[jjlango]

I've been learning Bridge bidding from Audrey Grant's Club Series book, which I think is SAYC. However, I've heard that expert players use a modified 2/1 for natural bidding. I'd like to become an expert player, so is it a waste of time to continue learning SAYC when 2/1 is better?

Also, do I need to learn a natural bidding system or can I learn an artificial system instead? I want to become a good player as fast as possible.

[hrothgar]

jjlango, on 2012-December-02, 03:29, said:

I've been learning Bridge bidding from Audrey Grant's Club Series book, which I think is SAYC. However, I've heard that expert players use a modified 2/1 for natural bidding. I'd like to become an expert player, so is it a waste of time to continue learning SAYC when 2/1 is better?

Also, do I need to learn a natural bidding system or can I learn an artificial system instead? I want to become a good player as fast as possible.

Play whatever system will make it easiest to find good partner's in your area

Been able to easily learn from others is probably a lot more important than the "technical merit" of the system (especially since no one can agree about technical merit)

[blackshoe]

Play often. Play with better players than yourself. Play against better pairs than yours. Play whatever system your partner wants to play, within reason (don't agree to play conventions you don't know, unless your partner agrees to go over them thoroughly with you before you play them). Play with partners who are willing to put some work into the system they play with you - discussing why hands went bad, and reviewing the meaning of and follow-ons to conventional bids, and even natural sequences.

The only real downside to learning an artificial system (like Precision, for example) is the lack of partners willing to play it. Most places, including online, you are far more likely to find SA or 2/1 players than anything else.

All that said, if you decide to form a single partnership with one good partner, and you both want to learn Precision, go for it.

[steve2005]

there is very little difference between 2/1 and SAYC. the forcing 1N being the biggest. also some sequences after a 2/1 bid are non-forcing in SAYC.
why not learn both?

[Cthulhu D]

jjlango, on 2012-December-02, 03:29, said:

I've been learning Bridge bidding from Audrey Grant's Club Series book, which I think is SAYC. However, I've heard that expert players use a modified 2/1 for natural bidding. I'd like to become an expert player, so is it a waste of time to continue learning SAYC when 2/1 is better?

Also, do I need to learn a natural bidding system or can I learn an artificial system instead? I want to become a good player as fast as possible.

Two observations

1) Lots and lots of people play SAYC, so you'll want to learn it for playing in pickup partnerships, and, importantly, playing against SAYC players. Hrothgar is correct that availability of partners is more important than the technical merits of the system.

2) 2/1 and SAYC are so similar that converting from SAYC -> 2/1 doesn't require much time. Given the popularity (and superiority imho) of playing 1M-1NT as semi-forcing, the only significant differences are in 2/1 auctions that just don't happen that often.

With that in mind, time invested in SAYC will help you with 2/1, and visa versa.

[CarlRitner]

Read Audrey Grant/Eric Rodwell 2/1 Bidding system book. Stick with this system.
Learn to play the cards and why, this will help the bidding make sense

[SteveMoe]

Check out Larry Cohen's attempt to create a portable 2/1 approach for those starting out:
LC Standard

Truth in advertising - Larry himself advocates learning Precision from the start, but you need some committed partners because Precision tends not to be as portable as 2/1.

[VMars]

As others said, see what expert people in your area play (but I have a different reason).

It may not tell you what system is "best" (I know very good players who play either one or neither), but you'll be better able to get good answers to bidding questions from your local experts if you are playing the same system that they are used to.

I see a lot of beginners start with Standard American, and ask a local "expert" what they should have bid, and get a technically wrong answer, because these experts don't really know SA, they know 2/1.

[Zelandakh]

The answer here is that it does not really matter which system you learn at this stage other than it is both natural and allows you to get (good) partners. It is far more important that you start to develop bidding judgement and good cardplay skills. These are the basics for someone to be considered "a good player". If you become as good as you hope, there will come a time when you wonder why you worried so much about this. It is really very easy to switch between systems like SA and 2/1. Once you understand (fully) how the bidding systems work, it is also pretty simple to switch to an artificial system, although not everything will transfer. More likely, you will find parts of natural bidding which you like and parts that you do not. There are gadgets (conventions) which are available to fill most of those parts which you may decide you do not like. As you become better, you will add these to your repertoire. But it is better not to have them at the start so that you can see the logic for them, as well as what you are losing.

[S2000magic]

I submit that it depends on where you play.

If you play in the Charlotte (NC) Bridge Club, for example, you're better off learning 2/1.

In other clubs, you might be better off learning SAYC.

[neilkaz]

I agree that it will also depend upon where you play. In San Diego they were teaching 2/1 at the club 25 years ago, but here near Chicago, I can find almost no flight C or even flight B who play 2/1 so I play S/A with them.

Be careful of calling S/A SAYC. This is the ACBL SAYC card. http://www.acbl.org/...y/sayc_card.pdf

You'll be shocked at how many who say they play SAYC, but actually don't. SAYC is a specific card, but the acromym has morphed to mean S/A to many. Around here, few know or play Jordon 2NT after the opp's takeout double even though it is on the SAYC card. Most play systems on after an overcall of 1NT. Most play that 1m-2NT shows 11-12 and 1m-3nt is 13-15. Some think they are playing SAYC but don't play J2NT. Of course most play neg X to a higher level than 2♠.

You'll certainly want to learn S/A if playing online on BBO, since, FME, more players on BBO play something akin to S/A than 2/1.

.. neilkaz ..

