Help
When did the term "Standard American" originate? As far as I can see, Culbertson's system was called "The Culbertson System". Did Goren come up with this?
Origin of the term "Standard American"?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,761
- Joined: 2019-October-04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Poland
Posted 2022-May-23, 15:39
From the ACBL post-Goren and pre-2/1.
You can waste 9.99 on a book about it.
Most of the information about it seems to be copied from the Wikipedia entry; Bridge players appear to be shameless about plagiarism and copyright violation - so much for a game of full disclosure and integrity.
Do any Bridge clubs anywhere recommend it?
You can waste 9.99 on a book about it.
Most of the information about it seems to be copied from the Wikipedia entry; Bridge players appear to be shameless about plagiarism and copyright violation - so much for a game of full disclosure and integrity.
Do any Bridge clubs anywhere recommend it?
Fortuna Fortis Felix
#3
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 2022-February-13
Posted 2022-May-23, 15:54
pilowsky, on 2022-May-23, 15:39, said:
From the ACBL post-Goren and pre-2/1.
SAYC is a specific variety of Standard American and there's no problem finding where it came from.
I've looked at some online news archives and *apparently* it only came about in about the mid-60s, at least with a capital-S on Standard.
Before that, it was used rarely with a small-s: "standard American bidding practices" (not System).
I saw references to the Culbertson-Goren system (in the early 1950s), Goren Point Count System (later), etc.
That's what I could find in the old newspapers, which doesn't mean I've dug up the whole story.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,020
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2022-May-23, 16:01
I have no idea whence the term originated, but it was definitely long after Culbertson quit playing and promoting the game (and himself). Culbertson scorned the use of the Work point count (4321), believing that quick tricks and judgement were superior. Goren popularized the use of the Work point count for use in suit bidding….previously it was viewed by most experts or teachers as exclusively a guide to bidding notrump.
Goren became immensely popular, although I seem to recall reading that he wasn’t considered particularly good by the experts of the day. At one point, and for quite a few years, he had a column in, of all places, Sports Illustrated. So while I don’t know whether he had anything to do with coining the phrase, I suspect that Standard American was, initially, based on many of his ideas.
Note that SA has not been a static method. I am sure that SA initially used 4 card majors and jump raises of any suit opening as game forcing. 1N was 16-18 and 1N 3M was a slam try, and so on.
If a ‘standard’ player of today were to sit down opposite a ‘standard’ player from 60 years ago,, they’d each think the other was nuts.
Oh, and the link was not to a book about Standard American at all. It is a book about SAYC…..Standard American Yellow Card.
SAYC was a method invented in anticipation of a never happened success story….the ACBL, long an enemy of innovation especially in bidding wanted to create a game in which every pair had to play exactly the same system as everyone else. Obviously, they couldn’t leave it to the players to decide what that should be, so they came up with SAYC, which incorporates various choices within the broad tent of SA.
SAYC was not a success. Nor should anyone who has actually played the game think it would be. I doubt that more than a handful of mediocre club players, prior to the design of SAYC, played the unwieldy set of agreements selected for the method. Why, then, would anyone choose to give up their existing methods for a clunky, poorly designed method? The answer is….they didn’t
So SAYC is sort of like Esperanto in that it never attained the acceptance it’s inventors expected.
It lingers on, but I suspect that even those on BBO who claim to play SAYC won’t all know what SAYC is really supposed to be.
Goren became immensely popular, although I seem to recall reading that he wasn’t considered particularly good by the experts of the day. At one point, and for quite a few years, he had a column in, of all places, Sports Illustrated. So while I don’t know whether he had anything to do with coining the phrase, I suspect that Standard American was, initially, based on many of his ideas.
Note that SA has not been a static method. I am sure that SA initially used 4 card majors and jump raises of any suit opening as game forcing. 1N was 16-18 and 1N 3M was a slam try, and so on.
If a ‘standard’ player of today were to sit down opposite a ‘standard’ player from 60 years ago,, they’d each think the other was nuts.
Oh, and the link was not to a book about Standard American at all. It is a book about SAYC…..Standard American Yellow Card.
