[johnallen]

I want to validate my understanding of responder's rebid--what is forcing and what isn't.

I'm using the SAYC booklet from the ACBL (Rev. Jan.2006) as the base, with elaboration and clarification provided by "Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Downey and Pomer. I find that these two sources say almost the same things, but are not complete in themselves.

Would those more experienced than I please verify where I have interplated over a gap. I have not included all forcing sequences (e.g., reverses or jump-shifts by responder).

1. "After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing. If the new suit is the fourth suit, the bid may be artificial/conventional". (ACBL-SAYC). This is clear enough.

2. "After a 1NT rebid by opener, bids of a new suit at the next higher level are non-forcing." (ACBL-SAYC). This is also clear.

3. "Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's bid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand". (ACBL-SAYC). This is also clear.

4. "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." (Downey and Pomer). This does not reconcile exactly with Rule 2. However, if we take the view that Rule 2 takes precedence, then I suggest that Rule 4 would be better worded: "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, or unless opener rebid 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." Alternatively: "If neither responder nor opener has limited his/her hand with a 1NT response or rebid, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round."

I would appreciate comments on Rule 4 particularly. I would also like to know if the above rules are common practice.

[awm]

Your interpretation is right -- rule 2 takes precedence over rule 4.

While these rules are standard, you should be aware that many people play a version of new minor forcing over opener's 1NT rebid. This is not strictly standard, but it's one of the most common conventions people use, and would modify rule 2.

There is also some issue with rule 3, because a lot of people play a loosely defined version of "standard" where they can pass opener's rebid of 2NT or a raise (i.e. 1♠-2♥-2NT-pass or 1♠-2♦-3♦-pass). This is not part of SAYC but a lot of people don't actually know/play SAYC even if they claim to.

[helene_t]

As I read rule 2,
1♣-1♥
1N-2♠
is non-forcing but that can hardly be correct. I think the word "non-reverse" is missing in rule 2.

As for 2 vs 4: What Adam (avm) said.

[johnallen]

Thank you. A follow-on question on Rule 3:

If many people play that responder (after an initial 2-level response) can pass opener's 2NT rebid or minor suit raise, does that call into question the benefits of the rule? In other words, would you say that Rule 3 is a good one and should be followed, or would you say that what many people do in practice is a valid exception to the rule?

[helene_t]

The short answer is that rule 3) should be followed.

If opener has a 5242 with 12 points and responder has a 1453 with 11 points, it may go:
1♠-2♦
2♠-2N
3♦-pass

Note that 2♠ is a temporizing bid which does not promise 6 spades but primarily limits his hand.

If opener has a 5323 with 12 points, it may go
1♠-2♦
2♠-2N
pass

So opener should rebid 2N only with GF values, since otherwise responder is stuck over 2N with a 2353 with (10)11 points, or even worse, a 3244 when it starts
1♥-2♣
2N.

This conflicts with the rule that a rebid in notrumps at the lowest level shows a minimum. I think there is a need for clarification. 3 options:
1) A 2N rebid shows extras (French style)
2) 2N rebid is not forcing (a.o. Dutch style)
3) Over responder's 2♣, opener can rebid 2♦ on a short suit. Over 2♦, responder will have 5 of them, then he can rebid his 5-card (least of evils).

[awm]

If you're looking for methods to play with pickup partners online w/o discussion, rule 3 is a big problem with agreeing to play "standard" or "SAYC." Treating opener's non-game rebids as forcing makes for a much better, more effective system than allowing responder to pass opener's rebid. However, you need to make a rule that opener should not rebid above two of his original suit without extra values. This is not explicitly stated anywhere as far as I can tell.

[johnallen]

Thank you everyone. My objective is to understand the rules for a standard natural system that I can play with my wife (beginner/intermediate) that she can play with friends without much discussion. Consequently, I will shy away from "new minor forcing" if possible.

Building on the comments so far, I can see two alternatives to the discomfort that Rule 3 might lead to:

A: Allow responder to pass a 2NT rebid (e.g., 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2NT - (P) - PASS). This is non-standard, but seems reasonable if we say that opener has defined his hand as a minimum, thereby leaving responder in the best position to decide the contract. This is similar to saying Rule 3 is "off" if either opener or responder has limited their hand with a 1NT bid/rebid.

