two over 1 system

[JonnyQuest]

What is the SAYC booklet . . .?

I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC.

You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from.

Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

 

Truly one of the more humorous posts in recent times.

 

Verily I say unto thee, taketh thine own advice and "try not to look so silly." :P

[awm]

Two over one has the following big advantages over Standard American approaches:

 

1. You don't need any discussion to determine which auctions are forcing after a 2/1 bid. In Standard American this leads to a lot of accidents for unpracticed partnerships. In SAYC there is a clear definition, but most people who say they play SAYC actually don't...

 

2. Certain other conventions (i.e. splinters, inverted minors, new minor forcing) are commonly played by "2/1 players" and can be assumed in a pickup 2/1 partnership -- although there is no reason you can't add the same methods to Standard American with good effect.

 

3. You have considerably more space available in a lot of game force auctions. In the hands of a practiced partnership this can substantially improve slam bidding. For pickup partnerships this space is mostly wasted though.

 

Note that #1 and #2 mostly apply in pickup partnerships without much discussion. This is why 2/1 is the popular choice in such partnerships among players of decent standard. Standard American has the following advantages over 2/1:

 

4. Much better sequences on non-fitting invites. Responder can hear more about opener's hand before rebidding his long suit (maybe finding a 6-2 fit in opener's major or a 4-4 fit in a side suit), and can get to two of opener's major after showing his values. All these things are tough in 2/1, where most such invites either start with 1NT and have to bid 2NT by default to show the values (regardless of whether 2M might be a better fit) or start with an invitational jump (if you play this) and shut out opener's rebid.

 

5. Sometimes better sequences on weak hands, because invitational values are not a possibility for the 1NT response, nor is 3-card support for opener.

 

However, #3 is potentially more valuable especially at IMP scoring (no surprise that the increasing popularity of 2/1 has come at roughly the same time as increasing popularity of IMPs over MPs).

 

The SAYC booklet is short and incomplete. In particular it doesn't talk much about opener's rebid (and beyond) in 2/1 auctions. There are some guidelines which seem clearly directed at 1/1 auctions and people have generally assumed these to apply to 2/1 auctions as well even though it doesn't make a lot of sense. The one rule that is clearly stated is that responder promises a second bid after a 2/1, unless opener's rebid is at the game level. This comes as a big surprise to a lot of "Standard American" players who are used to auctions like 1♠-2♣-3♣ and 1♠-2♣-2NT being non-forcing!

 

The way to make SAYC bidding work given this rule (responder promises a second bid) is that opener should never rebid past two of his major without extras. Thus sequences like 1♠-2♣-3♣ and 1♠-2♣-2NT (clearly forcing, since responder promises a second bid) show extras from opener. With a minimum and a club fit or a balanced hand, opener rebids 2♠ (also forcing) which enables responder to bid 2NT (or 3♣) non-forcing on invitational hands so we can get out of the auction.

 

Again this is not the sort of thing I would expect a pickup partner to "get right" -- which is why 2/1 is much better for undiscussed partnerships!

[CSGibson]

Interesting.

 

The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone.

 

Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

 

Evaluating bridge players based on BBOskill may make you feel good, but it is really pointless and the height of idiocy to make that your primary evaluation of other players on that wildly inaccurate site. I've read Zel and Helene - they are good, thoughtful players. I suspect that you are not based on the way you come across in the forums - people who call names instead of bringing forth intelligent ideas are usually doing so because they cannot bring forth intelligent ideas.

[beatrix45]

Evaluating bridge players based on BBOskill may make you feel good, but it is really pointless and the height of idiocy to make that your primary evaluation of other players on that wildly inaccurate site. I've read Zel and Helene - they are good, thoughtful players. I suspect that you are not based on the way you come across in the forums - people who call names instead of bringing forth intelligent ideas are usually doing so because they cannot bring forth intelligent ideas.

