[rdylan]

I've seen conflicting descriptions of the 2/1 response in SAYC. I'm aware that this is a weak area of SAYC (no need to try to convince me to change to a different system).

My first question is this:

What does a 2/1 response in SAYC guarantee for distribution? (There seems to be a general consensus that a 2-level response shows 10+ points).

Some refs say this guarantees a 5 card holding, some say 4 cards, at least one says 4 cards except if it is 1♠-2♥, which guarantees 5 hearts. The most confusing comes from the book Standard Bidding with SAYC, which says this bid shows 5+ cards and 10+ points (or 4 cards and 11+ points).

Second question:

After a 2/1 response, what does opener's rebid of 2NT show? Is it the same 12-14 points balanced that a 1NT shows after a 1/1? Does it deny support? Does SAYC require stoppers in the unbid suits at this point?

[mycroft]

SAYC (as opposed to other flavours of Standard American) has a booklet. That is the definition. Not that you'll find anybody, even those who claim to play SAYC, that follows it completely.

2/1s in standard are actually quite a strong part of the system. We've moved to 2/1 GF because it's stronger, but compared to "no minor suit forcing raise", "negative doubles through 2♠ only", no Lebensohl or equivalent, no Keycard,... it's not a "hole".

According to the booklet, over a major: 2♣, 2♦ = 10 points or more, promises at least four of the suit.
It doesn't say anything about 1♠-2♥ specifically, but "standard" has always been 10 points or more, at least *five* of the suit.

It also says:

Quote

If responder initially bids a new suit at the two level, the same rules apply EXCEPT
that a subsequent jump raise of opener’s first suit to the THREE LEVEL is game
forcing — responder should make a limit raise directly over the opening with 10–11
points and at least three-card support:
1♠ — 2♣
2♥:
— 2NT, 3♣, 3♥ = invitation to game (10–11 points).
— 2♠ = preference, not forcing. Responder has 11–12 points and a doubleton spade.
— 3]di] = game force, could be conventional.
— 3♠ = game force.

NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two
level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an
unpassed hand.
1♠ — 2♣
2♦ = forcing one round. Responder can limit his hand by bidding 2♠, 2NT,
3♣, or 3♦ at this point. He should not pass, since opener could have 18
points (just short of a jump shift rebid).

As far as 1♠-2♣; 2NT is concerned, all the booklet says is "Opener’s rebids are natural and standard." But the NOTE above applies: 2NT is *forcing*, responder can not pass. So it is not necessary to limit to 12-14 as you would a passable 1NT. In fact, I think with 18-19 balanced, a 2NT bid is best - any attempt to stop short of game by responder will be ignored, which should get the point across; any game-forcing rebid by responder triggers slam investigation.

As far as support, again, there's no guidance, but remember that given the choice between 3NT and 5m, 3NT is "always" right. So without active interest in responder's minor (either "your decision will be easier if you know I have support" or "interested in 6m"), balanced hands would bid 2NT. Note that this is a big reason why 1♠-2♥ should promise 5; you can find the 4-4 fit after 1♠-2♣ when opener rebids 2♥, but it's easy to lose the heart suit when opener is 5=3 if 2♥ only promises 4, and the choice between 3NT and 4M is close to "always" 4M.

As far as stoppers in the other suits, "where we're going, we don't *need* stoppers" applies as always. Certainly I would look for another call after 1♠-2♣ with 5=2=4=2 if my hearts were xx, but with 5=2=3=3, I might still bid 2NT as least of evils and hope partner can help.

[rdylan]

Thank you mycroft, that was extremely helpful and exactly what I needed to wrap my brain around this.

[apollo1201]

mycroft, on 2020-October-29, 15:44, said:

SAYC (as opposed to other flavours of Standard American) has a booklet. That is the definition. Not that you'll find anybody, even those who claim to play SAYC, that follows it completely.