B: Require that opener's 2NT rebid show extra values as awm notes.

I like "A" better because it seems to be widely taught that opener's rebid of NT at the lowest available level shows a minimum hand. Also, awm noted that a lot of people allow responder to pass 2NT in this sequence.

What do you think? Is this a good "natural" approach, or can we stick with Rule 3 and remain "natural" as long as opener does some thinking ahead about responder's potential problems?

[helene_t]

If you systematically open 1NT with a 5332 with the 5-card being a major, I agree that the 2N rebid should be NF.

If you don't (usually) open 1NT with a 5-card major, it makes sense to play the 2N rebid as 15-17 (and thus forcing), as they do in France.

Just my personal opinion.

[Stephen Tu]

Adam's approach is better IMO. If 2nt is limited to 12-13, then even if you open all 5332 bal 15-17 with 1nt, you still have a bunch of semi-balanced 14+ that have to jump to 3nt which now also has too big a range. You lose valuable slam exploration room with those hands.

Rebidding 2M with the mins & no better bid, planning to pass 2nt, doesn't really cost you anything, as 2M can't really promise 6+ suit or even good suit after a 2/1 response anyway.

There's lots of "rules" about bidding after a 1/1 response that are necessarily broken after a 2/1 response because of the extra space consumed and the desire to leave room for partner to make descriptive bids at a safe level. Rebids of M no longer show 6, raises of minors should show extras. So having 2nt show extras is just another difference.

[helene_t]

Stephen Tu, on Oct 28 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Adam's approach is better IMO. If 2nt is limited to 12-13, then even if you open all 5332 bal 15-17 with 1nt, you still have a bunch of semi-balanced 14+ that have to jump to 3nt which now also has too big a range.

"Semi-balanced" means 5224, right? Those hands just bid the 4-card.

To make the 2N range narrow enough you would have to upgrade many balanced 14-pointers and not open balanced 11-pointers, though.

[johnallen]

Quote

However, you need to make a rule that opener should not rebid above two of his original suit without extra values.

Stephen, does this mean anything more than a bare minimum? Are you suggesting that 14+ is enough extra?

[helene_t]

Right, if you want to force to game (I suppose 14 points is what it takes), then you can rebid above 2 of your suit.

[Mbodell]

What about opener's 4=5=3=1 and 4=5=2=2 in the auction 1♥-2♣. I assume playing the suggested way of not going past 2 of your suit without extras that with 11+ to 14- you'd rebid 2♥ and suggest that it is on the 2♣ bidder to respond 2♠ if they were 4=2=2=5, 4=2=1=6, 4=2=0=7 and 10-12 points? And presumably bid 3♠ with 4=2=2=5, 4=2=1=6, 4=2=0=7 and 13+ to force to game over the minimum rebid? Or does the responder lie about shape and bid the 4 card major even having had strong enough points to make two bids (I thought the general rule was hide the minor only when you can only show 1 bid, otherwise show your length normally when you plan to take two bids)?

How can you find/disambiguate between possible 4-4 fits in spades and possible 6-2 fits in hearts when "you need to make a rule that opener should not rebid above two of his original suit without extra values"?

[helene_t]

Right, a minimum 4♠5♥ is a 2♥ rebid, and responder needs GF values to bid a long minor suit before a 4-card spades.

Personally I would prefer to rebid 2♦ with
AKxx
Qxxxx
Kxx
x
though.

[johnallen]

If we make the rule that opener cannot rebid beyond 2 of his opening bid without extra values (14+), then:

1. With GF values and 4225, responder can bid 2♣ over 1♥ then 2♠ over a 2♥ rebid by opener (showing a minimum). This reverse by responder empowers opener to raise to 3♠ with 4 card support, and responder can place the contract. (Opener must bid until game is reached after the responder reverse.)

2. Without GF values and 4225, responder bids 1♠ over 1♥ and hopes to mention his clubs if that seems relevant.

Thoughts?

[helene_t]

Right, but I don't think responder will get a chance of introducing his clubs. Opener will rebid clubs if he has a 4-card, but the 5-3(or 6-3) fit will probably be missed.

Although ....
1♥-1♠
1N-2♣*
would show a weak hand with four spades and longer clubs if you were playing the way we teach bidding to beginners here in the Netherlands. Not sure about SAYC.