[plum_tree]

As a novice I was given the 2006 SAYC booklet to learn. According to this, minor suit slam tries go through Stayman over a 1NT opener. Here is what the booklet says, "2♣ is “non-forcing” Stayman, meaning that the bidding may stop in two of a suit. Opener rebids 2♥ with 4–4 in the majors. If responder rebids three of either minor, he shows slam interest and at least a five-card suit."
The booklet is completely silent as to how the auction will proceed after:
1NT-2♣-2 any-3m?
How does the auction continue when,
1. Opener discourages a slam try?
2. Opener encourages a slam try?
SAYC uses 4NT as Blackwood. According to the booklet I cannot use Blackwood after 1NT as this is invitational to 6NT? Anyway Blackwood would inevitably force the auction to level 6 for a minor suit response? So how can I sign off at level 5 if that is where the auction belongs?

[plum_tree]

Never got any help to this.

Perhaps somone has tabs with the ACBL as to the minor suit slam try continuations after Stayman? Or is my understanding of the SAYC booklet wrong? Or is the booklet itself wrong?

[Antrax]

The very simple method I had when I played like this had opener bidding 4m if he's interested in slam and 3NT if he's not. Once 4m agrees that we're going to play in that minor, you can cue bid on the way to 4NT to ensure you won't get too high. It's not a very good method (wastes a lot of space) and it might not really be SAYC - I was taught all sorts of things as "SAYC" that turned out not to be so.

[plum_tree]

 Antrax, on 2013-June-21, 23:31, said:

The very simple method I had when I played like this had opener bidding ... 3NT if he's not [interested in a minor suit slam].

This sounds like a correct bidding sequence. The bracketed insert is mine.

 Antrax, on 2013-June-21, 23:31, said:

The very simple method I had when I played like this had opener bidding 4m if he's interested in slam... Once 4m agrees that we're going to play in that minor, you can cue bid on the way to 4NT to ensure you won't get too high. It's ... a method [which] wastes a lot of space and it might not really be SAYC [the SAYC booklet is silent on this so I will consider any continuation suggestion].

The bracketed insert is mine. This can work but you rightly say that it wastes a lot of space. Can it be simplified to save space as follows -
1. 3NT (as above) shows no interest in a minor suit slam.
2. Cheapest new suit (on level 3) encourages the slam try in the minor suit nominated and is the start of a cue bid sequence. Cue bidding continues until 4NT?

[Antrax]

TBH, what I did was just move to four-suit transfers, which gives responder another bid to describe his hand. I'm not a great theoretician so I can't really comment about your idea.

[Zelandakh]

 plum_tree, on 2013-June-22, 01:25, said:

2. Cheapest new suit (on level 3) encourages the slam try in the minor suit nominated and is the start of a cue bid sequence. Cue bidding continues until 4NT?

You are getting dangerously close to an idea of mine in some auctions of this type. However, this is not SAYC, nor any other standard that I know of, nor is it really N/B material. One possibility would be to play 3NT as no fit; the first step as showing a fit but a bad hand for slam; and all other bids showing a fit and a good hand for slam. So, for example

1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3♦
==
3♥ = diamond fit, bad hand for slam
3♠ = diamond fit, good hand for slam, spade control
3NT = no diamond fit
4♣ = diamond fit, good hand for slam, club control, no spade control
4♦ = diamond fit, good hand for slam, heart control, no club or spade controls

If you decide to play a set of responses like this then you do have to make sure you have an alternative route for 5m4♠ hands when Opener's rebid is in hearts. Otherwise you would be in danger of losing the spade fit. Although what you write is not a bad idea, my recommendation would be to avoid methods like this as a beginner. Make a note of it in a book somewhere and come back to it in a couple of years if you still consider it worth looking into.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming the bidding goes like

1NT - 2C
2??? - 3m

3m says - partner I have a gamegoing hand, please tell me
#1 do you think 3NT is a good idea?
the strong NT opening bidder knowes, if the partnership has to worry about the
unbid minor, or about a weak major suit
#2 do you have a good fit for my minor?

In the end those questions are complementary, if the NT opening has concentrated
values, the values fit either nicely or are good stoppers for the dangerous suits.

A suit bid by opener on the 3 level showes a fit for the minor and SI.