 

Your pals Zel and Helene may be thoughtful, but they can't play a lick, at least not yet. You and some others on this thread, on the other hand, can play. Consider the following:

 

1. The idea of playing 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ as forcing has some merit, and it relates directly to the question posed by the original poster.

 

2. The complete analysis is a little complex, but you and others certainly deserve to see it.

 

3. The 'booklet' treatment amounts to a simple substitution. The traditional SAYC auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ is replaced with the forcing auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥. The old non-forcing auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ is replaced by 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠. This frees up a level of bidding for the former situation (the whole idea of 2/1), but puts extra pressure on the latter situation.

 

4. The model hand for the new treatment is five running hearts, five running spades and two minor suit aces. A virtual laydown small slam with 28 HCP. Easy to explore. Over 3♥ forcing, you cue bid a ♠ ace or king. 3NT is non-serious. 4 of a minor denies a ♠ card, but is serious and shows the extra king or better.

 

5. By now you should get the merits of the 'booklet' approach, particularly for IMPs. The magic hand. Two fitting hands with a king extra on both sides of the table. Bid the slam.

 

6. The drawbacks? First, the old 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ hand is not very common. If balanced, it is often opened one NT. If unbalanced, then in the modern world, a splinter rebid seems the better treatment. An auction like 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♦ actually showing diamonds seems silly to me. It speeds up an already forcing auction to no purpose that I can discern.

 

7. The second set of drawbacks? Well, after 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠ - P - 2NT - P -? you are pretty much even. 3♥ shows your hand. After 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P -2♠ - P - 3♣ or ♦ - P - 3♥ you are slightly behind since partner does not know if you have two ♥ or three - something of a bother if his/her heart suit is ratty. The biggest issue that I can see is when responder has six+ hearts. Over 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P- 2♠ - P - 3♥ - P - ? you have the wrong hand making the crucial decision.

 

8. Imo, bottom line. One more thing to remember. Not worth it at matchpoints. Maybe at IMP pairs or long IMP matches. Probably worth it at Swiss Teams.

[PhilKing]

3. The 'booklet' etc

 

Your post shows a good depth of knowledge, but the fact is that the penny has still not dropped as to what SAYC is.

 

There is no old way or new way of playing it. It is not Standard American - it is a specific convention card (Yellow Card) put together by a committee based on their interpretation of SA with an accompanying booklet. The aim was players from intermediate level and above to be able to sit down and play without discussion, though most fall into the same trap. What you have been doing is discussing why a camel is not a Ferrari.

 

The "booklet" is SAYC - not someone's opinion of what it should be.

[helene_t]

I don't think it has much merrits to play 1♠-2♥-3♥ as nonforcing. Once responder has forced to 2NT s/he must have values very close to GF, and learning about a major suit fit must be enough to upgrade to a GF.

 

Similarly,

1♠-2♣

2♥-3♥

really out to be a gf.

 

But when we find a minor suit fit in similar auction it is not quite clear. I can easily construct a pair or hands that would like to end the auction after

1♥-2♦

3♦

or

1♠-2♣

2♦-3♦

 

Of course it is equally easy to construct hands that would like those auctions to be forcing.

[beatrix45]

The "booklet" is SAYC - not someone's opinion of what it should be.

 

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

 

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

[helene_t]

Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

 

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

The rule is very simple: a 2-level response promises a rebid unless opener jumps to game. Those 11 words go a long way towards defining which bids are forcing and which aren't. Try to summarize which bids are forcing after a 2-level response in Goren or Acol. You won't come very far with 11 words. As it happens, the rule also applies in SEF so it will be familiar to a lot of European tournament players.

 

Personally I think the rule makes a lot of sense but to each his/her own.

