[000002]

I deem Sayc and Acol is all a green natural,with a little diversity only.

why name them different SYStems?


ty

[hrothgar]

> I deem Sayc and Acol is all a green natural, with a little diversity only.

Then you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

First and foremost, ACOL assumes that players are capable of judgement... On a more serious note:

Traditional Acol uses

4 card majors
12-14 HCP 1NT opening
Acol (strongish) 2 bids
Multi 2D

SAYC is based on

5 card majors
15-17 NT openings
weak two bids in ♦/♥/♠

There are some more subtle differences regarding requirements for 2/1s and the like, however, I suspect that the "major" points that I listed are sufficient to consider these separate systems.

[awm]

There seem to be a fair number of differences as to which auctions are forcing. For example, in sayc the auction:

1♠-2♦-2♠

is 100% forcing, since a 2/1 call promises a rebid. A number of experienced acol players have indicated that for them this is not a forcing auction.

[Echognome]

Having lived in both the U.S. and the UK I'll give my understandings. I'm sure they won't be completely accurate on both accounts.

First I should note that the systems are called SAYC (all caps) and Acol (only capitalized). SAYC is named after Standard American Yellow Card, whereas Acol is the name of the club's street where the inventors of the system played. (at least that's my recollection)

Acol has many varieties whereas SAYC has a bit fewer.

Older varieties of Acol had varying NT ranges. Often weak Non Vul and strong Vul. Acol has almost always been characterized by 4 card majors and light (9+) 2/1s. Older varieties also utilised strong and natural 2 bids with the exception of a strong and artifical 2♣.

Benjaminised (Benji) Acol was developed by a Scottish player that doesn't even like the system. (Robson wrote about it in a recent column of his.) This version involves a weak NT, 4 card majors, weak 2's in ♥ and ♠ and strong (and artificial) 2's in ♣ and ♦. One of the strong 2's shows 8 (9) playing tricks in a suit, and the other a general strong forcing bid.

The closest thing we have to a standardised version of Acol is Standard English which is housed on the EBU website.

SAYC can be found on the ACBL website and is a variety of the more general class of systems I will call Standard American. I believe that Standard American is mainly derived from Goren. (again pls correct) It involves Strong NT and 5 card majors.

I am reminded by Chris Ryall's website that Acol is also a difference in bidding style. When playing strong 2s, your 1 level opening can be made lighter. Thus part of the reason for the difference's in sequence Adam mentioned.

[000002]

those mean it ensure 4cards+ to open 1minor when using Acol but SAYC not,y?


ty all

[Walddk]

000002, on Feb 12 2006, 06:03 AM, said:

those mean it ensure 4cards+ to open 1minor when using Acol but SAYC not,y?


ty all

Correct. 1♣ and 1♦ in Acol promise 4+ cards.

Roland

[000002]

tx all

how to open in Acol when i hold 5card minor and 4card major synchronously? especialy 4252,is it repartition in the SAYC?

can i call Acol(modern) and SAYC an natural longest SYS--bid longest suit unless holding a GF hand?i agree those difference:Acol emphasise length ,SAYC emphasise major(y?)but,is it a real diversity to distinguish a SYS?i doubt these.

how about they respond?any essential partition exist in beside "AWM"'s post?

regards
000002

[whereagles]

awm, on Feb 12 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

in sayc the auction:

1♠-2♦-2♠

is 100% forcing, since a 2/1 call promises a rebid. A number of experienced acol players have indicated that for them this is not a forcing auction.

There is a good case to say that

1♠-2♦-2♠

is not playable as NF.

[pbleighton]

"There is a good case to say that

1♠-2D-2♠

is not playable as NF. "

I have been playing it NF for 3 years, with one pd (I play 2/1 and Precision with others). I find it quite playable. More to the point (for who am I), lots of top ACOL players find it playable.

I think it is dangerous (arrogant?) to say that a widely used method is unplayable.

Peter

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Feb 12 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

There is a good case to say that

1♠-2♦-2♠

is not playable as NF.

I'm sure Terrence Reese, S.J. Simon, Harrison Gray and the rest of the players who developed the Acol system would have benefitted imensely from your superior understanding of the game...

[badderzboy]

---

1♠-2♣-2♠ all pass anyone...bear in mind too North may have just 5 ♠s...

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Feb 12 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 12 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

There is a good case to say that

1♠-2♦-2♠

is not playable as NF.

I'm sure Terrence Reese, S.J. Simon, Harrison Gray and the rest of the players who developed the Acol system would have benefitted imensely from your superior understanding of the game...

Don't be silly. I didn't claim I know better.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Feb 12 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 12 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 12 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

There is a good case to say that

1♠-2♦-2♠

is not playable as NF.

