[rr9000]

If you were playing SAYC (complete version as described at http://web2.acbl.org...y/sayc_card.pdf and the accompanying booklet at http://web2.acbl.org.../play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf), what handful of conventions or specific agreements would you *most* want to add to it, and why?

Thanks!

RR9000

PS - I'm having trouble getting the inserted booklet link to work. There's a functioning link at http://www.bridgebum.com/sayc.php

[Vampyr]

 rr9000, on 2019-June-12, 19:44, said:

If you were playing SAYC (complete version as described at http://web2.acbl.org...y/sayc_card.pdf and the accompanying booklet at http://web2.acbl.org.../play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf), what handful of conventions or specific agreements would you *most* want to add to it, and why?

Thanks!

RR9000

I would suggest 2-way checkback, and probably Ogust.

[TylerE]

A match. As in set it on fire.

SAYC is unplayable in anything resembling serious competition. The minor suit structure is most egregious.

The literal only (slight) saving grace is if you play it 100% to the pamphlet. Anything else you'd be much better served by just playing a non-brain damaged system if you're going to spend even 5 minutes making agreements.

[awm]

Elianna and I basically did this.

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.
2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.
3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).
4. Inverted minor raises.
5. Weak jump raises in competition.

It’s pretty playable at that point. We’ve added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D “catch-all” rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don’t think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

[P_Marlowe]

 awm, on 2019-June-12, 21:59, said:

Elianna and I basically did this.

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.
2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.
3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).
4. Inverted minor raises.
5. Weak jump raises in competition.

It’s pretty playable at that point. We’ve added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D “catch-all” rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don’t think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

I think #2 is the most important point.
#3 basically comes down on discussing some FSF sequences, which is also
relevant, if you play FSF as gf, ..., which would mean this is a variation
of #2.

Summing it up: If you want to get serious, you need to start discussing with
partner, what you play. Saying we play SAYC, and expecting to sit down and do
well is a fallacy.

[steve2005]

Forcing raise in a minor
1♦-3♣ & 1♣-2♦ comes to mind

[steve2005]

 awm, on 2019-June-12, 21:59, said:

Elianna and I basically did this.

1. Two way new minor forcing over 1nt rebids.
2. Some clearer agreements about what is forcing after 1M-2x.
3. Fourth suit forcing to game (rather than just one round).
4. Inverted minor raises.
5. Weak jump raises in competition.

It's pretty playable at that point. We've added some other stuff over the years (Gazzilli, different 1nt responses, 2D "catch-all" rebid in 1X-2C auctions, and most recently multi 2D). But I don't think any of that is as necessary as the things above.

If your playing SAYC and not 2/1 I think you should keep simple
1) not needed at this level just normal NMF
2) This very important if you want to try and bid slams.
3) Yes this actually simplifies things.
4) no unnecessary complexity
5) Yes you cant wait all year for a strong JS in this situation.

[bravejason]

 TylerE, on 2019-June-12, 21:32, said:

A match. As in set it on fire.

SAYC is unplayable in anything resembling serious competition. The minor suit structure is most egregious.

The literal only (slight) saving grace is if you play it 100% to the pamphlet. Anything else you'd be much better served by just playing a non-brain damaged system if you're going to spend even 5 minutes making agreements.

This is harsh. What specifically is the issue for you? You mentioned minor suit structure, but didn’t elaborate on what you felt was wrong.

[awm]

 steve2005, on 2019-June-13, 11:31, said:

If your playing SAYC and not 2/1 I think you should keep simple
1) not needed at this level just normal NMF
2) This very important if you want to try and bid slams.
3) Yes this actually simplifies things.
4) no unnecessary complexity
5) Yes you cant wait all year for a strong JS in this situation.

1) two way is actually simpler than “normal” nmf since it clarifies which sequences are gf and prevents opener jumping around.
4) having no game forcing minor raise sequence is a pretty big problem; you can miss slams pretty easily.
5) i think you’re confusing jump shifts (which we play as fit showing but are not really important) with jump raises; we use 1h-(1S)-3h as weak and 2s cue as limit+ which is pretty “standard” these days but not part of sayc

[rr9000]

Many good suggestions thus far. The only one missing from my list is Lebensohl. I'm not sure how I'd get by without it.

RR9000

[TylerE]

 bravejason, on 2019-June-13, 16:07, said:

This is harsh. What specifically is the issue for you? You mentioned minor suit structure, but didn’t elaborate on what you felt was wrong.

Where to start...

1m-2N is 13-15 GF
1m-3N is 16-18 GF
There is no forcing minor suit raise.

If that alone doesn't tell you a system had brain damage, I don't know what will.

