[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2022-June-18, 04:19, said:

Incidentally, I have no idea why anyone would play any version of Standard American.

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

[bluenikki]

 Vampyr, on 2022-June-18, 04:19, said:

I think the problem with the Yellow Card (I never played in a Yellow Card event, but one at a tournament where the event was being held I picked up a couple of the, er, yellow cards) is that it was designed by a committee. It seems as if each member of the committee was permitted to put in one convention or trearmen5 that he or she considered “essential” for modern bidding. As such, it is kind of a mess.

Incidentally, I have no idea why anyone would play any version of Standard American. 2/1 forcing to game is easy to understand, as is 2/1 forcing to two of opener’s suit. 2/1 promising another bid? Forcing to 2NT? It seems to me that it would require lengthy discussions about which auctions were GF and which weren’t.

Of course it's a mess. But it is a well-defined mess.

2/1 may not be a mess, but it is anything but well-defined.

[PeterAlan]

 blindsey, on 2022-June-11, 09:57, said:

I see there's a book called "Bridge Master: the Best of Edgar Kaplan". Is "New Science" in this book? I can't find a table of contents for the book anywhere online.

Yes it is: pp 219-225.

[Gilithin]

 bluenikki, on 2022-June-18, 20:05, said:

Of course it's a mess. But it is a well-defined mess.

Is it? What would be a 2NT rebid in the auction 1X - 2Y -- 2NT and how would Responder continue with a balanced minimum? My experience is that it is actually easier to know what bids mean in 2/1, Acol, SEF/Forum D or Precision than SAYC due to the contradictory statements within the SAYC definition document that make the system all but unworkable without further defining certain agreements.

[pilowsky]

 Gilithin, on 2022-June-19, 03:57, said:

Is it? What would be a 2NT rebid in the auction 1X - 2Y -- 2NT and how would Responder continue with a balanced minimum? My experience is that it is actually easier to know what bids mean in 2/1, Acol, SEF/Forum D or Precision than SAYC due to the contradictory statements within the SAYC definition document that make the system all but unworkable without further defining certain agreements.

An excellent question.
This exact problem just happened to me this afternoon.
I play 2/1 (sort of - I learned it primarily from GIB).
My partner plays standard.
Playing 2/1 this is pretty clear.
What does 2NT mean in "Standard" and if 2NT is wrong what should I bid?

---

[bluenikki]

 Gilithin, on 2022-June-19, 03:57, said:

Is it? What would be a 2NT rebid in the auction 1X - 2Y -- 2NT and how would Responder continue with a balanced minimum? My experience is that it is actually easier to know what bids mean in 2/1, Acol, SEF/Forum D or Precision than SAYC due to the contradictory statements within the SAYC definition document that make the system all but unworkable without further defining certain agreements.

The point is that there is NO agreement other than what is in the notes. The bid is forcing, and responder must do the best they can.

By contrast, if you play "2/1" with a stranger, you know what YOU would mean by 2NT and what YOUR continuations would mean, but your partner may have wildly different expectations. And you will not know until the hand is over.

[pilowsky]

 bluenikki, on 2022-June-19, 07:15, said:

Incidentally, what does 2/1 have to do with this auction?

In 2/1 both partners know for sure not to stop before game.
Apparently that is less clear in "Standard".

[mycroft]

That will be of great comfort when you're +480 in 4. "Great, we beat the +230s". Worse yet when you're -50 in a hopeless 6 (or 5!) and lose even to the +170s.

The problem with SA (even YC) is that it's sometimes difficult to force to game unambiguously. The problem with 2/1 is that we're forced to game, but then wander around to the 4 level and don't know if either hand has shown extras. In both cases, more system discussion helps, but that's not what people are talking about with "why should we teach SA when 2/1 is so much better and easier".

I played a K/S (2/1 not absolutely GF)-inspired system (we didn't play 1NT forcing, among other things) for years and did very well with it, because we had agreements. I play K/S with 2/1 GF unless suit rebid, and do well with that - again because we have agreements. I play 2/1 with strong NT, both western Canada style (shape first, handle strength if possible, invm and 1♦-2♣ GF) and eastern Canada style (opener's rebid shows/denies extras, invm LR+ and only 1M-2x GF), and do well with those as well. Never mind the discussions on whether and when GF auctions can stop in 4 of a minor.

And our systems still have holes that come up, and we get bad boards because we are on different pages.

Absolutely, nobody plays SAYC - even if they claim to play SAYC. Absolutely, it is very likely that if you can't play 2/1, you likely don't play the tools that allow standard to work either. Absolutely, as JLall said over a decade ago, "it's just so comfortable to know we're going to game" (and that partner knows it too). Would I play without 2/1 GF, at least after 1M, if I had the option? 100%. But that doesn't mean that a good SA system isn't good, in fact could be better, than "2/1, 1430, UDCA, partner?"

[blindsey]

 PeterAlan, on 2022-June-19, 02:00, said:

Yes it is: pp 219-225.

OK, got the book, read the article.

Briefer than I thought it would be, but it said what it said.

Now to read the rest of the book. The bits on the development of the K-S System look interesting.