[Fluffy]

gotoshi, on Nov 20 2005, 04:46 PM, said:

What should beginners learn?

Whatever people you can find to be your partners usually play is the best. You need to partne better players to improve

[Winstonm]

I don't play much SAYC, but when I do I have one simple suggestion that seems to increase accuracy: if responder makes a 2/1 he promises another bid unless opener's rebid is precisely 2N. So on this hand I would be free to bid 3C. Notice this agreement is not a game force, but a 1-round force - I don't see the value of playing a system that is designed to allow you to stop in precisely 3-of-a-minor, therefore, if you do raise responder's minor you should hold extra strength or extra shape and not the random 5323 with 3 card support.

Without this agreement, I'm going to bid 2D, which I know is forcing and allowing partner to better define his hand before I move again; hopefully, I'll be better placed after his next bid.

Winston

[Winstonm]

gotoshi, on Nov 20 2005, 11:46 AM, said:

What should beginners learn?

Bridge - one of the few games you can play for a lifetime - that and Go Fish.

[awm]

hrothgar, on Nov 20 2005, 10:57 AM, said:

EricK, on Nov 20 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

Do you really think they mean that in SAYC a 2NT rebid after 1♠ 2♣ shows 13-16 points? If you read the whole document, especially the bit about 2/1 promising a rebid, they can't mean this. They must mean that the maximum minimum hands bid 2NT and the minimum minimum hands go through 2M.

Whatever floats your boat...

I have no interest in arguing about how SAYC should be played.
Its a piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities.

Its not "standard": No one has a clue what is/is not part of the system
Its not effective
Its not even easy to play/remember

Please, hrothgar, keep your insults to yourself.

Honestly I don't find it particularly enlightening to listen to you bad-mouth a system that you obviously (1) have never played and (2) don't really understand. Elianna and I play SAYC with only a few extra gadgets, and do consistently well in regional events (not to mention a respectable showing in the national mixed BAM). We used to play 2/1, and we switched to SAYC because we believe it to be simpler, easier to remember, and more effective. Our subsequent results have basically supported this.

Wouldn't it be easier to settle this via the adequate solver's club? So far it looks to me like Elianna and I (playing SAYC) have avoided a bad game that you bid using Moscito, and found a good slam that you missed... not half bad for a pair using a "piss-poor system with no redeeming qualities." Perhaps you will make up some ground on the later boards -- we had a couple near the end where our judgement was not best and we reached sub-optimal contracts, although none where our methods were in any way insufficient to reach the top spot in theory.

[Robert]

Hello klavan14

1S-2C-3H*=splinter, 4+ clubs if 2/1 forcing style.

In SAYC, majors, 5-5+ game forcing.

Hello Winstonm

What would you bid over 1M-2D in SAYC? There is no 'other minor' to bid below the 3C level.

Your 1M-2C-2D* bid was forcing and playable.

Regards,
Robert

[Echognome]

awm, on Nov 21 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

<snip>
Wouldn't it be easier to settle this via the adequate solver's club?
<snip>

I'd personally rather not have the adequate solvers club used in this way. I don't want it to be a competition of systems, but rather an area where we can have an open exchange of ideas about systems, judgments, and conventions that might be useful for everyone.

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2005, 06:20 PM, said:

Hi Peter:

I should have been more clear:

I agree with you that SAYC defines the 3♣ raise as forcing.
However, I believe that it is unreasonable to do so...

Not bad for someone who just blamed the rest of the (SAYC) world that:

"I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

1. A pathetic bidding system
2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system "

Isn't it what you just did, Richard ?

[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on Nov 21 2005, 01:42 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2005, 06:20 PM, said:

Hi Peter:

I should have been more clear:

I agree with you that SAYC defines the 3♣ raise as forcing.
However, I believe that it is unreasonable to do so...

Not bad for someone who just blamed the rest of the (SAYC) world that:

"I will repeat my earlier comments regarding

1. A pathetic bidding system
2. People projecting their own bidding theories onto a defined system "

Isn't it what you just did, Richard ?

As I noted already, I did a very poor job of expressing myself in my original post.

Looking at the posting, I say two completely contradictory things...

1. That 1♠ - 2♣ - 3C promises a rebid (I was aware of this)
2. That 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ promises a minimum hand and is non-forcing...

For this, I apologize.

My intention was to suggest that forcing partner to play 4♣ opposite a minimum 2/1 seems rather flawed to me...

[hrothgar]

awm, on Nov 21 2005, 09:24 AM, said:

Please, hrothgar, keep your insults to yourself.

Honestly I don't find it particularly enlightening to listen to you bad-mouth a system that you obviously (1) have never played and (2) don't really understand. Elianna and I play SAYC with only a few extra gadgets, and do consistently well in regional events (not to mention a respectable showing in the national mixed BAM). We used to play 2/1, and we switched to SAYC because we believe it to be simpler, easier to remember, and more effective. Our subsequent results have basically supported this.

Just out of curiousity... When you say that you "switched to SAYC", I'm very curious what you are actually playing...