I don't think many people know the whole booklet by heart, or even the most basic things like the rule about promising a rebid. But then again, it's not like you can assume anything else when a pick-up partner from somewhere else in the World suggests to play SAYC. Playing with an pick-up on BBO who puts "SAYC" on his profile but probably just means "I play 5cM and 15-17, and the rest is whatever feels logical to me", you don't really know what you play. But if you care you can give him a link to the SAYC booklet. Then you will already have a reasonable amount of agreements. You know that Stayman applies, but transfers don't, in response to a 1NT overcall. You know that a new suit in response to a suit overcall is nonforcing. You know that you play J2NT but not NMF. You know that your spot card signals are high=enc/even.

[masse24]

"SAYC" is an acronym for Standard American Yellow Card, which is a specific set of partnership agreements and conventions, using Standard American as a base. The ACBL even has “a booklet” describing exactly what is, and what is not, forcing (though it is inadequate). The term “SAYC” is often used to misidentify some personalized version of Standard American.

 

Trixi...that you believe 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♥ to be non-forcing, does not change the fact that in SAYC, it is forcing. The ACBL SAYC System Booklet, which you continue to reject, clearly states: “Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level.” You may not like this system. You may not agree with this system. But it is part of SAYC.

 

There are several “oddball” treatments in SAYC. For example: 1m – 2NT?

Would you consider this forcing? In SAYC it is. 2NT, in that auction, shows 13-15 and is a Game-Force.

Would I play it that way opposite a random partner who stated he wanted to play SAYC? No. I would be too afraid of being passed by a partner who thought I had sort of some invitational 11 HCP.

 

“The booklet” if you will take the time to look it up, is on the ACBL website. ACBL SAYC System Booklet

 

As Phil stated earlier, what you have probably been referring to as SAYC is (and this is quite common) most likely some personalized version of Standard American. :)

[gordontd]

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

 

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

The booklet defined SAYC and preceded BBO.

[masse24]

SAYC is the preferred fallback position . . . Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

 

SAYC and "this miserable booklet" are not mutually exclusive. They are the same thing. That appears to be the source of your confusion. :blink:

 

Though it was before I began playing bridge, my research seems to indicate that SAYC was born in 1988. Those more "experienced" than I am may correct me on this point.

[ArtK78]

From bridgebum.com:

 

Origins

SAYC is a bidding system created by the ACBL in the 1980s for tournament play. The intent was to offer "Yellow Card" events in which everyone played the same system, thereby avoiding alerts and misunderstandings.

 

When online duplicate bridge began in the late 1990's, SAYC filled the need for a default convention card. It gained traction on OKbridge and was later adopted by Bridge Base Online. Ironically, SAYC is more popular today as the de facto system in online pickup games than the carefully standardized sit-down events which the ACBL originally envisioned.

 

Online adoption has led to grassroots modifications of the system, with some players defining "SAYC Basic" vs. "SAYC Full". Officially, the ACBL does not make this distinction.

 

It is also worth noting that SAYC lacks a few conventions that are popular in modern tournaments. Experienced players may consider filling some "holes" in the system, including (but not limited to):

 

Inverted Minors

Roman Key Card Blackwood

A defense to 1NT, such as Cappelletti or DONT

 

 

Here is an interesting link on the origins of SAYC. Aside from the story by the author, one of the comments states that SAYC was promulgated by the ACBL in 1988.

 

http://mojo.whiteoaks.com/2010/09/27/how-sayc-happened/

[Vampyr]

The aim was players from intermediate level and above to be able to sit down and play without discussion

 

I am not so sure. I was in the US when the yellow cards were first produced. The system was, IIRC, supposed to be a "simple system" for "no fear"-type competitions. Here in the UK such competitions, such as the Palmer Bayer and the London Trophy, continue to thrive. These use truly simple systems which don't require a booklet to provide explanations.

 

The problem with the Yellow Card and the reason it never caught on was, I believe, that everyone on the committee which produced it stuck an oar in, with everyone providing one or more pet conventions. The result was not a simple system at all, but a system with loads of conventional agreements.

