[kenrexford]

This seems like a somewhat stupid discussion, but I love stupid discussions.

1. SAYC makes no sense if Opener cannot raise hearts with a minimum but support. It also makes no sense if the partnership is forced to game even when Opener has a minimum. Therefore, 1♠-2♥-3♥ must be a non-forcing sequence, no matter what some stupid booklet says about it.

2. Once hearts are agreed, however, it makes no sense to back into spades for some arbitrary reason. Therefore, 3♠ cannot be non-forcing. That would be rather silly, even if some booklet, poorly written, suggests that this is so.

3. As to a jump at this point to 4♠, instead, I am less confident. I have no idea what this means with SAYC, and pure logic does not scream any specific direction.

[han]

Nope, you are overreacting. There is nothing really wrong with the basic ideas of SAYC (few conventions, 1X-2Y about 11+ and not forcing to game) but in order for the 2/1 auctions to be playable you will need to discuss exactly which auctions are forcing and which are not. There are several sensible choices that you can make, but common sense dictates that 1S-2H-3H-3S will definitely be forcing, regardless of whether 3H is forcing or not. The SAYC booklet won't be a big help to you.

I don't remember whether inverted minors are a part of SAYC but if not then that's another area where you need to change the system. I believe every good partnership needs a way to force over a minor without lying about their hand. Again there are plenty sensible ways to play and you will have to pick one of those.

Maybe I didn't answer your question because it isn't clear to me what you meant by "someone new".

[jdonn]

Ken, denial is a terrible thing. Which constitutional amendmant ever said SAYC has to make sense? It makes no sense that I have let my beer belly become so big, but that doesn't magically mean my gut is now small again.

[vuroth]

han, on Dec 2 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Vuroth, 1S-2H shows 5 hearts.

Brilliant. Makes total sense now that you mention it.

As for inverted minors, they're not in SAYC, but really, I think you only really need to have the right hand once before it's totally obvious why they're needed.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Ken, denial is a terrible thing. Which constitutional amendmant ever said SAYC has to make sense? It makes no sense that I have let my beer belly become so big, but that doesn't magically mean my gut is now small again.

AMENDMENT 28 (PROPOSED)

No law, varying the composition of Standard American Yellow Card ("SAYC") shall take effect, until a finding by the two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate shall be made that such law is rational and understandable.

Unfortunately, this Amendment was not ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the states.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Ken, denial is a terrible thing. Which constitutional amendmant ever said SAYC has to make sense? It makes no sense that I have let my beer belly become so big, but that doesn't magically mean my gut is now small again.

True.

But, sometimes apparent insanity might more easily be explained by questioning the assumptions. The assumption is that the stated SAYC rules are valid in all situations and not errant explanations of the real rules of the system.

For instance, I might reassess my conclusions about your increasing waist line by consideration of the possibility that your beer belly is a result of your meeting of some really hot woman who prefers sex with a buddha-boy.

[HeavyDluxe]

han, on Dec 2 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

Nope, you are overreacting. There is nothing really wrong with the basic ideas of SAYC... Maybe I didn't answer your question because it isn't clear to me what you meant by "someone new".

Sorry if I was vague, Han... And I wasn't trying to overreact.

The crux of the discussion, as it often seems to be when SAYC is mentioned, is that SAYC as defined on the true yellow card has weaknesses. Come up with ways to correct them and you're not playing SAYC anymore. Whatever it is, it deviates from what the SAYC 'bible' defines.


My reason for asking: I regularly get together with three other guys to play cards - spades, hearts, etc. They're all expressing interest (*finally*) in bridge, so I was trying to think how to get them started. I had been thinking that through, so this discussion simply prompted the thought "What should a beginner in North America cut their teeth on?"

FWIW, current plan is to start with minibridge and then something like Root's _ABC's_ (which is BWSish) and go from there.

Anyway, that's what prompted the question... And with that, threadjack over.

[maggieb]

That sounds like a good plan, I wouldn't worry too much about system with people who don't even know the rules yet.

[jocdelevat]

Just a stupid yellow card and how much hate can generate.
Why do I have to answer a question about an auction if I do not like the system or I do not know because I do not play it or makes me go crazy every time i hear SAYC?
I suppose most b/i will still play SAYC and still put those questions to you the expert( which "We" know you do not play SAYC)so why criticize a system instead of give the advice about the auction ingoring the part you hate and sugest a better one if you do not like it.

