[jtfanclub]

http://www.acbl.org/...y/sayc_book.pdf

Some people have interpreted having an available rebid as saying that 1♠ 2♣/♦/♥ 2♠ is forcing in SAYC. I've never known anybody to play that, and don't see the point.

Is this in fact what you meant? Let me know, so I can change my card to "SAYC without the Gitelman self-force" if necessary.

[mr1303]

The reason that people play that 1M 2any 2M is forcing, is this allows opener to conserve bidding space. Especially 1S 2H, as 2C and 2D, which opener may have wanted to bid, now cannot. 3C/D show very good hands, and so with an above minimum opener (14-17 typically) opener may have nothing else to bid. Equally, 3S after a 2/1 sets trumps, so opener needs a very good suit in order to bid this way.

Everyone who I play SAYC with enough to have some sort of discussion won't pass in the sequence 1M 2any 2M.

[EricK]

SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is nothing to do with Fred. It was a system designed by the ACBL for use in Yellow Card games. These were their idea for games in which there was little or no alerting and everyone knew what was going on.

It subsequently became one of the standard bidding systems which everyone online claimed to be able to play.

However, most people who claim to play it haven't read the booklet, and in fact are not really playing SAYC at all but are playing "my local natural system with very few conventions".

Making 1M 2m 2M forcing isn't such a great burden anyway. How often is responder strong enough to respond at the 2 level, yet fairly certain there isn't much chance of a game opposite partner's maximum for a non-forcing 2M bid?

But by making it forcing you can use it as a mark time bid on a lot of stronger hands which otherwise have no perfect rebid (strong hands with a weak 6 card major, balanced hands without a stop an outside suit, hands with 4♠/5♥ not quite strong enough to reverse etc)

Eric

[the hog]

Playing 2/1 as forcing to 2N makes sense. Why do you want to try to stop on a sixpence? Even 90% of Acol players play this as forcing to 2N or 3 m.

[nikos59]

Fred Gitelman has contributed quite a lot to bridge, but the "self-forcing"
character of the 2/1 responses is not one of his contributions,
this treatment is with us a long time. In fact, I guess it was the
standard treatment before the "2/1 Game Force" movement
takes hold. (The 2/1GF being another case where simplicity
won). It still is the standard treatment in France. The main weakness
of this treatment is the 1D-2C sequence, which is difficult in all
systems; advanced partnerships have some special understandings.
All in all, a very good treatment, my preferred one.

n

[jtfanclub]

Eh, forget it.

Found London's expanded version...

http://mania.floater...YC.html#reps1hs

And found it so impossibly different from any system that I've ever come close to playing or playing against that I'm not going to comment on it further. Except to comment that I've never played anything where you rebid your suit with a 16 count 6511, and that includes 2/1. Nor have I seen anybody else play it.

But to each their own.

[EricK]

jtfanclub, on Oct 21 2004, 06:42 AM, said:

Eh, forget it.

Found London's expanded version...

http://mania.floater...YC.html#reps1hs

And found it so impossibly different from any system that I've ever come close to playing or playing against that I'm not going to comment on it further. Except to comment that I've never played anything where you rebid your suit with a 16 count 6511, and that includes 2/1. Nor have I seen anybody else play it.

But to each their own.

It is strange that you find it impossibly different to anything you've played, because it was designed to be a simple system which anyone could play.

Where does it say you rebid your suit with a 16 Point 6511 hand?

Eric

[MickyB]

It says you cannot reverse on 16, which sounds strange to me, even when the opening promises 13 points (how many 'SAYC'ers pass 12 counts?)

I don't think many Acol players play 1M:2m, 2M as forcing, when your 2/1s only promise 9 it quite often isn't worth going on.

I was under the impression that part of the reason for 1S:2D, 2S being forcing was that 1S:2D, 3D was also forcing, as responder has promised a rebid, and that min openers need to be able to support diamonds on the third round. However, the SAYC document that is linked to below says that an immediate single raise shows a minimum hand!

[Chamaco]

There are issues that are different between SAYC-basic, SAYC-advanced, SAYC-"custom", and the various 2/1 GF styles.

1M:2m
2M
is invariably played as at least 1 round forcing in all styles, the followups depending on whether we are in GF or not.
Since 2m guarantees an invitational+ hand, it makes sense to stick to the common rule that invitational auctions are forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit.
Sometimes you jeopardize a partscore (safer at 2 level), but the payoffs are bigger and more frequent when you are able to stay lower and be more accurate on a game/slam- going auction.

1M:2m
3m

can be played in many ways.
Some play that it can be minimum, I prefer Lawrence's 2/1 GF approach (which is also largely used), where he suggests that it should show a non-minimum hand (e.g. a good 14 is ok, even a good 13 with prime values, fitting honors and distribution).

[EricK]

MickyB, on Oct 21 2004, 09:38 AM, said:

It says you cannot reverse on 16, which sounds strange to me, even when the opening promises 13 points (how many 'SAYC'ers pass 12 counts?)

I don't think many Acol players play 1M:2m, 2M as forcing, when your 2/1s only promise 9 it quite often isn't worth going on.

I was under the impression that part of the reason for 1S:2D, 2S being forcing was that 1S:2D, 3D was also forcing, as responder has promised a rebid, and that min openers need to be able to support diamonds on the third round. However, the SAYC document that is linked to below says that an immediate single raise shows a minimum hand!

I don't think the Point counts are meant to be taken rigidly. They (surely) mean the equivalent of a 16 point hand etc

Although they say that eg 1♠ 2♦ 3♦ is bid on a minimum hand (less than 16 points), they don't mean that all minimum hands with ♦ support are suitable! I expect that minimum minimum hands bid 2♠, but maximum minimum hands bid 3♦. Similarly for 1♠ 2♦ 2NT.