 

Edit: crossed post above

[helene_t]

It is not that bad. I suppose one could skip splinters, Michael's and U2NT, and one could play natural followups after the forcing raise (2NT) of a major instead of showing a singleton, but other than that it doesn't contain any nonessential conventions. I suppose Standard English is simpler in that it doesn't contain transfers but then again, if you agree to play "standard English" with a random, chances are that s/he will think that transfers are part of Standard English.

[Vampyr]

It is not that bad. I suppose one could skip splinters, Michael's and U2NT, and one could play natural followups after the forcing raise (2NT) of a major instead of showing a singleton, but other than that it doesn't contain any nonessential conventions. I suppose Standard English is simpler in that it doesn't contain transfers but then again, if you agree to play "standard English" with a random, chances are that s/he will think that transfers are part of Standard English.

 

LOL Jacoby 2NT? I think that is the problem, not the continuations.

 

When you are playing simple systems or something similar you will usually be provided with a convention card. At rubber bridge clubs you will be well aware of the rules; it varies, but general little is allowed.

 

Anyway, my list of "essential conventions" is a lot shorter than most. I think that an initial takeout double is important, and I wouldn't want to be without Stayman. I actually find it more fun to play with those conventions only (maybe Blackwood; not essential though).

[mycroft]

For years - 20 of them, at least - the cry from some of the punters was "we don't want to play against all these crazy conventions. Why do we have to spend 5 minutes on every round figuring out what *these people* play and how to defend against it, or hear all these Alerts? Why can't everyone just play bridge without trying to confuse the opposition?" (by that last they mean, of course, "I'm a good player, so I want to maximise the chance that the play is the differentiator in the game", among other things).

 

The ACBL listened. They created a Yellow Card, which was effectively "modern Standard American amongst experts 5-8 years ago, that have filtered down to the point where 'everybody' plays it." They said "we're having a 2-session Yellow Card Pairs event; everyone plays YC (with a couple of options; carding is one), so you'll understand everyone's auction"; few showed up. Fewer showed up the next time. Eventually it died out.

 

Around 1995, 6 IIRC, the forces raised their head again, and a newer, more modern version was created - the "Classic Card" (from the Wayback Machine). Again, they set Classic Card games, thinking people that wanted "everyone to play the same system, so that the play was the important part, not 'trying to figure out what they're doing'" would play in it as well. It died an equally quick death, despite the many more options available.

 

Turns out that what people want is to be allowed to play their pet conventions that are good and work, but not have to worry about everybody else's "weird stuff they only play to confuse us". But it does mean that the two cards still exist.

 

If you're looking for names behind the ACBL SAYC, check the Competition and Conventions Committee membership rolls from 1986-8 or so. But it never was "owned" by a person, it was (and is) an official document of the ACBL. If you want to say it's silly for whatever reason (the big ones to me are "negative doubles to 2♠ only" and "no forcing minor raise"), fine. If you want to play a better version of Standard American, also fine. If you want to play a better version of "not 2/1", without the SA base (say an Acol or SEF base), also fine. But SAYC is SAYC and none of the other options are SAYC; if you claim "your version of SAYC is better" or "SAYC can't mean what the booklet says because it's stupid", you're not talking about SAYC, you're talking about some other version of Standard (American). You're also in very good company. From my .sig file of years and years ago:

 

'You have the knowledge that your opponents play SAYC, but that only means they can find the letters "S", "A", "Y", and "C" on their keyboard.' -- Adam Beneschan, rec.games.bridge.

[helene_t]

Sorry Stefanie the word "essential" was a bit misplaced. Of xourse one could live without transfers. It's just that omitting transfers won't solve any problems because most people will assume they apply unless told that they don't. Once I told my pickup p that i prefer not to play transfers because one never knows in which situations they apply. He concurred. Then I opened 2nt and he made a transfer bid which I took as natural. In the post mortem he insisted that although we agreed not to play transfers it was obvious that they do appky after 2nt

[hrothgar]

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

 

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

 

Beatrix,

 

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

 

You're very opinionated and very ignorant. This might serve you well in whatever fishbowl you live in.

