[Wayne_LV]

I have been bruised and confused over what is the real SAYC for years. There is SAYC Basic, SAYC Full, BBO Basic, and a seemingly endless number of variations.

On the ACBL website is a document that defines SAYC ... no variations, no choices.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

The orginal purpose of SAYC was to have a standard system that 2 strangers could play with NO discussion. SAYC with 14 variations does not provide such a system. However this ACBL document defines such a system. Seems to me this has to be the bible for SAYC and all other variations are SAYC based systems but NOT SAYC.

I am in process of creating a BBO FD convention card that follows this document faithfully. My intent is to post this convention card and expect anyone that professes to play SAYC to follow it.

However I have hit one snag. The document explicitly says that J2N is part of SAYC. Jacoby 2NT is used on hands with 4+ trumps, 13+ pts, and no singleton or void. Hands with 4 trumps and 13+ points containing a singleton or void can be shown with a splinter bid.

My question is this:

Does the inclusion of J2N in SAYC imply that splinters are emloyed over major opening bids?

Nothing in the document states that splinter bids are part of SAYC. If splinters are not used over major openings and Jacoby 2NT cannot be used with a singleton or void, then there is a hole in the system.

Are splinters over majors part of SAYC or not?

Assuming this and any other snags are resolved, I would appreciate any volunteers that would go over the FD Conv card for SAYC and check it for completeness and accuracy. Some of it is quite comlex, such as the trap pass used in conjunction with Negative Doubles and the rule of 9.

I also think it would be great if BBO added some Yellow-Card Only tournaments to its ACBL schedule.

You are Chinese, I am French. Neither of us speak English or any other language in common. We would like a game of online bridge. All we should have to do is put SAYC on our profile, sit and play and never miss a bid. That has never been my experience so far. I would love to see that change.

Wayne

[Stephen Tu]

There is no mention of splinters anywhere in SAYC document, they are conventional, so I would definitely assume they do NOT apply by default. When I used to play pickup on OKB, I always tried to agree stuff like SAYC + spl + NMF, instead of just SAYC.

There is nothing that says Jacoby 2nt cannot be used with singleton/void. Granted, a splinter would often be more descriptive & a better call if available, but there's no rule that says you can't use it with singleton/void. In many of my advanced partnerships, if not playing a tiered splinter system, we agree to use J2NT (or other forcing raise bid) on hands with a splinter that are too strong, where slam might still be there even if opener signs off with wastage. We structure the rebids so that responder can show the spl after J2nt, though of course this can't be done in a pickup environment with the std J2nt responses.

[neilkaz]

I just took a good look at that booklet and this is what I find concerning J2NT (a convention that needs MUCH improvement in standard responses).

2NT = Game-forcing raise (Jacoby 2NT), 13+ dummy points. Asks
opener to show a short suit to help responder evaluate slam prospects.
(see * below)

* If responder jumps to 2NT over a 1 or 1 opening, that is Jacoby 2NT, asking
opener to show a singleton or void. If opener has no short suit, he shows his
hand strength;
1 — 2NT
3, 3, 3 = singleton or void in that suit. Other bids deny a short suit.
4 = minimum hand.
3NT = medium hand (15–17).
3 = maximum hand (18+)
4, 4 = 2nd suit

I have seen new and better methods of responding to J2N. Bergen has one in his book but that is quite complicated and I am looking for something a bit more straight forward to teach to PD. Bidding 4♠ with a sound 14 or even 13 pt opener can miss slams or result in 5♠-1 when you reject PD's slam try. Bidding 3NT with 15-17 takes up too much room. Side 5 card suits are too rare, noting that the opps are often unbalanced then and allready have overcalled.

Can someone please detail some simple improved method(s) for J2N responses.

.. thx .. neilkaz .. not seeing where the splinter option is mentioned in the SAYC booklet

[ralph23]

Splinters are not part of SAYC.

