[Stephen Tu]

awm's position is the "if SAYC was a logical system construction, this ought to be forcing" position. I'd agree that if one were trying to construct a logical system, playable in an advanced partnership given sayc's other parameters, this might be best played as forcing.

But my contention is that SAYC is NOT a logical system construction (look at things like no forcing minor raise, opener's rebid of 2nt defined as minimum 13-16 even though it's forcing and logically ought to be extra values), rather that it's traditional SA with a thrown on additional hodgepodge of somewhat popular conventions/treatments at the time of its publication. And in traditional SA this sequence was always non-forcing.

I think of SAYC as traditional SA ++, so definitely always assumed non-forcing here, though I gave up playing with random SAYC partners years ago. If I wanted to play this sequence as forcing I'd have agreed on 2/1 and been done with it!

[whereagles]

There's a good case for playing it as forcing and always use 1M-3M as the invite. You'd be out of forcing bids over 2S if you don't define it as forcing.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on 2011-September-19, 12:17, said:

There's a good case for playing it as forcing and always use 1M-3M as the invite. You'd be out of forcing bids over 2S if you don't define it as forcing.

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

[xxhong]

acol and SEF players play strong jumpshifts way more frequently than SAYC players. Also, many acol players just jump to 4m to show value and slam going raise in 4S in this sequence.

gnasher, on 2011-September-19, 13:11, said:

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2011-September-19, 13:11, said:

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

SAYC is almost 2/1 GF, since a 2/1 promises a rebid there are not many sequences starting with a 2/1 that lead to partscores.

I disagree that Acol players manage to survive. IMO 2/1 sequences in Acol are a big mess. Then again, 1M-1NT is a big mess in 2/1. SAYC is a compromise between the two.

[whereagles]

gnasher, on 2011-September-19, 13:11, said:

That sounds like another way to say "There's a good case for playing 2/1 game-force".

Acol players play this as non-forcing and manage to survive. Isn't it non-forcing in SEF too?

There are several schools on SEF. One plays it as forcing, other as NF. Those who play it NF have to make up some fake suit at the 3 level and follow up with 4S, hoping that pard can move on with extras.

Differences between 2/1 GF and 2/1 F1 are becoming smaller. Playing the forcing style it's only 2NT and suit rebid that can be passed by opener.

[gnasher]

xxhong, on 2011-September-19, 14:10, said:

acol and SEF players play strong jumpshifts way more frequently than SAYC players.

All SAYC players play strong jump shifts - otherwise they're not playing SAYC.

Quote

Also, many acol players just jump to 4m to show value and slam going raise in 4S in this sequence.

Indeed, that's a workable solution to the problem of how to show a strong spade raise in this sequence.

[jdeegan]

The old fashioned SAYC system was itself once a 'modern' development that proved well adapted to matchpoint duplicate. It was easy to learn, and it got you to most small slams (except for 6D which was most often played in 3NT). A significant benefit of strong club systems that you see from some of the USA2 pairs as well as Meckwell, Hamman et. al. is that it enables weak opening bids in the other suits. This remains, so far, one few ways to swindle elite players out of their God given games.

[xxhong]

Yes, SAYC players play strong jumpshifts. However, the 2/1 requirement of sayc is considerable stronger than acol. So Acol has more sign off sequences after 2/1 than sayc. Also, ACOL players don't play jacoby 2NT. Therefore, acol players actually jumpshift way more often than sayc players.

gnasher, on 2011-September-19, 16:16, said:

All SAYC players play strong jump shifts - otherwise they're not playing SAYC.


Indeed, that's a workable solution to the problem of how to show a strong spade raise in this sequence.

[helene_t]

xxhong, on 2011-September-20, 10:15, said:

Also, ACOL players don't play jacoby 2NT. Therefore, acol players actually jumpshift way more often than sayc players.

huh? almost everyone here in the north of England plays Jacoby. Jumpshifts may be more common than in NA but they are still very rare. I would guess the typical advanced club player makes a jumpshift for every 500 hands or thereabouts.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2011-September-20, 10:41, said:

huh? almost everyone here in the north of England plays Jacoby.

In the South as well. Perhaps xx plays in the Midlands?

[xxhong]

Well, I was talking about the stone age or bronze age acol... At least in Reese' or Crowhurst's book, 2NT is served to be natural I think.

helene_t, on 2011-September-20, 10:41, said:

huh? almost everyone here in the north of England plays Jacoby. Jumpshifts may be more common than in NA but they are still very rare. I would guess the typical advanced club player makes a jumpshift for every 500 hands or thereabouts.

[Zelandakh]

Stone Age Acol still used a variable as well as many other things alien to most current players. Bronze Age Acol (new term on me) used a combination Swiss and DGRs to solve the problem of GF raises. Neither of these has any bearing on modern Acol. The reason these bids are NF in Acol is simply because the default rule for a raise of partner's suit is approach forcing, that is an invite. This is what makes Acol so simple (few rules) but also frustrating (you quickly find you have no good bids on some hands).