[jillybean]

2 questions..

I say that I play SAYC because I open 5 card majors, best minor, my 1nt is 15-17, I play stayman and transfers. As I add splinters, checkback, italian cues , crisscross etc is it not still correct to say I’m playing SAYC (with extras) ?


It was suggested in another thread that “experts don’t play SAYC”. Therefore, they will be playing 2/1, blue club, polish club, Acol, moscito. I doubt that any one of these systems is the answer to all bidding problems and in any of these do you not tweak and add conventions where necessary?

jb

[P_Marlowe]

What is in a name?

You play a standardish 5 card mayor system,
with some gadgets, you can still call SAYC, as
long as 2/1 promises a rebid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Stephen Tu]

Say you're playing SA with lots of gadgets. SAYC is supposed to be SA with a very specific set of gadgets + treatments. You are playing SA with a lot of different gadgets + treatments, just some of whom also happen to be used in SAYC as well.

It peeves me when online bridge players use SAYC synonymously with SA. SA is
the base, generic term for the family of systems. SAYC is a specific term.

[mikeh]

As I understand SAYC, it is a (relatively) well-defined system, in that its origins were, as best as I can recall, an effort made by the ACBL to promote the use of a simple and consistent 'method', that could be played in so-called Yellow Card events: that is to say, events in which every player had to use exactly the same method.

This is NOT the same as playing 'standard american', for example. SAYC is a specific, simplistic version of Standard American.

So as you add or change things, you may still be playing SA, but you are no longer playing SAYC.

This is a good thing, because SAYC is woefully inadequate for a serious player. It contains far too many gaps, or areas of ambiguity.

But the bad news is that there is NO 'Standard American' method as such. The name is used to cover a general approach, and is a broad umbrella beneath which you can play a host of different gadgets.

'2/1' is a similar broad umbrella, as is, to a slightly lesser extent, 'Precision' ('Big Club' is a huge umbrella, Precision less so since it is a subset of 'Big Club')

If I sit down with a new expert partner and we agree to play 2/1, we then take a CC and start from the top. As experts, we probably have a shared vocabulary, so that if we say, for example, 'walsh relays over 1N?', we probably know more or less exactly what we have agreed upon. But let's say we suggest '4-way transfers'.. that would beget the question: how do we show a super-accept.. because there is more than one way to do this.

Equally, with Bergen Raises... is 3♣ limit or constructive? If we play a form of BART, do we relay with the weaker hand or the stronger hand? And so on. It takes about 20-30 minutes for me to go through a CC with a new expert partner in time for a casual game. If I were to try to establish a more significant partnership, I'd want to spend at least a few hours to start with, and far, far more time if we were to make a go of it.... and that is because the potential for 'tweaking' the methods are almost infinite.

As an advancing B/I, it is important to understand the law of diminishing returns in terms of system complexity, especially when you are not yet familiar with most of this stuff. Add incrementally... for example, you can continue to play SA, adding various gadgets, including, let's say, criss-cross or inverted minors.

Eventually, for a NA player, you are going to want to learn a form of 2/1GF.. get hold of one of the better texts on this (I think Mike Lawrence wrote one... I'd stay away from Hardy, since he was a terrible writer, and knew far less about the game than Lawrence in any event) and then discuss it with your preferred partner(s).

Exposing yourself to different methods will eventually allow you to pick and choose your own method. I know of no serious partnership that uses exactly the same method as any other serious partnership. Even those that agree to use the same specialized method will soon develop their own variants. Don't let that distress you.. it reflects the wonderful depth of the game.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Jun 20 2007, 11:47 PM, said:

As I understand SAYC, it is a (relatively) well-defined system, in that its origins were, as best as I can recall, an effort made by the ACBL to promote the use of a simple and consistent 'method', that could be played in so-called Yellow Card events: that is to say, events in which every player had to use exactly the same method.

This is NOT the same as playing 'standard american', for example. SAYC is a specific, simplistic version of Standard American.

So as you add or change things, you may still be playing SA, but you are no longer playing SAYC.

This is a good thing, because SAYC is woefully inadequate for a serious player. It contains far too many gaps, or areas of ambiguity.

But the bad news is that there is NO 'Standard American' method as such. The name is used to cover a general approach, and is a broad umbrella beneath which you can play a host of different gadgets.