Jac 2NT can be used by responder with a singleton etc., and responder may well have a hand that is too strong for a splinter bid.

Of course different people DO play Jac 2NT differently, but that's a different problem.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Can someone please detail some simple improved method(s) for J2N responses

Simple one I have used:

step one - all mins. Step 2 asks for shortness, then: bal, club/diamond/other M
step two - extras bal
steps 3/4/5 - extras, shortness club/diamond/OM.

Higher bids & breaking relays can show more specific stuff (optional).

The SAYC responses to J2NT, though really flawed, are the "standard" and should be
what is assumed without other agreements. Though I tend to shade downward the
requirements for "medium" and "maximum".

[neilkaz]

There is "standard" and there is what is played on BBO in MBC by those who aren't familiar with J2N. You'll laugh when I tell you that the last three times J2N was played at my table (mostly advanced, with the occ. expert or good inter) the response was 3M with a routine average minimum.

Many, especially foreigners playing what they think is SAYC don't know much about J2N except that it is a GF raise of the major. They may know that a 3 level response in another suit shows a stiff, but when they don't have one, many seem to have no idea that 3 or the trump suit is supposed to show a big hand.

.. neilkaz ..

[pbleighton]

Quote

Many, especially foreigners playing what they think is SAYC don't know much about J2N except that it is a GF raise of the major.

Many, including U.S. players, play SAYC with 2NT as a natural GF raise with 2-3 cards in partner's major.

Wayne, good luck on your project, but the fact is that most who play SAYC have never read the booklet, and won't read a cc. SAYC now means strong NT and 5 card majors. After that you're just guessing what partner thinks it means.

Peter

[BebopKid]

I think people who use SAYC Basic don't know that they are really playing Standard American.

SAYC Full is really SAYC, but I put SAYC Full on my profile so people who think they play SAYC Basic will know I play something different.

For ACBL Defined SAYC Notes, go to
http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...tem%20Notes.pdf

That is the definition of SAYC, and what you should play with someone who plays SAYC if no special agreements are made.

[vang]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 30 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

Quote

Can someone please detail some simple improved method(s) for J2N responses

Simple one I have used:

step one - all mins. Step 2 asks for shortness, then: bal, club/diamond/other M
step two - extras bal
steps 3/4/5 - extras, shortness club/diamond/OM.

Higher bids & breaking relays can show more specific stuff (optional).

i like this method. just wanted to propose an even simpler one, for beginners.

"natural+splinters":
- new suits at 3 level: natural, 4+ cards
- jump to 4 level: splinters
- 3M=waiting (denies side suit, denies splinter, not ultra-minimal)
- 4M=ultra-minimal (11-13 hcp), nothing special (may have a side 4 card suit but no splinter)
- 3NT = undefined (or splinter to other major?)

with 4 card side suit and singleton (5431), have a rule on what to do first. for example start by showing the side suit so splinters usually are with 6331 or the like.

[vang]

wayne, I really like your effort and I think there is a need for a "common language". i have wrote something related here http://vangonbridge....yc-secrets.html

i'm curious how the ACBL booklet compares with the book I considered to be the reference (Ned Downey and Ellen (Caitlin) Pomer, Standard bidding with SAYC).

[PedroG]

vang, on Jul 31 2007, 01:25 AM, said:

wayne, I really like your effort and I think there is a need for a "common language". i have wrote something related here http://vangonbridge....yc-secrets.html

i'm curious how the ACBL booklet compares with the book I considered to be the reference (Ned Downey and Ellen (Caitlin) Pomer, Standard bidding with SAYC).

I'm curios on that comment...

And be learning would like some comments on it, Is it really a bad system SAYC?

Let's assume that is played well, like all systems if not played well it's bad

I read the book "Standard bidding with SAYC", and I'm following it's advices on the simple gadgets to add to my CC.

Splinters + Capp + NMF + 1430

Last still on the reading stage is Lebensohl

What I would like to known is what make it bad or good for a beginner

ty
PEdro

[helene_t]

Mark London's notes are quite good.