It don't work so well out in the the big bad world where folks actually know something.

 

Here's some background that might prove useful.

 

Back before there was dirt, the ACBL thought that the wide range of conventions that people were using was diminishing the popularity of the game. The ACBL responded by creating a simplified set of agreements that came to be known as SAYC. SAYC served a couple of purposes

 

1. Two players who met at a convention desk could agree to play SAYC without the need for discussion

2. The ACBL introduced a number of SAYC only events which failed miserably

 

The SAYC agreements where documented on a pamphlet that the ACBL printed up back in the early 80s.

This is the genesis of the miserable booklet that you are complaining about.

(Note, this is hardly something new. It's been around for several decades)

 

Like most things created by the ACBL, the SAYC system was badly flawed.

No one used it. It was in the process of being condemned to the dustbin of history.

But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO OKB client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

 

I think most everyone on this forum will agree that SAYC sucks.

To the extent that the system has any virtue what-so-ever, its that it defines a standard.

It's a miserable, nigh unplayable standard, but its a standard none-the-less

 

To the extent that people are pushing back against your new improved definition of SAYC, its probably because having yet another random, ignorant crank hectoring people regarding their own ill conceived notions of what is/is not standard doesn't make things better. Its amusing, in a sad sort of way, but really doesn't add any value.

 

If you want to create your own new improved bidding system, please do so.

Just don't call it SAYC.

 

And please feel free to sign it.

[ArtK78]

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

 

Classic. One of the best lines ever to appear on these Fora.

[Stephen Tu]

But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

OKbridge client/server, not BBO.

[hrothgar]

OKbridge client/server, not BBO.

 

D'oh!

 

Thanks

[the hog]

Classic. One of the best lines ever to appear on these Fora.

 

Richard does not mince words. :D

[beatrix45]

Beatrix,

 

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

 

You're very opinionated and very ignorant. This might serve you well in whatever fishbowl you live in.

It don't work so well out in the the big bad world where folks actually know something.

 

Here's some background that might prove useful.

 

Back before there was dirt, the ACBL thought that the wide range of conventions that people were using was diminishing the popularity of the game. The ACBL responded by creating a simplified set of agreements that came to be known as SAYC. SAYC served a couple of purposes

 

1. Two players who met at a convention desk could agree to play SAYC without the need for discussion

2. The ACBL introduced a number of SAYC only events which failed miserably

 

The SAYC agreements where documented on a pamphlet that the ACBL printed up back in the early 80s.

This is the genesis of the miserable booklet that you are complaining about.

(Note, this is hardly something new. It's been around for several decades)

 

Like most things created by the ACBL, the SAYC system was badly flawed.

No one used it. It was in the process of being condemned to the dustbin of history.

But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO OKB client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

 

I think most everyone on this forum will agree that SAYC sucks.

To the extent that the system has any virtue what-so-ever, its that it defines a standard.

It's a miserable, nigh unplayable standard, but its a standard none-the-less

 

To the extent that people are pushing back against your new improved definition of SAYC, its probably because having yet another random, ignorant crank hectoring people regarding their own ill conceived notions of what is/is not standard doesn't make things better. Its amusing, in a sad sort of way, but really doesn't add any value.

 

If you want to create your own new improved bidding system, please do so.

Just don't call it SAYC.

 

And please feel free to sign it.

 

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

 

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

 

 

[diana_eva]

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

 

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

 

I don't understand why you do not read the detailed explanations from this thread, the whole history of SAYC is there. There is no author, the booklet is an official document published by the American Contract Bridge League.

[JonnyQuest]

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

 

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

 

It is not your refusal to read the information supplied to you. You float somewhere between an unwillingness to comprehend and an inability to comprehend.

 

Being purposefully obtuse is not a good way to go through life. :blink:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs