[gwnn]

SAYC is actually defined by this booklet that you are so unspeakably reluctant to look up. It is quite pointless to criticise Zelandakh and helene_t just because they found the three seconds to type in "SAYC booklet" in Google and hit enter and you did not. Instead you like typing into bboskill.com much more, I guess that's ok, but let me spare you the trouble this time and say I am advanced- there although that is overrated. So now you got your three seconds back, maybe you can go and look up the booklet?

[gordontd]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC. On the 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ example I suppose one could agree to temporize with 2♠ holding a minimum hand. It seems playable, barely. It might actually give some advantage at IMP's, or not. However, nobody I ever heard of seems to have proposed it or even thought of it.

Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

Rather than going by some spurious rating you may have found, perhaps you might look at how many reputation upvotes each of them has, and then wonder who it is who looks silly.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2014-June-14, 11:13, said:

Rather than going by some spurious rating you may have found, perhaps you might look at how many reputation upvotes each of them has, and then wonder who it is who looks silly.

Funnily enough I did not even realise the rating given was from bboskill when I read the post. I self-rate as intermediate and just assumed that is what was meant. As it happens I have used a different account for most of the time I have played on BBO in the last years and Zelandakh only has 56 recent hands with pick-ups. The other account has over 650 hands and is Adv+, having been Expert for the majority of the time. I have used this rating before now to point out just how laughable bboskill is.

In any case, my thanks to you Csaba and fromage but it really is unnecessary. Helene's rating of Q in the EBU national grading scheme (a rating that actually means something) speaks for itself and I am comfortable with my own level. It is a little sad that many bridge players cannot assess themselves objectively but it is rather the nature of the game that most cannot see their own mistakes and therefore think they are playing "perfectly" even while making serious errors. In the wider scheme of things mislabelling a system is such a small thing and as pretty much everyone in America seems to do it only to be expected.

[beatrix45]

Interesting.

The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone.

Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

[P_Marlowe]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-14, 12:29, said:

Interesting.

The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone.

Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

I guess the following link
http://en.wikipedia....andard_American

is also not helpful, and the external link, that can be found on this side, directing to a side hosted by the ACBL is
also meaningless.

What ever your credential maybe, the your posts in this threads revealed a lot about your standard,
whatever your own bboskill level may indicate.

[blackshoe]

The SAYC booklet was written by Joe Blow from Kokomo. Joe is a plumber. On his days off, he drinks beer and watches sports on TV. God only knows when he had time to write a booklet about bridge, a game about which he knows absolutely nothing.

You read it on the internet, therefore it is true.

[1eyedjack]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-14, 12:29, said:

Interesting.

The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone.

Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

Confucious say:
When in hole, best stop digging.

[masse24]

Jerry Helms, in one of his oft repeated "basic tenets" states: "It's okay to be wrong, but not okay to be wrong loud."

I leave it to you to figure out which poster above this applies to.

[MrAce]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC. On the 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ example I suppose one could agree to temporize with 2♠ holding a minimum hand. It seems playable, barely. It might actually give some advantage at IMP's, or not. However, nobody I ever heard of seems to have proposed it or even thought of it.

Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

I think it was fortunate for both you and me that I was not the first to reply to this

[PhilKing]

Beatrix - I advise looking up what SAYC stands for before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

I am pretty sure you have never actually played it, and if you are half the player you think you are, you never will.

[JonnyQuest]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-13, 11:12, said:

What is the SAYC booklet . . .?
I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC.
You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from.
Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

Truly one of the more humorous posts in recent times.

Verily I say unto thee, taketh thine own advice and "try not to look so silly."

[awm]

Two over one has the following big advantages over Standard American approaches:

1. You don't need any discussion to determine which auctions are forcing after a 2/1 bid. In Standard American this leads to a lot of accidents for unpracticed partnerships. In SAYC there is a clear definition, but most people who say they play SAYC actually don't...

2. Certain other conventions (i.e. splinters, inverted minors, new minor forcing) are commonly played by "2/1 players" and can be assumed in a pickup 2/1 partnership -- although there is no reason you can't add the same methods to Standard American with good effect.

3. You have considerably more space available in a lot of game force auctions. In the hands of a practiced partnership this can substantially improve slam bidding. For pickup partnerships this space is mostly wasted though.