SAYC was a method invented in anticipation of a never happened success story….the ACBL, long an enemy of innovation especially in bidding wanted to create a game in which every pair had to play exactly the same system as everyone else. Obviously, they couldn’t leave it to the players to decide what that should be, so they came up with SAYC, which incorporates various choices within the broad tent of SA.
SAYC was not a success. Nor should anyone who has actually played the game think it would be. I doubt that more than a handful of mediocre club players, prior to the design of SAYC, played the unwieldy set of agreements selected for the method. Why, then, would anyone choose to give up their existing methods for a clunky, poorly designed method? The answer is….they didn’t
So SAYC is sort of like Esperanto in that it never attained the acceptance it’s inventors expected.
It lingers on, but I suspect that even those on BBO who claim to play SAYC won’t all know what SAYC is really supposed to be.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,576
- Joined: 2009-May-18
- Location:Oz
Posted 2022-May-23, 17:50
It doesn't look like Goren used the term in the title of any of his books, and I would have expected him to do so had he coined it. When I was starting out, it was used to describe a family of systems - 5-card majors, strong NT, 2/1 10+ but not FG, and was principally used to distinguish it from 2/1 systems. As Mike said though, the term had definitely changed in meaning by then.
On a side note, I actually played in an SAYC tournament in the US in the early 90's. It was the first and only time I've seen one of them, and nobody at the event had much positive to say about it.
On a side note, I actually played in an SAYC tournament in the US in the early 90's. It was the first and only time I've seen one of them, and nobody at the event had much positive to say about it.
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 615
- Joined: 2019-October-14
Posted 2022-May-23, 21:57
mikeh, on 2022-May-23, 16:01, said:
I have no idea whence the term originated, but it was definitely long after Culbertson quit playing and promoting the game (and himself). Culbertson scorned the use of the Work point count (4321), believing that quick tricks and judgement were superior. Goren popularized the use of the Work point count for use in suit bidding….previously it was viewed by most experts or teachers as exclusively a guide to bidding notrump.
Goren became immensely popular, although I seem to recall reading that he wasn’t considered particularly good by the experts of the day. At one point, and for quite a few years, he had a column in, of all places, Sports Illustrated. So while I don’t know whether he had anything to do with coining the phrase, I suspect that Standard American was, initially, based on many of his ideas.
Note that SA has not been a static method. I am sure that SA initially used 4 card majors and jump raises of any suit opening as game forcing. 1N was 16-18 and 1N 3M was a slam try, and so on.
If a ‘standard’ player of today were to sit down opposite a ‘standard’ player from 60 years ago,, they’d each think the other was nuts.
Oh, and the link was not to a book about Standard American at all. It is a book about SAYC…..Standard American Yellow Card.
SAYC was a method invented in anticipation of a never happened success story….the ACBL, long an enemy of innovation especially in bidding wanted to create a game in which every pair had to play exactly the same system as everyone else. Obviously, they couldn’t leave it to the players to decide what that should be, so they came up with SAYC, which incorporates various choices within the broad tent of SA.
SAYC was not a success. Nor should anyone who has actually played the game think it would be. I doubt that more than a handful of mediocre club players, prior to the design of SAYC, played the unwieldy set of agreements selected for the method. Why, then, would anyone choose to give up their existing methods for a clunky, poorly designed method? The answer is….they didn’t
So SAYC is sort of like Esperanto in that it never attained the acceptance it’s inventors expected.
It lingers on, but I suspect that even those on BBO who claim to play SAYC won’t all know what SAYC is really supposed to be.
Goren became immensely popular, although I seem to recall reading that he wasn’t considered particularly good by the experts of the day. At one point, and for quite a few years, he had a column in, of all places, Sports Illustrated. So while I don’t know whether he had anything to do with coining the phrase, I suspect that Standard American was, initially, based on many of his ideas.
Note that SA has not been a static method. I am sure that SA initially used 4 card majors and jump raises of any suit opening as game forcing. 1N was 16-18 and 1N 3M was a slam try, and so on.
If a ‘standard’ player of today were to sit down opposite a ‘standard’ player from 60 years ago,, they’d each think the other was nuts.
Oh, and the link was not to a book about Standard American at all. It is a book about SAYC…..Standard American Yellow Card.
