Origin of the term "Standard American"?

[bluenikki]

Is it? What would be a 2NT rebid in the auction 1X - 2Y -- 2NT and how would Responder continue with a balanced minimum? My experience is that it is actually easier to know what bids mean in 2/1, Acol, SEF/Forum D or Precision than SAYC due to the contradictory statements within the SAYC definition document that make the system all but unworkable without further defining certain agreements.

 

The point is that there is NO agreement other than what is in the notes. The bid is forcing, and responder must do the best they can.

 

By contrast, if you play "2/1" with a stranger, you know what YOU would mean by 2NT and what YOUR continuations would mean, but your partner may have wildly different expectations. And you will not know until the hand is over.

[pilowsky]

Incidentally, what does 2/1 have to do with this auction?

 

In 2/1 both partners know for sure not to stop before game.

Apparently that is less clear in "Standard".

[mycroft]

That will be of great comfort when you're +480 in 4. "Great, we beat the +230s". Worse yet when you're -50 in a hopeless 6 (or 5!) and lose even to the +170s.

 

The problem with SA (even YC) is that it's sometimes difficult to force to game unambiguously. The problem with 2/1 is that we're forced to game, but then wander around to the 4 level and don't know if either hand has shown extras. In both cases, more system discussion helps, but that's not what people are talking about with "why should we teach SA when 2/1 is so much better and easier".

 

I played a K/S (2/1 not absolutely GF)-inspired system (we didn't play 1NT forcing, among other things) for years and did very well with it, because we had agreements. I play K/S with 2/1 GF unless suit rebid, and do well with that - again because we have agreements. I play 2/1 with strong NT, both western Canada style (shape first, handle strength if possible, invm and 1♦-2♣ GF) and eastern Canada style (opener's rebid shows/denies extras, invm LR+ and only 1M-2x GF), and do well with those as well. Never mind the discussions on whether and when GF auctions can stop in 4 of a minor.

 

And our systems still have holes that come up, and we get bad boards because we are on different pages.

 

Absolutely, nobody plays SAYC - even if they claim to play SAYC. Absolutely, it is very likely that if you can't play 2/1, you likely don't play the tools that allow standard to work either. Absolutely, as JLall said over a decade ago, "it's just so comfortable to know we're going to game" (and that partner knows it too). Would I play without 2/1 GF, at least after 1M, if I had the option? 100%. But that doesn't mean that a good SA system isn't good, in fact could be better, than "2/1, 1430, UDCA, partner?"

[blindsey]

Yes it is: pp 219-225.

 

OK, got the book, read the article.

 

Briefer than I thought it would be, but it said what it said.

 

Now to read the rest of the book. The bits on the development of the K-S System look interesting.