What I miss is
1M-2m
2N-?
2N is forcing yet minimal. Responder's only non-forcing rebid is 3m but that could easily be a 2-4 fit or even a 2-3 fit in the case 1♠-2♣. The easiest solution is, I think, to make 2N non-forcing. Not the best solution probably.

[gwnn]

I think the original link is identical to your version Helene.

[hrothgar]

Hi Wayne:

While I applaud your effort, I suspect that you are biting off a task that is

1. Impossible
2. Thankless
3. Poorly conceived

I think that your main problem is one of practicality. The expression SAYC has been confused with “Standard American” for so long that you’re never going to be able to recapture the original definition. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men aren’t going to be able to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Compounding this: SAYC is an idiosyncratic hodge podge of methods from 25 years ago. It’s a piss poor excuse for a bidding system. (For what its worth, the original SAYC as documented by the ACBL is significantly worse that some of the improved versions that have since cropped up and added little niceties like a forcing minor suit raise and the like). Please note: I am not claiming that a combination of

5 card majors
15-17 HCP 1NT opening
Natural / non forcing 1NT response to 1M opening

is bad, per see. Rather, I am noting that SAYC is a poor implementation of this set of methods. Why anyone would seek to preserve this system and promote it as a standard is beyond my comprehension.

Personally, I suspect that this confusion will linger on for a very long time. I don’t expect to see anything much change until there are some serious efforts to develop and promote some standardized system. (When I say serious, I’m talking about an organization like the ACBL trying to launch a real educational program for the online environment).

If / when this happens, I hope that they’ll have the common sense to chose a more playable set of methods that SAYC.

[ArcLight]

How does ACOL compare to Standard American?
I don't know much about ACOL other than the basics -
12-14 NT (at least NV)
4 card majors

Is it less confusing than SA?

Or is part of the problem with SAYC that no one "knows" what conventions are assumed as part of the core system? Splinters are not ? wow!


When I play 2/1 with a pick up pard, this sequence scares me: 1♣ - 2♣
Murphys Law applies here. If you assume its Inverted Minors its not. And if you assume its not IM it is.

[pbleighton]

Quote

When I play 2/1 with a pick up pard, this sequence scares me: 1♣ - 2♣
Murphys Law applies here. If you assume its Inverted Minors its not. And if you assume its not IM it is.

Quite true.

Peter

[helene_t]

ArcLight, on Jul 31 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

How does ACOL compare to Standard American?[....]
Is it less confusing than SA?

If you include all those who claim to play "Acol with strong notrump", "Acol with 5-card majors" and even "Acol with forcing notrump and forcing 1♣", it's certainly more confusing than SA. And even if you play with an advanced player who really means Acol when he says Acol, it's still more confucing than SAYC. For example, it's not obvious what the 2-openings mean and which suit should be opened with two four-cards (other than both majors).

But I think "Acol" and "SA" are about equally lose concepts. Both are slightly loser than "Polish Club" and slightly more stringent than "Precision".

[Wayne_LV]

hrothgar, on Jul 31 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

Hi Wayne:

While I applaud your effort, I suspect that you are biting off a task that is

1. Impossible
2. Thankless
3. Poorly conceived

I think that your main problem is one of practicality.  The expression SAYC has been confused with “Standard American” for so long that you’re never going to be able to recapture the original definition.  All the king’s horses and all the king’s men aren’t going to be able to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Compounding this:  SAYC is an idiosyncratic hodge podge of methods from 25 years ago.  It’s a piss poor excuse for a bidding system.  (For what its worth, the original SAYC as documented by the ACBL is significantly worse that some of the improved versions that have since cropped up and added little niceties like a forcing minor suit raise and the like).  Please note:  I am not claiming that a combination of

5 card majors
15-17 HCP 1NT opening
Natural / non forcing 1NT response to 1M opening

is bad, per see.  Rather, I am noting that SAYC is a poor implementation of this set of methods.  Why anyone would seek to preserve this system and promote it as a standard is beyond my comprehension.

