Gerben42 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 My favorite 5 - 5 black story comes from the German individual championship. The vulnerability is: LHO: 2nd leagueRHO: 1st leagueCHO: Wouldn't dare playing something fancy like a team league, > 70 years Partner opens 1♣, RHO doubles. You hold: ♠Axxx♥Qxxx♦Qxx♣Qx and bid 1NT, trying to save poor partner from declaring badly. Pass - 2♠ - 3♦. If partner really has a reverse, LHO has -3 points. So you decide to trust RHO, with whom you have played 1000s of boards as partner, and bid... 3♠. All pass. Partner had 5 - 5 in the blacks and 10 (TEN) HCP. To make 4♠ partner must fish the singleton ♠K in RHO's hand (marked on the bidding), to make 3♠ that is not needed. But she manages to go 2 down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 SAYC is not limited to the notes that Mike777 cites. There has been a decades-long debate about which 5-5 black hands should open 1♣, rather than 1♠. There is also a decades-long debate whether it is better to play 1S 2D as game forcing, or just as game forcing except for a 3D rebid. That still doesn't make either part of SAYC... The document cited is not just "notes" but rather the ACBL booklet on the very definition of SAYC. The introductory paragraphs of that booklet make its purpose pretty clear. The term "Standard American" is a more nebulous concept and is conceptualy distinct from "SAYC"; that term is subject to a lot of interpretations, and people can (as the Helms article points out) have different opinions about what is really "standard" or "correct" within "standard American" of course. And people all the time say "SAYC" when they mean "standard American" or I suppose vice versa. But SAYC is/was an attempt to standardize (!!!) "standard American" by fiat, and set up a formal (albeit incomplete) definition for it, for the purposes posited in the booklet. So questions as to what "SAYC" dictates are resolved by the booklet; questions about what "standard American" means are resolved by .... I dunno. Whatever process the speaker thinks best?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhall Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 If Justin's question was restricted to the ACBL definition of SAYC, then Ralph 23 is right. If the definition of 2/1 is similarly restricted to Rhoda's notes (or Hardy's book!) then much of this forum is out of place. I sincerely doubt that a ruling would be made against a pair opening 1♣ with a 5-5 black hand in any SAYC event. What would seem to be relevant for this forum is how best to use the bidding resources that are reasonably available in more-or-less Standard systems, including Acol. Am I wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 If Justin's question was restricted to the ACBL definition of SAYC, then Ralph 23 is right. There is no other definition of SAYC. There is no special "ACBL Definition of SAYC" that is competing with some straw-men "Other Definitions of SAYC." The very phrase "ACBL Definition of SAYC" is as redundant as "circular circle." Maybe Justin meant "standard American" in his OP. I can't tell what he meant, only what he said. But I have explained it as well as I can. There is no official body that has prescribed what the term "2/1" means, so that is not an apt analogy. The term "2/1" is much more analogous to the term "Standard American" for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.Who cares? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.Who cares? :P If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"?Nobody would say wj2005 if they meant Polish club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.Who cares? :P Dunno, I certainly don't :P :) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"? Well, maybe because s/he didn't grasp that there's a difference in meaning between the term "SAYC" and the term "Standard American." NOT of course that I'd suggest that Justin falls into this group ! :P :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhall Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"? Well, maybe because s/he didn't grasp that there's a difference in meaning between the term "SAYC" and the term "Standard American." Guilty as charged! I had never read the booklet, only played in two SAYC events (individuals), where I took the card itself to define the options. The extent of the restrictions described in the booklet is well beyond anything that I expected, or that could be inferred from the card itself. I am not trying to start, or win, an argument. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.