SAYC was a method invented in anticipation of a never happened success story….the ACBL, long an enemy of innovation especially in bidding wanted to create a game in which every pair had to play exactly the same system as everyone else. Obviously, they couldn’t leave it to the players to decide what that should be, so they came up with SAYC, which incorporates various choices within the broad tent of SA.
SAYC was not a success. Nor should anyone who has actually played the game think it would be. I doubt that more than a handful of mediocre club players, prior to the design of SAYC, played the unwieldy set of agreements selected for the method. Why, then, would anyone choose to give up their existing methods for a clunky, poorly designed method? The answer is….they didn’t
So SAYC is sort of like Esperanto in that it never attained the acceptance it’s inventors expected.
It lingers on, but I suspect that even those on BBO who claim to play SAYC won’t all know what SAYC is really supposed to be.
After Goren's health collapsed, stuff still continued to be published under his name. Switched to 5-card majors and such.
The advantage of playing SAYC with a stranger SHOULD be that it is specific about agreements, however unoptimal.
Sadly, the name came to mean something like minimalist 5-card majors with strong notrump, so you have no idea what a stranger thinks it means. Why don't they announce minimalist SA or Standard American Green Card or something else?
#7
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,422
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2022-May-24, 10:00
Because everyone online - including pilowsky - has equated Yellow Card with "Standard American" - worse yet, with "not 2/1 GF".
Probably because that Clegg guy, looking for a "default card" that people everywhere in the world could play with some random from across the ocean (even if nobody ever actually wanted to) found the Yellow Card on the ACBL site, available for free, and made it the OKBridge default. And since "we all know how to play 2/1 without 2/1, we obviously play the yellow card, so we don't actually have to *read* it", nobody ever played it there, either, but what they did play was "SAYC" (which is easier to type than Standard American, and is less ambiguous than SA (South Australian?)).
And it's too late now. It was too late in 1996 (my email .sig, at least for my personal bridge email, is evidence of that fact). Pedantry aside (and if you don't think I'm not on the side of the pedants here, look left...) SAYC means "2/1 not GF".
I would disagree a bit with MikeH about the history of the Yellow Card. I don't in fact think the ACBL wanted to homogenize system as much as the rank and file said "why do we have to play against all this crazy stuff? Why can't we just play Bridge" (and certain stronger players said "why can't we go back to the beauty of the game, where the better card players could shine, unhampered by all this Artificiality?" Note: many of those "certain players" just happened to be very good Card Players, playing 1950's Goren. I wonder why). So the ACBL *created* a game where everybody would play the same card, to appeal to those two groups. It never was intended to be a good system, just one that "most flight A tournament players in 1973 could play". Only to find that what the rank and file meant was "No, we like *our* pet conventions, it's just *their weird stuff* we don't want in the game" and stayed away in droves.
They tried again in the mid-90s with "the Classic Card". I actually liked the Classic Card - it had enough flexibility that most R&F's system would fit with minimal changes, and was closer to late-1980s tournament standard than 1973. And it died a horrible death, too - so much so that I can't find it in a 15-minute search.
Probably because that Clegg guy, looking for a "default card" that people everywhere in the world could play with some random from across the ocean (even if nobody ever actually wanted to) found the Yellow Card on the ACBL site, available for free, and made it the OKBridge default. And since "we all know how to play 2/1 without 2/1, we obviously play the yellow card, so we don't actually have to *read* it", nobody ever played it there, either, but what they did play was "SAYC" (which is easier to type than Standard American, and is less ambiguous than SA (South Australian?)).
And it's too late now. It was too late in 1996 (my email .sig, at least for my personal bridge email, is evidence of that fact). Pedantry aside (and if you don't think I'm not on the side of the pedants here, look left...) SAYC means "2/1 not GF".
I would disagree a bit with MikeH about the history of the Yellow Card. I don't in fact think the ACBL wanted to homogenize system as much as the rank and file said "why do we have to play against all this crazy stuff? Why can't we just play Bridge" (and certain stronger players said "why can't we go back to the beauty of the game, where the better card players could shine, unhampered by all this Artificiality?" Note: many of those "certain players" just happened to be very good Card Players, playing 1950's Goren. I wonder why). So the ACBL *created* a game where everybody would play the same card, to appeal to those two groups. It never was intended to be a good system, just one that "most flight A tournament players in 1973 could play". Only to find that what the rank and file meant was "No, we like *our* pet conventions, it's just *their weird stuff* we don't want in the game" and stayed away in droves.
