[ehhh]

Sorry been awhile and 4got the diagram

Given the hands and opening bidding, how do you get to 4♥ using 2/1?
What would the auction be if you were using full SAYC?
Is one system easier to get to 4♥ than the other?

Please, discus hands from an advanced player's perspective.

---

[nige1]

ehhh "Sorry been awhile and 4got the diagram
Given the hands and opening bidding, how do you get to 4♥ using 2/1?
What would the auction be if you were using full SAYC?
Is one system easier to get to 4♥ than the other?
Please, discus hands from an advanced player's perspective."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don;t know how a good SAYC or 2/1 pair would tackle this.
IMO, 2♦ is the likely final contract but, on a very good day,
a non-expert pair might fluke the auction on the left.

---

[thomas c]

i woujld prob get to 4h . but i am a really aggressive bidder . the north hand is better than the south hand (6 losers vs 7 losers). i would respond 2h with the north hand. i know
many will not agree but hey nothing works all the time and i like dist hands.

[steve2005]

Will someone tell me how "Full SAYC" is different from "SAYC"?

[billyjef]

 steve2005, on 2019-February-13, 20:11, said:

Will someone tell me how "Full SAYC" is different from "SAYC"?

My memory is that there are a lot of agreements that are in/on the "official" ACBL Card or booklet, that most don't play. i.e. convention wise: 4th Suit Forcing, Jordan 2NT, even Jacoby 2nt..also agreements like new suits at the 1 level are forcing after an opponents TOX, but not at the two level...etc. Last I played it, almost 2 decades now, I felt I had to be specific as to what manner of SAYC I was playing and I'm sure I would often ask if someone played "full" SAYC; meaning have you read the booklet and play everything it recommends.

[billyjef]

 thomas c, on 2019-February-13, 17:50, said:

i woujld prob get to 4h . but i am a really aggressive bidder . the north hand is better than the south hand (6 losers vs 7 losers). i would respond 2h with the north hand. i know
many will not agree but hey nothing works all the time and i like dist hands.

I think the hand is worth a 2/1 GF bid and bidding 2H is probably more efficient than bidding the primary diamond suit first...although there is the danger being that partner will never believe my diamonds are longer than my hearts, especially if pd ends up being very distributional in the black suits. C'est la vie.

[msjennifer]

Sir,IMPOSSIBLE WITH THE GIVEN RESTRICTIONS. But very EASY on seeing both hands .Just bid 2D and then bid and rebid Hearts.!!!

[rmnka447]

The North hand is a big playing hand -- 6 losers. For Bergen fans, it would qualify as Rule of 20 opener. The problem is that over 1 ♠, the probability of a misfit looms large. Additionally, if you decide to treat this as a good hand and make a 2 over 1 response, your initial bid should be 2 ♥ instead of 2 ♦. Although this hand is a player, it is not good enough to bid 2 ♦ and later reverse into ♥. So you treat the ♦ like a 5 card suit and bid ♥ first.

In SAYC, where a 2 over 1 response promises no more than a 10 count, you can make a 2 ♥ response. It happens to strike gold when opener raises to 3 ♥ and then the North hand bids game.

In 2/1, it is less clear. Despite the playing nature of the North hand, many 2/1 players will have a problem making a presumably game forcing response whether playing 2/1 as an absolute game force or as a game force except when the 2 response suit is rebid by responder. For these folks, then, the proper response would be a forcing 1 NT.

However, there are some pairs that will accept a shaded 2 ♥ response. Those pairs who choose to respond with a shaded 2 ♥ response, like the SAYC players, strike gold when opener raises to 3 ♥. Of course, some of the pairs allowing a shaded 2 ♥ response might just choose to bid a forcing NT too because of the potential misfit.

Unfortunately, I think it's nearly impossible to reach 4 ♥ once a forcing NT is bid. After

1 ♠ - 1 NT
2 ♣ - ?

