[markyears]

I'm a novice and learning sayc. It seems that in recent sayc booklet and some other materials, limit raise only requires 3 cards support. Like 1♠-3♠ only promises 3 cards support. If I have game-forcing value, then start with 2/1. But some people keep telling me, limit raise should require 4 cards support. If only 3 cards with invitational value (10-11), I should use 2/1 first, like 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ to show 3 card support and invitational strength. This seems also very reasonable. By this I mean, if I have game-forcing value, I can bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ to make a difference from the former.

May I ask which approach is standard in modern sayc?

[awm]

markyears, on 2012-July-08, 12:08, said:

I'm a novice and learning sayc. It seems that in recent sayc booklet and some other materials, limit raise only requires 3 cards support. Like 1♠-3♠ only promises 3 cards support. If I have game-forcing value, then start with 2/1. But some people keep telling me, limit raise should require 4 cards support. If only 3 cards with invitational value (10-11), I should use 2/1 first, like 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ to show 3 card support and invitational strength. This seems also very reasonable. By this I mean, if I have game-forcing value, I can bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ to make a difference from the former.

May I ask which approach is standard in modern sayc?

SAYC is that 1M-3M shows 3+ card support. Bidding a 2/1 and then jump raising like in your example is a game force; it's useful to leave room for cuebids at the four level on these hands.

The idea that 1M-3M should show 4 is influence from 2/1 GF methods bleeding over.

[markyears]

awm, on 2012-July-08, 12:41, said:

SAYC is that 1M-3M shows 3+ card support. Bidding a 2/1 and then jump raising like in your example is a game force; it's useful to leave room for cuebids at the four level on these hands.

The idea that 1M-3M should show 4 is influence from 2/1 GF methods bleeding over.

Thanks! Then what about 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ in sayc? Is it illegal or just show no slam interest?

[aguahombre]

Adam (AWM) has been kind enough on multiple threads to explain what SAYC responses to 1M show and don't show. He has the best understanding of the Card I have seen on these fora.

A bit of clarification about your question is in order, however. "Modern" SAYC does not exist. SAYC is a yellow card with rigid basic agreements. It is not a general system which is tweaked to keep up with the times or individual preferences. It is not to be confused with styles such as Standard, Standard American, or the French Standard.

The yellow card (SAYC) is something to pick up and just play as written with little to no discussion other than carding, and it does not cover extended rebid situations other than things like Blackwood.

[awm]

There's no specific discussion of 1S-2C-2D-4S and the like in the SAYC notes. Either picture jump (values concentrated in clubs and spades, not much outside) or fast arrival (general bad hand for slam) would be a reasonable agreement.

[Siegmund]

Quote

SAYC is that 1M-3M shows 3+ card support.

Yes, that's what the SAYC booklet says.

Quote

The idea that 1M-3M should show 4 is influence from 2/1 GF methods bleeding over.

I don't think I agree with that.

Far as I can tell, the large majority of standard bidding books have always said the jump raise showed 4, from the time of four-card majors to the present. At any rate the recommendation for 4 trumps appears in sources that don't otherwise show much influence from 2/1 (e.g. Bill Root)

It has always been something of a puzzlement to me why the SAYC booklet says some of the things it does. Taken as a whole the yellow card doesn't seem to represent anybody's standard practice at any time.

[aguahombre]

Siegmund, on 2012-July-08, 20:36, said:

It has always been something of a puzzlement to me why the SAYC booklet says some of the things it does. Taken as a whole the yellow card doesn't seem to represent anybody's standard practice at any time.

It is what it is. We have the option to not play SAYC, and to not call what we are playing SAYC.

In certain individuals, we must use SAYC because those are the conditions of contest.

[Antig2]

markyears, on 2012-July-08, 12:08, said:

I'm a novice and learning sayc. It seems that in recent sayc booklet and some other materials, limit raise only requires 3 cards support. Like 1♠-3♠ only promises 3 cards support. If I have game-forcing value, then start with 2/1. But some people keep telling me, limit raise should require 4 cards support. If only 3 cards with invitational value (10-11), I should use 2/1 first, like 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ to show 3 card support and invitational strength. This seems also very reasonable. By this I mean, if I have game-forcing value, I can bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♠ to make a difference from the former.