'2/1' is a similar broad umbrella, as is, to a slightly lesser extent, 'Precision' ('Big Club' is a huge umbrella, Precision less so since it is a subset of 'Big Club')

If I sit down with a new expert partner and we agree to play 2/1, we then take a CC and start from the top. As experts, we probably have a shared vocabulary, so that if we say, for example, 'walsh relays over 1N?', we probably know more or less exactly what we have agreed upon. But let's say we suggest '4-way transfers'.. that would beget the question: how do we show a super-accept.. because there is more than one way to do this.

Equally, with Bergen Raises... is 3♣ limit or constructive? If we play a form of BART, do we relay with the weaker hand or the stronger hand? And so on. It takes about 20-30 minutes for me to go through a CC with a new expert partner in time for a casual game. If I were to try to establish a more significant partnership, I'd want to spend at least a few hours to start with, and far, far more time if we were to make a go of it.... and that is because the potential for 'tweaking' the methods are almost infinite.

As an advancing B/I, it is important to understand the law of diminishing returns in terms of system complexity, especially when you are not yet familiar with most of this stuff. Add incrementally... for example, you can continue to play SA, adding various gadgets, including, let's say, criss-cross or inverted minors.

Eventually, for a NA player, you are going to want to learn a form of 2/1GF.. get hold of one of the better texts on this (I think Mike Lawrence wrote one... I'd stay away from Hardy, since he was a terrible writer, and knew far less about the game than Lawrence in any event) and then discuss it with your preferred partner(s).

Exposing yourself to different methods will eventually allow you to pick and choose your own method. I know of no serious partnership that uses exactly the same method as any other serious partnership. Even those that agree to use the same specialized method will soon develop their own variants. Don't let that distress you.. it reflects the wonderful depth of the game.

Hi Kathryn

Here's a quick suggestion: I think that you would be best served if you and one of your regular partners sat down and agreed that you will learn some existing system "by the book".

(Within reason) I don't think that it matters what system use. There are lots of good systems.

In a similar vein, I don't think that it matters much what book you use. There are a fair number of decent books.

Whats important is that someone who is experienced with system design sat down and documented a logically consistent and fairly comprehensive bidding system. More importantly, I think that you and your partner should sit down and agree to play the system as described. Don't add to it or subtract from it until you have a good understand how/why the basic system is working.

1. If you are primarily interested in 2/1 Game Force, I'd recommend either Mike Lawrence's workbook or Steve Robinson's book on Washington Standard

2. If you prefer a weak NT approach, K-S is still a perfect valid system

3. If you want to go a bit farther from home, Matula's book on Polish club is first rate

I'm sure that other folks can make recommendations

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL's (SAYC booklet, revised January, 2006:

Quote

OVERVIEW
The ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) was created to be the required system to be used in a Standard Yellow Card event. The object was to provide a simple, modern method that will lead to a good, solid understanding in a partnership when both players have read this booklet.
Because this system was to be used by each pair, the game was free of a wide variety of possibly complex systems. There was no necessity to Alert or ask questions since everyone was playing the same method.
When play began on the Internet, players needing a quick way to establish the method to be used in a relatively casual partnership adopted the SAYC. It is also used by players who meet at the partnership desk a few minutes before the game starts.
Players may still exercise bridge judgment, such as opening a four-card major in third seat. SAYC “normally five-card majors” approach can withstand an occasional deviation.

CHOICES
While there are no choices in the present day SAYC, except for an SAYC event in which everyone must play the method as written, a pair could use the SAYC as a base and make one or two modifications. If you do make a modification or two in an open game, you should announce that fact to the opponents – if they think you are playing straight SAYC and they know SAYC, they would not know about your modifications.

There is room for an awful lot of variation in the context of any basic system. As a matter of fact, SAYC is itself a variant of "Standard American". Bridge World Standard is another. Some writers, at least, have begun to refer to "Modern American" - another variant, although I suppose folks could debate whether it's a variant of "Standard American" or of "2/1 Game Force" and indeed whether the latter isn't itself a variant of "Standard American".

Years ago, NBOs would regulate systems. They would say "you can play Standard American, or Acol, or Precision, or ..., but not REGRES, or Moscito, or Joe's Homegrown Convention Collage". With all the variants that began to appear in supposedly standard systems, they gave up, and now regulate conventions, not systems. Even conventions have variants, though, which is why most SOs tell you that "explaining" a bid by naming a convention is not adequate disclosure. I would extend the principle to naming system. "SAYC" is only accurate if you play what's in the booklet, with no variations. "SAYC with extras" is probably okay.

As I understand it the custioms, if not the regulations, governing online bridge require an alert of anything that isn't SAYC. So unless there is a regulation to this effect referring to a specific version of SAYC other than the one in the booklet, I would alert anything that differs from the booklet version (or the specified version, if different) of SAYC.