2 level bids below 2 NT suggest 8 or less value, length in the suit bid, and likely no more than a stiff ♠. 3 level bids suggest about 10-11 and a long suit (6+). To these 3 bids, opener only pushes on if holding hands toward the top end of hand making standard responses to the forcing NT -- 15-16, possibly a really great 14.

I'd probably bid 3 ♦ over 2 ♣ and it would be passed out.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

this is one of those hands, that showes, that shading opening requirements
comes with a cost.
If you open regular light than you cannot respond light, if you do this anyway,
bidding becomes a guessing game.

Back to the original question: I think reaching 4H with the given hands is easier,
when a 2/1 is not forcing to game, but if you start with your shorter suit, your plan
is to show the 2nd suit at the 3 level, which means you are forcing to game anyway.

A possible seq., I could construct may be

1S - 1NT
2C - 2D

and now 2H by North as some kind of fragment, if it is a fragment, which is not clear at all (*).
But why should South go that route? 2D is a 6 carder, South has a Queen in the suit
and has a min opener.

(*) Basically Nige1's auction, but given the question marks regarding 2H, I would doubt, that
an advanced pair would have this auction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[etha]

I gave it Jack for an unbiased answer. He played both in diamonds. Even in sayc he didn't think north was worth anything but 1nt.

[maartenxq]

I do not consider myself an aggressive bidder, but with responders hand I bid 2 ♦ and then ♥reverse up to 4 ♥.

Maarten Baltussen

[fromageGB]

Depending on how you play 2/1, particularly these two issues :
1) is 1NT forcing or not ?
2) after a forcing NT is a new suit at the 3-level invitational or weak ?
it can go
1♠ - 1NT(forcing)
2♣(partial suit, not strong) - 3♦(invitational)
3♥(stopper, not wanting to play in diamonds but not wanting to commit to 3NT (ie happy to pass 3♠) - 4♥

or Nige1's sequence if not invitational. I don't think his comment about non-expertise is valid.

My perspective as opener is that this is a solid open.
My perspective as responder is that the hand is too good and non-fitting to subside in 1♠ or 2♣, and I will be intending to take 2/3NT out to diamonds.

As I actually play a form of Gazzilli I do not rebid 2♣ but 2♦(artificial 12-14), and then as responder I will rebid 3♦ if I am in a good mood, or pass if feeling subdued.

[barmar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-February-14, 01:17, said:

In 2/1, it is less clear. Despite the playing nature of the North hand, many 2/1 players will have a problem making a presumably game forcing response whether playing 2/1 as an absolute game force or as a game force except when the 2 response suit is rebid by responder. For these folks, then, the proper response would be a forcing 1 NT.

I don't have much experience with the "unless suit is rebid" style, but my understanding is that it only applies if the 2/1 is in a minor. 1♠-2♥ is always game forcing, so opener can bid a fast-arrival 4♥ with a minimum and support.

[rmnka447]

 fromageGB, on 2019-February-14, 07:55, said:

Depending on how you play 2/1, particularly these two issues :
1) is 1NT forcing or not ?
2) after a forcing NT is a new suit at the 3-level invitational or weak ?
it can go
1♠ - 1NT(forcing)
2♣(partial suit, not strong) - 3♦(invitational)
3♥(stopper, not wanting to play in diamonds but not wanting to commit to 3NT (ie happy to pass 3♠) - 4♥

or Nige1's sequence if not invitational. I don't think his comment about non-expertise is valid.

My perspective as opener is that this is a solid open.
My perspective as responder is that the hand is too good and non-fitting to subside in 1♠ or 2♣, and I will be intending to take 2/3NT out to diamonds.

As I actually play a form of Gazzilli I do not rebid 2♣ but 2♦(artificial 12-14), and then as responder I will rebid 3♦ if I am in a good mood, or pass if feeling subdued.