Personally, I suspect that this confusion will linger on for a very long time.  I don’t expect to see anything much change until there are some serious efforts to develop and promote some standardized system.  (When I say serious, I’m talking about an organization like the ACBL trying to launch a real educational program for the online environment). 

If / when this happens, I hope that they’ll have the common sense to chose a more playable set of methods that SAYC.

I agree completely with your assessment of SAYC. But any standard, within reason, is better than no standard.

Maybe the WBF should step up to bat and create a committee of top players to design, document, and promote an International Standard System. IMHO the WBF would outrank the ACBL and represent the world, not just our often-narrow-minded country.

What would be in it for those that would work long and hard to develop such a standard? Just think of the book royalties and the tutoring fees.

But until such time as this dream becomes a reality, I have no choice .. for my own little bridge world ... but to adopt SAYC as defined by the ACBL and attempt to play it to the letter, hopeing to find others that will attempt to do the same.

Wayne

[ralph23]

hrothgar, on Jul 31 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

Rather, I am noting that SAYC is a poor implementation of this set of methods. Why anyone would seek to preserve this system and promote it as a standard is beyond my comprehension.

Personally, I suspect that this confusion will linger on for a very long time. I don’t expect to see anything much change until there are some serious efforts to develop and promote some standardized system. . . . .

If / when this happens, I hope that they’ll have the common sense to chose a more playable set of methods that SAYC.

I agree with my friend Hrothgar basically, but would observe that it's sort of like English having become more or less the "standard" (not intended jingoistically but just factually) "international" (if that's the word) language:

Is English the "best" language? What a joke.

English is a crazy language, Shakespeare notwithstanding . It is so irregular, spelling is truly insane, grammar is horrible and confusing, it's a hodge podge of accretions built up over centuries from all sorts of bastardized sources, it has no grand design ... everything's wrong with it.

I asked an Italian friend once if they had spelling bees in Italy .... he of course didn't even know what they are. If you can say it in Italian, you can spell it.

Esperanto was created as an attempt at a "good" international language that was theoretically sound. Today, its name is a Jeopardy question, if that.

So maybe SAYC's not so good, but neither's English. I just don't put much hope in the ultimate triumph of Esperanto.

[hrothgar]

>I agree completely with your assessment of SAYC. But any standard, within
>reason, is better than no standard.

Not necessarily. If you are going to try to change the statust quo, you're going to need a lot of momentum. Anything that diffuses momentum is your enemy. If you try to launch this type of effort with a poorly designed standard system folks are going to take a brief look at things, yawn a couple times, and then ignore you.

>Maybe the WBF should step up to bat and create a committee of top players
>to design, document, and promote an International Standard System. IMHO
>the WBF would outrank the ACBL and represent the world, not just our
>often-narrow-minded country.

In general, the WBF advocates develoving responsibility for these types of matters to the local level. Convention charts, alerting regulations and the like are all developed by local sponsoring authorities and not the WBF. I think that this is a good thing. I don't think that you're going to see the Poles move away from WJ20XX or the French use anything other than French Standard. (As I recall, the Chinese used to teach some Precision variant as "standard"). I think that the political fights would be hiddeous. If the WBF created an international standard system I think that the world would lose a bit of its charm.

As I have metnioned in the past, I would LOVE to see this type of effort take place at a local level. I would love to see a sponsoring authority launch a comprehensive effort to

1. Design a standard bidding system
2. Use this system as the basis for a standardized training program
3. Create special novice events in which everyone tried to play the same system with no alerts, announcements, etc.
4. Utilize said system as the foundation of the alert/announcement structure.

I don't think that the ACBL has the internal competancies to bite off anything that ambitious. There's always the chance that the French might. (They have a much more standardized approach towards bidding)