[jillybean]

I’m sure most of the B/I’s will agree, BBO experts love to give free and often unsolicited advice. Most of the advice is only as reliable as the self rating but some is worth considering. Here’s the lastest little gem that came my way:

“i think you need a bit of help...BUT, you need to learn 2/1, sayc is flawed"

The first part may be an understatement but really, has the time come to ditch sayc and learn 2/1?
“All” experts and most of the intermediates have 2/1 on the their profile.
What do you think?

[dicklont]

Since I play 2/1 I have more fun in bridge.
The system provides a solid basis and most of the time I know what's going on.

[TylerE]

I'll half-agree. I think SAYC is a fundamentally flawed, unplayable in decent competition system. It just has too many limitations: No forcing minor raise, limited slam exploration, frequent lack of efficient forcing bids in general.

Learning 2/1 is a good step, a typical 2/1 system with typical basic gadgets (I'd say at the least: inverted minors, 4SF and NMF, and some sort of drury) is far more playable. However, you might consider learning something else entirely, such as learning as a simple forcing club system. The original CC Wei precision is a good one to start with. While you will have to do some study in regards to the 1♣, 2♣, and 2♦ openers, the rest of the system is actually even simpler to learn and use, because many of the problem hands are well handled systemically. In fact, in some areas, for instance, Bermuda, some parts of China, etc, precision is actually the system often used to teach the game.

You migth also consider learning any other sort of system...ACOL, Kaplan-Shienwold, whatever strikes your fancy. I've found that trying different systems actually improves your bidding judgement, because you try different approaches, instead of just making 'rote' system bids.

[cjames]

In my experience 2/1 is far more easy and relaxing to play then SAYC ( I started playing some saycish kinda thing when I first learned the game), but after I started playing 2/1 I almost can't get myself to play SAYC or the norwegian standard. I think 2/1 is easier in the area of what is forcing what is not compared to SAYC (unless you have loads of agreements for SAYC). I also think some very basic Precision would not be a bad idea either.

[hrothgar]

I have a fair amount of sympathy for the Expert's comments:

I think that SAYC is a very poor foundation to build upon. Please note: When I refer to SAYC, I am referring to Standard American Yellow Card, NOT generic 5 card major based systems...

First and foremost, I don't think that you find any serious experts playing SAYC. SAYC has remained unchanged for 20 odd years, while 2/1 GF continues to growing, evolve, and improve.

Equally significant, when SAYC was originally standardized it had a wide number of design flaws. No forcing minor raises, lots of blank or contradictory bidding sequences. Its an ugly hack.

I think that you'd be far better of starting anew with a foundation that you can build upon...

[pclayton]

Learning 2/1 is useful. So is learning a strong club and ACOL.

Scrap SAYC? Any time you want, but expect to be a little discouraged in the short term as you learn a new system.

All of this is so tertiary to card play in my view.

[mikeh]

I would strongly recommend that any North American player, and especially a British Columbia player, learn 2/1. It is the default method used by virtually all advanced/expert players in this part of the world, and so makes playing with new partners easier and more enjoyable.

My advice is to get a book on the method... I understand that Lawrence has written one, and I strongly prefer him as writer (and as a bridge player) over Hardy, who was the first writer to publish a 2/1 book. I haven't read either Lawrence or Hardy (well, I read his very first book on 2/1 in 1976.... good method for the day, bad book) so I can't comment intelligibly on content other than as would logically flow from their respective talents.

The advantage of a book is that you will have a clear idea of the version of 2/1 that you will want to play. Just discussing 2/1 with one or more partners or friends will leave you with a hodge-podge of ideas and understandings, some of which will be inconsistent.

2/1 is more complex than SAYC.. after all, one of the purposes of creating SAYC was to make a simple method. In bidding, a complex method, if well-designed and memorized, is superior to a simple system. Note the use of the modifiers.

The more complex the method, the more customizing that will go on. I play 2/1 with 5 regular or semi-regular partners, yet we play fundamentally different convention cards.

So learn a basic version of 2/1, preferably by an author who discusses various optional approaches rather than one who writes as if his version were the only one that is playable. You will soon learn the areas in which individual preferences are most apt to arise, and shortly will be able to both play different versions and/or decide which ones you prefer.

[awm]

I agree... but for a different reason.

The fact is that today, 2/1 is almost "expert standard." When two strong players who don't have an established partnership sit down to play for the first time, they will almost invariably play 2/1. If you don't know how to play 2/1, this greatly restricts your options in finding good pickup partners!

This is not necessarily because 2/1 is a "better" system in any real sense. In fact I think that SAYC is quite a good system, especially relative to the brevity of the notes. There are certainly some flaws (i.e. no minor suit forcing raise) but there are also flaws in 2/1 (i.e. no way to distinguish weak and invitational one-suited club hands over 1♠-1N-2♦). Obviously in either case there are simple conventional remedies that can be added.

If the question is "why is 2/1 virtually expert standard" I think there are a few reasons. Not very many people actually know SAYC as described in the notes; for example many play that auctions like 1♠-2♦-2NT and 1♠-2♦-3♦ are non-forcing even though the SAYC notes clearly state that a two-level new suit response promises a rebid unless opener's second call is at the game level. Playing these sequences as non-forcing is inferior, but even worse it makes it dangerous to play without discussion since partner might drop you in an auction you thought was forcing. In 2/1 there may be ambiguity over whether certain actions show extras, but at least you don't get passed in a forcing auction!