1) Some folks play 1 NT is always forcing. Some play it forcing by an unpassed hand, but semi-forcing by a passed hand. Some play it as semi-forcing throughout. BWS (Bridge World Standard) espouses the latter -- always semi-forcing. Semi-forcing is defined as allowing opener to pass with a very minimum balanced/semi-balanced hand (5332,5422), but forced to bid on with hands that would go on if responder showed an invitational hand.

2) Jumps to a 3 level suit show invitational hands with length in the suit bid. A non-jump 3 level shows length in the suit bid, but not necessarily invitational values

1 ♠ - 1 NT
2 ♣ - 3 ♦ -> invitational with length

1 ♠ - 1 NT
2 ♦ - 3 ♣ -> length not necessarily invitational

All 2 level rebids by responder below 2 NT are weak and signoffs.

[rmnka447]

 barmar, on 2019-February-14, 09:48, said:

I don't have much experience with the "unless suit is rebid" style, but my understanding is that it only applies if the 2/1 is in a minor. 1♠-2♥ is always game forcing, so opener can bid a fast-arrival 4♥ with a minimum and support.

It is subject to partnership agreement. So,

1 ♠ - 2 ♥
2 ♠ - 3 ♥ (2 ♠= minimum not necessarily 6+)

could be passable if agreed. The hands that you follow this tack with are one's with a good suit be not quite enough for a game force. Something like ♠ x ♥ KQ109xx ♦ AJx ♣xxx. With something like ♠ x ♥ K108xxx ♦ AJx ♣ Qxx, you'd bid 1 NT not 2 ♥.

Both always forcing to game and non-forcing to game if suit rebid work fairly well. But each has its own quirks. Absolute force has difficulty with the example 2 ♥ response type hand above. Non-force with suit rebid has to sometimes manufacture a rebid with a game forcing hand with a lengthy good suit as simply rebidding the suit is passable. Pick your poison.

[crasshackr]

 billyjef, on 2019-February-13, 22:19, said:

My memory is that there are a lot of agreements that are in/on the "official" ACBL Card or booklet, that most don't play. i.e. convention wise: 4th Suit Forcing, Jordan 2NT, even Jacoby 2nt..also agreements like new suits at the 1 level are forcing after an opponents TOX, but not at the two level...etc. Last I played it, almost 2 decades now, I felt I had to be specific as to what manner of SAYC I was playing and I'm sure I would often ask if someone played "full" SAYC; meaning have you read the booklet and play everything it recommends.

I'm not really sure that there's an "official" SAYC standard, but the book "Standard Bidding with SAYC" tries to pull together from various sources to give a fairly good definition of what's included and what's not. It's a book I definitely recommend highly in any case.

[miamijd]

In general, 2/1 is far superior to SAYC. But every bidding system has hands that it doesn't handle effectively, and these sorts of hands are ones where 2/1 doesn't fare so well.

With SAYC, you just bid 2H over 1S and end up in 4H. Simple.

In 2/1, you pretty much have to bid 1NT forcing over 1S. Partner bids 2C, and now you have a number of bids available, none of which are particularly appetizing:

1. 2D: an underbid, but likely to make
2. 2H: also an underbid, and a pure MP bid (in IMPs, 2D is probably better). Here you will languish in 2H
3. 2NT: Not as insane as it seems. With a 10-count, you pretty much have to bid 2NT, and you basically have that and more -- if partner has some red cards. Partner will pass, and 2NT is touch and go. But give partner one more point (say the Qc instead of the Jc), and he'll pattern out with 3H.
4. 3D: This depends on what this bid means. If you play Bergen, SJS, or WJS, then 3D at your second turn shows 10-11 with six diamonds. That's about what you have. Given the apparent misfit, partner will probably pass.

On the other hand, some play 3C, 3D, and 3H over 1S as 6+ with a good 10 to a bad 12 or so. If that's your style, then 3D here probably ought to show a 10-11 two-suited hand, either diamonds/clubs or diamonds/hearts. What else could it logically show? Partner bids 3H, and you strike gold.