As far as 1♠-2♣; 2NT is concerned, all the booklet says is "Opener’s rebids are natural and standard." But the NOTE above applies: 2NT is *forcing*, responder can not pass. So it is not necessary to limit to 12-14 as you would a passable 1NT. In fact, I think with 18-19 balanced, a 2NT bid is best - any attempt to stop short of game by responder will be ignored, which should get the point across; any game-forcing rebid by responder triggers slam investigation.

As far as stoppers in the other suits, "where we're going, we don't *need* stoppers" applies as always. Certainly I would look for another call after 1♠-2♣ with 5=2=4=2 if my hearts were xx, but with 5=2=3=3, I might still bid 2NT as least of evils and hope partner can help.

Hi Rdylan

In French std, which has lots of similarities with SAYC, including this non-GF 2/1, the 2NT rebid is 15-17 with « reasonable » stoppers in the other suits (or 18-19 but you’ll id again if responder signs off in 3NT).

Reasonable meaning « Jxx in one red suit is ok if the other is really well stopped » but a small doubleton is excluded. Without said stoppers, you can always repeat your suit as it does not promise a 6th card. At least, NT contracts can be right-sided now.

But you can’t have all, S length clarification and NT range / NT rightsiding. That is why 2/1 GF is considered stronger as Mycroft said but it has implications on how to bid game invitational hands that bid 2C now.

2S is also the default rebid to avoid landing in a hopeless 3NT when opener has a 5332 12 or 13 count and responder a bare 11.

[rdylan]

SAYC opening range for 1NT is 15-17 HCP, and is preferred even with a 5 card major, so I don't see the utility in 2NT showing 15-17 here. It has to be either 12-14 or 18-19. I would have thought it was 12-14, given responder has shown 10+ points, but as mycroft has pointed out, responder has guaranteed another bid, so this would appear to be off the table.

The problem, as you've identified, is the 5332 major 12-14 point range, especially when responder is 2335 and 11 points. We would want to sign off in 2NT (or 2 of a suit) but there doesn't seem to be a way to get there. After, say, 1♠-2♣, I have no decent rebid, but I must rebid (responder could be temporizing on the way to a jump to game). Probably best to rebid my original suit, but this will likely end up with a simple raise to 3♠. I could try 2♥, which would appear to be the best bid if partner is 2335, but if he's 2425, then we are going to end up in 3NT or 4♥. Bidding a suit in the hopes that it won't work doesn't seem like a good tactic.

I suppose that is just the hole in the bidding system we have to live with, rebid the original suit, and end up down 1-2 in spades. Of course, opponents might let us off the hook here by competing.

[Stephen Tu]

rdylan, on 2020-October-30, 08:26, said:

SAYC opening range for 1NT is 15-17 HCP, and is preferred even with a 5 card major, so I don't see the utility in 2NT showing 15-17 here.

Note that we are getting into "modifying SAYC into a more sensible logical system" here. The SAYC notes specify both that 2nt shows "13-15" and that responder promises a rebid, so logically you get to an overbid 3nt here, if you wish to play official SAYC verbatim here. One of the many holes that demonstrate that the people who wrote the pamphlet didn't really put a lot of thought into system construction, just threw together a hodgepodge of semi-popular treatments without really considering if everything was compatible with each other. Thus all good serious players tend to migrate to 2/1 these days (or strong club or whatever).

As for 2nt= 15-17; it is not universal to open all 5cd major in range with 1nt. The French don't do it as standard. American attitudes are split among many camps.

Having 2nt as extras over a 10/11+ 2/1 at least makes logical sense if forcing responder to bid again to have a decent chance of bringing in 3nt.

Quote

The problem, as you've identified, is the 5332 major 12-14 point range, especially when responder is 2335 and 11 points. We would want to sign off in 2NT (or 2 of a suit) but there doesn't seem to be a way to get there. After,

You just bid 1s-2c-2s-2nt pass.
The key is that rebidding a major over a 2/1 does *not* promise six cards, nor a particularly good 5 cd suit, without having special agreements. So responder should strongly avoid raising the bid on only 2 cds.

[rdylan]

Thanks Stephen, I missed that in the booklet (which I find difficult to read):

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-15 points):
Rebidding no trump at the lowest available level

Maybe then NT rebids are the exception to responder's promise? That would seem to line up with the explanations in "Idiots Guide to Bridge" (standard but not SAYC).