[EricK]

kenrexford, on Dec 2 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

1. SAYC makes no sense if Opener cannot raise hearts with a minimum but support. It also makes no sense if the partnership is forced to game even when Opener has a minimum. Therefore, 1♠-2♥-3♥ must be a non-forcing sequence, no matter what some stupid booklet says about it.

"Make's no sense" is surely an overstatement. On a hand with ♥ support that doesn't want to play in game opposite a purely invitational hand, you make a waiting bid of 2♠, partner makes his proposed follow up, and you now show your ♥ support. Since you have two ways of getting to 3♥, you can use them to show different strengths.

It might not be perfect, but what simple system is going to be perfect?

[RichMor]

EricK, on Dec 3 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 2 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

1. SAYC makes no sense if Opener cannot raise hearts with a minimum but support.  It also makes no sense if the partnership is forced to game even when Opener has a minimum.  Therefore, 1♠-2♥-3♥ must be a non-forcing sequence, no matter what some stupid booklet says about it.

"Make's no sense" is surely an overstatement. On a hand with ♥ support that doesn't want to play in game opposite a purely invitational hand, you make a waiting bid of 2♠, partner makes his proposed follow up, and you now show your ♥ support. Since you have two ways of getting to 3♥, you can use them to show different strengths.

It might not be perfect, but what simple system is going to be perfect?

If I open 1♠, pard responds 2♥, and I want to be in game facing a minimum, what to do ?
Bid 4♥.

Don't want to be in game facing a minimum ?
Bid 3♥.

Don't have ♥ support ?
Bid ♠, NT, or a minor.

Can't see any gain to a 'waiting' 2♠.

[Elianna]

RichMor, on Dec 3 2008, 05:44 AM, said:

EricK, on Dec 3 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 2 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

1. SAYC makes no sense if Opener cannot raise hearts with a minimum but support.  It also makes no sense if the partnership is forced to game even when Opener has a minimum.  Therefore, 1♠-2♥-3♥ must be a non-forcing sequence, no matter what some stupid booklet says about it.

"Make's no sense" is surely an overstatement. On a hand with ♥ support that doesn't want to play in game opposite a purely invitational hand, you make a waiting bid of 2♠, partner makes his proposed follow up, and you now show your ♥ support. Since you have two ways of getting to 3♥, you can use them to show different strengths.

It might not be perfect, but what simple system is going to be perfect?

If I open 1♠, pard responds 2♥, and I want to be in game facing a minimum, what to do ?
Bid 4♥.

Don't want to be in game facing a minimum ?
Bid 3♥.

Don't have ♥ support ?
Bid ♠, NT, or a minor.

Can't see any gain to a 'waiting' 2♠.

The "gain" is that you're actually playing the system.

[EricK]

RichMor, on Dec 3 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

EricK, on Dec 3 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

"Make's no sense" is surely an overstatement. On a hand with ♥ support that doesn't want to play in game opposite a purely invitational hand, you make a waiting bid of 2♠, partner makes his proposed follow up, and you now show your ♥ support. Since you have two ways of getting to 3♥, you can use them to show different strengths.

It might not be perfect, but what simple system is going to be perfect?

If I open 1♠, pard responds 2♥, and I want to be in game facing a minimum, what to do ?
Bid 4♥.

Don't want to be in game facing a minimum ?
Bid 3♥.

Don't have ♥ support ?
Bid ♠, NT, or a minor.

Can't see any gain to a 'waiting' 2♠.

One gain is that on hands which want to get to game in ♥ opposite a minimum you still leave room below game if partner is interested in more.

[RichMor]

EricK, on Dec 3 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

<bunch of snips>
One gain is that on hands which want to get to game in ♥ opposite a minimum you still leave room below game if partner is interested in more.

Can't argue with that. A slow approach will gain in slam bidding.

IMO, a simple SAYC system for casual partnerships is more concerned with basic game bidding.

In SAYC, auctions that begin 1♠ - (P) - 2♥ - (P) are not defined as game forcing. So opener's priorities - with Heart support - are reaching a good game and avoiding a poor game. A 'waiting' 2♠ rebid that might or might have Heart support (and might or might not have extra Spade length or strength) just doesn't help the partnership evaluate game prospects in either major.