[Arcenium]

SAYC or 2/1?

I'm thinking of finding a good system to play with my partner.

[Dirk Kuijt]

The answer to this is as much a question of you and your partner's ability, interest, and temperament as the quality of the systems involved.

SAYC is, generally speaking, simpler than 2/1, though 2/1 is a broad enough term that the reverse could be true, depending on your exact agreements. The following is going to be based on SAYC being simpler than 2/1

I'm going to couch the discussion in terms of "you", which means both you and your partner. You need to be on the same wavelength here, or the partnership is going into rough seas.

1. How much experience do you have with each system? You will do better with almost any system you know compared to any system you don't know.

2. How much general bridge experience do you have? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier.

3. How good is your memory, or, to put it another way, how much study are you willing to do? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier.

4. How rigid do you like your system? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier.

5. How comprehensive do you like your system? 2/1 specifies more actions than SAYC, so if you want to be free of constraints, you will like SAYC better.

6. What are you looking for? If you are looking for something with a new partner for one session, SAYC will be easier. If you are looking for something to build a long term partnership for the next five years, the extra work needed for 2/1 may be justified.

Among top players, I think I'm safe in saying that none would say that they play SAYC with a regular partner (not that I'm a top player myself, or even in the next league down). However, a significant number of top pairs would describe their system as 2/1.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
My answer:
http://bridgewithdan...er_1_part_1.pdf

Thanks,
Dan

[bluecalm]

I think SAYC is both worse and more difficult to play.
No world class pair play anythng similar to SAYC but many plays some sort of 2/1 (especially 1♣ 2+, 1♦ 4+ minor openings).
I would say go with 2/1 or anything reasonable (precision/polish club etc.). Avoid SAYC at all costs.

[jdonn]

When it's SAYC the correct answer is almost always "other".

[Vilgan]

New(ish) players should consider starting with SAYC imo. 2/1 is superior but I think you'll likely develop bidding judgement faster with SAYC. If both players have already played bridge for a little while and feel comfortable, then 2/1 is pretty clearly superior imo. Dan's link on why is one of many good arguments for 2/1.

[helene_t]

System doesn't matter. Any standard system that has been developed since 1968 or such is ok. As long as you and your p understand each other.

That said, SAYC sucks.

[gwnn]

sayc is convoluted and contradictory. beginners may get the impression that all bidding is like that. don't teach it. don't learn it.

[Siegmund]

I realize this is going to be a minority viewpoint here:

For me, the main value of 2/1 is that in a pickup partnership, there are not too many things I have to ask my partner in order to avoid spectacular dumped-in-a-forcing-bid type accidents. That's part of what bluecalm meant, perhaps, about SAYC being difficult to play.

SA has become kind of a poor stepchild of 2/1 rather than seeing much proper system development of its own; and SAYC as-published has some uneasy compromises. (No reason why it omitted splinter bids, for instance, except to make the card less scary-looking when it was published 20 years ago.)

For that reason, if you and your partner want to pick up a book on a system and memorize it, you will probably do better with 2/1 unless you go back to very old but well-written books (Commonsense Bidding + all of Modern Bridge Conventions except forcing 1NT, for instance; or, closer to 2/1 style but still not purely 2/1, Aces Scientific.)

If, on the other hand, your question was "is there a fundamental reason why the sequence 1M-pass-2m ought to be GF in any sensible bidding system?", no, that's not the only way to build a good bidding system, though it's a very popular approach especially if you like IMPs better than matchpoints and/or you live in a country where artificial relays on the first round aren't legal. It's quite possible to take a SA foundation and turn it into a tight modern system without making 2/1s game-forcing, but it's going to involve a fair bit of study and work on your own part rather than just copying ideas blindly from books.

[awm]

SAYC is completely defined by a few pages of notes.

In contrast, "2/1" describes a wide range of different systems, the rough basis for which is described in two books each of which is several hundred pages (one by Hardy, one by Lawrence).

It should come as no surprise that the more complicated system is more "complete" and works better if you play it "right out of the box." With that said, there are virtually no top-class players who are using methods directly from either of these sources. Certainly there are top-class pairs who use methods which fall under the general heading of "2/1" but their methods include a lot of modifications and additional treatments beyond what's suggested in the classic 2/1 books. There are also top-class pairs who use methods which include natural openings, five-card majors, and 2/1 bids which are not always forcing to game (which would fall under the broad heading of "Standard American") but of course they have lots of additional agreements and there's a lot more to their systems than what's in the SAYC notes.

We could probably argue all day about which basic style is better; the fact that a very complicated 2/1 style (with lots of extra conventions and hundreds of pages of notes) is "better" than a super-simplified standard american style doesn't really resolve this issue.