Do you have a forcing minor suit raise?
Does the auction 1m - 2N show a game forcing hand?
Do you treat 1S - (3C) - X as penalty?
Do you play the same response schedule over 1NT openings?
Do you play Strong Jump Shifts over major suit openings

Personally, I differentiate between "SAYC" and 5 majors without a forcing NT.
I'd be curious to understand whether you see any dividing line...

[awm]

There's always the question of "what makes a system"? There are probably very few partnerships who have exactly identical agreements. I could argue that you and free aren't "really playing Moscito" because you have a number of agreements not included in the moscito document (notrump systems and followups after NF responses to 1D/H immediately come to mind).

Then again, it certainly seems to me that what hannie and inquiry play isn't "really 2/1" so there must be a line of some sort here.

Elianna and my methods share the following features with SAYC:

Our opening structure is identical to SAYC opening structure.

Our 2/1 bids are not game forcing, and in fact all of the followup sequences are identical to SAYC except that after 1M-2♣ we play 2♦ as the "catch-all" and 2M as establishing a game force (instead of 2♦ natural and 2M as the catch-all which is forcing but not to game).

Our 1NT response to 1M is limited and neither "forcing" nor "semi-forcing" and completely denies a fit for the major.

We immediately limit raise with three or four card support (however unlike sayc, we do distinguish two types of limit raise by folding one of them into the 2NT response to 1M).

We do play strong jump shifts over 1M. Our requirements for this bid are perhaps slightly different from SAYC requirements (although my recollection is that SAYC does not state specific requirements beyond game forcing).

The following are the major differences between our methods and SAYC:

We use 2♦ after 1M-2♣ as the artificial "catch-all."

We play gazilli 2♣ after 1M-1Y.

We play slightly different minor suit raising responses, including inverted minors and invitational 2NT. Honestly this stuff would probably be more SAYC-ish except that it's a holdover from our 2/1 playing days.

We fold some limit raises into the 2NT response to 1M.

Our notrump response structure, while actually very similar to SAYC, is not quite the same.

We play lebensohl in some sequences, including over reverses.

We play two-way new minor force after 1NT rebids (only).

We have some defensive bidding agreements, such as a defense to 1NT and strong ♣. We also play systems on over 1NT overcalls.

We have explicitly discussed some stylistic things like raising 1m-1M-2M on three cards.

------------

Honestly I don't think many (any?) serious partnerships can completely describe all their agreements in an 8-10 page document. But I'd say our methods are a lot closer to SAYC than they are to, say, 2/1, precision, or "standard" bidding.

I should note that only one non-SAYC treatment came up at all in Echognome's adequate solvers hands. This was lebensohl over reverses, and I am 100% certain the same contract would have been reached if Elianna had been forced to use 2♠ (fourth suit forcing to game) instead of 3♣ (natural and game forcing).

[hrothgar]

awm, on Nov 22 2005, 06:57 AM, said:

There's always the question of "what makes a system"? There are probably very few partnerships who have exactly identical agreements. I could argue that you and free aren't "really playing Moscito" because you have a number of agreements not included in the moscito document (notrump systems and followups after NF responses to 1D/H immediately come to mind).

I think that you are having difficult differentitating between a specific system like SAYC and a family of system like 2/1, MOSCITO, or Standard American.

Case in point: MOSCITO is a family of systems -

There are a number of different system variants including

Honeymoon MOSCITO, Terrorist MOSCITO, MOSCITO Byte, Marston - Thompson MOSCITO, Willey - Victim MOSCITO

Different system variants vary dramatically from one another. However, they are still referred as MOSCITO because they share a common descent.

This same argument can not be applied to SAYC...
SAYC is a specific system.

[awm]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Nov 22 2005, 07:26 AM'] [quote name='awm' date='Nov 22 2005, 06:57 AM']Case in point: MOSCITO is a family of systems -

There are a number of different system variants including

Honeymoon MOSCITO, Terrorist MOSCITO, MOSCITO Byte, Marston - Thompson MOSCITO, Willey - Victim MOSCITO

Different system variants vary dramatically from one another. However, they are still referred as MOSCITO because they share a common descent.

This same argument can not be applied to SAYC...
SAYC is a specific system. [/quote]
Sure, SAYC is specifically defined by what's on several webpages, used for the US "bridge pro tour" events, and promoted by ACBL. I'm not sure why this means that you are only playing SAYC if you play exactly what's written there though...

After all, precision was defined in CC Wei's book. When this was written, that was the only precision. But yet now a lot of people claim to play precision when in fact their methods bear little resemblance to what CC Wei created. Why are they still playing precision, yet when my methods are very slightly different from SAYC I am no longer playing SAYC?

Similarly 2/1 is defined in books by Hardy and Lawrence. But yet people who play things that bear little resemblance to those methods still claim to play 2/1 (I think Inquiry's methods of choice are a good example of this). Why are they still playing 2/1 when I'm no longer playing SAYC?

