SAYC vs 2/1

[DCal]

Another contributor has made this point, but I wish to emphasize it: SAYC is an excellent system for pickup partners on BBO. I usually ask pd if there is a defense to opps 1NT opening. If they are not interested, that's fine. SAYC covers all of the major issues encountered in "friendly" online games.

I play 2/1 with my established and regular partners, but the issues of what is forcing, what is not, what constitutes an opening bid, etc. are not topics to spend time working out with strangers online.

[mgoetze]

Another contributor has made this point, but I wish to emphasize it: SAYC is an excellent system for pickup partners on BBO.

 

Why, because 5% of them actually know the SAYC system? (I think that's an optimistic guess but there must be a reason you claim this.)

[the hog]

Another contributor has made this point, but I wish to emphasize it: SAYC is an excellent system for pickup partners on BBO. I usually ask pd if there is a defense to opps 1NT opening. If they are not interested, that's fine. SAYC covers all of the major issues encountered in "friendly" online games.

I play 2/1 with my established and regular partners, but the issues of what is forcing, what is not, what constitutes an opening bid, etc. are not topics to spend time working out with strangers online.

 

A defence to 1NT has nothing to do with SAYC.

[helene_t]

Another contributor has made this point, but I wish to emphasize it: SAYC is an excellent system for pickup partners on BBO. I usually ask pd if there is a defense to opps 1NT opening. If they are not interested, that's fine. SAYC covers all of the major issues encountered in "friendly" online games.

I play 2/1 with my established and regular partners, but the issues of what is forcing, what is not, what constitutes an opening bid, etc. are not topics to spend time working out with strangers online.

In 2/1 at least you know that everything is forcing after an uncontested 2/1 response (OK, 1♦-2♣ might be an exception).

 

If partner really knows SAYC then of course you know almost everything. But if people say SAYC they almost invariably just mean "my personal flavor of 5cM/strong NT". Lots of profiles say "sayc" and then a lot of things that are contradictory to SAYC such as 1NT=16-18, 2NT=19-21. So you can't assume that what is forcing in SAYC is forcing for that particular partner.

 

1M-2m

2M*

is obviously forcing in 2/1 and obviously not in Acol (except maybe in Australia). So if this auction comes up I would be reasonably comfortable having no system discussions beyond "2/1" or "Acol". But if the agreement is SAYC, is it forcing? Of course it is in real SAYC, but which percentage of BBO'ers who claim to play SAYC play it as forcing?

[mgoetze]

In 2/1 at least you know that everything is forcing after an uncontested 2/1 response (OK, 1♦-2♣ might be an exception).

 

Well, some people apparently play 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♣ etc. as nonforcing. But I would hope that would not be the assumption if all that was agreed was "2/1".

[Free]

Have you ever read the specifics of SAYC? I haven't. Even after playing on BBO for many years I'm sometimes surprized when someone on the forum points out the meaning of a specific auction playing SAYC.

 

However, I must admit that 5 card Majors, 3 card minors, strong NT, 2♣ strongest bid and weak two's (= what many people consider SAYC although it isn't) is quickly agreed and may give you a decent game if you're not playing with total beginners or drunk people. 2/1 is better imo because it creates more certainty about forcing calls, but not everyone knows 2/1 sadly...

[SimonFa]

I've read the ACBL pamphlet (and used to keep t to hand)and bought a book on SAYC because I'm anal and wanted to make sure I understood what other BBO SAYC players were saying they bid. I can honestly say that I haven't had a pick up whose profile said SAYC who really understood what it meant.

[Lurpoa]

Another contributor has made this point, but I wish to emphasize it: SAYC is an excellent system for pickup partners on BBO. I usually ask pd if there is a defense to opps 1NT opening. If they are not interested, that's fine. SAYC covers all of the major issues encountered in "friendly" online games.

I play 2/1 with my established and regular partners, but the issues of what is forcing, what is not, what constitutes an opening bid, etc. are not topics to spend time working out with strangers online.

 

 

 

♥

 

Hello Dear♥,

 

"Probably" 2/1 is a superior system (listening to most of the experts). I expect that a few years from know everbody will play 2/1 (just like 10 years ago, everybody was playing strong 2s, now everybody plays weak 2s).

 

The Problem with 2/1: what 2/1 is partner playing ?

 

BWS started some kind of a Standardisation effort, but for one or other reason this project was abandonned. Too Sad.

 

On BBO, the 2/1CCs, might give guidelines, but different CCs, conflicting between them, are available.

 

What is needed ? A full blown 2/1 system, as BWS started to construct, but also a 2/1 standard for beginners, and why not an intermediate version (with options).

 

This said: I prefer, with pick-up partners, to play ACBL SAYC, at least this is more or less froozen, althought the BBO CC and the ACBL Booklet are conflicting: I always give precedence to the CC, wwhen playing on BBO (I know that partner has at least access to that CC).