They tried again in the mid-90s with "the Classic Card". I actually liked the Classic Card - it had enough flexibility that most R&F's system would fit with minimal changes, and was closer to late-1980s tournament standard than 1973. And it died a horrible death, too - so much so that I can't find it in a 15-minute search.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,891
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2022-June-04, 13:42
mycroft, on 2022-May-24, 10:00, said:
They tried again in the mid-90s with "the Classic Card". I actually liked the Classic Card - it had enough flexibility that most R&F's system would fit with minimal changes, and was closer to late-1980s tournament standard than 1973. And it died a horrible death, too - so much so that I can't find it in a 15-minute search.
I had never heard of it. A 1 second search pulled up "How I Became a Life Master Playing the Weak No Trump" By Eric v.d. Luft, which said the 1996 Classic Card fell away, but evolved into the "Fat Free" card which was "still a going concern in 2006". I see plenty of links to that, but those I tried (including the original ACBL site location) were all dead.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,020
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2022-June-04, 19:33
mycroft, on 2022-May-24, 10:00, said:
Because everyone online - including pilowsky - has equated Yellow Card with "Standard American" - worse yet, with "not 2/1 GF".
Probably because that Clegg guy, looking for a "default card" that people everywhere in the world could play with some random from across the ocean (even if nobody ever actually wanted to) found the Yellow Card on the ACBL site, available for free, and made it the OKBridge default. And since "we all know how to play 2/1 without 2/1, we obviously play the yellow card, so we don't actually have to *read* it", nobody ever played it there, either, but what they did play was "SAYC" (which is easier to type than Standard American, and is less ambiguous than SA (South Australian?)).
And it's too late now. It was too late in 1996 (my email .sig, at least for my personal bridge email, is evidence of that fact). Pedantry aside (and if you don't think I'm not on the side of the pedants here, look left...) SAYC means "2/1 not GF".
I would disagree a bit with MikeH about the history of the Yellow Card. I don't in fact think the ACBL wanted to homogenize system as much as the rank and file said "why do we have to play against all this crazy stuff? Why can't we just play Bridge" (and certain stronger players said "why can't we go back to the beauty of the game, where the better card players could shine, unhampered by all this Artificiality?" Note: many of those "certain players" just happened to be very good Card Players, playing 1950's Goren. I wonder why). So the ACBL *created* a game where everybody would play the same card, to appeal to those two groups. It never was intended to be a good system, just one that "most flight A tournament players in 1973 could play". Only to find that what the rank and file meant was "No, we like *our* pet conventions, it's just *their weird stuff* we don't want in the game" and stayed away in droves.
They tried again in the mid-90s with "the Classic Card". I actually liked the Classic Card - it had enough flexibility that most R&F's system would fit with minimal changes, and was closer to late-1980s tournament standard than 1973. And it died a horrible death, too - so much so that I can't find it in a 15-minute search.
Probably because that Clegg guy, looking for a "default card" that people everywhere in the world could play with some random from across the ocean (even if nobody ever actually wanted to) found the Yellow Card on the ACBL site, available for free, and made it the OKBridge default. And since "we all know how to play 2/1 without 2/1, we obviously play the yellow card, so we don't actually have to *read* it", nobody ever played it there, either, but what they did play was "SAYC" (which is easier to type than Standard American, and is less ambiguous than SA (South Australian?)).
And it's too late now. It was too late in 1996 (my email .sig, at least for my personal bridge email, is evidence of that fact). Pedantry aside (and if you don't think I'm not on the side of the pedants here, look left...) SAYC means "2/1 not GF".
I would disagree a bit with MikeH about the history of the Yellow Card. I don't in fact think the ACBL wanted to homogenize system as much as the rank and file said "why do we have to play against all this crazy stuff? Why can't we just play Bridge" (and certain stronger players said "why can't we go back to the beauty of the game, where the better card players could shine, unhampered by all this Artificiality?" Note: many of those "certain players" just happened to be very good Card Players, playing 1950's Goren. I wonder why). So the ACBL *created* a game where everybody would play the same card, to appeal to those two groups. It never was intended to be a good system, just one that "most flight A tournament players in 1973 could play". Only to find that what the rank and file meant was "No, we like *our* pet conventions, it's just *their weird stuff* we don't want in the game" and stayed away in droves.
