South what point ranges can I assume for North? Is 2H forcing for another round?

My Interpretation is that
1. South must 12+ points and no 5 card major to open 1D.
2. North has 5+ hearts and does not have opening points but obviously more than minimum 6 points required to bid.

Feedback much appreciated.

[smerriman]

This sequence (along with many others) is not defined in SAYC, so it's not something you should ever bid unless you have an agreement.

Probably the best agreement would be to make it a support jump shift - showing invitational values with 5 hearts AND support for diamonds, which can be hard to show if you start with 1♥.

[MarcusJ649]

 smerriman, on 2021-December-09, 20:37, said:

This sequence (along with many others) is not defined in SAYC, so it's not something you should ever bid unless you have an agreement.

Probably the best agreement would be to make it a support jump shift - showing invitational values with 5 hearts AND support for diamonds, which can be hard to show if you start with 1♥.

Thank you for your reply! I learned something today :-)

[morecharac]

 MarcusJ649, on 2021-December-09, 20:15, said:

If a bridge partners (NS) are playing SAYC then what does the following bidding sequence indicate in terms of shape and points for NS? North is dealer.

North East So West
Pass Pass 1D Pass
2H

What makes sense to me would be North having a tweener, something like 11 HCP and six hearts and an unwillingness to open light in first or second seat.

Maybe it's a 2=6=2=3 quack with poorly placed honours or someone who's had weak jump shifts drilled into them by a poor teacher.

[blackshoe]

 smerriman, on 2021-December-09, 20:37, said:

This sequence (along with many others) is not defined in SAYC, so it's not something you should ever bid unless you have an agreement.

Agree 100%.

 smerriman, on 2021-December-09, 20:37, said:

Probably the best agreement would be to make it a support jump shift - showing invitational values with 5 hearts AND support for diamonds, which can be hard to show if you start with 1♥.

Technically, if you agree something that is not defined in SAYC, you are not playing SAYC and probably shouldn't say that you are.

[P_Marlowe]

 morecharac, on 2021-December-10, 00:33, said:

What makes sense to me would be North having a tweener, something like 11 HCP and six hearts and an unwillingness to open light in first or second seat.

Maybe it's a 2=6=2=3 quack with poorly placed honours or someone who's had weak jump shifts drilled into them by a poor teacher.

And why do would you not bid 1H, followed by 2H?
Which would be the SAYC way of bidding those hands.

[P_Marlowe]

 MarcusJ649, on 2021-December-09, 21:55, said:

Thank you for your reply! I learned something today :-)

The important thing is, never jump into a new suit, unless you know, what it means.
Playing 2H as fit showing is certainly a good way, but the alternative way of bidding those hands,
would be bid 1H, intending to show the diamond support later.
This way you wont show the 5th heart, but if partner has 3 card support and add. values, he will show
the 3 carder.

[steve2005]

 P_Marlowe, on 2021-December-10, 02:09, said:

The important thing is, never jump into a new suit, unless you know, what it means.
Playing 2H as fit showing is certainly a good way, but the alternative way of bidding those hands,
would be bid 1H, intending to show the diamond support later.

The problem is you are a passed hand so 1♥ is not forcing. So you may end up playing in 1♥ when game is possible or when diamonds is a better contract.

By jumping to 2♥ you are saying you have hearts and a fit for diamonds. (plus a near maximum for an unpassed hand) Also, you now value your hand higher (perhaps even worth opening values) because of the diamond fit.

This may enable your partner to bid game (or look for slam) when they wouldn't even be thinking of such lofty goals opposite a passed hand!

The book Precision bidding in Acol by Eric Crowhurst suggests this meaning.

[Cyberyeti]

The alternative is that you have a hand too weak for a 2♥ (or 3♥) opener and want to end the auction in 2♥ instead of 1♦ xxx, KJ109xx, x, xxx for example or 7 to the Q and out (I prefer the fit jump, but wouldn't be surprised if partner had the WJS

[steve2005]

 blackshoe, on 2021-December-10, 01:16, said:

Technically, if you agree something that is not defined in SAYC, you are not playing SAYC and probably shouldn't say that you are.

Technically SYAC uses strong jump shifts.
Obviously you can not have that hand. So you are giving a meaning to an impossible bid.

[Winstonm]

Back in the early 1970s - before SAYC was formalized - this sequence was common and was used to show a maximum pass and a 5-card suit or longer. Non-forcing.

I don’t know the official stance on sayc though.

[P_Marlowe]

 steve2005, on 2021-December-10, 05:56, said:

The problem is you are a passed hand so 1♥ is not forcing. So you may end up playing in 1♥ when game is possible or when diamonds is a better contract.

