SAYC vs 2/1?

[petergreat]

I'm a beginner, and I want to learn 2/1. I know SAYC, and I'd like to know:

 

1. What are the differences between 2/1 and SAYC?

 

2. How is 2/1 better?

[dicklont]

1. Main difference is that in 2/1 a

1♥ - 2♣/♦ or

1♠ - 2♣/♦/♥

sets up a gameforcing auction.

1♥/♠ - 1NT is forcing, because the limit hands are in 1NT now.

 

2. 2/1 is better when there is 2/1 bidding (no kidding). You don't have to jump around to show extra's and make the bidding GF, it already is.

This makes GF bidding easier and slambidding much easier.

It saves bidding space and leaves room for agreements and gadgets.

 

There is a downside too: the 1NT answer is overloaded and when 1NT is the best contract you won't get there.

 

Here is another thread on the subject.

[ASkolnick]

The two "pieces" which are primarily different between the 2 systems:

 

a) 2/1 means the following:

 

2 of a suit over 1 of a major is 13(12)+ HCP and is forcing to game.

1NT is played as either forcing or semi-forcing.

 

:) In SAYC, 2/1 means the following:

 

2 of a suit over 1 of a major is 10+ HCP.

 

How is 2/1 better?

 

You tend to save a lot more space knowing that when you are forcing to game, you don't have to worry about rebidding suits. Let's assume you have a 6 card club suit with 14 HCP? The auction goes

 

1S-2C-

2S

 

What would you bid in SAYC? 3C would not be forcing.

 

Forcing NT: Most of the time 2 of a major will play better than 1N even in a 5-2 fit, so by playing a forcing NT, the opener is required to take another bid.

[Codo]

2/1 is better as sayc because SAYC is a very easy and sometimes strange and outdated system.

 

However, when you look at modern 5 card major systems, you will see that everything is possible:

 

2/1 is no gf at all like in the french system

2/1 is a game forcing when responder does not rebid his suit, like f.e. in the polish system and many variants in the US.

2/1 is always game forcing.

 

Everything is playable. So when you try to learn better systems, don't care whether it is 2/1 or any other popular system, learn what is used between your friends, be it 2/1, SAYC, SEF, Precision or whatever.

 

My opinion is that you do not need a second system when you are a beginner, so stay with sayc as long as your partners do play it too and improve in card play, carding, bidding judgement and partnership harmony and understanding.

[helene_t]

Hi Peter, welcome to the forum!

 

2/1 is better because it is "expert standard", i.e. when bidding problems are discussed here and in Bridge World, it is usually assumed. So you can adopt the advice you get from experts more easily if you play 2/1 yourself.

 

SAYC is a good system but I wouldn't recommend it because nobody plays it. Yes, everybody has it on their BBO profile, but 99% of SAYC players have no clue what SAYC means.

[jmcw]

As a newbie you will get free advice on everything. Here's mine

 

Take it slow and don't try too much to begin with. Learn SAYC first, this will be what your peer group will play. later, improve with 2/1 and get a good book to guide you through :rolleyes:

[zman102]

Hi peter....I would play what my friends and partners wanted to play. Mostly keeping it simple.

 

But I personally am most comfortable playing 2/1, as learning early that you are going to game removes the worry that partner may pass below game. As others have pointed out though, the forcing 1NT response (in 2/1) can prove awkward, but all systems have strong and weak points.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An off topic aside:

 

I have always understood that SAYC meant "standard American yellow card".

 

I know what "standard American" means, but I am not sure about "yellow card". In the back of my mind I recall seeing convention cards with a yellow stripe on them where the partner's names go. But that was many years ago and I can't quite remember (CRS).

[Gerben42]

"SAYC" as in the book is not played by many, so if you want to change something to what you are playing, I would start modernizing your bidding, i.e. put in some natural treatments like inverted minors.

 

Although there is one "SAYC", there are many "Standard American" systems or "2/1 GF" systems. The best thing is to have a system script which states what you play, and also what not.