Having said that, as a N/B player I would not bother a lot about bidding minor suit
slams.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Vampyr]

Sorry, misremembered OP auction.

[plum_tree]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-24, 08:05, said:

You are getting dangerously close to an idea of mine in some auctions of this type.

I feel chuffed about this!

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-24, 08:05, said:

However, this is not SAYC,...

The SAYC booklet is completely silent on the minor suit slam try continuation bidding. Logic tells me responder must have an unbalanced hand. If it was balanced/semi-balanced he could have shown slam interest via Gerber or a direct bid of 4NT inviting 6NT.
Although the booklet says “at least a five-card suit,” logic tells me it is most likely longer, unless it is a five-card suit and four-cards in the other major. Finding a possible 4/4 fit in the other major is the challenge. How would you do that?

You say, “This is not SAYC.” SAYC does not say what SAYC is in this situation, and that is why I am here looking for help. I am surprised that so little help was offered, but thanks to Antrax and now you, a N/B can learn and hopefully something simple emerges which a N/B can apply without extensive memory load.

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-24, 08:05, said:

...nor is it really N/B material...
If you decide to play a set of responses like this then you do have to make sure you have an alternative route for 5m4♠ hands when Opener's rebid is in hearts. Otherwise you would be in danger of losing the spade fit.

What you suggested here is as you say, “Nor is it really N/B material.” I want to take your idea and reduce it to my level. Bearing in mind that I don’t want to lose out on a 4/4 fit in the other major, which you also warn against.

So at my level, how about this –
1NT-2♣-2M-3m
1. 3OM shows four-cards in the other major and at least three-cards in the minor suit bid. Not sure how the bidding will continue now.
2. 3NT denies four-cards in the other major but it does not deny three-cards in the minor suit bid. If responder persists in a minor suit slam try it simply must show extra length. I have no idea how the bidding will continue. Maybe just signoff in 5m with a hand unsuitable to play 3NT?
3. 4m (the same minor) shows four-card support. Responder now knows 8 of opener’s cards, leaving two in the one remaining suit and three in the other. Again, I have no idea how the bidding will continue.

[Vampyr]

 plum_tree, on 2013-June-24, 11:47, said:

1NT-2♣-2M-3m
1. 3OM shows four-cards in the other major and at least three-cards in the minor suit bid. Not sure how the bidding will continue now..

Neither am I; are you not interested in finding a fit in the other major if opener does not have three cards in the minor suit?

[plum_tree]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-24, 12:23, said:

Neither am I; are you not interested in finding a fit in the other major if opener does not have three cards in the minor suit?

Now you put me back to square 1. So I tried reading the SAYC booklet again for more clues and found this: "Notrump openings show a balanced hand and may be made with a five-card major suit or a five-card minor suit."
The booklet is silent on finding a possible 5-3 major suit fit but your post forces another rethink of this whole SAYC thing.
Second try:
1NT-2♣-2M-3m with the 3m bid showing interest in a slam try in the suit bid
1. 3M (repeating the major already bid) would now show a five-card suit but does not deny three-card support for the minor suit shown. Now you have uncovered a possible 5-3 major suit fit. But even better, you have uncovered a possible double fit suddenly making the slam try odds on. With three-card support for the major responder will raise to four and opener will take control of the auction (not too sure exactly how the slam bidding will unfold though). With two or less support for the major shown responder will either revert back to 3NT or repeat the minor with extra length showing an unbalanced hand not suitable for 3NT.
2. 3OM shows a four-card suit but does not deny three-card support for the minor suit shown. Again a possible double fit is uncovered when responder holds four-cards in the other major making the slam try odds on. With four-card support for the major responder will raise to four and opener will take control of the auction (not too sure exactly how the slam bidding will unfold though). With three or less support for the other major responder will either revert back to 3NT or repeat the minor with extra length showing an unbalanced hand not suitable for 3NT.
3. 3NT denies four-cards in the other major but it does not deny three-cards in the minor suit bid. If responder persists in a minor suit slam try it simply must show extra length. I have no idea how the bidding will continue. Maybe just signoff in 5m with a hand unsuitable to play 3NT?
4. 4m (the same minor) shows four-card support. Responder now knows 8 of opener’s cards, leaving two in the one remaining suit and three in the other. Again, I have no idea how the bidding will continue.

