[sceptic]

Quote

Sorry about that. Should I start a new topic next time if I want to comment on something like what Richard said? (Or perhaps Richard should have started the new topic?) Didn't mean to clutter the B/I forum or to irritate anyone .

keep irritating us LOL we like it

[awm]

In fact SAYC is a pretty playable system. Elianna and I play methods which are very close to SAYC in 2/1 auctions. Opener's rebids over 2/1s are pretty close to what a lot of 2/1 game forcers like to play (i.e. reverses and even raises show extras). Many of the "unplayable" aspects of "standard" are eliminated. Some issues with "standard" bidding as many play it:

1. How does opener make a game-forcing raise of responder's 2/1 call? If 1♠-2♣-3♣ or 1♠-2♥-3♥ is not forcing, this means opener has to blast to the four level (especially awful when the suit is a minor) just to force. In SAYC, those sequences are forcing because responder promises a rebid.

2. How does opener bid with a strong balanced hand (18-19 balanced, or 15-17 if not opening 1NT) after a 2/1? If 1♠-2♦-2NT is not forcing, this means opener has to blast 3NT, and this carries the wide range of 15-19 hcp (unless you open 1NT on all 15s with 5♠332). In SAYC, 2NT is forcing, responder promises a rebid.

3. How do you look for slam in opener's major when you hold only 3-card support? If 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♠ is not forcing, then it's virtually impossible to set spades below the four level (basically you have to make up a second suit, then bid 4♠ over 3NT to show "4♠ bid with extras"). In SAYC, 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♠ is forcing (3-card limit raise would've bid 1♠-3♠).

In fact, SAYC 2/1 sequences work almost as well as 2/1 game force sequences. You lose the "forcing 2NT rebid" in auctions like 1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT, as well as losing the ability to easily show single-suited game force hands (although those who play 2/1 GF except suit rebid will have this problem also). You also lose on limit raise hands where opener can't distinguish three or four card support (although you often gain on the 3-card limit raises when opponents would interfere over the 2/1ers forcing notrump, or where opener has a slammish hand and jump shifts after the forcing notrump). You gain on almost all the hands where 2/1ers would respond with the forcing notrump (in SAYC you respond with either a much more limited 1NT, or with a non-GF 2/1). Some of the losses to 2/1 can also be ameliorated by making use of the various jump shifts (either as raises, to distinguish 3 and 4-card limit raise, or as strong jumps to show single-suited game forces). Since in my opinion the forcing notrump in 2/1 is an awful convention, I prefer to play SAYC with a bunch of "extras" rather than 2/1 with "extras." I suspect that a lot of people who love 2/1 simply never took the trouble to learn a version of "standard" where these problems were fleshed out fully -- often times "standard" is taught in a very vague way with many sequences poorly defined, and then people are taught 2/1 game force as the first really structured system.

[pbleighton]

"In fact, SAYC 2/1 sequences work almost as well as 2/1 game force sequences."

I agree that you don't have to play 2/1 to have decent 2/1 bidding.

With one pd, I play standardish (F1) 2/1 responses. Responder promises a rebid except after 1M-2x-2M, which is a minimum which wouldn't accept an invitation to 3NT, and is frequently 5 cards, and after 1S-2H-3H, which is invitational. All other rebids by opener are forcing, and all except 1M-2x-2y, where y is lower ranking than M, are GF. BTW, we play 10-13 NT.

I play "club 2/1" with a couple of pds. I don't mind it. The 2/1 sequences are sometimes better than the standardish system, but overall, the differences aren't much. I don't like the forcing NT much, so 2/1 loses there. Overall, I think a decent "2/1 F1" system bids games and partscores a little better than 2/1, and slams a little worse.

Matchpoints, anyone

Peter

[helene_t]

pigpenz, on Oct 4 2005, 01:08 AM, said:

if all of these are considered standard features of SAYC then alot of people who play SAYC are in trouble

I'm not sure if there even is a lot of people who play SAYC.

It's true that many BBOers put "SAYC" on there profile, but that usually just means
5-card majors
Strong 1NT, transfers (at least to majors)
Strong 2♣
No further agreements

So it could be anything, ranging from Goren to Fony Club to SEF to Biedermeier Rood to 2/1.

But I don't think those people are necesarily in trouble. It's at least as important to know partner's preempt and overcall style as to know what excact version of SA he plays.

[plaur]

pigpenz, on Oct 3 2005, 06:08 PM, said:

if all of these are considered standard features of SAYC then alot of people who play SAYC are in trouble

True.
Playing SAYC on BBO is frustating. I made an effort to learn this system http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf
thinking that the ACBL version was *the* SAYC system.
It seems like anyone on BBO just puts SAYC on their profile but have no idea or is playing some version. So many out there have made up systems and called them SAYC.
If you do not play SAYC dont put SAYC in your profile.

[cherdano]

kfgauss, on Oct 3 2005, 11:32 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 3 2005, 05:31 PM, said:

Can we keep the the slam-try relay systems out off a B/I sayc thread maybe? Thanks.

Sorry about that. Should I start a new topic next time if I want to comment on something like what Richard said? (Or perhaps Richard should have started the new topic?) Didn't mean to clutter the B/I forum or to irritate anyone .

Heh, maybe I overreacted a little. Anyway:

jillybean2 said:

Its ok, we will take what we like (and can understand) and leave the rest!

I do this for my own pleasure as well. I am always happy to read (and sometimes contribute to) threads in the B/I forum, as I hope to find discussions about the right judgement for a given hand, hope to see more people than just Justin arguing in favor of just bidding your hand, leading your best suit, etc., so just see some good sensible natural bridge (instead of having to read how an xyz-denial-last-train transfer cue bid would lead to the right contract automatically).

(Okok, I am exaggerating a little, but I do enjoy this forum here.)