Eric

[jtfanclub]

EricK, on Oct 21 2004, 02:47 AM, said:

It is strange that you find it impossibly different to anything you've played, because it was designed to be a simple system which anyone could play.

Why? I haven't played with anybody playing four card majors 1 of a suit showing 12-15, 1NT through 2♠ showing 16-19, and 2NT through3♠ showing 20+ either, nor have I played against it, and yet it's about the simplest system possible. Such a system exists, it's very simple, and anybody could play it.

I simply don't have the experience of playing against it, so my opinion on it wouldn't be useful.

[uday]

FYI -- FG is off at Istanbul and is unlikely to be able to respond to this thread.

[EricK]

jtfanclub, on Oct 21 2004, 04:45 PM, said:

EricK, on Oct 21 2004, 02:47 AM, said:

It is strange that you find it impossibly different to anything you've played, because it was designed to be a simple system which anyone could play.

Why? I haven't played with anybody playing four card majors 1 of a suit showing 12-15, 1NT through 2♠ showing 16-19, and 2NT through3♠ showing 20+ either, nor have I played against it, and yet it's about the simplest system possible. Such a system exists, it's very simple, and anybody could play it.

I simply don't have the experience of playing against it, so my opinion on it wouldn't be useful.

I judged from your post that you had very likely played other 5 card major systems with a strong NT.

If so, unless your system was incredibly complex, I doubt very much that what you played was significantly different to SAYC on a large number of hands.

Eric

[the hog]

MickyB, on Oct 21 2004, 07:38 PM, said:

It says you cannot reverse on 16, which sounds strange to me, even when the opening promises 13 points (how many 'SAYC'ers pass 12 counts?)

I don't think many Acol players play 1M:2m, 2M as forcing, when your 2/1s only promise 9 it quite often isn't worth going on.

I was under the impression that part of the reason for 1S:2D, 2S being forcing was that 1S:2D, 3D was also forcing, as responder has promised a rebid, and that min openers need to be able to support diamonds on the third round. However, the SAYC document that is linked to below says that an immediate single raise shows a minimum hand!

MickeyB, I think you will find that amongst serious tournament players using Acol by far the majority play 1M 2m 2M as forcing to 2N. Most tournament players have upped their 2 level responses to accomodate this.

[paulg]

The_Hog, on Oct 22 2004, 12:00 AM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 21 2004, 07:38 PM, said:

I don't think many Acol players play 1M:2m, 2M as forcing, when your 2/1s only promise 9 it quite often isn't worth going on.

MickeyB, I think you will find that amongst serious tournament players using Acol by far the majority play 1M 2m 2M as forcing to 2N. Most tournament players have upped their 2 level responses to accomodate this.

I'm with Mike on this one. In the UK most serious Acol players who use a weak NT play 1M-2m-2M as non-forcing - at least those that understand the system - as you cannot overload the 1NT response playing weak NT (as Mike pointed out).

It is also true that the number of top flight tournament players playing Acol/weak NT is reducing, but the majority of tournament players use this system.

Paul

[the hog]

Interesting! I know of no Acol players here who do not play 2/1 as forcing to 2N and who have not done so for at least 10 years, let alone any pair that I would describe as "strong". Strange how the same basic systems morph in different areas.

Fro a theoretical view point, playing the rebid of 2M as nf seems a poorly conceived. (It probably stems from the fact that opener should have opened his 5332 12-14 count with 1N rather than 1M.)

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Oct 22 2004, 05:33 PM, said:

Fro a theoretical view point, playing the rebid of 2M as nf seems a poorly conceived. (It probably stems from the fact that opener should have opened his 5332 12-14 count with 1N rather than 1M.)

What about when he has a 12-14 5422 with the four card suit beneath the second suit (eg. clubs after 1♠-2♦)? You're now pretty much guaranteed not to have an 8 card fit if your partner doesn't have a six card suit, which is a real bummer even in no-trump.

Anybody know the expected HCP requirement for 50% 3NT if there's no 8 card fit and no 6 card suits? I honestly don't know, but I'll bet it's higher than 24.

[MickyB]

Playing 4 card majors, weak NT, a minimum strong NT should pass after 1M:1N, otherwise you lose a lot of accuracy in your game bidding.

With 15 or 16 flat opposite bal 9 I want to be in 3NT.

With a misfitting 9 opposite a typical hand for 1M:2m, 2M there isn't much chance for game. So why should this sequence be forcing? I can't see this problem disappearing if you open 1NT on 5332s.

[EricK]

MickyB, on Oct 23 2004, 12:05 AM, said:

Playing 4 card majors, weak NT, a minimum strong NT should pass after 1M:1N, otherwise you lose a lot of accuracy in your game bidding.

With 15 or 16 flat opposite bal 9 I want to be in 3NT.

With a misfitting 9 opposite a typical hand for 1M:2m, 2M there isn't much chance for game. So why should this sequence be forcing? I can't see this problem disappearing if you open 1NT on 5332s.

Becasue, so the theory goes, the gains you get from being able to rebid 2M on various stronger hands which aren't suitable for a reverse, a jump rebid, a NT rebid, or a raise of partner's minor, more than compensate for the losses you get when stopping in 2M is the correct contract.

Many of the problems are solved by not bidding 2m on the misfitting 9 point hands (i.e up the requirements for a 2/1 if singleton or void in partner's suit i.e. apply some basic hand evaluation rather than count points)

Eric