[rdylan]

And it gets more complicated again...

"Standard Bidding with SAYC" describes a 2NT rebid after a simple raise as inviting to game with a 5 card major, whereas a 3 level rebid in suit invites with a 6 card major. If this is right, then 2NT rebid doesn't always mean 13-15 points (here it would mean 16-18).

[Stephen Tu]

Don't try to make sense of SAYC. Just start learning 2/1 now and get your partners to also play 2/1. I share opinion with Larry Cohen and others that beginners should just start with 2/1. If you are playing with a random online without discussion, it's pretty random what range they'll take 1s-2c-2nt as anyway, and you should expect passes with some frequency even though the pamphlet says it is forcing. 90% of people probably didn't ever read the pamphlet. It's pretty random whether 1c-p-2nt will be passed or not either (pamphlet says forcing 13-15, but I wouldn't count on it playing with a random). In practice you'll probably do best to just open 15-17 1nt, never rebid 1s-2c-2nt, and just rebid 1s-2c-2s with minimums so you can pass 2nt. That's what I'd do if I was held at gunpoint to play SAYC without extensive discussion of 2/1 sequences.

SAYC is an accident of history, not an attempt of standardized good bidding. The ACBL had some people that complained about too many conventions. They decided to put together these special tournaments/games where everyone was supposed to play the same system, and threw together this "yellow card" of somewhat popular conventions/treatments, without much thought to coherent system design. These tournaments promptly flopped and were soon forgotten; turns out most bridge players like to play their own pet favorite conventions (though many wish to ban opponent's conventions that they don't play).

The one thing SAYC had was a pamphlet of reasonable text length that could be displayed relatively easily in the text-based okbridge program, the first widely available bridge program on the nascent internet in the early 90s. So it made a semi-reasonable base starting point for pickup partnerships on okb, and became the de facto standard system for internet bridge, unfortunately yet to be dislodged mainly because of inertia.

[awm]

The SAYC booklet doesn't really explain 2/1 sequences very well. What's clear is that opener's rebid is forcing if below the game level. There's no specific discussion of opener's rebids (there's a general discussion that's more about one-over-one auctions that says things like bidding the cheapest notrump shows a minimum balanced hand).

The way to make SAYC work is to keep in mind that in a 2/1 auction, opener should never bid above two of his original suit unless holding extra values. The rebid of two of opener's suit does not show a sixth card as it could be any minimum hand with no suitable cheaper call. Note that all the below auctions are forcing in SAYC, so logically opener must have extras:

1♠ - 2♦ - 2NT
1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣
1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦

If opener bids two of his suit or below, responder has the following non-forcing options:

1. Rebid 2NT. This is a common call with an invitational (semi)-balanced hand.
2. Rebid three of responder's suit, showing six.
3. Rebid two of opener's suit (if available) showing doubleton.
4. Raise opener's second suit to the three-level.

If responder wants to force in these auctions, he introduces a new suit (if the fourth suit, could be artificial).

Another observation about SAYC is that the auction 1♠-3♠ (or 1♥-3♥) is a limit raise but only shows three card support (this is a surprise to a lot of 2/1 players). It follows that bidding a new suit and then raising opener is either a preference showing doubleton (like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠) or a game force with three (like 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♠ or 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠).

As far as responder's direct suit response, the 1♠-2♥ auction shows five cards and two of a minor is normally four (there is some question what to do with 3433 hands too strong for a 3NT call).

I do agree that the majority of people claiming to play "SAYC" won't know much of this information (and may not even know things that are clearly explained in the SAYC booklet).

[mycroft]

Simple raise != 2/1. That's the difference. A 2/1 is a bid at the 2 level (below opener's suit) in a new suit. 1♠-2♠ isn't a new suit, it doesn't show 10+ (in fact, it almost denies 10 support points); 2NT after that auction is naturally different from after 1♠-2♣ as well.

