[32519]

I am currently running a class for beginners in my hometown. Technically none of the players are “true beginners” as they have all been playing bridge for years. It’s just that their knowledge and skills of the game is extremely limited, coming from rubber bridge players whose knowledge of the game is equally limited. I have chosen (rightly or wrongly) to teach them SAYC for two reasons:
1. It may well be the least complicated of all 5-card major based systems.
2. I understand SAYC to be the BBO default system. I know that at least two of the players attending the classes from time-to-time play on BBO.

As soon as I can see that they are playing SAYC with a reasonable amount of competency I intend giving them a “conversion” table summarising the bids etc that change from SAYC to 2/1.

To ensure that I haven’t missed anything, kindly assist me to complete this table.
1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP.
2. SAYC 3-level pre-empt, 5-11 HCP. 2/1 3-level pre-empt, less than 10 HCP (according to Paul Thurston).
3. SAYC 2/1 response promises 10+ HCP but is not game-forcing. 2/1 system: A 2/1 response is game-forcing and the cornerstone of the system.
4. SAYC 1NT response over 1M is not forcing. 2/1 1NT response over 1M is forcing for 1 round.
5. SAYC 2NT response over 1m, 13-15 HCP, game-forcing. 2/1 2NT response over 1m, 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major, invitational.
6. SAYC 2♦ response over 2♣, negative. 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ are natural and game-forcing. 2/1 2♦ response over 2♣, “waiting.” 2♥ response over 2♣, negative.
7. SAYC does not incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises. 2/1 does incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2012-April-20, 00:33, said:

1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP.
2. SAYC 3-level pre-empt, 5-11 HCP. 2/1 3-level pre-empt, less than 10 HCP (according to Paul Thurston).

I don't know either system very well, so I am not qualified to comment on too many of your items; but these two seem weird.

Edit: Just saw #6. I don't know how common Roth is; you might want to check the BBO notes for 2/1. In fact if your aim is to facilitate online play you should use BBO notes in general for both systems.

[32519]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-20, 01:48, said:

I don't know either system very well, so I am not qualified to comment on too many of your items; but these two seem weird.

Edit: Just saw #6. I don't know how common Roth is; you might want to check the BBO notes for 2/1. In fact if your aim is to facilitate online play you should use BBO notes in general for both systems.

Stefanie, thanks for this suggestion. It makes good sense.

The opening bid of 13 HCP for SAYC and 12 HCP for 2/1 is correct. The SAYC Booklet I have doesn’t say explicitly the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt. I made the assumption that it is the same as for a 2-level pre-empt with the exception of having an additional card in the suit bid.

I would naturally assume that for 2/1, a 3-level pre-empt would promise the same HCP range as a 2-level pre-empt. The BBO notes say 5-11 HCP for both SAYC and 2/1 for a 2-level pre-empt. Neither says what the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt is. However, according to Paul Thurston, in 2/1 a 3-level pre-empt promises less than 10 HCP.

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

[fromageGB]

32519, on 2012-April-22, 02:30, said:

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

I have no absolute knowledge, but know many people who will open at the 1 level routinely with 11 points and a 6 card suit. "5-11" is incorrect in my view. Probably "less than 10" is correct for a 7 card suit, as many 10 count 7 card suits will open at the 1 level.

[sfi]

32519, on 2012-April-22, 02:30, said:

The opening bid of 13 HCP for SAYC and 12 HCP for 2/1 is correct. The SAYC Booklet I have doesn’t say explicitly the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt. I made the assumption that it is the same as for a 2-level pre-empt with the exception of having an additional card in the suit bid.

I would naturally assume that for 2/1, a 3-level pre-empt would promise the same HCP range as a 2-level pre-empt. The BBO notes say 5-11 HCP for both SAYC and 2/1 for a 2-level pre-empt. Neither says what the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt is. However, according to Paul Thurston, in 2/1 a 3-level pre-empt promises less than 10 HCP.

Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

This is much more likely to reflect time of publication rather than any actual difference in these two areas of the system. 2/1 is typically no more aggressive in its openings than Standard American.

[gnasher]

sfi, on 2012-April-22, 05:29, said:

This is much more likely to reflect time of publication rather than any actual difference in these two areas of the system. 2/1 is typically no more aggressive in its openings than Standard American.

If anything, one should open less aggressively when playing 2/1, because light openings put more strain on the 1NT response.

[han]

Phil, on 2012-April-18, 08:49, said:

In our club, most in the junior game play SAYC and most in the open game play 2/1.

What do you mean by junior game? Are these juniors, or are these old people new to bridge?

[han]

gnasher, on 2012-April-22, 10:22, said:

If anything, one should open less aggressively when playing 2/1, because light openings put more strain on the 1NT response.

I agree with "if anything". I disagree with the rest.

[Vampyr]

han, on 2012-April-22, 10:30, said:

I agree with "if anything". I disagree with the rest.

I guess it depends on how much you feel you need for game.

[cherdano]

32519, on 2012-April-14, 01:08, said:

There are quite a few countries with 5-card major based systems regarded as “standard” for the relevant country e.g.
2. Germany = Forum D

So what’s the point of having a “standard” system for a country?

So why not just adopt 2/1 as the “standard” system for the relevant country?

But then nobody would have to buy books on Forum D, instead the money would go to these Americans and their 2/1 books, and they are rich enough already!