But in your case this probably doesn't matter very much. Unless you play something really awful, system doesn't make that much of a difference in your results. Focusing on card play, defense, and bidding judgment is going to be much more important. So rather than try to choose the "best" system, I recommend choosing one that you and partner are fairly comfortable with. If you disagree or are not sure, play the system that's more popular among the better players in your area, because it will be easier to get advice on what you "should have bid" after the session. Fred Gitelman has made some pretty strong statements in the past about minimizing the amount of system you play until you reach the "expert" level -- some of us (myself included) would not go as far as he does in this direction, but it's still true that many people overemphasize system over other more important aspects of the game.

[cherdanno]

awm, on Jan 16 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

SAYC is completely defined by a few pages of notes.

In contrast, "2/1" describes a wide range of different systems, the rough basis for which is described in two books each of which is several hundred pages (one by Hardy, one by Lawrence).

Adam, this is really a ridiculous comparison. I don't know Hardy's book, but I have read Lawrence's. What you call "rough basis" I recall as a book that is mostly not about system, but about bidding. On hand evaluation for slam bidding. Of course there are also some sections that are mostly on system, but they also define 2/1 much better than the SAYC booklet.
(Do you really know how to bid in the auction 1D (P) 2C after reading the SAYC booklet?)

The only artificially really required by playing 2/1 instead of SAYC are the forcing 1NT, together with the 3-card minor rebids after 1M 1N.

[PrecisionL]

Two years ago, I asked a Bridge Pro from Houston what he prefers to play with his clients - the answer was Standard American! And he has played most of the major systems. He says it gives HIM the most flexibility in the bidding.

I feel the same way, and for 3 years one of my partnerships (with a C player, now an ACBL Life Master) has been Standard American and we have won more than our share of Club Games and Tournaments.

If I play 2/1, I use Gitelman's version with other gadgets to make up for not playing a Strong Club system.

[Arcenium]

Some more specifics.

1) I am about 1/4 of your age (including my partner), we are 13. We are looking for something very 'dynamic', but simple and easy.

2) We are learning bridge in math class. We treat this as a hobby and don't really want to do a lot of work.

3) I am very aggressive at bidding while my partner is very conservative.

[gwnn]

very glad to hear that you learn bridge in math class. kudos for your professor. I think 2/1 GF is much easier to learn and more effective without much discussion. Of course awm and Siegmund are right in that 2/1 non-GF is also workable but you have to work on it quite a bit.

[neilkaz]

gwnn, on Jan 16 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

very glad to hear that you learn bridge in math class. kudos for your professor. I think 2/1 GF is much easier to learn and more effective without much discussion. Of course awm and Siegmund are right in that 2/1 non-GF is also workable but you have to work on it quite a bit.

I agree with gwnn here and honestly think that 2/1 GF is easier. Of course I also think it is better.

[jdonn]

I think it's clear 2/1 gf is easier because there is so rarely a question of whether or not your bid is forcing. I'm always wondering in sayc. Also in 2/1 you less often have to 'make up' a bid in something you don't have, but it seems like in sayc responder has to do this all the time.

[gnasher]

You're not comparing like with like. "2/1" is a system, or a set of systems. "Standard American" is also a system or a set of systems.

"SAYC", on the other hand, is merely a set of agreements that partially defines a Standard American system. It's comparable to "BWS", which partially defines a 2/1 system, or Ron Klinger's Acol Bridge Flipper, or anybody's convention card.

There are two good reasons for playing 2/1 rather than Standard American:
- There are more books about 2/1, and in particular several fairly modern books that define a complete system.
- If you're in North America, most of the good players you meet will also be playing 2/1. What you learn from playing with or against them will be of more value if you normally play a similar system to them.

I don't agree that 2/1 is intrinsically easier to play than Standard American. Both systems have sequences which are ambiguous about strength or length; they just have their ambiguities in different places. In both cases you can partially address these problems using artificiality and/or detailed agreements, but once you do that your system has stopped being easy to play.

[P_Marlowe]

Arcenium, on Jan 16 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Some more specifics.

1) I am about 1/4 of your age (including my partner), we are 13. We are looking for something very 'dynamic', but simple and easy.

2) We are learning bridge in math class. We treat this as a hobby and don't really want to do a lot of work.

3) I am very aggressive at bidding while my partner is very conservative.

Than the answer is: SAYC or Standard American.

The reason is, that to get 2/1 working, you need to play a lot artificial stuff.

Of course you need also to understand, that a simple system has its limits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on Jan 16 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

There are also top-class pairs who use methods which include natural openings, five-card majors, and 2/1 bids which are not always forcing to game (which would fall under the broad heading of "Standard American") but of course they have lots of additional agreements and there's a lot more to their systems than what's in the SAYC notes.

I'm interested to know if you meant

1. Any system with 5CM, natural openings, 2/1 not FG falls under the broad heading of Standard American,

or

2. There are top-class pairs who play something resembling Standard American

The former is not true
I don't know if the latter is true or not.

p.s. I'd go with 2/1 for the reasons gnasher gives. You could play BWS. And you are rather more than a quarter of my age.

[helene_t]

If you are 13 years old maybe you should take advice from Adam Kaplan (mtvesuvius), I think he turned 14 but anyway, he plays all kind of mindboggling systems, that is what I would expect juniors to do