[Trinidad]

An off topic aside:

 

I have always understood that SAYC meant "standard American yellow card".

 

I know what "standard American" means, but I am not sure about "yellow card".  In the back of my mind I recall seeing convention cards with a yellow stripe on them where the partner's names go. But that was many years ago and I can't quite remember (CRS).

Originally SAYC was a variation of Standard American in face to face bridge. It was mainly used in individuals and competitions with limited conventions. (I disrespectfully will add that they were intended for older people. There were conventions in SAYC, but they were so outdated that younger people would not be able to understand them whereas common modern (in those days) conventions were not part of SAYC.)

 

The SAYC system came with a preprinted convention card. (Or maybe it is better to say that the SAYC system was the preprinted convention card.) This convention card was printed on yellow paper. Hence the name Standard American Yellow Card.

 

I feel really old when I write that I actually have used these Yellow convention cards.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

The usual (and I think correct) argument for 2/1 is that it increases the accuracy of slam exploration. With more mundane hands it is something of a mixed bag,

 

 

A companion thread asks "Is this forcing and why?" The system is SAYC and the uncontested auction is 1S-2C-2H-2N-3C/ The general consensus is that in keeping with general SAYC philosophy this is probably non-forcing. If opener has a modest hand with three decent clubs and a stiff diamond (as suggested by the poster) then bidding a non-forcing 3♣ could be a winner. Had they been playing 2/1 it is very likely the auction would have gone 1S-1N-2H-2N and the 3♣ call would be far more chancy.

 

The above is not intended as an argument for you to stick with SAYC. My point, rather, is that when you switch to 2/1 you want to be sure you are getting your money's worth since you are giving up something. For example, take the simple 2/1 auction: 1H-2C-2D-4H. I believe the 4H bid denies first or second round control in spades. No matter how good opener's hand is, he knows slam is hopeless unless he holds at least the king of spades. Not everyone plays that way, but if you do not have some such structure you are wasting the promise of 2/1. After all, if responder has an opening hand, a club suit, and three hearts, the pair will get to at least 4♥ regardless of what system they are playing.

[y66]

Glen Ashton has this quote (warning) from Zeke Jabbour on his web site

“What methods you use don’t matter.  What matters is how well you use them.  What system you play doesn’t matter.  What matters is how well you play it.  The convention doesn’t matter.  What matters is the agreement --- and how well you understand it.  How complicated your methods are doesn’t matter.  What matters is how comfortable you are with them.”

Would just add, echoing Helene and others, that how well we understand our agreements has a lot to do with how much we actively discuss them and that, among better players here on the forum, in Bridge World and elsewhere, a lot of this discussion takes place in a 2/1 context because modern American expert standard is 2/1 based.

[Fluffy]

I have a teaching friend who says that 2/1 is better for beginners, with 2/1 it is harder to play partscores on 28 HCP wich is kinda frustrating.

[vuroth]

I'm really not clear on how you can play 2/1 without a really firm grip on SAYC.

 

The OP said that he knows SAYC - I hope that means that he knows Jacoby 2NT, transfers, etc. If he's really informed, he also knows that 1m-2NT is 13-15 balanced and forcing in SAYC.

[TylerE]

Don't confuse basic conventions with knowledge of a system. Who, off the top of their head, can answer the following questions (according to SAYC):

 

 

1D-(3♣)- X = ?

 

(1NT) - 2♣ = ?

 

1♥ - p - 2♠ = ?

 

1♥ - p - 1♠ - p - 1NT - p - 2♣ = ?

 

1♣ - p - 2NT = ?

[neilkaz]

Tyler asked,"Don't confuse basic conventions with knowledge of a system. Who, off the top of their head, can answer the following questions (according to SAYC):"

 

I'll do my best off the top of my head.

 

1D-(3♣)- X = ? Penalty..SAYC only uses negXthru 2♠, believe it or not.

 

(1NT) - 2♣ = ? Natural overcalls of NT in SAYC.