They tried again in the mid-90s with "the Classic Card". I actually liked the Classic Card - it had enough flexibility that most R&F's system would fit with minimal changes, and was closer to late-1980s tournament standard than 1973. And it died a horrible death, too - so much so that I can't find it in a 15-minute search.
I suspect many of those ‘certain players’ were from an era when bidding was extremely descriptive…..slow doubles showed doubt, loud doubles were penalty, slow passes showed values, etc. The ‘greats’ of early bridge were often notorious for ‘helping’ each other during the auction and, of course, as defenders. That’s why Kaplan’s BW article on that old black magic was so important back in the day.
Once most of the illegal information was removed from the game, all of a sudden one needed ‘methods’ and agreements in order to bid with any degree of accuracy, and one needed carding agreements in order to defend. No wonder some of those players bemoaned the development of complex methods. Robbed of their illegal communications and unable or unwilling to learn better bridge methods, they disappeared quite quickly from the names of frequent winners.
These days we have many players who came to prominence 50 years ago still winning. Players who came to prominence in the 40’s and 50’s didn’t usually last into the 1990’s, with a few exceptions and those players were the Young Scientists back then.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#10
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,422
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2022-June-04, 20:52
Well, one of the "certain players" I was thinking about (who was railing on this 15 years ago here on BBF) is still at it today. And a) I bet he means simplify it back to where he was comfortable (not, you know, taking out takeout doubles ("There are no conventions"), preemptive bids, and the almightly Strong NT is king (but he doesn't like this "1NT-2♥ means 'I want to play 2♥')" because reasons), and b) it won't work - bridge, even "hearts means hearts. more hearts means more hearts" bridge, has a stumbling block high enough to be a barrier to entry.
I'm not willing to hunt my 2011 history to find the place where his mask slips and he makes it clear that this will allow the better card players to shine without having to deal with all the horrible "winning the auction" bit (and he considers himself one of the better card players). But it was there. I would suspect, as you do, that his "good bidding judgement" that would also shine with the SIMPLIFICATION involves more reading of the table than, perhaps, is legal (although I don't think it quite gets to OBM level).
I'm not willing to hunt my 2011 history to find the place where his mask slips and he makes it clear that this will allow the better card players to shine without having to deal with all the horrible "winning the auction" bit (and he considers himself one of the better card players). But it was there. I would suspect, as you do, that his "good bidding judgement" that would also shine with the SIMPLIFICATION involves more reading of the table than, perhaps, is legal (although I don't think it quite gets to OBM level).
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#11
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 2022-February-13
Posted 2022-June-06, 15:03
mikeh, on 2022-June-04, 19:33, said:
That’s why Kaplan’s BW article on that old black magic was so important back in the day.
Is this article available anywhere on the web? I can't find it. You'd think such an important historic article would be available somewhere.
Quote
Once most of the illegal information was removed from the game, all of a sudden one needed ‘methods’ and agreements in order to bid with any degree of accuracy
I've wondered about that. Hard to be very
accurate with purely natural bids.
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,891
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2022-June-06, 15:12
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,761
- Joined: 2019-October-04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Poland
Posted 2022-June-06, 17:27
This comes from Kaplan and Sheinwold (1962) - you can read it on the internet archive.
This comes from the foreword where they bemoan the crushing of American teams by Europeans with better methods.
Now I know where 2/1 comes from.
Quote
In the 1930s when contract bridge was in its infancy, some twenty different bidding systems clamored for public favor, Gradually, through trial and error and through spectacular head-on matches like the Lenz-Culbertson-Sims battles, defective bidding methods were weeded out; order began to emerge. By the 1940s, Standard American Bidding had achieved virtually complete acceptance.
Known variously as "one-over-one" or the "Culbertson System" or, more lately, as the "Goren System," Standard Bidding was the fruit of the turbulent Thirties, combining the best features of many of the warring methods. .