 

 

 

And again, my Dear♥, please discuss system with your partner.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

[Siegmund]

IMO it's just about exactly the opposite of how OP put it: I play a lot of 2/1 with pickup partners because even if I don't like all the default agreements at least I am confident there won't be many misunderstandings. If you have plenty of time for discussion about your 2nd round rebids, your fsf/nmf style, etc etc, then a SA-based system can become a very effective choice especially at MP, but it's risky without those discussions.

[Quantumcat]

If you are likely to get upset when a random passes your obviously forcing bid, why bother playing with randoms at all? Much better to spend a few dollars on some robots and save the frustration. Or else call up a friend and have a game with someone you know.

 

I would rather poke my eyes out with a blunt pencil than sit through ten minutes with a random BBOer.

[Free]

IMO it's just about exactly the opposite of how OP put it: I play a lot of 2/1 with pickup partners because even if I don't like all the default agreements at least I am confident there won't be many misunderstandings. If you have plenty of time for discussion about your 2nd round rebids, your fsf/nmf style, etc etc, then a SA-based system can become a very effective choice especially at MP, but it's risky without those discussions.

I agree, although there's one thing you should discuss when playing 2/1: does everything above 1M-2m-2M show extras or not. Some play 1♥-2m-2♠ as any strength, others require extras. This is the most important sequence. Others are 1M-2♦-3♣ or 1♠-2♥-3m where apparently not everyone needs extras, although this one I suspect is standard.

[mgoetze]

I agree, although there's one thing you should discuss when playing 2/1: does everything above 1M-2m-2M show extras or not. Some play 1♥-2m-2♠ as any strength, others require extras. This is the most important sequence. Others are 1M-2♦-3♣ or 1♠-2♥-3m where apparently not everyone needs extras, although this one I suspect is standard.

 

Well, "should discuss", dunno... if I play a 16 board pickup game I expect this type of sequence to come up 0.1 times.

[Vampyr]

I agree, although there's one thing you should discuss when playing 2/1: does everything above 1M-2m-2M show extras or not.

 

Another one, 1M-2m-2NT is often played as showing extras.

[Vampyr]

I expect that a few years from know everbody will play 2/1

 

I certainly won't be one of them. To be perfectly honest, although 2/1 GF is very simple and thus easy to play with casual partners, I don't know why 1M-2♣ as an artificial GF is not favoured by established partnerships. It's true that it is more vulnerable to competition, but otherwise it eliminates a lot of the problems with 2/1 GF. Does anyone know why it is not a more popular method than it is?

[mike777]

I certainly won't be one of them. To be perfectly honest, although 2/1 GF is very simple and thus easy to play with casual partners, I don't know why 1M-2♣ as an artificial GF is not favoured by established partnerships. It's true that it is more vulnerable to competition, but otherwise it eliminates a lot of the problems with 2/1 GF. Does anyone know why it is not a more popular method than it is?

 

 

my guess is that your methods offer only a very slight advantage at best but in any case your post does not move the discussion forward.

 

 

fwiw I dont find 2/1 any more easier to use than systems I learned in my youth such as roman clb or neopolitan/blue club. I thought ehaa was the standard bridge system when I first came to bridge :)

---

 

 

 

I kind of like chip martel's treatment of 1M=2c..I am told it is his most favorite convention.

[Vampyr]

my guess is that your methods offer only a very slight advantage at best but in any case your post does not move the discussion forward.

 

You have no idea what "my" methods are, but I do think that the treatment I mentioned offers significant advantages over 2/1 GF; since you need it spelt out, the main ones are that this method combined with a strong NT means you can open the bidding more aggressively and have much better auctions with invitational responding hands with their own suit.

 

Terribly sorry for not moving the discussion forward, whatever that means, lol.

[mike777]

You have no idea what "my" methods are, but I do think that the treatment I mentioned offers significant advantages over 2/1 GF; since you need it spelt out, the main ones are that this method combined with a strong NT means you can open the bidding more aggressively and have much better auctions with invitational responding hands with their own suit.

 

Terribly sorry for not moving the discussion forward, whatever that means, lol.

 

 

1) i DONT KNOW YOUR METHODS YOU DONT TELL US ...LOL

2)

BASED ON YOUR POST...UGGG HORRIBLE

 

 

----

 

 

 

WITH ALL OF THAT SAID i WILL ASSUME THERE ARE MANY METHODS BETTER JUST NOT SURE ALOT BETTER.....

 

 

1) PLAY THE HANDS BETTER

2)_ DEFEND THE HANDS BETTER

3) PLAY SOME THIS METHOD?

[aguahombre]

And find lower case button.

[Bbradley62]

(just like 10 years ago, everybody was playing strong 2s, now everybody plays weak 2s).

What time warp are you in? When I joined ACBL in 1982 (yikes!) the only people who played strong 2s were already 70+.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, if you are going for relays then I can see little advantage in 1H - 2C = GF relay versus 1H - 1S = INV+ relay. You are always better placed with GF hands...

 

1H - 1S; 1N = min without 4 spades...now 2C is GF relay and you have more information

1H - 1S; 2C = 4 spades...now 2D = GF relay, 1 step higher but with only a few hand types to relay out

1H - 1S; 2D or higher = max without 4 spades....you are already in GF relays with fewer hand types than after 1H - 2C, plus your invitational hands can also relay

 

The only major disadvantage of this method (aside from ACBL regs) is that the GF is not immediately established. I do not think this makes up for the 3 big advantages of the invitational relay approach (in addition to the above, the third is that your other simple responses can be played as non-forcing).

 

The situation is less clear over a 1S spade opening since here the INV+ relay approach is a step higher. I think the 2 methods are roughly equal in this case.

[Vampyr]

Vampyr, if you are going for relays then I can see little advantage in 1H - 2C = GF relay versus 1H - 1S = INV+ relay. You are always better placed with GF hands...

 

1H - 1S; 1N = min without 4 spades...now 2C is GF relay and you have more information

1H - 1S; 2C = 4 spades...now 2D = GF relay, 1 step higher but with only a few hand types to relay out

1H - 1S; 2D or higher = max without 4 spades....you are already in GF relays with fewer hand types than after 1H - 2C, plus your invitational hands can also relay

 

The only major disadvantage of this method (aside from ACBL regs) is that the GF is not immediately established. I do not think this makes up for the 3 big advantages of the invitational relay approach (in addition to the above, the third is that your other simple responses can be played as non-forcing).

 

 

This is interesting, but I guess the question still remains for those in the ACBL -- which is better, 1H - 2C = GF relay or 2/1 GF (since I assume that artificial bids are permitted in GF auctions).

 

 

The situation is less clear over a 1S spade opening since here the INV+ relay approach is a step higher. I think the 2 methods are roughly equal in this case.

 

And better than 2/1GF? What do you think? (Personally, I prefer to dispense with all of this and just play weak-style 2/1; OK, mike777?)

 

I think that one advantage of a strong NT is that you can open all 11-counts. My regular partner is becoming so convinced of the efficacy of this that I fear he is going to talk me into playing strong NT :( . If my partner is right, then 2/1 GF players are losing out badly due to the necessity of tightening up their openers.

[peachy]

Terribly sorry for not moving the discussion forward, whatever that means, lol.

 

I have a clue what it means. This thread is in the "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion". You say you don't and won't play 2/1 or SAYC.

[Zelandakh]

And better than 2/1GF? What do you think? (Personally, I prefer to dispense with all of this and just play weak-style 2/1; OK, mike777?)

 

As pointed out above this is somewhat off-topic for this forum. However, my feeling is that the relay approach is not better than 2/1 over a 1S opening in a standard context but rather that they break even - some hands are good for 2/1, some for relays. The relays tend to have a small advantage in weak and most slam hands, 2/1 is better with intermediate hands, in competition and also on hands where suit quality is very important. Both methods are very efficient in bidding the best games.

 

Where opening bids are limited then I believe the relay approach is significantly better than 2/1 - the steps you gain not having to show extras on strong hands are very important when the bidding is already a little cluttered, as it sometimes is in 1S auctions. The limited openings also match the light opening strategy giving the overall system a better harmony.

[Flem72]

I certainly won't be one of them. To be perfectly honest, although 2/1 GF is very simple and thus easy to play with casual partners, I don't know why 1M-2♣ as an artificial GF is not favoured by established partnerships. It's true that it is more vulnerable to competition, but otherwise it eliminates a lot of the problems with 2/1 GF. Does anyone know why it is not a more popular method than it is?

 

Dunno why, but I keep losing my reply window.

 

Many prefer the serenity that manifests when the 2/1 suit is guaranteed to be 5+ cards. But then you need "something else" to handle (especially) the bigger flat, 3-card raises. I much prefer the "something" -- in an inv+ J2NT structure -- and will play generic 2C forcing only if forced. (H-m-m-m-m)

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Today in one of the most beautiful places on earth, Crested Butte, Colorado

[Zelandakh]

Many prefer the serenity that manifests when the 2/1 suit is guaranteed to be 5+ cards. But then you need "something else" to handle (especially) the bigger flat, 3-card raises. I much prefer the "something" -- in an inv+ J2NT structure -- and will play generic 2C forcing only if forced. (H-m-m-m-m)

 

Fred has posted a system for this using a natural 2NT response and making 1H - 2S or 1S - 3C the GF raise. It is available on the downloadable client version (in the Bridge Library under the title "Improving 2/1 GF") but I am not sure if you can read it using the Flash version yet.