May I ask which approach is standard in modern sayc?

According to bbo sayc convention card 1♠-3♠ is 11-12pts 3+♠ (usually 4).
This is a simple auction and gives a good idea about the hand. I prefer this style to bergen type agreements. It's a good idea to follow the convention card.

In some auctions like 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-3♦-3♠ the 3♠ bid may be sign off with 2♠ only, if you think that 3nt is not a good contract and prefer toplay 3♠ with 5-2 fit.

[Antig2]

according to bbo sayc cc, the auction 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠ means 13+ pts 3-4 ♠ Game Force. (I assume BBO convention cards = modern sayc )

[gwnn]

Antig2, on 2012-July-09, 02:47, said:

In some auctions like 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-3♦-3♠ the 3♠ bid may be sign off with 2♠ only, if you think that 3nt is not a good contract and prefer toplay 3♠ with 5-2 fit.

No, 3♦ is game forcing. The only way you can stop below game after 1S-2C; 2H-3C is if opener passes. I think this is even written in the SAYC booklet.

[Bbradley62]

Siegmund, on 2012-July-08, 20:36, said:

awm, on 2012-July-08, 12:41, said:

The idea that 1M-3M should show 4 is influence from 2/1 GF methods bleeding over.

I don't think I agree with that.

Far as I can tell, the large majority of standard bidding books have always said the jump raise showed 4, from the time of four-card majors to the present. At any rate the recommendation for 4 trumps appears in sources that don't otherwise show much influence from 2/1 (e.g. Bill Root)

It has always been something of a puzzlement to me why the SAYC booklet says some of the things it does. Taken as a whole the yellow card doesn't seem to represent anybody's standard practice at any time.

Yes, at the time of four-card majors, you obviously wanted four-card support for a limit raise, so you'd know you had at least eight combined. When five-card majors became "standard", it became "standard" to make limit raises with three-card support. My recollection is that that changed when people started playing Forcing 1NT (before most who did played 2/1), because Forcing 1NT allowed you to distinguish between limit raises with three vs four-card support. This would have been in the mid-1980s. At roughly the same time, ACBL produced the Standard American Yellow Card (which was always printed on yellow paper; I've been away too long to know whether that's still true). Since SAYC did not include Forcing 1NT (which would have been too advanced a topic for much of SAYC's target audience), it maintained (and still does maintain) the three-card requirement. ACBL's most current general explanation of SAYC can be found here:
http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/ play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

Edit: I cannot get the link to work... I've added that blank before "play" so the whole link is visible. If anyone can figure out how to make it work, that would be great.

[aguahombre]

That link is broken.

How about this?

[blackshoe]

I have seen SAYC cards printed on white paper, but I think the person who had it printed it himself, from the download version on the ACBL website.

[chasetb]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-10, 08:03, said:

I have seen SAYC cards printed on white paper, but I think the person who had it printed it himself, from the download version on the ACBL website.

If you order it from Baron Barclay (they are the official provider of that stuff), it will be on yellow paper. I have a .pdf file of the SAYC, I don't remember how I got it but I do have it.

What's really interesting is that there used to be a Green Card as well as an Orange Card. The Green Card was for beginners, and was back when conventions were put into 5 categories - so only Convention A ones were allowed. It is still available, but not in use except for a Canadian event. The Orange Card was the 'Expert one', and the Yellow Card was inbetween. Eventually, the Orange Card fused with the Yellow Card, and they just threw away the Orange Card. At least, that's what the little research I did on the internet told me, anything before 2009 relating to bridge doesn't exist.

[aguahombre]

The SAYC system booklet linked in post #12 was revised in 2006 and has not been messed with since.

[markyears]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-10, 11:30, said:

The SAYC system booklet linked in post #12 was revised in 2006 and has not been messed with since.

That was I mean by "modern SAYC". Because I vaguely remember in that old booklet, limit raise require 4 cards. But that link is invalid right now.