most valuable addition(s) to SAYC

[rr9000]

If you were playing SAYC (complete version as described at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf and the accompanying booklet at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf), what handful of conventions or specific agreements would you *most* want to add to it, and why?

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

 

PS - I'm having trouble getting the inserted booklet link to work. There's a functioning link at http://www.bridgebum.com/sayc.php

[Vampyr]

If you were playing SAYC (complete version as described at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf and the accompanying booklet at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf), what handful of conventions or specific agreements would you *most* want to add to it, and why?

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

 

I would suggest 2-way checkback, and probably Ogust.

[TylerE]

A match. As in set it on fire.

 

SAYC is unplayable in anything resembling serious competition. The minor suit structure is most egregious.

 

The literal only (slight) saving grace is if you play it 100% to the pamphlet. Anything else you'd be much better served by just playing a non-brain damaged system if you're going to spend even 5 minutes making agreements.

[awm]

Elianna and I basically did this.

 

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.

2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.

3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).

4. Inverted minor raises.

5. Weak jump raises in competition.

 

It’s pretty playable at that point. We’ve added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D “catch-all” rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don’t think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

[P_Marlowe]

Elianna and I basically did this.

 

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.

2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.

3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).

4. Inverted minor raises.

5. Weak jump raises in competition.

 

It’s pretty playable at that point. We’ve added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D “catch-all” rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don’t think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

I think #2 is the most important point.

#3 basically comes down on discussing some FSF sequences, which is also

relevant, if you play FSF as gf, ..., which would mean this is a variation

of #2.

 

Summing it up: If you want to get serious, you need to start discussing with

partner, what you play. Saying we play SAYC, and expecting to sit down and do

well is a fallacy.

[steve2005]

Forcing raise in a minor

1♦-3♣ & 1♣-2♦ comes to mind

[steve2005]

Elianna and I basically did this.

 

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.

2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.

3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).

4. Inverted minor raises.

5. Weak jump raises in competition.

 

It's pretty playable at that point. We've added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D "catch-all" rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don't think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

If your playing SAYC and not 2/1 I think you should keep simple

1) not needed at this level just normal NMF

2) This very important if you want to try and bid slams.

3) Yes this actually simplifies things.

4) no unnecessary complexity

5) Yes you cant wait all year for a strong JS in this situation.

[bravejason]

A match. As in set it on fire.

 

SAYC is unplayable in anything resembling serious competition. The minor suit structure is most egregious.

 

The literal only (slight) saving grace is if you play it 100% to the pamphlet. Anything else you'd be much better served by just playing a non-brain damaged system if you're going to spend even 5 minutes making agreements.

 

 

This is harsh. What specifically is the issue for you? You mentioned minor suit structure, but didn’t elaborate on what you felt was wrong.

[awm]

If your playing SAYC and not 2/1 I think you should keep simple

1) not needed at this level just normal NMF

2) This very important if you want to try and bid slams.

3) Yes this actually simplifies things.

4) no unnecessary complexity

5) Yes you cant wait all year for a strong JS in this situation.

 

1) two way is actually simpler than “normal” nmf since it clarifies which sequences are gf and prevents opener jumping around.

4) having no game forcing minor raise sequence is a pretty big problem; you can miss slams pretty easily.

5) i think you’re confusing jump shifts (which we play as fit showing but are not really important) with jump raises; we use 1h-(1S)-3h as weak and 2s cue as limit+ which is pretty “standard” these days but not part of sayc

[rr9000]

Many good suggestions thus far. The only one missing from my list is Lebensohl. I'm not sure how I'd get by without it.

 

RR9000

[TylerE]

This is harsh. What specifically is the issue for you? You mentioned minor suit structure, but didn’t elaborate on what you felt was wrong.

 

Where to start...

 

1m-2N is 13-15 GF

1m-3N is 16-18 GF

There is no forcing minor suit raise.

 

If that alone doesn't tell you a system had brain damage, I don't know what will.

[Stephen Tu]

Where to start...

 

1m-2N is 13-15 GF

1m-3N is 16-18 GF

There is no forcing minor suit raise.

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

 

[Vampyr]

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

 

What are the ranges in common modern 2/1? Is using these bids as natural popular?

[Stephen Tu]

Most common is 3nt=13-15, 2nt=11-12. Anything other than natural is extraordinarily rare.