Heh. A while back, my partner and I decided to try adding the game forcing 2/1 response to our card, which had been a fairly simple "standard american" card. When we did that, we - okay, I - neglected to change the "Basic System" line at the top of the card to "2/1". Note that we hadn't added anything else normally considered part of 2/1. No Forcing NT, no inverted minors, no weak jump shifts, none of that stuff. One of the very good local players became upset with us - she said that not changing the basic system wording was misleading - she stopped shy of "deliberately" - and unfair. So we changed it to 2/1 GF, although I was sorely tempted to write "I don't know what to call it".

I had another partner who, when I was introduced to her, proudly said "I play SAYC!" I said "Good, then you play Jacoby 2NT." "Jacoby 2NT?" she said, "What's that?" I played with her for two or three years and we never did play that convention.

[awm]

Virtually no established expert partnership plays a set of agreements that can be completely described in 2-3 pages (as SAYC can). Some expert partnerships (Meckstroth-Rodwell for example) are rumored to have hundreds of pages of notes, but even the ones who play methods that are relatively close to "standard" or "two-over-one" will often have dozens of pages worth (not necessarily written down) of discussion of specific auctions, cuebidding methods, competitive methods, some extra conventions to fix problem hands for the basic system, and so forth.

Despite a lot of derogatory comments from forum regulars (many of whom haven't played in a serious partnership based on natural methods with non-GF 2/1 bids for years, if ever), SAYC is pretty decent for a system based on 2-3 page notes. If I was asked to play in a serious event with a good partner using only the SAYC notes as our systemic agreements, I'd probably be happier than playing with the same partner using only the Max Hardy 2/1 book or the CC Wei precision book as our agreements (and these two books are much longer than the SAYC notes). I also believe that if you want a really expert caliber system, you definitely need to modify SAYC in some ways (particular issues are fleshing out forcing/non-forcing continuations in 2/1 sequences, adding some form of NMF, and adding a forcing minor suit raise) but you can get away with fewer conventional add-ons than you need to make 2/1 a competitive system.

Anyways, what you play probably should be called "standard with extras" which is also what Elianna and I call our methods.

[cherdano]

I disagree somewhat with Richard's suggestion. IMHO it is an inefficient use of time (assuming your main goal is to improve at bridge) to learn some very non-standard system in detail. It is much easier to learn when you play something similar to everyone around you.
If you play something very non-standard, say Blue Club, suddenly EVERY auction (including competitive ones after we open) is very different to standard, and it is much harder to pick up stuff for your own game by seeing your opponents bid, by seeing how the other table bid it, etc. etc.

I think it doesn't make a big difference whether you play 2/1 or SAYC. Learning some of the most useful and most common conventions not included in SAYC is probably a good thing though, in particular if such a convention solves a fundamental problem like inverted minors do.

Anyway, "experts don't play SAYC" is correct in the same sense as no expert partnership plays straight 2/1, but there are certainly many expert partnerships around the world whose basic structure is similar to SAYC.

Arend

[jillybean]

Jlall, on Jun 20 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 20 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

What is in a name?

great answer.

Potential MI if the name is incorrect

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 20 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 20 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 20 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

What is in a name?

great answer.

Potential MI if the name is incorrect

Really? If you play on BBO with a pickup partner,
do you intend to throw splinters, checkback, italian
cues, crisscross on him, undiscussed?
If you do, the scores you get, are the scores you
deserve.

If you play with a regular partner, you will alert the
above mentioned stuff anyway.

Everybody with a little knowledge knows, that the
meaning of "SAYC" varies, the booklet was written
10-15 years ago (?!) and updated since, certain
things, believed to be standard at this time, changed.

And if they ever rework the booklet, they would
definitely change 1 or 2 things.

And the guys with no knowledge do not know the booklet.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

awm, on Jun 20 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

Despite a lot of derogatory comments from forum regulars (many of whom haven't played in a serious partnership based on natural methods with non-GF 2/1 bids for years, if ever), SAYC is pretty decent for a system based on 2-3 page notes.

I agree with that. There are certainly major flaws in SAYC, but compared to those awfull 2-3-page systems in use over here (Biedermeijer), SAYC is great.

I support Richard's recomendation of Lawrence's Workbook, though. It's not my favorite system, but it's my favorite book (among system books, that is) and that's more important.