/cynicism

[BillPatch]

32519, on 2012-April-20, 00:33, said:

1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP.

Charles Goren's Point Count Bidding was published in 1946. He
preached using Work's point count A=4, K=3, etc for NT
and shortness points (Void=3, singleton=2, doubleton=1)
added for suit contracts. Within 6 years this replaced
honor tricks as the standard method for contract bridge.
14 total points, or 13 with 2 quick tricks, constituted
a mandatory opening bid. The most common minimum opening bid was
a 4-4-3-2, the most common distribution, with 12 hcp, 1 point
for distribution, and 2 quick tricks.

This has been the standard for the u.s. bridge world ever since.
While as many as 15% of tournament bridge players may have
at one time adopted the one or more point higher point count
method of one immediate predecessor of 2 over 1, the Roth-Stone
system, at one time, and as many as 15% have experimented with a one
point lower limit, usually with the Precision Club, 12HCP and 2 QT
has remained the norm ever since.

I remember taking home the ACBL Yellow Card Booklet shortly after it came
out in 1987. I also played with one in 1996. It was featured in an indi-
vidual in a tournament in Cleveland in 2002. I have a copy of Ned Downey and
Ellen Pomer. Standard Bidding with SAYC, copyright 2005. I also have reviewed
the latest copy of the SAYC booklet at ACBL.com. The 13 HCP requirement for
an opening bid was not in any of these. Downey and Pomer agree with me that
12 hcp is the norm, recommending the use of Marty Bergen's rule of 20. My peers
who play in the ACBL would laugh at the 13 HCP requirement.

Thus, I assume that you are the recipient of s defective Yellow Card, unfit
for American consumption. I am sorry the ACBL dumped it on your country. Please
accept my apology. SAYC and most 2 over 1 styles have the same opening standards.

For furthur details on SAYC, I recommend the Downey and Pomer book, from the Master
Point Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (I don't think any Canadians are involved in
the defctive yellow card dumping.) The latest yellow card booklet without the offensive
defect is available on the ACBL site for free download.

[32519]

BillPatch, on 2012-April-22, 23:59, said:

Thus, I assume that you are the recipient of s defective Yellow Card, unfit for American consumption. I am sorry the ACBL dumped it on your country. Please accept my apology. SAYC and most 2 over 1 styles have the same opening standards.

For furthur details on SAYC, I recommend the Downey and Pomer book, from the Master
Point Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (I don't think any Canadians are involved in
the defctive yellow card dumping.) The latest yellow card booklet without the offensive
defect is available on the ACBL site for free download.

The SAYC Stock Convention Card available on BBO for all to use clearly says 13+ to open the bidding, last updated on 16 March 2006. I have the 2006 SAYC Booklet. Page 3 says a minimum opening is 13-15 HCP. BBO and the booklet in my posession both would appear to be outdated according to your post.

[lowerline]

32519, on 2012-April-14, 01:08, said:

There are quite a few countries with 5-card major based systems regarded as "standard" for the relevant country e.g.
1. USA = SAYC
2. Germany = Forum D
3. France = French Standard
4. Poland = Polish Club
5. Italy = ?
6. Others?
7. Netherlands = Dutch ACOL?

Then you have variations of the "standard" system.
Add to that all the different gadgets that different partnerships add to the "standard" system, ending up with a system which is anything but the "standard." So what's the point of having a "standard" system for a country?

2/1 is the 5-card majors system probably with the biggest following. So why not just adopt 2/1 as the "standard" system for the relevant country? Much easier!

In the Netherlands the standard system is Biedermeijer Rood, which is basically a 4crd major system, but it offers you some choices to turn it into a 5crd major system.
All bridge players (of a certain level) are supposed to know the standard system of their country, making it easier to play with a pick-up partner or on the Internet.

As the most popular online bridge sites (like BBO) are predominantly American, lots of non-Americans have learned SAYC to be able to play online.

Steven

[blackshoe]

The idea behind Standard American Yellow Card was to provide a single system that "everyone" could play, so that in any given tournament, there would be no problems with "unusual" agreements - the SAYC card doesn't allow them. Bridge players being who they are, they took SAYC and said "I can do better than that" and changed things where SAYC specifically precluded such changes. Any such system is fine to play in most tournaments (but not ones in which the requirement is to play "Standard American Yellow Card"), but such a system is not "SAYC". It may be something similar, say "BBO SA", but it's not SAYC.

In the 2003 SAYC booklet, you were offered five choices as to agreements. All of these had to do with defensive carding. In the 2006 version of the booklet, these choices do not appear. The system is engraved in stone. The only thing you can add to a SAYC system card is defenses to opponents' conventions, such as unusual vs. unusual or Mathé or Truscott over Precision 1♣.

The range of a 1 of a suit opening in SAYC is not explicitly stated in the section on those openings. It is implied by the statement that opener's minimum rebid shows "13-15 points". Note that is "points", not "high card points", so a typical distributional minimum opening will likely have fewer than 13 HCP. BTW, the SAYC booklet does say that "judgement" may be applied, and hand evaluation is certainly a matter of judgement.

SAYC is not "standard" in North America or in the USA. The current "standard" here is shifting from "Standard American" (of which SAYC is a — rigid — variant) to "2/1 GF".

No one amongst the local bridge players I know plays SAYC in f2f bridge. I suppose they might play some variant of it online.