Re: Is this auction possible in SAYC?
Kenny McCormack
Fred. <ghrno-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>My inference was that since the question was if the auction was
>possible in SAYC, it referred to the pamplet. Otherwise, to me the
>question would seem empty with an obvious "yes" for an answer.
I see what you are saying, but I have tried to make it clear that my
questions are never to be interpreted as being strictly exercises in
hermeneutics of the SAYC text. I'm more interested in the practical
side of things - "SAYC as she is spoke". And in the "as she is spoke"
category, the question is still meaningful - a system can be quite
sensible and playable and still be referred to as SAYC even though it
does not agree with the document. Equally clearly (and addressing
specifically your point), a system could be referred to as SAYC and be
neither sensible nor playable.
Now, I grant that anytime someone makes a comment like that (i.e., like
the above paragraph), one is making an implicit charge that the document
is flawed and needs to be fixed. However, in real life we all know that
adapting and changing "how she is spoke" is easier and more practical
than is changing the document.
And, of course, these same comments apply even more forcefully to the "C
standards" documents...
Fred.
Sorry. I thought perhaps it was a practical question about how to
live within the scope of the pamphlet.
There obviously is a problem making a 2 over 1 response with just any
10 HCP when it promises a rebid. Personally, I would rather have at
least 12 HCP or a 6-card suit if my 2/1 has absolutely promised a
rebid, and sometimes even that isn't enough.
I shade the bad 10 into 1NT allowing the auction you speak of to
occur. I also treat opener's minimum rebid of the opening suit as
releasing responder from the rebid promise if the hand is starting to
look like a bad fit. Surprisingly, these practices have not yet
earned me a lecture. But, I don't play SAYC enough establish a
partnership understanding or to speak for "standard" practice.
Fred.