[rr9000]

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

 

I agree with Stephen that the "older" ranges for 2NT and 3NT have advantages, and the history is perhaps illuminating. The ranges changed not because the new ones were seen as superior per se, but because they were needed in order to accommodate the 2/1 problem hand type of an invitational level response to 1D that's not suitable for a major suit bid, an inverted minor raise, or an invitational 3C bid. At one point, the system bid was 1H on a three card suit (gag!). Then 2NT over a 1D opener was shifted down to invitational and 3NT had to come with it. Originally, these 2NT and 3NT responses were just after a 1D opening, but first some and then all or nearly all who play 2/1 moved to having the lower HCP 2NT and 3NT responses to 1C as well, for consistency.

 

To the occasional detriment of those who play 2/1 fully game forcing (as opposed to Mike Lawrence style), this doesn't solve all of the 1D-2C problems, but then again, neither do "standard" or Lawrence's thoughtful solutions.

 

RR9000

[helene_t]

More take-out doubles, for example after we open 1NT.

[blackshoe]

"No, I don't know Precision. But I do know Standard American, and what better reason could I have for playing Precision?" -- The Hideous Hog

[perko90]

My list would be (some have already been mentioned):

1) RKC

2) Raising the negative Dbl limit

3) Figuring out what sequences are forcing after 1M-2X.

-- Forcing to at least 2NT is a good start; getting 3-card LR out of the 2/1 structure is important, too (either include in the 1M-3M LR or add a semi-forcing 1NT)

4) Ogust instead of Feature (ok, probably not *most* important)

5) Inverted Minors

6) Remove penalty double from 1NT defense (actually requires a lot of discussion and isn't very good vs strong NT). Replace with Dbl = H+S

[Zelandakh]

3) Figuring out what sequences are forcing after 1M-2X.

-- Forcing to at least 2NT is a good start;

So what about 1M - 2X; 2NT? One of the most awkward parts of SAYC is that one part of the booklet states explicitly that this is forcing while another makes it so that having it forcing is almost unplayable. This is the #1 auction for any pair playing SAYC to discuss and comes well above adding conventions. For the record, the "best" version of SAYC I have seen comes from Adam (awm) and he plays this sequence as forcing, meaning that minimum balanced hands have to find a different rebid. This is unfortunately not the way the vast majority of players see it; but then again most players who say they are playing SAYC are really just playing their personalised version of SA and have no idea of how the Yellow Card system really works.

[RuflRabbit]

So what about 1M - 2X; 2NT? One of the most awkward parts of SAYC is that one part of the booklet states explicitly that this is forcing while another makes it so that having it forcing is almost unplayable. This is the #1 auction for any pair playing SAYC to discuss and comes well above adding conventions. For the record, the "best" version of SAYC I have seen comes from Adam (awm) and he plays this sequence as forcing, meaning that minimum balanced hands have to find a different rebid. This is unfortunately not the way the vast majority of players see it; but then again most players who say they are playing SAYC are really just playing their personalised version of SA and have no idea of how the Yellow Card system really works.

 

Unless you're referring to a different part than I'm reading (2/1 promising a rebid), I don't see 1M - 2X; 2NT as being so terribly difficult in SAYC. As long as responder doesn't make a 2/1 on a random 10 count and opener doesn't rebid 2NT on a bare minimum (perhaps what you're suggesting), either responder rebids their 6-bagger or responder raises 2NT to a game that's at worst something like a decent 13 opposite a decent 11. People playing 2/1 might get to the same game, after a forcing notrump.

 

The real problem auction is 1D - 2C, but if you can point me to any 5cM strong notrump system that's solved this problem, I'm all ears. Lawrence's Workbook on 2/1 devotes several pages to a very thoughtful analysis, but IMO, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

 

Is Adam's version available online?

 

RuflRabbit

[sfi]

So what about 1M - 2X; 2NT? One of the most awkward parts of SAYC is that one part of the booklet states explicitly that this is forcing while another makes it so that having it forcing is almost unplayable. This is the #1 auction for any pair playing SAYC to discuss and comes well above adding conventions. For the record, the "best" version of SAYC I have seen comes from Adam (awm) and he plays this sequence as forcing, meaning that minimum balanced hands have to find a different rebid. This is unfortunately not the way the vast majority of players see it; but then again most players who say they are playing SAYC are really just playing their personalised version of SA and have no idea of how the Yellow Card system really works.

 

I've always played the opposite - 1M-2x; 2NT shows a balanced minimum that would not accept an invitation. Either way should work though.

[Zelandakh]

The real problem auction is 1D - 2C, but if you can point me to any 5cM strong notrump system that's solved this problem, I'm all ears. Lawrence's Workbook on 2/1 devotes several pages to a very thoughtful analysis, but IMO, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

 

Is Adam's version available online?

Sorry Rufl, I missed this post earlier. As far as I know Adam has not published his version of SAYC but he has posted about it a few times on BBF so a search should provide you with the basic rules. He also tends to be very reactive and helpful to enquiries so you could also try a PM if you cannot find enough detail yourself.