[rdylan]

Quote

Simple raise != 2/1. That's the difference. A 2/1 is a bid at the 2 level (below opener's suit) in a new suit. 1♠-2♠ isn't a new suit, it doesn't show 10+ (in fact, it almost denies 10 support points); 2NT after that auction is naturally different from after 1♠-2♣ as well.

Understood. I only mention it to show that the general description in the SAYC booklet of a 2NT rebid as being a balanced minimum hand obviously doesn't apply in all situations.

It doesn't answer the question, however, as to whether it applies in a 2/1 situation. Two opinions appear to be emerging based on whether 1♠ - 2♦ - 2NT is forcing or not. I think that the crowd I normally play with would consider this non-forcing, and indicating a balanced minimum. Frankly, I see no good reason that this would be forcing in SAYC. A balanced 18-19 with no support for responder's suit could just go to 3NT.

[mycroft]

It's not that 2NT is forcing, it's that 2♦ promises a rebid unless opener bids game. That means *everything* at the 2 level is forcing, including 2NT. If you have the kind of hand that would pass 2NT, then you don't have enough for a 2/1. Yes, it's a hole in the system, and yes, it's one of the reasons 2/1 went to GF (and made 1NT response forcing to deal with the rest of the hands).

[Stephen Tu]

awm, on 2020-October-30, 11:47, said:

Another observation about SAYC is that the auction 1♠-3♠ (or 1♥-3♥) is a limit raise but only shows three card support (this is a surprise to a lot of 2/1 players). It follows that bidding a new suit and then raising opener is either a preference showing doubleton (like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠) or a game force with three (like 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♠ or 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♠).

Note that this is Adam's interpretation of matters, with an assumption that SAYC is intended to be logical, and also his assumption that 1M-3M is a mandatory call with limit raise values and 3 trumps, rather than an optional call.

I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't feel the SAYC pamphlet shows a lot of logical consistency or is intended to restructure common "Standard American" into something coherent. As played at the time, only his third sequence, the jump preference, 1s-2d-2h-3s was commonly played as a forcing call when playing "SA" rather than 2/1 (as one would find in say one of Goren's books or something like "Commonsense bidding" by Root, or other books on SA by other authors). The others were played as NF invites with 3 trumps, the jump raise on 3 not being at all mandatory (one might prefer to show a decent 5 cd suit for evaluation purposes). New suit followed by preference/single raise was a common way to show a 3 cd invite with a decent side suit.
Adam's way is a more logical, better way to play, but I don't think the SAYC booklet actually intends this; I think that it was assumed people played SA as it was normally played with the few specified conventions/sequences defined in the booklet.

[awm]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-October-30, 12:41, said:

Note that this is Adam's interpretation of matters, with an assumption that SAYC is intended to be logical, and also his assumption that 1M-3M is a mandatory call with limit raise values and 3 trumps, rather than an optional call.

I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't feel the SAYC pamphlet shows a lot of logical consistency or is intended to restructure common "Standard American" into something coherent... I think that it was assumed people played SA as it was normally played with the few specified conventions/sequences defined in the booklet.

There are some reasons to doubt this. Virtually everyone I've seen play "Standard American" plays auctions like 1M-2m-2NT and 1M-2m-3m as non-forcing, yet this is clearly not the case in the SAYC booklet. I think there was some intent to create a simple but playable system with the SAYC definitions rather than just writing up what's normally played.

[Stephen Tu]

awm, on 2020-October-30, 16:28, said:

There are some reasons to doubt this. Virtually everyone I've seen play "Standard American" plays auctions like 1M-2m-2NT and 1M-2m-3m as non-forcing, yet this is clearly not the case in the SAYC booklet. I think there was some intent to create a simple but playable system with the SAYC definitions rather than just writing up what's normally played.

There might have been intent to make a simple playable system, but there doesn't seem to have been any concerted effort to make a coherent good system. The SAYC booklet clearly states 1M-2m-2nt and 1M-2m-3m show min range hands, no mention of these showing extras, but also says that 2/1 promises a rebid, and these are logically incompatible treatments if one wants to not overbid frequently. To me SAYC looks like just some people said "let's slap something together so we can print up a cc for these "one system" tournaments, it's OK people will muddle through and play mostly like they are used to playing, sure accidents will happen and it's not completely coherent but who cares it's not for the serious players".