Note that #1 and #2 mostly apply in pickup partnerships without much discussion. This is why 2/1 is the popular choice in such partnerships among players of decent standard. Standard American has the following advantages over 2/1:

4. Much better sequences on non-fitting invites. Responder can hear more about opener's hand before rebidding his long suit (maybe finding a 6-2 fit in opener's major or a 4-4 fit in a side suit), and can get to two of opener's major after showing his values. All these things are tough in 2/1, where most such invites either start with 1NT and have to bid 2NT by default to show the values (regardless of whether 2M might be a better fit) or start with an invitational jump (if you play this) and shut out opener's rebid.

5. Sometimes better sequences on weak hands, because invitational values are not a possibility for the 1NT response, nor is 3-card support for opener.

However, #3 is potentially more valuable especially at IMP scoring (no surprise that the increasing popularity of 2/1 has come at roughly the same time as increasing popularity of IMPs over MPs).

The SAYC booklet is short and incomplete. In particular it doesn't talk much about opener's rebid (and beyond) in 2/1 auctions. There are some guidelines which seem clearly directed at 1/1 auctions and people have generally assumed these to apply to 2/1 auctions as well even though it doesn't make a lot of sense. The one rule that is clearly stated is that responder promises a second bid after a 2/1, unless opener's rebid is at the game level. This comes as a big surprise to a lot of "Standard American" players who are used to auctions like 1♠-2♣-3♣ and 1♠-2♣-2NT being non-forcing!

The way to make SAYC bidding work given this rule (responder promises a second bid) is that opener should never rebid past two of his major without extras. Thus sequences like 1♠-2♣-3♣ and 1♠-2♣-2NT (clearly forcing, since responder promises a second bid) show extras from opener. With a minimum and a club fit or a balanced hand, opener rebids 2♠ (also forcing) which enables responder to bid 2NT (or 3♣) non-forcing on invitational hands so we can get out of the auction.

Again this is not the sort of thing I would expect a pickup partner to "get right" -- which is why 2/1 is much better for undiscussed partnerships!

[CSGibson]

beatrix45, on 2014-June-14, 12:29, said:

Interesting.

The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone.

Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

Evaluating bridge players based on BBOskill may make you feel good, but it is really pointless and the height of idiocy to make that your primary evaluation of other players on that wildly inaccurate site. I've read Zel and Helene - they are good, thoughtful players. I suspect that you are not based on the way you come across in the forums - people who call names instead of bringing forth intelligent ideas are usually doing so because they cannot bring forth intelligent ideas.

[beatrix45]

CSGibson, on 2014-July-02, 17:25, said:

Evaluating bridge players based on BBOskill may make you feel good, but it is really pointless and the height of idiocy to make that your primary evaluation of other players on that wildly inaccurate site. I've read Zel and Helene - they are good, thoughtful players. I suspect that you are not based on the way you come across in the forums - people who call names instead of bringing forth intelligent ideas are usually doing so because they cannot bring forth intelligent ideas.

Your pals Zel and Helene may be thoughtful, but they can't play a lick, at least not yet. You and some others on this thread, on the other hand, can play. Consider the following:

1. The idea of playing 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ as forcing has some merit, and it relates directly to the question posed by the original poster.

2. The complete analysis is a little complex, but you and others certainly deserve to see it.

3. The 'booklet' treatment amounts to a simple substitution. The traditional SAYC auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ is replaced with the forcing auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥. The old non-forcing auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ is replaced by 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠. This frees up a level of bidding for the former situation (the whole idea of 2/1), but puts extra pressure on the latter situation.

4. The model hand for the new treatment is five running hearts, five running spades and two minor suit aces. A virtual laydown small slam with 28 HCP. Easy to explore. Over 3♥ forcing, you cue bid a ♠ ace or king. 3NT is non-serious. 4 of a minor denies a ♠ card, but is serious and shows the extra king or better.

5. By now you should get the merits of the 'booklet' approach, particularly for IMPs. The magic hand. Two fitting hands with a king extra on both sides of the table. Bid the slam.

6. The drawbacks? First, the old 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ hand is not very common. If balanced, it is often opened one NT. If unbalanced, then in the modern world, a splinter rebid seems the better treatment. An auction like 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♦ actually showing diamonds seems silly to me. It speeds up an already forcing auction to no purpose that I can discern.

