[ralph23]

The SAYC Booklet states on p. 1 "Open the higher of long suits of equal length: 5-5 or 6.6."

It uses the word "Normally" with other suggested openings, but not with this one, which strongly implies that the "higher" rule is intended as an absolute one. (I.e. it states "normally" open a 5 card major, and "normally" open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, and "normally" open 1♣ with 3-3 in the minors, but just "Open the higher" of two long suits of equal length, with no qualifications about "normal".)

Interestingly, Jerry Helms discusses this very question in the current ACBL Bulletin (p. 40 Sept 2007). He notes that for many years (in the past) people opened 1♣ with 5-5 with minimum values and 1♠ with extra values. The more "modern" approach he notes is opening 1♠ unless the ♠ suit is poor and the ♣ suit is good. The preemptive value of 1♠ is obviously an important consideration.

The SAYC Booklet doesn't have room for all the niceties, so seems clear that 1♠ opening is dictated in SAYC.

[mikeh]

I play 'standard american' (close to SAYC, I think) at Saturday night social team games with some inexperienced friends (we have players ranging from multiple National event winners to novices). In those circumstances, I think I would probably bid 1N, but pass is entirely reasonable and, I think, the 'correct' textbook call.

If I did scrape up 1N, I'd pass 2♣ with a sigh of relief... but I would take the push to 3♣ in competition, even over a 2♥ balance.

[kenrexford]

My favorite 5-5 Blacks story:

Partner wanted to open 1♣ with 5-5 Blacks and then bid spades. So, he opened 1♣ with 5-5 blacks on the last board of a tournament. Relevant because there were people (witnesses) watching, our table being slow.

My RHO overcalled 1♥. I had seven solid hearts and smalled a rat, as we were red and they were white. I had a monster, as well. So, as a practical call, I leapt to 4NT, Blackwood.

LHO confirmed my suspicions with a 5♥ call.

Partner, playing D.O.P.1., showed two Aces (5♠).

I placed the grand (7NT), making. A diamond lead would have resulted in an 8-trick set, as RHO held AKQxxxxx of diamonds and out. A nice lead-directing double maybe would have helped.

Partner's 5♠ call turned out to be an attempt to show the 5-5 holding, of course.

This does not help the discussion along, but I love that story.

[bhall]

SAYC is not limited to the notes that Mike777 cites. There has been a decades-long debate about which 5-5 black hands should open 1♣, rather than 1♠. It basically revolves around the relative merits of preemptive and constructive initial actions holding hands of different strength.

If a partnership plays that 1♠-2 Red-3♣ is a natural game force (the so-called high reverse), then it is effective to open 14-16 HCP hands of this type with 1♠. Weaker and stronger versions would open 1♣, the former so that both suits can be mentioned when partner holds invitational values, and the latter so that somebody (partner or opponents) will be likely keep the bidding open until both suits have been shown.

Under this agreement, Justin's example could be opened either way. Obviously, 1♣ would be the more fortunate choice.

The primary argument against opening 1♣ on the weak hands is the risk that the spade suit will be lost, e.g., after red-suit preemption. Also, without having discussed this topic, most SAYC partners will not allow for opener having 5 ♠ in competitive auctions. This leads into the other common practice: Open the better suit, regardless of strength. The secondary argument is that opening 1♠ regardless of strength lets your side bid its limit in spades before the opponents can find their fit. Of course, you will only have a ♠ fit about half the time.

Place your bets, gentlemen (and ladies).

[cherdano]

bhall, on Sep 17 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

SAYC is not limited to the notes that Mike777 cites. There has been a decades-long debate about which 5-5 black hands should open 1♣, rather than 1♠.

There is also a decades-long debate whether it is better to play 1S 2D as game forcing, or just as game forcing except for a 3D rebid. That still doesn't make either part of SAYC...

[Gerben42]

My favorite 5 - 5 black story comes from the German individual championship.