 

1♥ - p - 2♠ = ? Strong jump shifts in SAYC

 

1♥ - p - 1♠ - p - 1NT - p - 2♣ = ? Natural and NF in SAYC, believe it or not.

 

1♣ - p - 2NT = ? 13-15 in SAYC

 

How did I do? ....neilkaz...

[TylerE]

Rather well actually ;)

[Apollo81]

I'm a beginner, and I want to learn 2/1. I know SAYC, and I'd like to know:

1. What are the differences between 2/1 and SAYC?

2. How is 2/1 better?

One "real-world" advantage of playing 2/1, particularly with a first-time partner, is that when you have a 2/1 auction, there is much less confusion about which bids are forcing.

 

In a strict interpretation of SAYC, a 2/1 bid by responder promises a rebid. Thus all of these auctions are forcing:

 

1♠-2x-2♠

1♠-2x-2NT

1♠-2x-3x

 

Many beginning or intermediate SAYC players think these bids are non-forcing, so it's not unusual to see the partnership get to the wrong level.

 

If opener has no extra values, he must rebid something no higher than 2 of his major. Any higher rebid is forcing to game. For example, here are some ways to stop short of game:

 

1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT-p

1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT-p

1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦-p

1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT-3♦-p

 

In 2/1, opener's rebid is much more intuitive, since all below-game bids are forcing. For instance if he wants to raise responder's suit he can do that regardless of his values. This leads to far fewer misunderstandings in 2/1 auctions.

[bid_em_up]

Lets ignore the two systems "differences" (strengths and weaknesses) for a minute.

 

The most valid reason for learning 2/1 (instead of SAYC), imo, is the fact that it is the system of choice by the majority of better players (at least in the U.S.). They may play some variant of conventions within their particular 2/1 system, but the roots of it will be essentially the same.

 

It's easier to get better partners if you can play their system.

 

And that is the real only reason necessary to choose 2/1 over SAYC.

[petergreat]

Let us say, I'm not 'just learning bridge', I've played bridge for a few years but still beginner...

 

I do know the various conventions for 2/1, as I found out.

[hotShot]

For good bidding (in any system) you need good judgment.

Your judgment is based on the experiences you gain from your cardplay.

 

So improving your cardplay, will improve your judgment and that will lead to more successful bidding.

 

Look at the contracts you played and check:

 

How often did you score:

 

3M+1, 4m+1, 2NT+1, 4M+2, 5m+1 or 3NT+3

 

If that happens often, your not bidding enough games or slams.

You might benefit from the GF concept of 2/1.

 

If you find that you lose at MPs because you get fewer tricks in the same contracts than others, you better work on your cardplay.

 

If you find that you don't make enough MPs defending, you need to work on signals and leads. But to be good in defense you have to understand what the declarer is doing, and this depends on your skills as declarer.

[petergreat]

The problem with me should be competitive bidding and defense.

[CSGibson]

As a beginner, learn Standard American. You have to know standard american to play 2/1 anyway, because that's what the system defaults to in competitive bidding situations. Then, after you've had some experience in standard american, explore 2/1. The conversion between the two is quite simple, really, and shouldn't take too long to understand.

[helene_t]

As a beginner, learn Standard American. You have to know standard american to play 2/1 anyway, because that's what the system defaults to in competitive bidding situations.

I thought it defaults to something like Acol.

 

1♠-(2♣)-2♦-(p)

?

 

Now 2♠, 2NT and 3♦ would all be non-forcing while 2♥ would be forcing, I thought.

[keylime]

I agree with Chuck in the full. I've found in most club and sectional situations, playing SAYC is often better at pairs.

[akhare]

As a beginner, learn Standard American.  You have to know standard american to play 2/1 anyway, because that's what the system defaults to in competitive bidding situations.  Then, after you've had some experience in standard american, explore 2/1.  The conversion between the two is quite simple, really, and shouldn't take too long to understand.

I second that -- BTW, I am still not convinced that 2/1 is all that better than SAYC (not the archaic version of course).

 

Having good partnership agreements is more important than the differences between the two systems...