[kvkmak]

I see many people have "SAYC" in their profile. Do they really mean SAYC? Seems not. Seems they mean SA as in Standard American but not SAYC. If you play SAYC, you should know you play Xfers and NegX -> 2S and stuff like that.

Anyone else notice this?

-ken

[DrTodd13]

Rampant. The one I love is seeing "simple SAYC". It's a bloody standard...simplify it in any way and it is no longer SAYC.

[Stephen Tu]

Maybe 66% have no idea what the "YC" stand for and have no idea that there is a difference.

[kenrexford]

How come so many say they play bridge and so few actually play anything resembling bridge?

[matmat]

kenrexford, on Aug 2 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

How come so many say they play bridge and so few actually play anything resembling bridge?

good question.

[pigpenz]

SBBO

[JoAnneM]

It is very simple - SAYC means you don't play 2/1 or Precision, Polish Club, Acol, etc. It is kind of a negative positive.

[peachy]

It is just shorthand for "no forcing NT, no splinter, no inverted minor, no WJS, no 2/1 gf, no lebensohl, no this and no that".

[paulg]

If we admitted that we had no idea what SAYC was, then no-one would play with us. So we know that SAYC means 5-card majors, strong notrump and weak 2s in three suits ... the rest we just make up.

ACBL SAYC system booklet (PDF)

Paul

[sceptic]

seems to me that sayc is just what people on BBO use as an easy way to agree a basic bidding system for pick ups, regular partners usually tell ops they play sayc so they dont have to type out loads of info for a few games, it is quite acceptable I think for people to do this.

90% approx of BBO people just seem to play for a social reason and just want to while away a few hours having fun with friends, spending 30 mins discussing conventons and how they play them seems like no fun at all with a pick up p

Serious players like a lot of forum posters probably spend hours discussing the ins and outs of the game and that is thier idea of fun. I am not decrying this at all, seems each to thier own

Ken, your comment
"How come so many say they play bridge and so few actually play anything resembling bridge? "
is your opinion, one that is probably common in the forums.... NOT everyone wants to be a good as bridge player as your self... I am sure you have shelves and shelves of throphies in your house, possibly an extension had to be built to house them all. I even think you maybe the sort of person that would write a best selling book about bridge. I for one just like play for fun, knowing I will never reach the dizzy heights of some one like Justin, I am sure there are lots of people about that (prob a majority of bridge players) just want to improve to the next level (how ever you define it)

AT the end of the day, we play with people from all walks of life and cultures, SAYC is an easy enough concept to grasp on BBO, it just means 5 card majors... who actually really cares if it is not played properly, most of the posters here think it is a poor system and limited

Kvkmak, do you play SAYC and if you do, do you add any conventions to it to cope with system flaws or omissions and if so, do you alert SAYC when playing it

[kvkmak]

Yes, I can and do play SAYC like in the ACBL pamphlet. Maybe not as well as I'd like but that's the system I try to bid. I like it because it is a standard and therefore is good for pickup partners. On my profile, I list a few of the critical conventions after SAYC so people who haven't a clue about SAYC might have and I did that I play transfer, NegX, etc.

When I played at a club, about 15 years ago), I played 2/1. I don't remember the details and couldn't play it well now.

One thing I don't really understand is why people try to play lots of complicated conventions when they are going to play three ands with a pickup partner. I doubt you can get the details right. It's too bad the term "SAYC" as gotten watered down as it would be fine for advanced and intermediate players who are going to play pickup partners for three hands.

[matmat]

sceptic, on Aug 3 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

seems to me that sayc is just what people on BBO use as an easy way to agree a basic bidding system for pick ups, regular partners usually tell ops they play sayc so they dont have to type out loads of info for a few games, it is quite acceptable I think for people to do this.

So you think it is acceptable for people to lie? Posing as someone with bridge ability who plays a particular (reasonably well defined) system and then demonstrating an utter lack of this ability is obnoxious at best.

Quote

90% approx of BBO people just seem to play for a social reason and just want to while away a few hours having fun with friends, spending 30 mins discussing conventons and how they play them seems like no fun at all with a pick up p

Right... and they do so while branding themselves as "Experts" or "World Class" or "Advanced"... quite the social thing to do, to misrepresent ones bridge experience and prowess, to build up a pick up p's expectations and then demonstrate a complete and utter lack of knowledge and cardsense. What great manners.