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Jun 20 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

It was suggested in another thread that “experts don’t play SAYC”. Therefore, they will be playing 2/1, blue club, polish club, Acol, moscito. I doubt that any one of these systems is the answer to all bidding problems and in any of these do you not tweak and add conventions where necessary?

jb

As others have said, more or less,

- SAYC is a defined system; if you add things to it you are no longer playing SAYC

- Against that, Acol (as a specific example) is more a philosophy. The tenets of Acol are 4-card majors, 2/1 not promising a rebid, and - in general - limit bidding. That obviously doesn't define a system - anyone playing Acol will elaborate on that philosophy in great detail.

- Similarly, 2/1 is a philosophy. The tenets of that are 5-card majors, 2/1 FG (plus some other bits & pieces). Everything else is by partnership agreement.

- SA (rather than SAYC) is also more of a philosophy, incorporating (I believe, I've never played it) - strong NT, 2/1 promising a rebid but not FG; not incorporating limit bidding in anything like the way Acol does.

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

- SA (rather than SAYC) is also more of a philosophy, incorporating (I believe, I've never played it) - strong NT, 2/1 promising a rebid but not FG; not incorporating limit bidding in anything like the way Acol does.

Pretty much right. With respect to the last item, SA has evolved over the years from a "jumps are forcing" philosphy to a "jumps are invitational" philosophy and seems to be going now towards a "jumps are weak" philosophy. Many more people play the second than the third these days, I think, and few play the first anymore, except perhaps in "kitchen bridge" circles.

[pbleighton]

Quote

- SA (rather than SAYC) is also more of a philosophy, incorporating (I believe, I've never played it) - strong NT, 2/1 promising a rebid but not FG; not incorporating limit bidding in anything like the way Acol does.

Quite a few players have stopped playing 2/1 promising a rebid. A new suit or a jump by opener is forcing, but the sequences 1M-2x-3x, 1M-2x-2NT, and 1M-2x-2M can all be played as not forcing. I play 1M-2x-3x and 1M-2x-2M as NF (1M-2x-2NT is GF, 1M-2x-2M is a min with 5+ cards, Acol style), and a teaching pro I know (a good player) teaches his students that all 3 are NF.

2/1 promising a rebid made sense when opening bids had 13 (excellent 12), and the 2/1 response had 11, but with lighter opening bids and responses, it's nice to have a bid or three to show a minimum hand.

Peter

[Gerben42]

I am usually stuck between either lying about the name of my system because if I say the name this will not help anyone (they dont know it), or saying something which is similar but is not really right.

Fantunes is not just "2/1 with weak NT" but oh well...

You are playing "standard american" but not yellow card.

[Fluffy]

jillybean2, on Jun 20 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

I say that I play SAYC because I open 5 card majors, best minor, my 1nt is 15-17, I play stayman and transfers. As I add splinters, checkback, italian cues , crisscross etc is it not still correct to say I’m playing SAYC (with extras) ?

Everything you said looks like french standard (also known as SEF), it is a very well defined system with all those gadgets (and some more), I like that system except for the 2 way strong openings.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I am usually stuck between either lying about the name of my system because if I say the name this will not help anyone (they dont know it), or saying something which is similar but is not really right.

And "weird m*****ing s**t" violates zero tolerance

Peter

[ArcLight]

The one thing about Mike Lawrnces books and CD (dont forget the CD, its good and more modern) on 2/1 is that he focuses on teh core system, not the conventions.

Under his version how are these different?
1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♠

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

The former shows excellent 3 card support (2 honors) and more than a min opener



1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - 4♠

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - 3♠

The former shows good ♠ (3) and good ♦ and no outside feature



1X - 1NT
2NT = 18-19

1X - 1NT
2Y - 2Z
2NT = 16-17


1M – 1NT – 2NT – 3M = weak hand, 3 spades
1M – 1NT – 2NT – 4M = 3 card limit raise.


What I'm getting at is he focuses on core 2/1, rather than conventions.
Many people below expert level thing 2/1 consists sole of:
- forcing NT
- 2/1 = GF

There is a lot more to it, if you want the benefits

[jillybean]

Fluffy, on Jun 21 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 20 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

I say that I play SAYC because I open 5 card majors, best minor, my 1nt is 15-17, I play stayman and transfers.  As I add splinters, checkback, italian cues  , crisscross etc is it not still correct to say I’m playing SAYC (with extras) ?

Everything you said looks like french standard (also known as SEF), it is a very well defined system with all those gadgets (and some more), I like that system except for the 2 way strong openings.

It is good to know this, I have always avoided tables playing 'SEF' thinking I would be up against unfamiliar methods.

As for SAYC, I now understand and agree with the statement ‘experts don’t play sayc'
Evidently, a high number of players misstate their core system.