[kenberg]

I have, with various partners, attempted to efficiently get to agreements by saying "Let's play whatsit as written up by whosit". Agreeing to play SAYC as written in this book would fall into this line of thinking. I have never looked at the book, if I wanted to go into detail on a system it probably would not be SAYC. But I do like the idea of just saying "If it says blank in our agreed reference then that is the meaning unless we have specifically agreed to an exception". Save time, saves quarrels.

Of course this only apples if your partner agrees to accept this book as the argument ender.


I saw this philosophy in action yesterday in an informal game where discussion was acceptable.

The opp's auction went
1♥ 2♣
2NT 3NT

The 2♣ bidder later opined that opener should have bid his four card spade suit over 2♣. He said he had a minimal hand. She said that they had agreed to play Hardy style. He agreed that was so. End of discussion. My preference is that 2♠ would show extras, but my real preference is to know what we are playing. In Hardy style, 2♠ does not show extras. Their discussion was short and productive.

[awm]

 Wackojack, on 2011-January-28, 09:29, said:

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

There is a book that I have been told about entitled ‘Standard Bidding with SAYC” by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying ‘…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.’ Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?

I have a copy of this book. It gives lots of example hands, talks a lot about hand evaluation, but it doesn't really present new systemic information that isn't in the booklet.

In particular, there is no discussion of 2/1 sequences like the one described in this thread.

[Lurpoa]

[/quote]

This was my understanding too. It was intended as bridge for the masses. Clearly then this hasn't worked. It seems that only the ultra sophistos play SAYC according the the booklet.

There is a book that I have been told about entitled 'Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer (Amazon.com, $15 paperback or e-book), which had 1 review saying '…As far as I know the only book that attempts to standardise the sayc system.' Could this be an acceptable definitive reference?
[/quote]



No, not completely true... It is working fine... within limits...and for the purpose intended....

But if it did not work too well, it is because too many people have tried to define their own private (American) Standard. By definition a standard is something you adhere to 100%, and some players forgot that a standard is only working well if partner is playing that same standard.

Another reason it doesn't work too well is probably the lack of support to this standard by ACBL (at least, that is my humble opinion). Things like "after a 2/1 response, responder promesses a rebid " should be clarified. How old is the last edition of the booklet ?

PS: I am very much afraid that that book is one more attempt to to re-invent SAYC. Only the owner of a standard, here it is ACBL, can prescibe changes/clarifications/options to their standard.

[helene_t]

I think there is an alternative to AWM's interpretation.

An opening in a suit is 13-14 or 18-19 balanced, or unbalanced. But you add one length point for a five card suit, hence with a 5332 shape the ranges become 12-13 and 17-18. This narrow range means that responder, with a balanced hand, does not invite opposite the 13-14 variant. If he doesn't want to be in game opposite 13-14 he responds 1NT. So a 2/1 response is GF opposite the balanced minimum, at least if responder has a balanced. This does not answer the question whether
1♦-2♣
2NT-3♣
can/must be passed.

With this interpretation, it is not obvious if
1♦-2♣
2♦-3♦
but probably Han's point applies. It could be non-forcing so it is too dangerous to bid it with a strong hand.

[kenberg]

Quote

So a 2/1 response is GF opposite the balanced minimum, at least if responder has a balanced hand.

I doubt that any such interpretation was intended by the authors. Give responder an 11 count and five clubs. Opener starts with 1♦. Opposite 14 responder wants to be in game, opposite less maybe not.

Responding 2NT is GF, so that's out. Responder bids 2♣. If opener rebids 2NT then responder is forced to bid again, but bid what? 3NT I suppose. If a GF was bid in this auction it seems it is the 2NT bid since it must show a hand that wants to be in game opposite a 2♣ bidder who has no extra length and no extra values. For that matter, the 2♣ might even be on four cards. If 3=3=3=4, I cannot see 1NT on an 11 count if partner may have 14. But after 1♦-2♣-2NT you have to bid again, the booklet says so. This means opener had better not rebid 2NT on his flat 13, and this appears to mean that the 2♦ rebid can be on no great length. And, of course, telling the modern player he cannot open his 12 count is a tough sell. Most adults know how to say one thing and do another.


When SAYC first came out, the Washington Bridge League distributed the books for free and held SAYC-nights to encourage it. Peter Boyd and Steve Robinson playing SAYC, no add-ons. The project got very little support.

People get dealt 11 counts fairly often. In a typical 2/1 system, if partner opens a major you bid 1NT and then, if opener does nothing dramatic, you rebid 2NT. If partner opens a minor you use an inverted raise as a one-round force or you bid 2NT invitational. SAYC, for better or worse, doesn't have those options. So you start with a 2/1 bid and then you need a way to get out. Adam/Elianna appear to have thought this through pretty well, but their approach is not widely played and so it's just, as Han says, "let's try to survive without agreements". For informal bridge that's fine. Most of the disasters in an indy are caused by errors that are beyond the control of any system.

