What's the difference between 2/1 and SAYC

[pippo13]

I am afraid I am asking an elementary question, anyway I do need some light.

I have been trying to compare SAYC basic/advanced (as explaned on BBO) and 2/1 FM, and have been unable to single out the differences between the two systems.

Moreover, I was further embarrassed when I read a post by an expert on this forum, saying that SAYC actually "doesn't exist".

Would someone be so kind to suggest some readings and/or links to clarify the matter or (better) give me a list of the main differences between the 2 systems?

[helene_t]

BBO-Basic is similar to SAYC.

 

There is no such thing as "SAYC advanced". SAYC is one system. BBO-advanced is a form of 2/1.

 

2/1 is short for "Two-over-one game force", i.e. "Two-level-response-in-a-new-suit-to-one-of-a-major is game force". I.e. if the auction starts

1♥-(pass)-2♣, or

1♥-(pass)-2♦, or

1♠-(pass)-2♣, or

1♠-(pass)-2♦, or

1♠-(pass)-2♥

 

the partnership is commited to game. Usually "2/1" refers to a five-card major three-card-minor system with a 15-17 1NT opening (i.e. same opening structure as SAYC), but there is no such thing as a "standard" 2/1 system.

[han]

2/1 is named after the fact that auctions of the form 1X - 2Y are forcing to game. Here X and Y need to be different suits and Y needs to be lower ranking than X, for example 1S - 2D but not 1H-2H or 1D-2S.

 

Many people associate other conventions to 2/1 that may or may not have something to do with this. I don't know why, perhaps just because many players who play 2/1 are familiar with those gadgets as well.

 

I'd recommend books by Lawrence on the subject.

[BillHiggin]

Sometimes people get carried away with attempts at semantic exactness.

SAYC was originally defined by the ACBL (you can still get that definition from their website) as a defined system for restricted system events and they allowed virtually no user modifications to the agreements in those events. When on-line play started, people from geographically diverse areas found it difficult to agree on systems with random partners. The fairly brief definition of SAYC provided a convenient starting point and led to its popularity on-line (virtually nobody chooses strict SAYC for face to face events - the fuzzy word will not save me from flames). Most pairs that start with an SAYC foundation will actually add toys to it (which would not be allowed in an SAYC only event). Techincally they are no longer playing SAYC (but the technicality does not really cause confusion). One agreement that would be very unusual in a system claiming to be SAYC is 1N forcing by an unpassed hand. That agreement is so contrary to SAYC that the system should be named something else.

 

2/1 is a bit fuzzy itself. Some play that a 2/1 response is 100% game forcing. Others alllow for responder to rebid his suit to show a merely invitational one suited hand. Many 2/1 systems include a lot of extensive (and varying) fancy agreements. Virtually all systems that are called 2/1 include the agreement that 1N is forcing by an unpassed hand. There are similar systems without that agreement, but they usually are given a different name (Ambra is an example).

 

Given that neither 2/1 nor SAYC can really be considered to completely describe a system in the on-line environment, we can identify a single trait that defines what they are not.

 

A system that does not include 1N forcing by an unpassed hand is not 2/1.

A system that does include 1N forcing by an unpassed hand is not SAYC (modified).

 

I will leave recommended references to others.

 

Edit: read 1N forcing by an unpassed hand in response to a major suit one level opening bid for each instance of 1N forcing by an unpassed hand. (must not offend the semantic gods :) )

[kenberg]

Looking at it form an operational point of view: Most bids in SAYC mean pretty much what a relative beginner thinks that they mean.

 

Examples:

 

1S-1NT means that responder has a few points, about 6-10, and is (sort of) prepared to play in NT.

 

1S-2C-2NT-3C is a passable bid. Responder has long clubs, decent values (10-12 or so) and thinks the hand might play well in clubs.

 

 

 

Consider the same auctions in 2/1:

 

1S-1NT is played as forcing (if responder wants to play 1NT that's too bad). He might have, for example, three spades and 11 high card points. He plans to bid 3S next round. This is as opposed to the auction 1S-3S which is also invitational strength but with four spades. (In SAYC, 1S-3S is invitational with three or more trumps.) Btw, if the 2/1 player (or SAYC player) plays Bergen raises, then 1S-3S is preemptive. Let's not go there right now.

 

 

1S-2C-2NT-3C is not at all passable in 2/1 (2C was a game force) so 3C is often a slam try in clubs. Pass it and you are dead meat. Unless of course the 2/1 player plays that this is an exceptional sequence that can be passed. That is, he says he is playing 2/1 but he isn't.

 

Generally I find that SAYC is adequate for informal casual games. It's a limited system and lacks the tools of high level systems, but you usually have a good idea of roughly what partner is doing even if you haven't discussed it.

 

 

Basic BBO is approximately SAYC.

The Advanced BBO is 2/1 with a vengeance. A number of tools for the expert. Good luck with it.