[blackshoe]

Frankly, I find SA really annoying and the only reason I'm playing it is that it seems to me that if I refused to do so I wouldn't be playing at all, unless I could find another partner, which seems like a lot of work. :-)

[mw64ahw]

blackshoe, on 2025-September-16, 22:48, said:

Frankly, I find SA really annoying and the only reason I'm playing it is that it seems to me that if I refused to do so I wouldn't be playing at all, unless I could find another partner, which seems like a lot of work. :-)

What part do you find annoying? I find it more flexible than 2/1.

[bluenikki]

smerriman, on 2025-September-13, 19:36, said:

Devaluing 10 HCP doesn't change the point at all; if you exclude some 10 HCP hands, exactly the same applies to the 11 HCP or stronger hands. If you're bidding 1NT on those due to not having a 5 card suit, you're not playing SA anymore..

It's not about 5-card suits.

It's about having a rebid.

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2025-September-17, 05:09, said:

It's not about 5-card suits.

It's about having a rebid.

The question was specifically about 5 card suits. I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2025-September-12, 14:51, said:

I am mildly surprised that anyone is still interested in such archaeology
I don't have my books underhand, but seem to remember that later Goren promised a rebid.
Italian standard 4cM certainly did, unlike Acol.

Later Goren was ghostwritten. It was nuts, too often referring to highcard points in contexts where CG himself clearly meant total points.

[blackshoe]

mw64ahw, on 2025-September-17, 03:17, said:

What part do you find annoying? I find it more flexible than 2/1.

Probably that part. :-) It's harder to get to game or slam, IMO, because too many sequences are ambiguous as to partner's intentions and there isn't always an easy way to resolve that ambiguity. OTOH, my old mentor preferred SA to 2/1 for just that reason.

Maybe it's just that my true preference is to play SMP (Standard Modern Precision), with some "improvements" from SFP (Santa Fe Precision).

[mw64ahw]

You can get rid of the ambiguity e.g. 1M-2C-2D-3C is GF for me with 1M-3C as invitational, but I get your point. Plus I have no problem stopping in 2/3M or 2N when neither player can GF.
Transitioning Acol players like 10+, but have also learnt to open lightish so it can be a struggle to rein them back.
You can have similar issues with 2/1 when opener has 11 and responder GF with a good 12 going down.

[mycroft]

"you can get rid of the ambiguity". Yes, you can.

But it's a lot more work than saying "2/1 is Game Forcing".

How do I know that? Besides *all the experts I listen to* saying so, the Buffett Cup had the Europeans playing 2/1 AGF "except in these 5 cases" - for the first two days. Then they switched to "2/1 always game forcing". Because even world class, full time players couldn't resolve the ambiguities when they were written down at the table effectively.

Now, I grant that they were in pickup partnerships, that being sort of the point of the Buffett Cup, and had all that ambiguity to resolve, too. But unless I am given reasons to keep the ambiguity that are significantly more rewarding than "it's just easier and more comfortable", then it's not worth it.