[HeartA]

 kenberg, on 2011-January-28, 09:41, said:

I have, with various partners, attempted to efficiently get to agreements by saying "Let's play whatsit as written up by whosit". Agreeing to play SAYC as written in this book would fall into this line of thinking. I have never looked at the book, if I wanted to go into detail on a system it probably would not be SAYC. But I do like the idea of just saying "If it says blank in our agreed reference then that is the meaning unless we have specifically agreed to an exception". Save time, saves quarrels.

Of course this only apples if your partner agrees to accept this book as the argument ender.


I saw this philosophy in action yesterday in an informal game where discussion was acceptable.

The opp's auction went
1♥ 2♣
2NT 3NT

The 2♣ bidder later opined that opener should have bid his four card spade suit over 2♣. He said he had a minimal hand. She said that they had agreed to play Hardy style. He agreed that was so. End of discussion. My preference is that 2♠ would show extras, but my real preference is to know what we are playing. In Hardy style, 2♠ does not show extras. Their discussion was short and productive.

2♠ over pd's 2♣ doesn't need to have extras.

[blackshoe]

 HeartA, on 2011-January-29, 22:04, said:

2♠ over pd's 2♣ doesn't need to have extras.

Which is the argument for Hardy style. Nonetheless, some people choose to play that it does show extras.

[kenberg]

Right, Blackie.
Heart, my point was that some (Mike Lawrence, for example) play that it does show extras, some play that a it doesn't. By saying "We will play Hardy style" both players now know that, for them, it doesn't. I didn't mean to start a side issue on which way is best, I only meant to illustrate how choosing a reference and agreeing to interpret bids in that manner can be efficient.

From what Adam says about the Downey-Pomer book, I gather it does not resolve OP's original question. If a new edition is panned, they might add in such things. A long term partnership will have extensive agreements on many situations, but every partnership needs to know which bids are passable.

[LH2650]

 awm, on 2011-January-26, 05:53, said:

* This seems to contradict the statement elsewhere that opener can rebid notrump at the cheapest level on a minimum. However, that statement is in the section talking about 1/1 sequences and is certainly not specific for 2/1 sequences. The impossibility of reconciling this with the clear definition that 1♦-2♣-2NT is forcing (in a part of the notes which is definitely about 2/1 sequences only, 2/1 promising a rebid) suggests that the idea of rebidding notrump being okay on a minimum was for 1-level auctions.

This is incorrect. The statement you reference appears after the discussion of 2/1 bids, and therefore the statement that a minimum notrump rebid can be made on a minimum opening bid applies to them. Therefore I take issue with most of your points, starting with [4]. With an invitational hand, responder is presumably forced to rebid his suit, but that should result in at least a 5-2 fit nearly all the time.

As for the original sequence 1♦ - 2♣ -2♦ - 3♦, I think that it is non-forcing. What rule does that violate? One problem with Standard American bidding, since its inception, is that responder occasionally has had to make a misdiscriptive rebid in order to force. The solution has been 2/1 GF.

[awm]

 LH2650, on 2011-January-30, 19:17, said:

This is incorrect. The statement you reference appears after the discussion of 2/1 bids, and therefore the statement that a minimum notrump rebid can be made on a minimum opening bid applies to them. Therefore I take issue with most of your points, starting with [4]. With an invitational hand, responder is presumably forced to rebid his suit, but that should result in at least a 5-2 fit nearly all the time.

As for the original sequence 1♦ - 2♣ -2♦ - 3♦, I think that it is non-forcing. What rule does that violate? One problem with Standard American bidding, since its inception, is that responder occasionally has had to make a misdiscriptive rebid in order to force. The solution has been 2/1 GF.

The section on opener's rebids is not specific to two-over-one auctions. Indeed, several of the points seem not quite right for 2/1 sequences, such as suggesting that opener can raise a 2m response (which shows only four cards) to the three-level on "good three card support" on a minimum hand, or suggesting that opener can rebid 2NT (forcing) over what could easily be a balanced invite on a minimum hand. The suggestion that opener should jump-rebid his original suit on 16-18 points (rather than make a 100% forcing 2M rebid) also seems strange. It's obviously unfortunate that there is some lack of clarity here, but I think my interpretation (that not enough detail was given and that the "rules" which in no way distinguished between 1/1 and 2/1 were intended more for 1/1 sequences) makes more sense than your suggestion that you have to play in 5-2 fits at the three-level with great frequency because you can't stop in 2NT or 3m when opener has a dead minimum and responder has only an invite.

[Fluffy]

 Elianna, on 2011-January-27, 18:47, said:

It may surprise you, but Adam and I play that 2♦ can be a 3-card suit. Now you know two people. There are others that also play this, but they don't post here, and they mainly play with me, so they may not count.

Won't surprise me since I played this for many years, even on a 2/1 based system, we have always played that 2/1 GF only happened after a 1 of mayor opening, so 1♦-2♣ was the same as old days (french system), and 2♦ rebid is any minimum or any long diamonds not worth 3♦. So 3 diamonds are possible.