I'm sure Terrence Reese, S.J. Simon, Harrison Gray and the rest of the players who developed the Acol system would have benefitted imensely from your superior understanding of the game...

Don't be silly. I didn't claim I know better.

You claim that 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ natural and non-forcing is unplayable...
They designed a system where 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ is natural and non-forcing...

It could be that you are making random assertions that you don't actually think to be true. Absent this, I think that you are saying that you believe yourself to be right and they to be wrong.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Feb 12 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

You claim that 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ natural and non-focring is unplayable...

No, no and no. That's absolutely false.

I didn't CLAIM it's unplayable. I said there's a case for saying it's unplayable. Meaning: it's probably better to play it as forcing than not. Perhaps "unplayable" wasn't the right word.. english is not my 1st language.

[pbleighton]

"I didn't CLAIM it's unplayable. I said there's a case for saying it's unplayable. Meaning: it's probably better to play it as forcing than not. Perhaps "unplayable" wasn't the right word.. english is not my 1st language."

You are right, unplayable is the wrong word. It is a VERY strong word. To suggest that "there's a case for saying it's unplayable" is essentially saying that it is at best an inferior method, and at worst it is really, really terrible. It would have been better to say that "there's a case for saying it's inferior" or "I wouldn't play this, I prefer this sequence to be forcing".

Don't worry, though, lots of native English speakers use wrong words

Peter

[paulg]

whereagles, on Feb 12 2006, 11:01 AM, said:

There is a good case to say that

1♠-2♦-2♠

is not playable as NF.

Light 2/1 responses have always been a key Acol differentiator. The weak 1NT means that you may respond 2♦ on a balanced 9 count and the ability to keep low (by passing a minimum 2♠ bid) is essential to this style.

This is normal for the vast majority of UK club players so I think this is considered playable.

Over the past ten years there has been a move (predominantly by the tournament players) to stronger 2/1 responses and 1NT openers. However, this is not Acol.

p

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the main difference between SAYC and Acol
was already mentioned:
That a Acol 2/1 bid does not promise a rebid,
opposite to SAYC, ... at least in theory,
playing on BBO. SAYC, I would not trust a
unknown, to know this.
In general: There are very few seq. in traditional
Acol, which are forcing.
This allows for cheap in, cheap out, which is great
for the part score fight, but creates problems, if it
comes to slam bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Kalvan14]

Acol players need use very good judgment, SAYC is a lot more rigid.
IMHO, it's quite difficult to pick up 2 "natural" systems more at odds with each other.

[helene_t]

I can understand your confusion, 0000002, since the terms "SAYC" and "Acol" are both abused by players who don't play any system and all - in the Netherlands, all systems that are not Precision are called "Acol", and sometimes it seems that on BBO all systems that are not Precision can be called "SAYC". However, allthough both systems are derived from Culbertson's ideas, meaning
- The 2♣ opening is strong and artificial; otherwise, the system is basically natural
- The way to force (in particular by an unpassed responder) is to bid a new suit
- One-level openings are wide-range but nonforcing
the two systems are, those similarities aside, as different as two systems can possibly be.

The filosophy of SAYC is a stringent system with emphazis on rules rather than judgement, and aimed at accurate, uncontested auctions rather than tactical cosiderations. Acol is the opposite: plenty of room for developing your own style, but an aggresive style is commonly associated with Acol. Therefore:

- SAYC has a conservative style, allways 5-card majors even in in 3rd seat, allways strong 1NT, an opening requires 13 HCPs (including length points for 5+ suit(s)).

- SAYC has strict specifications for how to open with two equally long suits. In Acol, allthough EBU publishes a standard, it is by no means universal. Many partnerships let the notrump range and the choice of opening suit depend on vulnerability, suit quality, maybe even seating, and some do not even have formal specificiations for choice of opening suit.

- SAYC is specifically non-Walsh; Acol is often played more or less Walshish but that is not mandatory.

- The requirement for a 2/1 response in SAYC are high, and they do not overlap with a 1NT-response. Hence, there is allways one and only one correct response to an opening of one in a suit. In Acol, there may (depending on partnership agreements) be an overlap with 8-9 HCPs, where you can choose to bid 1NT if you want a declare and a 2/1 if you don't.

- In SAYC, you must support 1M with a 3-card and less than GF values (except if you have spades also and partner opens 1♥). In Acol, it's optional.

- SAYC specifies Jacoby transfers and 1NT-2♠ as take-out with a minor. Acol has no default notrump structure.

etc.

[Free]

There was a question asked what you open with a 4252. Well, in 1&2 seat you'll definetly open 1♦, but in 3rd seat you may open 1♠. I know someone who even opened 1♠ on QJ98-Ax-AKQJxx-x, planning to rebid 3NT. His partner supported ♠ however, so he just jumped to 6♠ which was doubled and just made.