[markyears]

Hi everyone, I again have a very simple sayc question but cannot find the answer in books. How can I bid minor suit game in sayc? By game I mean 3nt or 5m, which ever is appropriate.

The materials I've seen always discuss the sequence like 1c-1h, then some major suit involves and nt may appear at some level.

However, raise can also happen. For example, 1c-2c (2c is 6-9/10 I guess in sayc)
or 1c-3c (3c is 10-11/12 limit raise in sayc)
Now how the opener rebid to explore game? I think checking stoppers in other suits is very important but I don't know a correct or an official way to do it.

Please suggest a way according to sayc system if possible. Since I'm such a novice, I really want to stick on sayc for a while.

Thank you!

[jillybean]

I think minor raises are one of the weakest elements of SAYC and caused me a lot of frustration. Minor games are difficult for newer players to bid, I'd often run to an unmakeable 3N rather than bid a minor game or worse, slam. Partners often don't have any agreements other than 1m 2m minimum raise, 1m 3m limit raise and have to fudge a forcing raise by starting with a major and then jumping around to create a force. It's not only newer players who have this problem, I played with a p/u partner the other week who had 1,000+ monster points and did not have a forcing minor raise, it's awful!

I believe the sooner you can switch to some form of gf minor raise and find partners who play it or are willing to play it, the better. Here's what I play and is somewhat standard.

1m 2m 100% game forcing. Responder promises 5+ cards in openers minor and game forcing values.

1m 3om Invitation 9-11 points 5+ cards in openers minor.
1♣:2♦ is invitational in clubs, 1♦:3♣ invitational in diamonds. Note the jump forces opener to the 3 level of their minor.

1m:3m preemptive, 5+ cards in openers minor and 5-8 points.

If partner has opened 1♣ and can have as few 2 clubs, I want 5 very good or 6+ cards to make any of the responses above.
As always, best to talk to partner as there are variations to these.

[CSGibson]

By the way, what Jillybean plays is playable, but is NOT "somewhat standard"; I don't know a single other person who plays 1m-2m as game forcing, most common is invitational+.

Easiest for a beginning player, in my opinion, is to make the following agreements:

A raise of a minor denies a 4+ card major. If you have a 4+ card major, you can always bid it, then support the minor at the appropriate level with an invitation or simple raise hand.

After raising a minor, bids below 3N are stopper-showing, looking for 3N AND implying that you need help from partner to bid 3N. (it is still up to you to evaluate whether your hand is worth advancing beyond your 3m bid, but that is the start of the sequence, anyway). If the help you need is in clubs, and you have bid 1D-3D, then just assume you have them stopped and bid 3N with both major suits stopped, because you will never be able to have partner tell you about his club situation. (and if you say otherwise, I ask you to imagine the sequence 1D-3D, 3H from partner's perspective when he does have clubs stopped, but not spades stopped. Is he supposed to bid 3S there asking for a major suit stopper? Or is that claiming a spade stopper, denying a club stopper? Or does it show a half stopper like Qx or Jxx? With my methods, I play that it shows a half stopper, but other agreements are possible and may influence how you bid other hands).

If you have skipped a suit, (IE, 1D-3D, 3S), then you are denying a stopper in the suit you have skipped (A stopper being Qxx or better, generally), and partner should bid 3N with that suit and all higher suits below 3N stopped. If partner does not have a suit you have skipped stopped, then partner should return to the minor suit at the cheapest level, or, if having appropriate shortness in the unstopped suit, may choose to go to game in the minor since you are making game tries and do not appear to have wastage opposite your singleton/void.

If you have decided that NT is inappropriate, by showing & denying stoppers you can still judge the relative fit of your hands, and make a subsequent decision as to whether it is appropriate to go on to a minor suit game. Again, if you have a singleton or void where partner has denied a stopper, that is usually a positive for evaluating a minor suit game's potential.

Bids above 3N other than a return to your minor by an unlimited opener should be looking for slam. You should cue-bid or not according to your agreements.

Finally, even with good agreements, you won't get all of these right. At this stage you should be happy with good auctions where you both make bids that are consistent with your agreements, and where you are both on the same page.

[Antrax]

What CSGibson said. If you play that you always show a 4+ card major before supporting a minor, then other suit bids from either player, once a minor has been raised, can't be looking for a fit. So, it makes sense for them to show stoppers en route to an NT game if possible.

[CSGibson]

Adding somewhat: If you have the auction 1C-3C, 3H...then I play the following:

3N - diamonds and spades stopped
3S - diamonds stopped, but not spades.

The reason for 3S showing diamonds and not spades is because opener has denied a diamond stop, and you are still interested in 3N but unable to bid it yourself, i.e. implying a spade problem. If you have stoppers in both diamonds and spades, you have an easy 3N call.

This is different from the auction 1D-3D, 3H because you have not denied a club stopper in bidding 3H - what you have done is ostensibly denied a full spade stopper. Clubs are ignored because you don't have the space to deal with them.