[Stephen Tu]

 TylerE, on 2019-June-13, 17:52, said:

Where to start...

1m-2N is 13-15 GF
1m-3N is 16-18 GF
There is no forcing minor suit raise.

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

[Vampyr]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-June-13, 18:31, said:

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

What are the ranges in common modern 2/1? Is using these bids as natural popular?

[Stephen Tu]

Most common is 3nt=13-15, 2nt=11-12. Anything other than natural is extraordinarily rare.

[rr9000]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-June-13, 18:31, said:

No forcing minor raise is bad, but the ranges for 2nt/3nt are arguably better than common modern 2/1. 2nt allows for investigation of potentially better minor suit game/slam below 3nt, one can do better than after 1m-3nt 13-15 where opener largely has to guess whether his singleton is facing KQT or Axx.

I agree with Stephen that the "older" ranges for 2NT and 3NT have advantages, and the history is perhaps illuminating. The ranges changed not because the new ones were seen as superior per se, but because they were needed in order to accommodate the 2/1 problem hand type of an invitational level response to 1D that's not suitable for a major suit bid, an inverted minor raise, or an invitational 3C bid. At one point, the system bid was 1H on a three card suit (gag!). Then 2NT over a 1D opener was shifted down to invitational and 3NT had to come with it. Originally, these 2NT and 3NT responses were just after a 1D opening, but first some and then all or nearly all who play 2/1 moved to having the lower HCP 2NT and 3NT responses to 1C as well, for consistency.

To the occasional detriment of those who play 2/1 fully game forcing (as opposed to Mike Lawrence style), this doesn't solve all of the 1D-2C problems, but then again, neither do "standard" or Lawrence's thoughtful solutions.

RR9000

[helene_t]

More take-out doubles, for example after we open 1NT.

[blackshoe]

"No, I don't know Precision. But I do know Standard American, and what better reason could I have for playing Precision?" -- The Hideous Hog

[perko90]

My list would be (some have already been mentioned):
1) RKC
2) Raising the negative Dbl limit
3) Figuring out what sequences are forcing after 1M-2X.
-- Forcing to at least 2NT is a good start; getting 3-card LR out of the 2/1 structure is important, too (either include in the 1M-3M LR or add a semi-forcing 1NT)
4) Ogust instead of Feature (ok, probably not *most* important)
5) Inverted Minors
6) Remove penalty double from 1NT defense (actually requires a lot of discussion and isn't very good vs strong NT). Replace with Dbl = H+S

[Zelandakh]

 perko90, on 2019-June-28, 10:58, said:

3) Figuring out what sequences are forcing after 1M-2X.
-- Forcing to at least 2NT is a good start;

So what about 1M - 2X; 2NT? One of the most awkward parts of SAYC is that one part of the booklet states explicitly that this is forcing while another makes it so that having it forcing is almost unplayable. This is the #1 auction for any pair playing SAYC to discuss and comes well above adding conventions. For the record, the "best" version of SAYC I have seen comes from Adam (awm) and he plays this sequence as forcing, meaning that minimum balanced hands have to find a different rebid. This is unfortunately not the way the vast majority of players see it; but then again most players who say they are playing SAYC are really just playing their personalised version of SA and have no idea of how the Yellow Card system really works.

[RuflRabbit]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-July-03, 02:48, said:

So what about 1M - 2X; 2NT? One of the most awkward parts of SAYC is that one part of the booklet states explicitly that this is forcing while another makes it so that having it forcing is almost unplayable. This is the #1 auction for any pair playing SAYC to discuss and comes well above adding conventions. For the record, the "best" version of SAYC I have seen comes from Adam (awm) and he plays this sequence as forcing, meaning that minimum balanced hands have to find a different rebid. This is unfortunately not the way the vast majority of players see it; but then again most players who say they are playing SAYC are really just playing their personalised version of SA and have no idea of how the Yellow Card system really works.

Unless you're referring to a different part than I'm reading (2/1 promising a rebid), I don't see 1M - 2X; 2NT as being so terribly difficult in SAYC. As long as responder doesn't make a 2/1 on a random 10 count and opener doesn't rebid 2NT on a bare minimum (perhaps what you're suggesting), either responder rebids their 6-bagger or responder raises 2NT to a game that's at worst something like a decent 13 opposite a decent 11. People playing 2/1 might get to the same game, after a forcing notrump.

The real problem auction is 1D - 2C, but if you can point me to any 5cM strong notrump system that's solved this problem, I'm all ears. Lawrence's Workbook on 2/1 devotes several pages to a very thoughtful analysis, but IMO, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

Is Adam's version available online?

RuflRabbit