By jumping to 2♥ you are saying you have hearts and a fit for diamonds. (plus a near maximum for an unpassed hand) Also, you now value your hand higher (perhaps even worth opening values) because of the diamond fit.

This may enable your partner to bid game (or look for slam) when they wouldn't even be thinking of such lofty goals opposite a passed hand!

The book Precision bidding in Acol by Eric Crowhurst suggests this meaning.

Yes, ...,
#1 we are in the B/I section, I am open to be convinced otherwise, but support jumpshifts are not something I would consider
to be part a B/I agreement set
#2 If someone is B/I and plays SAYC (whatever this means), suggesting to take a look into Crowhurst Acol book,
is certainly helpful, if the target is to increase confusion
#3 And for that matter, if partner passes 1H in a B/I partnership, I would not be worried about missing game / slam,
maybe diamonds plays better, but you need an add. trick, it will be a level higher

I could go on.

[P_Marlowe]

 steve2005, on 2021-December-10, 07:27, said:

Technically SYAC uses strong jump shifts.
Obviously you can not have that hand. So you are giving a meaning to an impossible bid.

This is certainly sensible, ..., but only when you a firm grip of the basics .
If you are still struggling with the bascis: impossible bid should mean, the bid does not exist.

[pilowsky]

If I showed up to a game in Australia and didn't have an agreement then 1minor- pass - 2 major would usually mean a very weak hand with 6+ major.

Here, partner is a passed hand so I assume they have even less than enough for a preempt.

[thepossum]

 MarcusJ649, on 2021-December-09, 20:15, said:

Hello:

This is my first post so not sure if I am asking in the correct fashion or of this is the correct forum for me to ask in.

I don't believe there is a correct fashion for a question and if in doubt this forum seems to be the right place

To me (in my ignorance) 2H over 1D means game plus. I have a good hand and hearts - oops sorry just noticed a passed hand - not concentrating
I don't know what it means. Maybe an error or a variant on Drury

[DavidKok]

 pilowsky, on 2021-December-10, 23:59, said:

If I showed up to a game in Australia and didn't have an agreement then 1minor- pass - 2 major would usually mean a very weak hand with 6+ major.

Here, partner is a passed hand so I assume they have even less than enough for a preempt.

This is a very playable agreement, and in fact how I play it (though rather than 'less than enough' it would be 'a hand not suitable for' - for example too much outside defence). But as others have pointed out this is not a standard agreement in SAYC, as far as I know (and therefore also not something to insist upon when still learning the system).

I would not be surprised if more experienced American pairs played Reverse Flannery in this situation, but standard the bid is ill-defined.

[pilowsky]

 DavidKok, on 2021-December-11, 03:42, said:

This is a very playable agreement, and in fact how I play it (though rather than 'less than enough' it would be 'a hand not suitable for' - for example too much outside defence). But as others have pointed out this is not a standard agreement in SAYC, as far as I know (and therefore also not something to insist upon when still learning the system).

I would not be surprised if more experienced American pairs played Reverse Flannery in this situation, but standard the bid is ill-defined.

Here's a link to the ACBL SAYC booklet.
I can't find any mention of it there:
This is pretty much all it says about responses to minor openings:

ACBL booklet said:

RESPONSES TO A 1♣ OR A 1♦ OPENING
A 1♦ opener suggests a four-card or longer suit, since 1♣ is preferred on hands
where a three-card minor suit must be opened. The exception is a hand with 4–4–3–2
shape: four spades, four hearts, three diamonds, and two clubs, which is opened 1♦.
Responses and later bidding generally follow the ideas set down in the previous
section. Bidding at the one level is up-the-line in principle. Responder needs more
support to raise (four to raise 1♦; five to raise 1♣, though one fewer will do in a
pinch in a competitive sequence). Responses of 2NT and 3NT are standard:
1♣ — 2NT = 13–15, game forcing
— 3NT = 16–18
There is no forcing minor-suit raise.

Few self-styled SAYC players (that I've met) follow it to the letter.

I won't quibble about the lexical difference between 'less than enough' and 'a hand not suitable for' - tomato - tomato.
Less than enough simply means 'inadequate' to my way of thinking. Not a specific HCP count or shape specification.

[Gilithin]

The traditional meaning for a jump shift from a passed hand is a fit jump, that is a hand that has improved by having a fit for Opener's suit and also has a decent side suit. It is typically the only way of a passed hand making a forcing call. That said, this is not explicitly defined in SAYC so it is best not to make such a call. If your partner does though, this would be the best suggestion for what it would mean.