[kenrexford]

sceptic, on Aug 3 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

Ken, your comment
"How come so many say they play bridge and so few actually play anything resembling bridge? "
is your opinion, one that is probably common in the forums.... NOT everyone wants to be a good as bridge player as your self... I am sure you have shelves and shelves of throphies in your house, possibly an extension had to be built to house them all. I even think you maybe the sort of person that would write a best selling book about bridge. I for one just like play for fun, knowing I will never reach the dizzy heights of some one like Justin, I am sure there are lots of people about that (prob a majority of bridge players) just want to improve to the next level (how ever you define it)

Lighten up Francis.

[vuroth]

cardsharp, on Aug 3 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

ACBL SAYC system booklet (PDF)

I must refer to that document at least 3 times a week.

That said, I use cue as limit raise or better, I use splinters when they come up, and I assume 1m-p-2NT is NOT 13-15GF. If anyone EVER chastises me, I'll be more than happy to apologize, but so far this policy has seen me right more often than wrong.

[Trumpace]

Frankly, I don't see why this should be an issue. You play with a random person and expect them to have accurate info on their profile? What about the rating? Does that bother you too?

As sceptic said 90% of the poeple probably just play socially and haven't read a book etc.

About the point that people are lying, I don't think they are all wilfully lying, it is just that they probably just don't know. People who put advanced as their rating, might actually have been winning in their local clubs, which according to BBO, they are advanced.

If you think they are being obnoxious, BBO has a good feature: mark them as enemies and move on.

If you are serious enough about the game, you should know better than to fret about incorrect information on a random person's profile. Better yet, find a regular partner and play with them.

0.02

[HeavyDluxe]

A couple thoughts...

First, as long as BBO is an open site (and I hope it remains so) there are going to be ignorant people on there. They're going to say they 'play SAYC' when they actually mean some unique blend of Standard and meditative guesses. These are the same people who alert every bid as 'natural' or refuse to disclose the meaning of a bid because '[they] don't have to tell you that'.

While this sucks, most of us have been there (we simply took the initiative get out of that rut).

Secondly, I think it's perfectly appropriate to explain to someone that SAYC is a *defined system* and they're not actually playing SAYC... I keep the ACBL SAYC link handy, as well as links to BWS and Fred's Learn to Play Bridge software. By and large, I think polite mention of this will get some people to study a bit more and act a little more informed.

[blackshoe]

World class players don't, I think, play SAYC. Not by choice, anyway.

Some years ago, I was introduced to a new player at the local club. She said, quite proudly, "I play SAYC." "Good," I said, "then you play Jacoby 2NT." "What's that?" she asked. She never did learn it.

[jillybean]

HeavyDluxe, on Aug 3 2008, 11:39 AM, said:

Secondly, I think it's perfectly appropriate to explain to someone that SAYC is a *defined system* and they're not actually playing SAYC...  I keep the ACBL SAYC link handy, as well as links to BWS and Fred's Learn to Play Bridge software.  By and large, I think polite mention of this will get some people to study a bit more and act a little more informed.

I doubt it, its not like there is a lack of information out there.

[Mbodell]

I think some of this may be a prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics phenomena as well and SAYC may mean not Standard American as defined by the Yellow Card book but instead online standard as defined by what many people play online or even F2F when picking up partners. But maybe that's begging the question? Many words and phrases change their meaning with use. Begging the question now can mean both "raising the question" and "assuming the answer in the setting up of the question".

So SAYC could mean Standard American Yellow Card or could mean something else like 5 card majors and not 2/1 and not forcing club or maybe something else all together. It leaves us in a dilemma (which once also had to mean two choices instead of just any difficult spot).

So if you play SAYC but with splinters, limit cues, Ogust, and short club more power to you, and people can (mostly) understand what you mean and on most hands the slight differences probably will not matter. When I play F2F and play Standard American style I generally put in the "system description" SAish which is no doubt a more accurate name than SAYC, but doesn't matter that much.

Maybe we should all just switch to saying we play substandard american?

[blackshoe]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass