[anynick]

I am a novice that used to play Acol 20 years ago to moderate club standard. Decided to try online bridge, and decided to try SAYC. I want to get a grip on 'basic SAYC' which I am taking as being whatever is in Learn to Play Bridge, vols 1 & 2.

My question relates to simple non-competitive auctions, with a 1 of a suit opener and a new suit response. Unless I have missed something I believe that jump shifts as simple responses to a 1 opener (so simply, say 1♣ - 2♥) are NOT a part of SAYC. From Vol1 it appears that the whole idea is that any new suit at minimum level is forcing, and that responder reserves description of strength for his rebid, the idea presumably being to keep the bidding as low as possible.

I can find no reference to this sort of jump shift in Vol 1. Vol2 when discussing competitive auctions (explaining how redouble for 10+ allows several normal bids to have alternative meanings after opposition overcall of partners openings) says that such a jump shift normally (i.e. in non-competitive auctions) represents a strong hand with slam interest - the example given has 17 HCP and 3 length points; it then goes on to explain what a jump shift over an overcall means i.e. preemptive etc, which is fine. This is not the only inconsistency I have found between the 2 volumes, but it is the most perplexing to me.

This seems to me to be pretty basic stuff - have I got the wrong end of the stick somewhere? So, does SAYC include simple jump shift responses?

[Gerben42]

In the SAYC booklet these jump shifts are described as slam interest with a good suit and I think most players using "SAYC" will understand the bid this way.

On the other hand in tournament level Bridge this type of strong jump shift is no longer very common.

[anynick]

Aha, there is a booklet! And it is called 'the SAYC booklet'! Shame that Learn to Play Bridge doesn't refer to it. I just googled for it, and there it is.

Thank you.

[Stephen Tu]

First off, you should learn the distinction between "Standard American" (SA), and "SA-YC", which stands for "Standard American Yellow Card". These are *not* the same thing though many on BBO do not understand this, and many will say "SAYC" when they really should be saying just "SA". "Standard American" is a general term for a family of systems descended from the old Goren days, and now considered to be based on 5 cd major openings, strong NT, strongish 2/1 (bidding 2 of a new suit without jumping over 1 of a suit opener) sequences (compared to Acol, anyway). Unfortunately there is lots of room for variation in "SA", it isn't truly a standard! In particular after 2/1 sequences there is lots of room for different rebids being treated forcing / non-forcing, and different strength ranges. Also certain jump raises & jump preferences by responder on the first & second rounds of bidding can be treated as game forcing or as only game invitational (with the modern trend being invitational).

"SAYC" is a specific variant of SA, with some of the ambiguities clarified, and certain conventions tacked on. It was created by the ACBL I believe in the 80's, for the purpose of running events where everyone was forced to play the same system. These events weren't popular and died out. However when online bridge came into existence, presence of this card & a reasonably brief document describing the system led SAYC to become a defacto standard agreement for pickup partners online. Unfortunately the document isn't very complete & still leaves many ambiguities. Also some of the treatments don't mesh particularly well together. Probably the worst thing is that many online bridge players have never really read the document carefully, still say they play "sayc", but have no idea that means certain specific things that "sa" leaves ambiguous.

Now, as for "Learn to Play Bridge", you should note that it is introducing modern Standard American in general, *not* SAYC specifically, though LTPB2 delves a little into SAYC with the bidding over NT. Since it is introductory, it doesn't discuss jump shifts. However, in SA, strong jump shifts are assumed without special agreement. So 1c-2h would be assumed to be strong, slam invitational hand with good hearts. SAYC is more explicit about this. Jump shifts in competition are more ambiguous - the SAYC document specifies weak jump shifts over a double but is silent about after an overcall, although there is a blurb about bids by default retaining their meaning in competition.

You might want to eventually get some supplements to "LTPB"; I recommend Kantar's "Bridge for Dummies" as a first book. Also anything by Bill Root is great for novices/intermediates.

[helene_t]

anynick, on Mar 30 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

Unless I have missed something I believe that jump shifts as simple responses to a 1 opener (so simply, say 1♣ - 2♥) are NOT a part of SAYC. From Vol1 it appears that the whole idea is that any new suit at minimum level is forcing, and that responder reserves description of strength for his rebid, the idea presumably being to keep the bidding as low as possible.

Strong jump shifts are actually part of SAYC. But it's correct that in SAYC (like in Acol, Culbertson, Goren, Precision, 2/1, WJ etc.) a simple shift by responder is forcing. Therefore, jump shifts (whether played as strong/weak/fitshowing/whatever) are not so important.

The requirements for a strong jump shift varies by textbook author. Therefore, they should not be used unless discussed with partner. Many players on BBO but SAYC on their profile to indicate that they play 5-card majors, 15-17 NT, transfers to majors, negative doubles, strong artificial 2♣, weak twos and weak jump overcalls. You'd better not assume partner to know the specific requirements for a strong jump shift in SAYC, or the SAYCish followups to a strong jump shift for that matter.

[anynick]

Stephen Tu, on Mar 30 2007, 06:43 AM, said:

Now, as for "Learn to Play Bridge", you should note that it is introducing modern Standard American in general, *not* SAYC specifically, though LTPB2 delves a little into SAYC with the bidding over NT. 

Since it is introductory, it doesn't discuss jump shifts. 

Thank you.

Yes, LTPB2 makes the SA/SAYC distinction clear. It strongly implies, though to be fair does not explicitly state, that the contents of LTPB2 are what round LTPB1 SA out, to make it into SAYC.

I would not want to whinge about either; LTPB1 is really clear and well done, LTPB2 a little less so I think but still good, especially for free. I have found both to be good tutorials for the bidding system, and a good refresher on play.

I'm not sure that I would demean them as purely 'introductory' - I think that if someone mastered the contents of both LTPB's, he would play bridge to a pretty decent standard. I was moderate, playing for my club second team in county competitions; my memory may deceive me, but I think the LTPB's would get you to that level, or thereabouts; certainly above social bridge standard, anyway.

Having said that, the omission of these jump shifts from LTPB1 does look like either a mistake or a deliberate decision on a particular flavour of SA. Such a jump shift is pretty natural - and the tutorials cover bidding topics at least as complex as this, if not more so.

This is if vanilla SA does, as you say, in general assume jump shifts as slam invitational. Else LTPB2 could perhaps have a small section on what is not the hardest concept - given that the SAYC booklet does indeed include these jump shifts, I now see. From a single, if careful read through the booklet, it looks to me as if everything else has been covered in one of the LTPB's

[anynick]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2007, 07:19 AM, said:

You'd better not assume partner to know the specific requirements for a strong jump shift in SAYC, or the SAYCish followups to a strong jump shift for that matter.

Is there a simple place to look for those 'SAYCish followups', that you know of?

There is nothing in the booklet - though of course the natural thing to do is either to agree a suit then sign-off in game, or cue-bid, or go straight to Blackwood - maybe there is no more to it than that. Presumably responder is generally in control of the bidding after such a bid.

[SoTired]

You should be aware that since the passing of Charles Goren, there are no "Standard" systems, anymore. A better phrase would be "commonly played." And what they teach to beginners and intermediates is different from what top experts usually play. For example, experts generally play high level doubles as negative or takeout, whereas they teach beginners and intermediates that doubles beyond a certain level are penalty.

Top experts seem to be constantly tweaking their bids, so what they played two years ago may not be what they play today. Also, some bids are almost like fads that go into and out of style over only a few years. One example of this is Negative Free Bids, which got wide-spread use among experts for a while. Now most experts have dropped it.

I think the best bet is to read a popular system book and use that as your "standard." Then encourage your regular partners to read the same book.

[helene_t]

anynick, on Mar 30 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

Is there a simple place to look for those 'SAYCish followups', that you know of?

No, sorry. Bridge World Standard is probably the closest one can come to a document describing "expert standard". This is not excactly SAYC, but it's similar. Some quotes:

a jump-shift shows more than ordinary game-going strength (the equivalent of 16 HCP plus), a substantial suit (at least five-card length with at least two of the top three honors), and one of three hand-types: balanced, one-suited, support

responder's jump shift followed by 4NT is ace-asking for responder's suit

a jump-shift [by a passed hand] other than three clubs is a strong raise with length in the suit bid;

[over an enemy t/o double or overcall] a jump-shift is preemptive;

Mike Lawrence's workbook on 2/1 covers jump shifts in much more details. But now I'm deviating from SAYC .....

[kenberg]

While you are waiting for all the answers, here are some things that may keep you out of trouble:

After a strong jump shift you are committed to game. 1C-2H-3H: This is absolutely not an invitation to pass. No other auctions are passable short of game either. If you ahve a regular partner and you want to discuss some exit sequences, fine. Without discussion, you absolutely do not a pass in a part score.

If the strong jump shifter immediately repeats his suit (when you have not raised it), then that suit is set as trumps. If you have a void in his suit that suit is still trumps. You may end in no trump but you will not end in some other suit. Actually this is one of the uses for the strong jump shift. Partner has a strong hand and a suit that he wishes to unambiguously set as trumps so he can then explore other features.

If the strong jumps shifter next supports your suit, when you have not supported his, you should take this as a big hand, a suit of his own, and a fit for your suit. In short, it's natural. Again a nice feature of strong jumps shifts is that bidding proceeds very naturally after it. 1C--2S-2N-3C. Do not pass. He has a big hand, a spade suit, a club fit.

Some folks may play a gadget or two after the strong jump shift but they should not, and you should not, trot them out without discussion. Here is an example: 1D-2H-2N-3C. The 2H as a big hand with hearts, of course, but the 3C might be used to show a stiff club and a fit for diamonds. You can probably play for the remainder of the year without coming across this, and I repeat that no one should do it without prior discussion. A frequent idea, however, is that the strong jump shifter has one of three types of hands, all of them big: A self-sustaining suit of his own, a good suit and the stoppers for NT, a good suit and a fit for your suit. In the first case he rebids his suit, in the second he rebids nt if you don't raise his suit, in the third case he does something other than the first two cases, so anything other than rebidding his suit (assuming you ahve not already raised it) or rebidding nt shows a fit for your suit. This last paragraph is a matter of agreement. The stuff above it I believe you can depend on with most partners (given that they are playing strong jump shifts).

As to where this is all written down, I don't know. And so it is, I suppose, suspect. I'll be interested in seeing if there are dissenting views.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Yes, LTPB2 makes the SA/SAYC distinction clear. It strongly implies, though to be fair does not explicitly state, that the contents of LTPB2 are what round LTPB1 SA out, to make it into SAYC.

It isn't totally complete; besides the jump shift issue, I don't think it discusses Jacoby 2nt major suit raises at all. Also in general it doesn't describe sequences with as much detail & completeness as books such as Root's "Commonsense bidding" & "Modern Bridge Conventions".

Quote

I'm not sure that I would demean them as purely 'introductory' - I think that if someone mastered the contents of both LTPB's, he would play bridge to a pretty decent standard.

I don't think "introductory" should be construed as demeaning; these are the absolute best introductory material out there now IMO, and bridge is a rather difficult game to introduce well. "Pretty decent std" is also subjective. Bridge is a very deep game, there is tons to learn, and there is only so much one can pack into tutorials of LTPB's size. I suppose complete mastery of LTPB might get you above "kitchen bridge" std and to average club level. But mastery of all of Root's books would likely get one to the point where you are then a fairly advanced player and can win quite regularly at most clubs. This isn't a fault of LTPB; LTPB is starting with total newbies and covers an impressive amount of ground. But still it is a fraction of the page space that can be devoted to each topic, and one usually needs more to get to an advanced level. Even if you are naturally gifted at cards and can pick up concepts just by playing, additional books can speed the process by a large amount.

[anynick]

kenberg, on Mar 30 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

While you are waiting for all the answers, here are some things that may keep you out of trouble:

Many thanks, very very helpful.


And thanks to all that have replied.