[markyears]

Thanks, all! I think I will adopt CSGibson's approach . But I sort of understand the logic in jillybean's approach, preemptive as in competitive bidding.

[jillybean]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-30, 11:32, said:

By the way, what Jillybean plays is playable, but is NOT "somewhat standard"; I don't know a single other person who plays 1m-2m as game forcing, most common is invitational+.

Chris, 1m-2m gf is standard around the Vancouver area, with "A" players and all levels. I say "somewhat standard" because I'm sure there are also other methods being played. I'll be on the look out for how others play it however, what you play and what you call it is far less important than actually having a method to show a gf minor raise

http://www.bridgehan...Cross_Raise.htm

[CSGibson]

jillybean, on 2012-June-30, 17:48, said:

Chris, 1m-2m gf is standard around the Vancouver area, with "A" players and all levels. I say "somewhat standard" because I'm sure there are also other methods being played. I'll be on the look out for how others play it however, what you play and what you call it is far less important than actually having a method to show a gf minor raise

http://www.bridgehan...Cross_Raise.htm

I certainly believe that is possible - I'm not familiar with the Vancouver region standard systems. But when someone mentions standard in a novice and beginner forum, I feel like its important to either be right as to broad-ranging standard, or to specify that it is standard in your region. In this case, I have never heard of any players who play that method, present company excepted . It doesn't mean they don't exist, but my knowledge base is broad enough that I feel I can dispute the word "standard" in any normal definition of the word.

For what its worth, I don't actually play the method I outlined anymore, I just felt it was clear and easier for a newer player to implement, with minimal artificiality, all of which are important when recommending methods to newer players.

[Mbodell]

jillybean, on 2012-June-30, 17:48, said:

Chris, 1m-2m gf is standard around the Vancouver area, with "A" players and all levels. I say "somewhat standard" because I'm sure there are also other methods being played. I'll be on the look out for how others play it however, what you play and what you call it is far less important than actually having a method to show a gf minor raise

http://www.bridgehan...Cross_Raise.htm

I've seen people play what Jillybean plays, and even played it a time or too with a pick up, but I think it is less common than other stuff like strong club, or weak nt, or flanery all of which themselves are not standard.

sayc with no forcing minor raise isn't that good; however, playing 2m a 6-10 raise and 3m a 10-12 raise isn't intolerable. When you have more just bid 3nt (or slam if you have a lot more, or occasionally 5m if your game force is all based on shape and voids and what not). It will not come up that often, and the auction 1m-3nt puts the pressure on the opponents on the lead and defense too, so even when wrong it might turn out ok.

[markyears]

jillybean, on 2012-June-30, 11:05, said:

I think minor raises are one of the weakest elements of SAYC and caused me a lot of frustration. Minor games are difficult for newer players to bid, I'd often run to an unmakeable 3N rather than bid a minor game or worse, slam. Partners often don't have any agreements other than 1m 2m minimum raise, 1m 3m limit raise and have to fudge a forcing raise by starting with a major and then jumping around to create a force. It's not only newer players who have this problem, I played with a p/u partner the other week who had 1,000+ monster points and did not have a forcing minor raise, it's awful!

Well, as a novice, I found an evidence indicating forcing minor raise is "common"
There is a sentence in sayc booklet "There is no forcing minor-suit raise", which means sayc designers understand this is a common treatment and just don't want to put it in sayc.

Thank you all very much!

[P_Marlowe]

Simple - forget, that those games exist.

This no joke.

Assuming, you play lots pairs, than you will have lots
of company in 3NT, i.e. even if 3NT goes down, 5m makes,
you wont have a cold bottom, which will be the case, if
both make, and the defence throwes away a overtrick in,
which happens more often, than not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Quantumcat]

Rather than forgetting they exist, try this philosophy:

5♣ or 5♦ is a place to play if you have tried for 6♣ or 6♦ but decided you don't have the values, or are missing too many controls, or whatever other reason.

With this philosophy goes that, unless you have agreed a different suit, 4♣ and 4♦ are always invitational to slam, NOT to game.

So, when you find a minor suit fit and have game values, just bid 3NT if it is not possible to have slam values. Only bid something else if slam is a possibility.

[Zelandakh]

Quantumcat, on 2012-July-18, 18:35, said:

Rather than forgetting they exist, try this philosophy:

Nothing wrong with this philosophy. Another runs that where one hand is limited and the partner has made a try for 3NT but found that there is a suit open, that they now can bid 4m as merely a game try, since with a slam try they would have bid 4m directly rather than making the try for 3NT. In practise, the differences between these approaches is minimal. The former gains when you have a hand that is only worth a slam try when partner does not have values in the open suit and there is no opportunity to discover this before the 3 level and 4m has not been bypassed by partner's response to the 3NT probe. The latter gains on the hands where we have stretched to try for 3NT but want to give up in 4m when we can see it is a bad bet. Both cases are rare. I personally prefer the latter since I feel it occasionally gives a tick more leeway in looking for a light, fit-based 3NT.