Anyways, in North America almost all good players are playing 2/1. This is not to say that they play 2/1 necessarily in their regular partnerships, but they all know 2/1 and that's what they play in short-term or pickup pairs. So if you're going to try to partner good players in your area (which is probably the best way to improve your play) then knowing 2/1 is pretty important. Obviously if you're Polish you can ignore everything I said and learn WJ2005, which could well be a "better" system than 2/1.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I disagree.

2/1 is certainly a nice system, and if you play in
a regular partnership or if you want to build one
up, it may be the way to go, especially if you live
in North America.

But than, this just means the partners will discuss
a system together, and o wonder, their results will
go up.

Most of the players with 2/1 in their profile, will play
2/1 at a comparable level, as those who claim to play
SAYC. People always forget, that there are so many
different flavours of a given basic system out there,
that it is normal to run in misunderstandings on a regular
basis. Play longer together, and you will understand your
partner.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

2/1 is clearly a superior system to SAYC, and since it's also so common I have to agree with the expert. I think SAYC borders on unplayable in the long term.

[vuroth]

jillybean2, on Mar 3 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

...has the time come to ditch sayc and learn 2/1?

If it's a question of WHEN to learn 2/1, maybe only you can answer the question?

If your plate is already full, or if you're playing in a decent SAYC partnership already, then maybe now is not the time?

[han]

If you find that some of the players you would like to play with prefer to play 2/1 with you then that's a pretty good incentive to learn 2/1. If that is not the case then I wouldn't recommend it unless you are interested in what most North American players play.

While not all North American experts prefer 2/1, I imagine that they all know how to play it to some level.

(btw, if learning 2/1 means ditching SAYC then perhaps you shouldn't learn a second system. If you can learn 2/1 and still remember what you have learned for SAYC then you have nothing to lose.)

[whereagles]

2/1 has one major advantage over sayc, which is the possibility to set a force below game. It is very convenient for stuff like

1M 2x
2M 3M

1M 2x
2y 3x

1M 2x
2y 2NT

to be forcing. 2/1 allows this. In sayc you have to make-up suits to set a force. The downside is the lack of systematics to take advantage of these low level forces. That and the forcing NT "death hand":

x
AQJxx
xxx
KJxx

1♠ 1NT
2♠ ??

If you bid 2NT now, will pard remember to bid 3♥ with 3 cards? Not all will. Easier if you could bid 1♠-2♥.

[Fluffy]

Well, nothing to do with you jilly, but for those who advocate that switching is almost mandatory:

I have been playing with an old lady for last 7 years once a week. Our local results were good.

But it had to happen, after 20 years of classes my father had the urge to teach her something new, so he taught her 2/1, that was in 2005.

It had been 3 years of nightmares, it was only 2 months ago that she used a 1NT forcing sequence properly. It seems 2/1 is easy.... well she even passed several times at partscore after a 2/1 sequence. So even the basics are not that easy to get used to.

After 3 years we begin to do it well, and are back to our results, but IMO the path we had to travel wasn't worth it at all.

But anyway our French standard was/is way better than SAYC, so I guess it is not the same.


Some people are much better staying where they are right now than learning new stuff.

[jocdelevat]

I'm sorry for my b/i advice. I know you are looking for expert advice.
Imo the most important thing is to have a regular partnership then it is easy to play and learn whatever you want. If you don't have a regular parnership I do not think 2/1 will be good for your level. I disagree with you that most b/i have in their profile 2/1. You'll not find a b/i pick up partner if you put in your profile 2/1 only. I play a lot with b/i pick up partners and I didn't see too many playing 2/1.
I think is better before the switch to have some experience with the conventions like 4sf, nmf, inverted minors etc in a system that you know than in a system you try to learn.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Mar 3 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

Some people are much better staying where they are right now than learning new stuff.

You are surely correct in this, but it is not likely that this is true of anyone who is interested in the game to the point that they participate regularly, and coherently, in these fora

I note that your story was about your father, the teacher, deciding to teach the pupil something new, not the pupil asking to learn. I suspect that there is a strong causal connection between this and the pupil's apparent inability to learn

[jillybean]

Fluffy, I don’t want to be an old lady and still struggling with sayc! Then again, if Im playing sayc once a week with some young star it wont be too bad.

Lately, Ive been having a lot of fun and great auctions with sayc and the various add ons so part of me doesn’t want to change. Maybe I am better off staying where I am for a while longer. I certainly don’t cherish the thought of getting worse before I get better.

On the other hand, I am looking for a serious partner and the good players around here play 2/1.
I’ll probably get that book.

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Mar 3 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

2/1 has one major advantage over sayc, which is the possibility to set a force below game. It is very convenient for stuff like

1M 2x
2M 3M

1M 2x
2y 3x

1M 2x
2y 2NT

to be forcing. 2/1 allows this. In sayc you have to make-up suits to set a force.
<snip>

It is most likely only a question of definition, what one does
understand under SAYC and 2/1, but

#1 sequence should be forcing in both systems
#2 is nonforcing in SAYC, but may or may not be
forcing in 2/1, e.g. playing 2/1 Lawrence sytle,
it would be nonforcing
#3 nonforcing in SAYC, forcing in 2/1, ... I dont
believe it matters much

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

If you play in a regular partnership and often compete with pairs that play:

2/1, precision, polish club, Acol, SEF/Forum D, <you name it>

You will benefit, if you understand all implications of opps auction.

2/1 does not have a generic advantage over other systems, if they are not simplified to fit the needs of beginners.

To play successful bridge you need to:

1. Improve your partnership understanding
2. Improve your declarer play (this also helps you to defend better)
3. Improve your leads
4. Improve your partnerships signaling
And if you have done all of the above
5. Discuss system optimization.