I think the people you've witnessed play SA are nearly all very low level players who just don't know a lot and haven't thought about bidding theory at all, they just kind of pick these things up copying how their partners play. It's not reflective of how strong serious players played SA. I think I'm a tad older than you, and by the time I started playing maybe 97% of the good players were playing 2/1 not SA already (if not playing strong club); SA was for beginners and "life novices". All I know about SA practice is mainly from reading old bridge books and bridge world magazines from the library.

[Vampyr]

rdylan, on 2020-October-30, 09:38, said:

Thanks Stephen, I missed that in the booklet (which I find difficult to read):

Rebids with a minimum hand (13-15 points):
Rebidding no trump at the lowest available level

Maybe then NT rebids are the exception to responder's promise? That would seem to line up with the explanations in "Idiots Guide to Bridge" (standard but not SAYC).

Yes; “forcing to 2NT is semi-reasonable. Forcing to game or forcing to 2 of opener’s suit are better IMO.

[mycroft]

I know when I was playing "standard" Standard American, I was told in no uncertain terms that 2/1 promises a rebid, and that explicitly included 1M-2m; 2NT (because I passed him there making 5 - he was hoping for 6, but I really did have a minimum). Now that was 1990...

I've played a lot of non-2/1 GF, but since most of it was with a weak NT, "what's forcing" is a different world.

I agree with awm that "what people play and call SAYC" bears little relation to SAYC. They just think it means "standard, 2/1 not absolute GF, 1NT response not forcing." Or as Adam Beneschan put it around the turn of the century:

Quote

You have the information that your opponents are playing SAYC, but that only means that they can find the letters 'S', 'A', 'Y', and 'C' on their keyboard.

There are as many variations of Standard American as there are 2/1 GF; as many of them are good; many are better than SAYC. But if you're "no need to convince me to change" from *SAYC* like the OP, then variations don't matter. in SAYC, 1M-2m; 2NT is forcing for one round because 2m promises a rebid and opener didn't bid game.

[helene_t]

Another interpretation is that responder doesn't invite opposite a balanced 12-14 unless he has a 1suited hand. So with a good 11 we are in game and with a modest 11 he makes a nf 1nt response.

But the booklet defines a 2/1 response as 10+ which can hardly be GF opposite a balanced minimum, especially since 1NT is defined as 6-9 so apparently you make a 2/1 response with balanced 10-counts.

On the other hand, they talk about rebids with minimum (13-15) hands, which suggests a very sound opening style. I think I have seen somewhere that 5332 hands upgrade by one point. So maybe with 5M332, your 2NT rebid shows 13-14, which will include one length point so it is 12-13 walrus points. That would clearly make it non-forcing, but it explicitly is forcing.

Then there's the issue that maybe opener has a choice with 5M332 minimums since it's not stated that rebidding the opening suit shows an unbalanced hand. So maybe the 2NT rebid is a semi-balanced 15 count?

It may be a bit of a stretch to say that opener must rebid a 4-card diamonds with a balanced hand, though.

[awm]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-October-30, 16:58, said:

I think the people you've witnessed play SA are nearly all very low level players who just don't know a lot and haven't thought about bidding theory at all, they just kind of pick these things up copying how their partners play. It's not reflective of how strong serious players played SA. I think I'm a tad older than you, and by the time I started playing maybe 97% of the good players were playing 2/1 not SA already (if not playing strong club); SA was for beginners and "life novices". All I know about SA practice is mainly from reading old bridge books and bridge world magazines from the library.

I just find it interesting that people who've never played a system in a serious partnership and never even seen that system played by good players are so quick to decide that it's incoherent and not designed to work. Maybe the booklet didn't state that 1M-2m-2NT shows extras because it was something everyone knew back in the day, and it's just the modern players (who all play 2/1 and think non-GF 2/1 bids are for beginners) who assume otherwise?