7. The second set of drawbacks? Well, after 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠ - P - 2NT - P -? you are pretty much even. 3♥ shows your hand. After 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P -2♠ - P - 3♣ or ♦ - P - 3♥ you are slightly behind since partner does not know if you have two ♥ or three - something of a bother if his/her heart suit is ratty. The biggest issue that I can see is when responder has six+ hearts. Over 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P- 2♠ - P - 3♥ - P - ? you have the wrong hand making the crucial decision.

8. Imo, bottom line. One more thing to remember. Not worth it at matchpoints. Maybe at IMP pairs or long IMP matches. Probably worth it at Swiss Teams.

[PhilKing]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 01:50, said:

3. The 'booklet' etc

Your post shows a good depth of knowledge, but the fact is that the penny has still not dropped as to what SAYC is.

There is no old way or new way of playing it. It is not Standard American - it is a specific convention card (Yellow Card) put together by a committee based on their interpretation of SA with an accompanying booklet. The aim was players from intermediate level and above to be able to sit down and play without discussion, though most fall into the same trap. What you have been doing is discussing why a camel is not a Ferrari.

The "booklet" is SAYC - not someone's opinion of what it should be.

[helene_t]

I don't think it has much merrits to play 1♠-2♥-3♥ as nonforcing. Once responder has forced to 2NT s/he must have values very close to GF, and learning about a major suit fit must be enough to upgrade to a GF.

Similarly,
1♠-2♣
2♥-3♥
really out to be a gf.

But when we find a minor suit fit in similar auction it is not quite clear. I can easily construct a pair or hands that would like to end the auction after
1♥-2♦
3♦
or
1♠-2♣
2♦-3♦

Of course it is equally easy to construct hands that would like those auctions to be forcing.

[beatrix45]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-03, 03:50, said:

The "booklet" is SAYC - not someone's opinion of what it should be.

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

[helene_t]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 05:28, said:

Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

The rule is very simple: a 2-level response promises a rebid unless opener jumps to game. Those 11 words go a long way towards defining which bids are forcing and which aren't. Try to summarize which bids are forcing after a 2-level response in Goren or Acol. You won't come very far with 11 words. As it happens, the rule also applies in SEF so it will be familiar to a lot of European tournament players.

Personally I think the rule makes a lot of sense but to each his/her own.
I don't think many people know the whole booklet by heart, or even the most basic things like the rule about promising a rebid. But then again, it's not like you can assume anything else when a pick-up partner from somewhere else in the World suggests to play SAYC. Playing with an pick-up on BBO who puts "SAYC" on his profile but probably just means "I play 5cM and 15-17, and the rest is whatever feels logical to me", you don't really know what you play. But if you care you can give him a link to the SAYC booklet. Then you will already have a reasonable amount of agreements. You know that Stayman applies, but transfers don't, in response to a 1NT overcall. You know that a new suit in response to a suit overcall is nonforcing. You know that you play J2NT but not NMF. You know that your spot card signals are high=enc/even.

[masse24]

"SAYC" is an acronym for Standard American Yellow Card, which is a specific set of partnership agreements and conventions, using Standard American as a base. The ACBL even has “a booklet” describing exactly what is, and what is not, forcing (though it is inadequate). The term “SAYC” is often used to misidentify some personalized version of Standard American.

Trixi...that you believe 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♥ to be non-forcing, does not change the fact that in SAYC, it is forcing. The ACBL SAYC System Booklet, which you continue to reject, clearly states: “Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level.” You may not like this system. You may not agree with this system. But it is part of SAYC.

There are several “oddball” treatments in SAYC. For example: 1m – 2NT?
Would you consider this forcing? In SAYC it is. 2NT, in that auction, shows 13-15 and is a Game-Force.
Would I play it that way opposite a random partner who stated he wanted to play SAYC? No. I would be too afraid of being passed by a partner who thought I had sort of some invitational 11 HCP.

“The booklet” if you will take the time to look it up, is on the ACBL website. ACBL SAYC System Booklet

As Phil stated earlier, what you have probably been referring to as SAYC is (and this is quite common) most likely some personalized version of Standard American.

[gordontd]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 05:28, said:

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

The booklet defined SAYC and preceded BBO.