I am trying to use the other guys idea but reducing it to N/B level, something that is more natural. N/B struggle with artificial bids.

Hope someone can help sort this out (complete the slam try bidding at N/B level).

[Zelandakh]

I do not know SAYC particularly well but it seems to me that if we are just interested in a 4-4 spade fit, we can bid 2♠ over 2♥ (assuming this is not defined anywhere else). Then there is no need to "check back" for spades after 3m and we can safely have all rebids except 3NT showing no fit for the minor. If this were not available then one possibility might be:

1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 3♣
==
3♦ = club fit, <4 spades, bad hand for slam
3♥ = club fit, <4 spades, good hand for slam
3♠ = 4 spades, no club fit (ie 4432)
3NT = no club fit, <4 spades
4♣ = club fit, 4 spades

and

1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 3♦
==
3♥ = diamond fit, <4 spades, bad hand for slam
3♠ = 4 spades, no diamond fit (ie 4423)
3NT = no diamond fit, <4 spades
4♣ = diamond fit, <4 spades, good hand for slam
4♦ = diamond fit, 4 spades

That is, bidding spades is natural; raising the minor shows the minor and 4 spades; and the other 2 calls are a fit for the minor and showing slam-suitability. Again, it is probably too artificial and complicated for most beginners. The simplification would be for all hands with 4 spades to bid 3♠ here and then to show support for the minor at the 4 level on the next round. Then everything else besides 3♠ and 3NT shows a minor fit and denies 4 spades.

Note that Adam (awm) is our resident SAYC expert so he can almost certainly say more about what the "undefined" calls should be. I recommend him for any more advanced questions about SAYC. You should also be aware that the vast majority of players who you will meet on BBO know practically nothing about how SAYC is really defined despite writing it in their profiles. Most think that SAYC is just a synonym for Standard American and bid whatever they feel like at the time.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-25, 02:37, said:

I do not know SAYC particularly well but it seems to me that if we are just interested in a 4-4 spade fit, we can bid 2♠ over 2♥ (assuming this is not defined anywhere else). Then there is no need to "check back" for spades after 3m and we can safely have all rebids except 3NT showing no fit for the minor.

This is interesting but strikes me as kind of strange. Plum_tree, I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel. It might be best to play the 3-minor responses as invitational and put all of your slam tries or sign-offs through 2♠, or 2♣ if you also have a 4-card major.

By the way, there is always the possibility that partner hits your major; in that case it is useful to play that 3 of the other major shows a hand too good to raise to game.

Zel's other ideas are good but strike me as a bit complicated.

[plum_tree]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-25, 07:38, said:

By the way, there is always the possibility that partner hits your major; in that case it is useful to play that 3 of the other major shows a hand too good to raise to game.

Are you a bridge teacher? I think you will make a good one. Whenever your student makes a proposal you seem to have the knack of throwing a curve-ball in from the side to get your student to rethink his suggestion. You never seem to reject anything outright. Instead you throw in a side question, i.e. "Have you taken this into consideration as well?" I think that is the mark of a good teacher. You give your student a new puzzle to solve. I think this is a good way to teach bidding theory. The approach, "Take this, memorise it, and apply it" is not good enough. Newbies memorise things without understanding them. I like your approach. Now I will log off and go and see if I can solve your puzzle.

Thanks again and keep throwing in the curve-balls. If I can solve them I will become a better player sooner.

[Vampyr]

 plum_tree, on 2013-June-25, 08:27, said:

Thanks again and keep throwing in the curve-balls. If I can solve them I will become a better player sooner.

Just keep doing what you are doing -- asking "why" and "what if" and thinking about the replies you receive. It is not so much the finding of solutions as your approach to the game that will make you a better player sooner.

Quote

The approach, "Take this, memorise it, and apply it" is not good enough. Newbies memorise things without understanding them.

I think that this is what most people want and are capable of, at least in the early stages. Some eventually move beyond this.

As regards this particular question, I suspect that after you have more experience you will want to play 4-suit transfers. And you will know why you want to.

[plum_tree]

OK, so I’ve now spent some time trying to solve your puzzle. Just keep in mind I’m still working off the SAYC booklet. So my attempted solution is ring-fenced by my current understanding of SAYC. No doubt there are plenty of better solutions (like the one from Zel). But that’s too much for a N/B now.

The puzzle:

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-25, 07:38, said:

By the way, there is always the possibility that partner hits your major; in that case it is useful to play that 3 of the other major shows a hand too good to raise to game.

Just to recap: SAYC puts minor suit slam tries through Stayman. But the assumption here was that responder has an unbalanced hand, 4M5m with slam interest after the 1NT opening. The auction has proceeded: 1NT-2♣-2M and bingo! Opener has hit your four-card major. But you also have a five-card minor, for sure now with slam interest (initially in the minor suit). What now?

Here is my suggestion:
Priority 1: Inform opener that you have slam interest. How? Stick to the SAYC booklet rules and show the five-card minor. Opener does not yet know about the major suit fit and bids according to the suggestion higher up in this thread. Irrespective of what opener’s next bid is, responder will bid 4M next. Getting to the slam should be easy now. SAYC uses 4NT as Blackwood for Aces. 5NT is used for Kings.

How am I doing?

[plum_tree]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-25, 02:37, said:

Note that Adam (awm) is our resident SAYC expert so he can almost certainly say more about what the "undefined" calls should be. I recommend him for any more advanced questions about SAYC.

Did he assist in compiling the booklet?

[Stephen Tu]

It's wrong of Zelandakh to characterize awm as "the resident SAYC expert" IMO. He's more just a general bridge expert, and an "SA expert". He has certain interpretations about additional sets of agreements to adopt that are not part of the SAYC text, that if adopted would make the system more logical. His basic position is "Assume SAYC is a logically put together system, therefore we should assume [additional set of agreements], even though [portions of additional set of agreements] go against traditional common Standard American practice, and are not directly supported by any text in the booklet". Whereas the alternative viewpoint is that assuming SAYC has to be totally logical is an assumption too far, that the creators of the system & booklet just meant people to play SA as commonly played at the time, with the set of conventions in the booklet, and certainly didn't set out to create a very good, logically coherent system, just figured that people would play things not specified as they always played them. [Main dispute is on the question of whether an auction like 1s-2d-2s-3s should be considered forcing or not]

SAYC is what it is, if it's not in the booklet it's not really SAYC, you are supposed to fill in the gaps with general SA knowledge. But IMO anything not in the text, that has considerable variation in how people play SA, no one can really claim their preference is "definitive SAYC". It's just their preference. If people wanted to play an SA based system, they'd probably be better off playing awm's style than SAYC, because awm's style is more coherent. But IMO you can't call it plain SAYC anymore. It would be asking "how should I play this in my regular partnership, if I am not restricted to sticking with 100% SAYC".

BTW on this auction, with no other agreement than "SAYC", it would be very weird to assume 1nt-2c-2h-2s to be anything other than 5 cd spades unbalanced invitational, so suggestions as treating it as checkback for 4 spades or slam tries are veering into non-SA territory. 3m on 2nd round by responder is forcing, 3nt by opener is discouraging, 3 of the other major by opener is looking for 4-4 fit (since responder can be 4OM+5m), anything else I wouldn't make assumptions. With a good partner other suit bids should be cue bids encouraging game/slam in the minor. If fit for the minor has been shown by raise or cue bid, 4nt by responder can be blackwood. If opener bids 3nt over 3m, and 4nt if responder pulls 3nt, 4nt should still be to play.

[Zelandakh]

You are right I guess. "General bridge expert with more knowledge and experience of SAYC than anyone else I know" would be the longhand for what I mean by this. I thought Adam's interpretations were primarily based on situations where the booklet has conflicting advice, in particular in making Opener's rebids match the definitions for the subsequent auction. Since most club level players do not sem to think about any bids beyond the one they are about to make, it is easy to see why this approach is not one that is going to catch on quickly.

As an aside, I was somewhat compulsive about 1NT structures as a beginner and compiled a series of response systems at that time. Many of the ideas I developed at that time remain with me now. I am not sure if this experience helped make me a better bridge player or not but it certainly helped me to understand how bidding systems are put together in a more general and complete way than is generally taught. It always feels to me like a good place for a beginner to get a grasp on these sorts of things, since the number of hand types Opener can hold is so restricted.