5. 3H: This depends on what 1S-3H means. If that's 6+ and 11 or so, then 3H now ought to be this sort of hand -- 5H, good hand but not good enough for 2/1, and two-suited with H and a minor, most likely the unbid minor (if you had a relatively balanced hand, you'd bid 2NT and hope partner was strong enough to pattern out with 3H).

If 3H over 1S is something else (strong, weak, or Bergen), then 3H now is right on strength, but you are missing a heart. Maybe not such a big deal.

I generally play Bergen, with 3H over 1S being 11 or so 6+H. So I guess I would probably hold my nose and bid 3H at my second turn. Here, that works well.

But it ain't easy!

Cheers,
Mike

[Stephen Tu]

 miamijd, on 2019-February-14, 20:34, said:

In general, 2/1 is far superior to SAYC. But every bidding system has hands that it doesn't handle effectively, and these sorts of hands are ones where 2/1 doesn't fare so well.

With SAYC, you just bid 2H over 1S and end up in 4H. Simple.

??? I really don't see this at all. What's your plan if partner doesn't raise hearts? Aren't you going to bid diamonds next and end up in game anyway? I don't see any real added safety in bidding 2H under SAYC conditions because you don't really have any practical NF rebid the next round. So to me you might as well start with diamonds if going to be optimistic to get the suit lengths right. Your 2/1 in SAYC is just as FG as it would be in 2/1, since you aren't going to rebid 2nt (or are you???) or 3h next when partner bids 2S.

To me it's just basically whether you are optimistic or pessimistic about finding a good enough fit or not, then you take either the high road or the low road, the high road getting to your red suit games, sometimes 4S if partner insists, but also getting to some hopeless contracts. The low road, you miss 4H unless partner has 4of them, but you are more likely to make a diamond partial. What works best on average probably requires simulation.
If one bids 1nt followed by diamonds, I think it's ludicrous for opener to bid heart fragment over this as some posters suggest. You don't want to be in game, you want to play in diamonds, partner has diamond 1 suiter a bazillion times more frequently than they are 5-6 in the reds. This kind of bidding requires some sort of cheating mechanism.

[msjennifer]

Sir,I am writing this just as a by pass.Playing PRECISION South opens 1S 11/15 5+spades.North bids 2D not 2H(opener can bid bid 2H if he has 4+H) South bids 2S denying 15 HcP.North bids 3H showing 5 carder heart suit.(it has too be 5 Carder as opener has already denied a 4 carder Heart suit) and by inference 6card D suit..This allows opener to decide the final contract.Given the present hand I ,personally ,feel that South will raise to 4H.Of course South can have altogether different hand but that is beyond any discussion in this particular post.

[miamijd]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-February-14, 22:18, said:

??? I really don't see this at all. What's your plan if partner doesn't raise hearts? Aren't you going to bid diamonds next and end up in game anyway? I don't see any real added safety in bidding 2H under SAYC conditions because you don't really have any practical NF rebid the next round. So to me you might as well start with diamonds if going to be optimistic to get the suit lengths right. Your 2/1 in SAYC is just as FG as it would be in 2/1, since you aren't going to rebid 2nt (or are you???) or 3h next when partner bids 2S.

To me it's just basically whether you are optimistic or pessimistic about finding a good enough fit or not, then you take either the high road or the low road, the high road getting to your red suit games, sometimes 4S if partner insists, but also getting to some hopeless contracts. The low road, you miss 4H unless partner has 4of them, but you are more likely to make a diamond partial. What works best on average probably requires simulation.
If one bids 1nt followed by diamonds, I think it's ludicrous for opener to bid heart fragment over this as some posters suggest. You don't want to be in game, you want to play in diamonds, partner has diamond 1 suiter a bazillion times more frequently than they are 5-6 in the reds. This kind of bidding requires some sort of cheating mechanism.

You're probably right about 2H; 2D followed by 3D (unless partner surprises us) is a better strategy. I haven't played SAYC in probably 30 years at least; it shows, eh?

Cheers,
mike