 

The issues in the 1♦ - 2♣ auction can be solved in various ways. The most common these days is to make it game forcing, meaning that all of the awkward issues are contained within the 1NT response. Using some relatively idle responses such as 3♣ to help take some of the pressure off of 1NT is helpful here.

 

The second approach is to retain 2♣ as invitational or better and code Opener's rebids to sort everything out. Most systems split minimum hand types between 2♦ (forcing), 2NT and 3♣ while giving Opener the chance to further describe their hand after the 2♦ rebid. It is not particularly difficult to code enough sequences to describe all hand types but it should be clear that game and slam bidding suffers somewhat in comparison to the 2/1 style above.

 

Finally one can make the 2♣ response "GF except X", where X is typically one or both of a balanced invite and an invitational one-suiter. The idea of this approach is to combine the best from the two previous methods. The problem with it is that in reality you do not get the benefits of the purely GF approach and therefore need to use strategies taken from the INV+. In theory your bidding space is more optimally used in this style but it is also more complicated to get the most from that bidding space.

 

All of the above methods can further be simplified by using an unbalanced diamond opening and opening all balanced hands with either 1♣ or a specialised opening (1NT, 2NT; Mexican 2♦, etc). Not having to account for balanced hands after a 1♦ opening effectively creates more bidding space for everything else.

 

In addition to the three natural approaches there are also a number of artificial schemes. Using 1NT or 2♣ as an artificial game force over 1♦ is quite possible. Another artificial solution is Skip Bid responses, where for example 1♠ shows hearts. My own solution uses a 1♥ response to show all INV+ hands with a 1NT response being weak with hearts. Sadly while these schemes have their various advantages over natural methods, all suffer from the issue of being more unfamiliar. And unfamiliarity means more complex for most players.

 

But the bottom line is that 1♦ - 2♣ need not be difficult. To my mind the auction after 1♦ - (2♣) is much more awkward. We have had some threads on that here at BBF and as far as I remember the most comprehensive scheme so far was posted by Hans. But that is a whole new kettle of worms.

[Vampyr]

I've always played the opposite - 1M-2x; 2NT shows a balanced minimum that would not accept an invitation. Either way should work though.

 

Shouldn’t this always show the NT range you don’t open?

[helene_t]

Shouldn’t this always show the NT range you don’t open?

This is reasonable if you play 12-14 or maybe 14-16, and if you play 2/1 GF it is playable although probably not optimal. It is also reasonable if you play Lawrence style, in which 2♣ is GF opposite a balanced minimum albeit not opposite a misfitting unbalanced minimum.

 

If you play 15-17 non-2/1, i.e. something similar to SAYC, it is not good IMHO. If 2NT shows a balanced minimum that would not accept an invite, then you need some other way to bid the balanced minimum that do accept the invite, and a 3rd way to bid balanced maximum.

 

SAYC is a bit scizofrenic in this respect but I think the most reasonable interpretation is that SAYC is similar to Lawrence style:

- Opener upgrade a reasonable 5M332 14-count to a 1NT opening. So the balanced range in the 1M openings is quite narrow.

- Responder therefore doesn't have a balanced invite opposite the 12-13(14) balanced. He either signs of (responds 1NT) or forces to game (responds 2♣ F1R, and after the 2NT rebid we are in a GF).

 

I realize that this is controversial and that less than 1% of people who put SAYC in their profile assume this style. But it is the only way I can reconcile "2NT shows a minimum" with "2♣ promises a second bid", both of which are in the SAYC description.

[awm]

Our basic agreement in 2/1 auctions is that rebidding the suit opened can be a catch-all with any hand having no other appropriate bid. This is often a minimum without a cheaper suit to name. Note that the catch-all does not show a minimum (it could be a quite good hand with a six card suit) and it’s still forcing one round (2/1 promises a rebid). All minimum range balanced hands make the catch-all bid. Note that this includes after opening 1♦ and getting a 2♣ response. So after 1♦-2♣:

 

2♦ = any hand with less than 15 points, or some stronger hands with 6+♦ but not a great suit, forcing one round

2M = 15+ with 4M and 5+♦ (or maybe 4441)

2nt = 18-19 balanced (without 4♣, can have a 4M)

3♣ = 15+ and 4+♣

3♦ = 15+ and a really good suit

3M = splinter raise of clubs

 

Everything above 2♦ is game force. After the 2♦ rebid responder bids 2nt or 3♣ as non forcing invites (note opener still goes to game with 14 balanced over this) or bids anything else to game force. 2M by responder is game forcing and “natural” although we occasionally need to bid a strong three card suit.