I Don’t Get It?

[mgoetze]

I didn't say that most North Americans play 2/1. I suggested that most North Americans who are members of their NBO play 2/1. As I understand it, 2/1 is prevalent throughout the ACBL, not just at the top level.

Oh, perhaps not just at the top level, but also at the level just below that. But keep in mind that this is a pyramid we are talking about.

[han]

I didn't say that most North Americans play 2/1. I suggested that most North Americans who are members of their NBO play 2/1. As I understand it, 2/1 is prevalent throughout the ACBL, not just at the top level. However, that belief derives largely from anecdote. Maybe someone who spends a lot of time in North American bridge clubs can help us out?

 

8 years ago the system most dominant in the North American clubs I played in was 5-card majors, strong notrump, 2/1 not forcing to game.

[mgoetze]

8 years ago the system most dominant in the North American clubs I played in was 5-card majors, strong notrump, 2/1 not forcing to game.

Yup I strongly suspect some sort of system where 1M shows 5+ cards, 1NT is 15-17, and a 2/1 promises a rebid but is not GF is most popular. The question is whether it is

 

(a) Better minor,

(b) 1♦ 4+ or 4=4=3=2,

© 1♦ promises 4 or

(d) all of the above because we consider this to all be the same system.

 

I recall starting a thread in which I discovered that (a) through © are not the only options and/or don't necessarily mean the same thing to all people. Which brings me back to the question of "what's a system?"

[jkljkl]

Well some shifting towards 2/1 is already happening:

 

Standard Italia became 2/1 gf

http://www.federbridge.it/Concorsi/docsview.asp?docs=convB

 

In France there are books produced by Le Bridgeur that suggest a shift to 2/1 calling it "Standard pour l'an 2000"

http://www.lebridgeur.com/un-standard-pour-l-an-2000-tome-ii.html

 

The first book of this "standard 2000" has already been translated by the german bridge federation. etc.

 

So there are signs of a shift, but habits do not change fast so it will take a while till we see more 2/1 players at the bridge table.

 

ciao

stefan

[ArtK78]

There are quite a few countries with 5-card major based systems regarded as “standard” for the relevant country e.g.

1. USA = SAYC

 

NO!

 

SAYC is an invented simplified version of "Standard American." It was initially invented for use by pick-up partners at North American Championships so as to allow them to get together quickly and play without having to spend the time to fill out a full convention card. SAYC stands for "Standard American Yellow Card" and there were yellow cards available to anyone who wanted one at the supplies table.

 

SAYC has become the defacto "standard" system on BBO.

 

In serious competition, I would be surprised if anyone played SAYC.

 

In actual practice, the "standard" system in the US is still "Standard American," but 2/1 is far more common in most tournaments.

[Phil]

In our club, most in the junior game play SAYC and most in the open game play 2/1. This is a result of education, since Easybridge and Audrey Grant are SAYC-based. As players move up through the ranks, they usually take lessons on 2/1.

 

2/1 is something of a misnomer here. The bare-bones 2/1 with forcing 1N and 2/1 GF responses can be taught in an afternoon and are frequently simpler than parallel SAYC auctions, however, the term "2/1" implies a lot of additional treatments including inverted minors, Jacoby 2N, Drury, etc..

 

Of the 166,823 members of the ACBL, the median MP holding is between 175 and 200, so it would not surprise me that the system of the masses resembles SAYC. However, if you sit down in the first day at any NABC+ event, I would venture about 75% of the pairs play 2/1.

[fromageGB]

I get almost hit by a car at least twice a day every time I spend any time in the British Isles so I sympathise with your feeling. Nevertheless, I think it is just normal to have regional differences in most areas of human culture etc.

I think you'll find driving on the left helps.

 

But I agree with 32519 that it is time for the national authorities to abandon their own parochial "this is best for beginners" methods and collectively choose a world-wide standard. If the EBU abandoned "standard english" I think it would help prevent the stagnation of bridge in this country.

[Vampyr]

SAYC is an invented simplified version of "Standard American." It was initially invented for use by pick-up partners at North American Championships so as to allow them to get together quickly and play without having to spend the time to fill out a full convention card. SAYC stands for "Standard American Yellow Card" and there were yellow cards available to anyone who wanted one at the supplies table.

 

I am not sure about this. I think that the Yellow Card was invented for Yellow Card tournaments.

[mycroft]

Stefanie is correct - it was one of two cards that got built so that we could hold "one card" tournaments for those people who didn't "want to have to deal with all these weird conventions and Alerts". Of course, both times we found that what they really meant was "I want to play *my* cool gadgets, I just don't want *them* to play their weird conventions"; so they withered on the vine.

 

But because it was a (reasonably) well-described card already available, and most pickups on OKBridge (at the time) could bend their mind to (most of - there were a few things that people Just Couldn't Remember) the Yellow Card, it was "suggested" as a default. And then that default got more obvious. Of course, a quote from my .sig file:

 

"We have the information that they play SAYC, but on OKB this often means little

more than the fact that the opponents can find the letters S, A, Y, and C on

their keyboard." -- Adam Beneschan, on rec.games.bridge

[gordontd]

But I agree with 32519 that it is time for the national authorities to abandon their own parochial "this is best for beginners" methods and collectively choose a world-wide standard.

How likely do you think that is?

[ArtK78]

I am not sure about this. I think that the Yellow Card was invented for Yellow Card tournaments.

Chicken and egg problem.

 

The Yellow Card came first. Yellow card tournaments followed.

 

Speaking of chicken and egg problems, one of my favorite one panel cartoons features two characters, a chicken and an egg, lying in bed. The chicken appears very satisfied, and is smoking a cigarette. The egg appears very grumpy, and says, "Well I guess we know the answer to that question!"

[gnasher]

But I agree with 32519 that it is time for the national authorities to abandon their own parochial "this is best for beginners" methods and collectively choose a world-wide standard. If the EBU abandoned "standard english" I think it would help prevent the stagnation of bridge in this country.

Why shouldn't national authorities be parochial? They exist mainly to promote bridge nationally. To me it seems very sensible to teach a beginner a system that he can use with other players at his local club, rather than one that would be useful only if he happens to find himself on the other side of the world.

[gordontd]

5 card majors, strong NT and non-GF 2/1s for instance? I am reasonably confident this would cover the majorities in Germany, France, Italy and the USA to name but 4 large countries.

There is a habit of lumping these together as one system, but there are quite fundamental differences between, for example, Standard French & Standard American. Their NT rebids are quite different, which when combined with the French distaste for three-card major-suit raises by opener, has a big effect on major-suit rebids. I don't know about Standard German, but since I understand it's based on Standard French, I imagine the same sort of structure would apply.

[fromageGB]

How likely do you think that ( a worldwide common method/system to teach beginners) is?

Pretty unlikely, I admit ! But one can have daydreams. Chelsea could beat Barcelona on the return leg. Just because something is highly unlikely doesn't mean you should give in.

[fromageGB]

Why shouldn't national authorities be parochial? They exist mainly to promote bridge nationally. To me it seems very sensible to teach a beginner a system that he can use with other players at his local club, rather than one that would be useful only if he happens to find himself on the other side of the world.

 

 

There is a habit of lumping these together as one system, but there are quite fundamental differences between, for example, Standard French & Standard American. Their NT rebids are quite different, which when combined with the French distaste for three-card major-suit raises by opener, has a big effect on major-suit rebids.

 

I agree that the purpose of national authorities should be to promote bridge in their areas, but there is no reason why it all has to be different. I would like to have a solid understanding of commonly accepted methods (even though in my own partnerships I will adapt and extend, or perhaps do something completely different) so that I CAN sit down with a pickup partner in a club in France while on holiday and have better than a better than basic game, one that does not often go wrong when you get to the rebids. I am lucky in that I have played 5 card majors in Acol from the beginning before I switched to 2/1 years ago, so I have a better intrinsic chance than someone without that background.

 

It would help, too, for beginners venturing into online bridge, so that they feel more comfortable.

 

As to whether the common system is natural, strong club, strong pass or whatever, I don't think it really matters. People will learn it, and be able to interact with anyone anywhere. And of course, if everyone was taught the same methods, he COULD play with other players in his own local club. It's just the switchover that is difficult.

[32519]

I am currently running a class for beginners in my hometown. Technically none of the players are “true beginners” as they have all been playing bridge for years. It’s just that their knowledge and skills of the game is extremely limited, coming from rubber bridge players whose knowledge of the game is equally limited. I have chosen (rightly or wrongly) to teach them SAYC for two reasons:

1. It may well be the least complicated of all 5-card major based systems.

2. I understand SAYC to be the BBO default system. I know that at least two of the players attending the classes from time-to-time play on BBO.

 

As soon as I can see that they are playing SAYC with a reasonable amount of competency I intend giving them a “conversion” table summarising the bids etc that change from SAYC to 2/1.

 

To ensure that I haven’t missed anything, kindly assist me to complete this table.

1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP.

2. SAYC 3-level pre-empt, 5-11 HCP. 2/1 3-level pre-empt, less than 10 HCP (according to Paul Thurston).

3. SAYC 2/1 response promises 10+ HCP but is not game-forcing. 2/1 system: A 2/1 response is game-forcing and the cornerstone of the system.

4. SAYC 1NT response over 1M is not forcing. 2/1 1NT response over 1M is forcing for 1 round.

5. SAYC 2NT response over 1m, 13-15 HCP, game-forcing. 2/1 2NT response over 1m, 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major, invitational.

6. SAYC 2♦ response over 2♣, negative. 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ are natural and game-forcing. 2/1 2♦ response over 2♣, “waiting.” 2♥ response over 2♣, negative.

7. SAYC does not incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises. 2/1 does incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises.

[Vampyr]

1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP.

2. SAYC 3-level pre-empt, 5-11 HCP. 2/1 3-level pre-empt, less than 10 HCP (according to Paul Thurston).

 

I don't know either system very well, so I am not qualified to comment on too many of your items; but these two seem weird.

 

Edit: Just saw #6. I don't know how common Roth is; you might want to check the BBO notes for 2/1. In fact if your aim is to facilitate online play you should use BBO notes in general for both systems.

[32519]

I don't know either system very well, so I am not qualified to comment on too many of your items; but these two seem weird.

 

Edit: Just saw #6. I don't know how common Roth is; you might want to check the BBO notes for 2/1. In fact if your aim is to facilitate online play you should use BBO notes in general for both systems.

 

Stefanie, thanks for this suggestion. It makes good sense.

 

The opening bid of 13 HCP for SAYC and 12 HCP for 2/1 is correct. The SAYC Booklet I have doesn’t say explicitly the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt. I made the assumption that it is the same as for a 2-level pre-empt with the exception of having an additional card in the suit bid.

 

I would naturally assume that for 2/1, a 3-level pre-empt would promise the same HCP range as a 2-level pre-empt. The BBO notes say 5-11 HCP for both SAYC and 2/1 for a 2-level pre-empt. Neither says what the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt is. However, according to Paul Thurston, in 2/1 a 3-level pre-empt promises less than 10 HCP.

 

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

[fromageGB]

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

I have no absolute knowledge, but know many people who will open at the 1 level routinely with 11 points and a 6 card suit. "5-11" is incorrect in my view. Probably "less than 10" is correct for a 7 card suit, as many 10 count 7 card suits will open at the 1 level.

[sfi]

The opening bid of 13 HCP for SAYC and 12 HCP for 2/1 is correct. The SAYC Booklet I have doesn’t say explicitly the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt. I made the assumption that it is the same as for a 2-level pre-empt with the exception of having an additional card in the suit bid.

 

I would naturally assume that for 2/1, a 3-level pre-empt would promise the same HCP range as a 2-level pre-empt. The BBO notes say 5-11 HCP for both SAYC and 2/1 for a 2-level pre-empt. Neither says what the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt is. However, according to Paul Thurston, in 2/1 a 3-level pre-empt promises less than 10 HCP.

 

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

 

This is much more likely to reflect time of publication rather than any actual difference in these two areas of the system. 2/1 is typically no more aggressive in its openings than Standard American.

[gnasher]

This is much more likely to reflect time of publication rather than any actual difference in these two areas of the system. 2/1 is typically no more aggressive in its openings than Standard American.

If anything, one should open less aggressively when playing 2/1, because light openings put more strain on the 1NT response.

[han]

In our club, most in the junior game play SAYC and most in the open game play 2/1.

 

What do you mean by junior game? Are these juniors, or are these old people new to bridge?

[han]

If anything, one should open less aggressively when playing 2/1, because light openings put more strain on the 1NT response.

 

I agree with "if anything". I disagree with the rest.

[Vampyr]

I agree with "if anything". I disagree with the rest.

 

I guess it depends on how much you feel you need for game.

[cherdano]

There are quite a few countries with 5-card major based systems regarded as “standard” for the relevant country e.g.

2. Germany = Forum D

 

So what’s the point of having a “standard” system for a country?

 

So why not just adopt 2/1 as the “standard” system for the relevant country?

But then nobody would have to buy books on Forum D, instead the money would go to these Americans and their 2/1 books, and they are rich enough already!

 

/cynicism