Known variously as "one-over-one" or the "Culbertson System" or, more lately, as the "Goren System," Standard Bidding was the fruit of the turbulent Thirties, combining the best features of many of the warring methods. .
This comes from the foreword where they bemoan the crushing of American teams by Europeans with better methods.
Now I know where 2/1 comes from.
Fortuna Fortis Felix
#14
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 2022-February-13
Posted 2022-June-11, 09:57
pescetom, on 2022-June-06, 15:12, said:
BW content is not freely available on the web: some of it can still be purchased, not sure about this one?
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.
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,891
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2022-June-11, 15:19
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.
I don't know, but the following suggests it probably will be:
bridgehands said:
Synopsis: Edgar Kaplan was the publisher and editor of The Bridge World for more than 30 years. This book celebrates his many significant contributions to the game and its literature: the revolution in table behavior, the switch to truth and completeness in tournament reporting, the principles that underlie the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, winning at-the-table philosophies, witty observations on the game and the people who play it.
#16
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 675
- Joined: 2020-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Isle of Man
- Interests:Walking, boring my wife with bridge stories
Posted 2022-June-12, 06:04
There are some later comments in Jeremy Flint's "Tiger Bridge" (1970) regarding the Flint-Pender system (5cM / weak no-trump), which criticise the British and Americans for playing old-fashioned Acol and Standard American, which I can dig out if anyone would like?
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 675
- Joined: 2020-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Isle of Man
- Interests:Walking, boring my wife with bridge stories
Posted 2022-June-12, 09:30
Douglas43, on 2022-June-12, 06:04, said:
There are some later comments in Jeremy Flint's "Tiger Bridge" (1970) regarding the Flint-Pender system (5cM / weak no-trump), which criticise the British and Americans for playing old-fashioned Acol and Standard American, which I can dig out if anyone would like?
Howard Schenken's 1963 book "Better Bidding in 15 Minutes" refers to "Standard American" in speech marks, as follows
"Standard American" and How it Works - or Doesn't
The most popular system in this country is called, for want of a better name, Standard American....
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2022-June-18, 04:19
bluenikki, on 2022-May-23, 21:57, said:
After Goren's health collapsed, stuff still continued to be published under his name. Switched to 5-card majors and such.
The advantage of playing SAYC with a stranger SHOULD be that it is specific about agreements, however unoptimal.
Sadly, the name came to mean something like minimalist 5-card majors with strong notrump, so you have no idea what a stranger thinks it means. Why don't they announce minimalist SA or Standard American Green Card or something else?
The advantage of playing SAYC with a stranger SHOULD be that it is specific about agreements, however unoptimal.
Sadly, the name came to mean something like minimalist 5-card majors with strong notrump, so you have no idea what a stranger thinks it means. Why don't they announce minimalist SA or Standard American Green Card or something else?
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.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#19
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,585
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2022-June-18, 10:38
Vampyr, on 2022-June-18, 04:19, said:
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.
About 5 or so years ago there was an article in the ACBL Bulletin where Larry Cohen and Frank Stewart debated the relative merits of 2/1 and SA for new players. So there's at least one well-respected expert who thinks that SA is reasonable.
I think the cornerstone of the arguments was whether you're trying to simplify bidding games/slams or partscore contracts.
I play 2/1 in almost all my partnerships, except for my longest (about 22 years) where we play 2/1 is forcing to 2NT.
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,891
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2022-June-18, 12:51
barmar, on 2022-June-18, 10:38, said:
About 5 or so years ago there was an article in the ACBL Bulletin where Larry Cohen and Frank Stewart debated the relative merits of 2/1 and SA for new players. So there's at least one well-respected expert who thinks that SA is reasonable.
I think the cornerstone of the arguments was whether you're trying to simplify bidding games/slams or partscore contracts.
I think the cornerstone of the arguments was whether you're trying to simplify bidding games/slams or partscore contracts.
I think both systems are rather poor for partscore contracts, but 2/1 is great for games/slams whereas I found SA ineffective.
Larry Cohen has saved me many sleepless nights by making bridge as simple as it could possibly be (occasionally a bit more so, but that's a fair price).
Have to admit I had never heard of Frank Stewart, which may or not say something about this argument.