[blackshoe]

I had an expert partner a few years ago tell me he preferred SA to 2/1 because the latter restricted his judgement too much. I pointed out that at my level, I didn't have much judgement to restrict.

[quiddity]

jjlango, on 2012-December-02, 03:29, said:

I've been learning Bridge bidding from Audrey Grant's Club Series book, which I think is SAYC. However, I've heard that expert players use a modified 2/1 for natural bidding. I'd like to become an expert player, so is it a waste of time to continue learning SAYC when 2/1 is better?

Also, do I need to learn a natural bidding system or can I learn an artificial system instead? I want to become a good player as fast as possible.

Yes, IMO it's a waste of time to learn SAYC first. 2/1 is less confusing and more widely used by good players.

And yes, IMO, you should learn a natural bidding system. To become a good player as fast as possible you need to develop bidding judgment. Part of this is playing as much as possible, but it is also helpful to read some of the vast amount of literature about bidding. Most of that literature, in the English language at least, is geared towards natural systems - and the recent literature is geared mostly towards 2/1. Examples are bidding polls in Bridge World and the ACBL magazine, bidding discussions here on the forums, etc.

[lycier]

Of course, 2/1 first,2/1 best.

[chasetb]

I have heard that down in Florida, most of the newbies are being taught straight 2/1. 2/1 is easier than Standard American in the senses that a Game Force can easily be set, there is more literature out today about it, and by default it utilizes more useful conventions. However, a large majority of 2/1 is in fact Standard American, so learn that first and get comfortable with it, and then progress to 2/1.

My personal preference between the two is Standard American. I like to be able to show my suit immediately if I have (8)9-11 HCP, there are easy ways to Game Force after a 2/1 first round response if you trust partner, and you can play in 1NT after partner opens 1♥ or 1♠. Also, I would venture to say that most people on BBO who play in the Main Bridge Club play 2/1 as only forcing for 1 round, which is akin to S.A.

If you can find a good teacher and a steady partner, Precision is the easiest system to play. For the little more time invested, it pays off huge dividends, that while can be achieved in 2/1, takes an enormous amount of time to match. The reason behind this is that bidding judgment isn't generally needed, so less mistakes are made. Things are also more defined - you must cover bidding over interference in lots of cases, so there's no problem there.

If you want to progress as fast as you can, stick to Standard American and master it. Then, move on to 2/1, and after getting the hang of it, get a partner and play Precision. While doing all of that, play as much as you can, and read bridge books. Points Schmoints by Marty Bergen, The Drawing of Trump and its Postponement by Fred Karpin, How to Read Your Opponents Cards by Mike Lawrence, The Art of Card Reading (also by Karpin), Why You Lose at Bridge by S.J. Simon, Killing Defence by Hugh Kelsey, Master Play by Terence Reese, and The Rodwell Files by Eric Rodwell are all great books. I listed them roughly in the order they should be covered, and except the Bergen book, I have read or am reading all of them.

[TylerE]

From my experience, most 2/1 club players are in fact getting the worst of both worlds, because they don't play the conventions needed to actually play the system well (Like actually understanding NMF followups, or 4sf auctions, or the like), and are stuck with all the downsides, like being unable to play 1NT after 1M openings.

When I have a choice, I prefer something like:

2/1 absolute GF
1NT semiforcing
1♣ 2+
1♦ 4+ always and either unbalanced or strong (so random weakish 3343 type hands open 1♣, 1♦)

[Gerben42]

In my experience, don't focus too much on system. It is very much possible to win a club tournament without conventions (even w/o Stayman and Blackwood). Keeping this in mind, the conclusion must be that judgement and a regular partnership with few misunderstandings should be the goal.

[Antig2]

BBO has a convention card for sayc. It is good enough for beginners and even experts do not always make the right bid. If you feel that you know it well try another system like precision or 2/1.

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2012-December-21, 12:43, said:

From my experience, most 2/1 club players are in fact getting the worst of both worlds, because they don't play the conventions needed to actually play the system well (Like actually understanding NMF followups, or 4sf auctions, or the like), and are stuck with all the downsides, like being unable to play 1NT after 1M openings.

When I have a choice, I prefer something like:

Your observations about most 2/1 club players are accurate; the solution, IMO, is to develope the workable follow-ups rather than abandon the basic structure. Re-defining minor suit openings doesn't have a lot to do with 2/1 but can create its own problems, which you also will have to develope continuations to handle (such as how to find or reject a club fit after a 1C opening).

2/1 refers to a specific situation ---the values shown by a 2/1 response ---, and thus an increased burden on the 1N response to a major opening. Minor suit starts are discussed in most 2/1 teaching texts, but are not really part of 2/1.

[Zelandakh]

chasetb, on 2012-December-21, 01:20, said:

If you can find a good teacher and a steady partner, Precision is the easiest system to play. For the little more time invested, it pays off huge dividends, that while can be achieved in 2/1, takes an enormous amount of time to match. The reason behind this is that bidding judgment isn't generally needed, so less mistakes are made.

I think this is not only wrong, it is dangerous to post in this forum. Anyone who thinks that bidding judgement is not needed when playing Precision either has not played it or does not understand what judgement is. It is true that playing an artificial system sometimes changes the type of judgement that is required and it is certainly true that the more defined your bids are, the easier judgements are to make. That is true of any system. It is absolutely not true of any bidding system that it can be played to a high level without judgement. To suggest to someone just learning the game that this is not the case is just terrible.