The vulnerability is:

LHO: 2nd league
RHO: 1st league
CHO: Wouldn't dare playing something fancy like a team league, > 70 years

Partner opens 1♣, RHO doubles. You hold:

♠Axxx
♥Qxxx
♦Qxx
♣Qx

and bid 1NT, trying to save poor partner from declaring badly.

Pass - 2♠ - 3♦.

If partner really has a reverse, LHO has -3 points. So you decide to trust RHO, with whom you have played 1000s of boards as partner, and bid... 3♠.

All pass. Partner had 5 - 5 in the blacks and 10 (TEN) HCP.

To make 4♠ partner must fish the singleton ♠K in RHO's hand (marked on the bidding), to make 3♠ that is not needed. But she manages to go 2 down...

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Sep 17 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

bhall, on Sep 17 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

SAYC is not limited to the notes that Mike777 cites. There has been a decades-long debate about which 5-5 black hands should open 1♣, rather than 1♠.

There is also a decades-long debate whether it is better to play 1S 2D as game forcing, or just as game forcing except for a 3D rebid. That still doesn't make either part of SAYC...

The document cited is not just "notes" but rather the ACBL booklet on the very definition of SAYC. The introductory paragraphs of that booklet make its purpose pretty clear.

The term "Standard American" is a more nebulous concept and is conceptualy distinct from "SAYC"; that term is subject to a lot of interpretations, and people can (as the Helms article points out) have different opinions about what is really "standard" or "correct" within "standard American" of course.

And people all the time say "SAYC" when they mean "standard American" or I suppose vice versa.

But SAYC is/was an attempt to standardize (!!!) "standard American" by fiat, and set up a formal (albeit incomplete) definition for it, for the purposes posited in the booklet.

So questions as to what "SAYC" dictates are resolved by the booklet; questions about what "standard American" means are resolved by .... I dunno. Whatever process the speaker thinks best??

[bhall]

If Justin's question was restricted to the ACBL definition of SAYC, then Ralph 23 is right. If the definition of 2/1 is similarly restricted to Rhoda's notes (or Hardy's book!) then much of this forum is out of place.

I sincerely doubt that a ruling would be made against a pair opening 1♣ with a 5-5 black hand in any SAYC event. What would seem to be relevant for this forum is how best to use the bidding resources that are reasonably available in more-or-less Standard systems, including Acol. Am I wrong?

[ralph23]

bhall, on Sep 17 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

If Justin's question was restricted to the ACBL definition of SAYC, then Ralph 23 is right.

There is no other definition of SAYC. There is no special "ACBL Definition of SAYC" that is competing with some straw-men "Other Definitions of SAYC."

The very phrase "ACBL Definition of SAYC" is as redundant as "circular circle."

Maybe Justin meant "standard American" in his OP. I can't tell what he meant, only what he said.

But I have explained it as well as I can.

There is no official body that has prescribed what the term "2/1" means, so that is not an apt analogy. The term "2/1" is much more analogous to the term "Standard American" for that reason.

[han]

ralph23, on Sep 17 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.

Who cares?

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Sep 17 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 17 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.

Who cares?

If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"?
Nobody would say wj2005 if they meant Polish club.

[ralph23]

Hannie, on Sep 17 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 17 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

blah blah blah SAYC booklet blah blah definition of SAYC blah blah blah.

Who cares?

Dunno, I certainly don't .

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Sep 17 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"?

Well, maybe because s/he didn't grasp that there's a difference in meaning between the term "SAYC" and the term "Standard American."

NOT of course that I'd suggest that Justin falls into this group !

[bhall]

ralph23, on Sep 17 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 17 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

If someone doesn't care about the SAYC definition, why doesn't he/she say "standard American"?

Well, maybe because s/he didn't grasp that there's a difference in meaning between the term "SAYC" and the term "Standard American."

Guilty as charged! I had never read the booklet, only played in two SAYC events (individuals), where I took the card itself to define the options. The extent of the restrictions described in the booklet is well beyond anything that I expected, or that could be inferred from the card itself.

I am not trying to start, or win, an argument.