Often what happens is that a "specific system" is defined at some point. This is the full set of agreements played by some particular pair. Almost no two pairs in existence play the same specific system. Then people start tweaking it. It seems reasonable to say that "minor" tweaks preserve the basic "systemness." For example, if I play SAYC, and decide I really need to play inverted minors, this change doesn't really mean I'm not playing SAYC. It means I'm playing "SAYC with inverted minors." As to whether Elianna and my tweaks actually preserve the "SAYC-ness" to the degree that we are playing "SAYC with gazilli, inverted minors, and 2NT limit+" or whether you want to define this as a wholly new system is a matter purely of perception.

[han]

awm, on Nov 22 2005, 04:41 PM, said:

is a matter purely of perception.

Yes, I agree.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Nov 23 2005, 12:41 AM, said:

Similarly 2/1 is defined in books by Hardy and Lawrence. But yet people who play things that bear little resemblance to those methods still claim to play 2/1 (I think Inquiry's methods of choice are a good example of this). Why are they still playing 2/1 when I'm no longer playing SAYC?

Same issue: 2/1 is a family of systems that includes Bridge World Standard, Eastern Scientific, Aces Scientific, yada, yada yada.

SAYC is pretty specific system which damn well doesn't include gazilli, a forcing minor raise, or 1M - 2NT as a limit raise+.

For what its worth, I have no problem with saying that you play Standard American... I don't understand why you want to use an inaccurate description...

[Kalvan14]

IMHO, the difference between SAYC and other systems is that SAYC is what its name says, i.s. Standard American Yellow Card. A system which should be well defined, since it is the basis for most of the propaganda efforts of the ABCL (as an aside, I do not have anything against this. It is reasonable, and advisable, that a federation promotes a standard system). I would even go forward, and would make it mandatory to use SAYC for beginners bridge lessons, and for events below a certain rating.

I have truly difficulties in believing that a sequence 1M-2m-3m can be passed. Opener has not defined at all his hand, he has just shown some shape. Given the nebulous range of a SAYC 2/1, I am strongly convinced that this sequence is forcing up to game or 4m.

Anyway, my partner on that hand must have had his own doubts, since he came back with a (forcing) 2♦. Obviously, the bid tray comes back with a 4♦ by S.
What now?

[Winstonm]

Quote

What would you bid over 1M-2D in SAYC? There is no 'other minor' to bid below the 3C level.

Hey, Robert.

IMO, one of the distinct problems with SAYC is the confusion created over what is and what is not forcing - so much so that I believe it is a poor choice for beginners to learn as it leads to Blackwood-itis where the ace-ask is used as a sign of exuberance rather than an intelligent bid.

One significant problem is the auction you mention: 1M-2D. Either 3D is a 1-round force or you must bid a false 3C/2S to create a force. To keep it more natural and more usable it is my thinking that even in SAYC responder should guarantee another bid unless opener rebids 2N. For simplicity, opener's rebids at the 2-level are forcing to 2N or 3 of a minor; opener's rebids at the 3 level are forcing to 3N or 4 of a minor. What this actually does is somewhat raise the level of a 2/1 to more like an 11-12 count. One thing overlooked by many is that the bases of SAYC came from a foundation of sound opening bids, where many 12 counts were passed. If you routinely only open 13 counts then it is ok to have a 2/1 as a 10-count; but if you open a lot of 11/12 point hands you probably need to upgrade the requirements for a 2/1.

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

I learned bridge at my mother's knee and other joints..... "Kitchen" bridge was bid what you thot you could make. 1S-p-3NT could be anything that you thot would produce at least 9 tricks. I see a lot of beginners (rookies to tournament or technical bridge) who bid that way due to lack of knowledge about what can be done with a series of symbols and numbers.......

Is that "standard"? To a lot of people it is "usual" which is the same thing for a lot of other people who play their "usual" precision, moscito, 2/1 etc.

Sayc gets a bad rap because it is associated with the least technical (read most easily intuitively understandable method, as bids mean what they sound like etc.) method that a lot of people play at whatever level.

Personally, my apologies to Matt, I like the adequate solvers club for just that reason, to see how the various methods compare. (and hopefully how they compete eventually). (Like Jack, Gib etc. in the battle of the bauds.)

Vive la différence!

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 23 2005, 10:45 PM, said:

SAYC gets a bad rap because it is associated with the least technical (read most easily intuitively understandable method, as bids mean what they sound like etc.) method that a lot of people play at whatever level.

Spare me the naturalist victim talk...
I don't see folks going arround bashing Aco in the same way the bash SAYC...

I can summarize why people ridicule SAYC with one easy example:

Partner opens 1♦. RHO passes.
You hold

♠ A6
♥ K4
♦ AK8743
♣ 643

what's your bid?

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

Partner opens 1♦. RHO passes.
You hold

♠ A6
♥ K4
♦ AK8743
♣ 643

what's your bid?

Is this a serious question? In SAYC you would bid 2NT with this. Game going hand, 13-15 or so hcp. Perfect? Of course not, but that is the bid.

[hrothgar]

oops