[masse24]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 05:28, said:

SAYC is the preferred fallback position . . . Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

SAYC and "this miserable booklet" are not mutually exclusive. They are the same thing. That appears to be the source of your confusion.

Though it was before I began playing bridge, my research seems to indicate that SAYC was born in 1988. Those more "experienced" than I am may correct me on this point.

[ArtK78]

From bridgebum.com:

Origins

SAYC is a bidding system created by the ACBL in the 1980s for tournament play. The intent was to offer "Yellow Card" events in which everyone played the same system, thereby avoiding alerts and misunderstandings.

When online duplicate bridge began in the late 1990's, SAYC filled the need for a default convention card. It gained traction on OKbridge and was later adopted by Bridge Base Online. Ironically, SAYC is more popular today as the de facto system in online pickup games than the carefully standardized sit-down events which the ACBL originally envisioned.

Online adoption has led to grassroots modifications of the system, with some players defining "SAYC Basic" vs. "SAYC Full". Officially, the ACBL does not make this distinction.

It is also worth noting that SAYC lacks a few conventions that are popular in modern tournaments. Experienced players may consider filling some "holes" in the system, including (but not limited to):

Inverted Minors
Roman Key Card Blackwood
A defense to 1NT, such as Cappelletti or DONT


Here is an interesting link on the origins of SAYC. Aside from the story by the author, one of the comments states that SAYC was promulgated by the ACBL in 1988.

http://mojo.whiteoak...-sayc-happened/

[Vampyr]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-03, 03:50, said:

The aim was players from intermediate level and above to be able to sit down and play without discussion

I am not so sure. I was in the US when the yellow cards were first produced. The system was, IIRC, supposed to be a "simple system" for "no fear"-type competitions. Here in the UK such competitions, such as the Palmer Bayer and the London Trophy, continue to thrive. These use truly simple systems which don't require a booklet to provide explanations.

The problem with the Yellow Card and the reason it never caught on was, I believe, that everyone on the committee which produced it stuck an oar in, with everyone providing one or more pet conventions. The result was not a simple system at all, but a system with loads of conventional agreements.

Edit: crossed post above

[helene_t]

It is not that bad. I suppose one could skip splinters, Michael's and U2NT, and one could play natural followups after the forcing raise (2NT) of a major instead of showing a singleton, but other than that it doesn't contain any nonessential conventions. I suppose Standard English is simpler in that it doesn't contain transfers but then again, if you agree to play "standard English" with a random, chances are that s/he will think that transfers are part of Standard English.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-July-03, 09:02, said:

It is not that bad. I suppose one could skip splinters, Michael's and U2NT, and one could play natural followups after the forcing raise (2NT) of a major instead of showing a singleton, but other than that it doesn't contain any nonessential conventions. I suppose Standard English is simpler in that it doesn't contain transfers but then again, if you agree to play "standard English" with a random, chances are that s/he will think that transfers are part of Standard English.

LOL Jacoby 2NT? I think that is the problem, not the continuations.

When you are playing simple systems or something similar you will usually be provided with a convention card. At rubber bridge clubs you will be well aware of the rules; it varies, but general little is allowed.

Anyway, my list of "essential conventions" is a lot shorter than most. I think that an initial takeout double is important, and I wouldn't want to be without Stayman. I actually find it more fun to play with those conventions only (maybe Blackwood; not essential though).

[mycroft]

For years - 20 of them, at least - the cry from some of the punters was "we don't want to play against all these crazy conventions. Why do we have to spend 5 minutes on every round figuring out what *these people* play and how to defend against it, or hear all these Alerts? Why can't everyone just play bridge without trying to confuse the opposition?" (by that last they mean, of course, "I'm a good player, so I want to maximise the chance that the play is the differentiator in the game", among other things).

The ACBL listened. They created a Yellow Card, which was effectively "modern Standard American amongst experts 5-8 years ago, that have filtered down to the point where 'everybody' plays it." They said "we're having a 2-session Yellow Card Pairs event; everyone plays YC (with a couple of options; carding is one), so you'll understand everyone's auction"; few showed up. Fewer showed up the next time. Eventually it died out.

Around 1995, 6 IIRC, the forces raised their head again, and a newer, more modern version was created - the "Classic Card" (from the Wayback Machine). Again, they set Classic Card games, thinking people that wanted "everyone to play the same system, so that the play was the important part, not 'trying to figure out what they're doing'" would play in it as well. It died an equally quick death, despite the many more options available.

Turns out that what people want is to be allowed to play their pet conventions that are good and work, but not have to worry about everybody else's "weird stuff they only play to confuse us". But it does mean that the two cards still exist.

If you're looking for names behind the ACBL SAYC, check the Competition and Conventions Committee membership rolls from 1986-8 or so. But it never was "owned" by a person, it was (and is) an official document of the ACBL. If you want to say it's silly for whatever reason (the big ones to me are "negative doubles to 2♠ only" and "no forcing minor raise"), fine. If you want to play a better version of Standard American, also fine. If you want to play a better version of "not 2/1", without the SA base (say an Acol or SEF base), also fine. But SAYC is SAYC and none of the other options are SAYC; if you claim "your version of SAYC is better" or "SAYC can't mean what the booklet says because it's stupid", you're not talking about SAYC, you're talking about some other version of Standard (American). You're also in very good company. From my .sig file of years and years ago:

'You have the knowledge that your opponents play SAYC, but that only means they can find the letters "S", "A", "Y", and "C" on their keyboard.' -- Adam Beneschan, rec.games.bridge.

[helene_t]

Sorry Stefanie the word "essential" was a bit misplaced. Of xourse one could live without transfers. It's just that omitting transfers won't solve any problems because most people will assume they apply unless told that they don't. Once I told my pickup p that i prefer not to play transfers because one never knows in which situations they apply. He concurred. Then I opened 2nt and he made a transfer bid which I took as natural. In the post mortem he insisted that although we agreed not to play transfers it was obvious that they do appky after 2nt

[hrothgar]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 05:28, said:

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥?

At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

Beatrix,

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

You're very opinionated and very ignorant. This might serve you well in whatever fishbowl you live in.
It don't work so well out in the the big bad world where folks actually know something.

Here's some background that might prove useful.

Back before there was dirt, the ACBL thought that the wide range of conventions that people were using was diminishing the popularity of the game. The ACBL responded by creating a simplified set of agreements that came to be known as SAYC. SAYC served a couple of purposes

1. Two players who met at a convention desk could agree to play SAYC without the need for discussion
2. The ACBL introduced a number of SAYC only events which failed miserably

The SAYC agreements where documented on a pamphlet that the ACBL printed up back in the early 80s.
This is the genesis of the miserable booklet that you are complaining about.
(Note, this is hardly something new. It's been around for several decades)

Like most things created by the ACBL, the SAYC system was badly flawed.
No one used it. It was in the process of being condemned to the dustbin of history.
But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO OKB client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

I think most everyone on this forum will agree that SAYC sucks.
To the extent that the system has any virtue what-so-ever, its that it defines a standard.
It's a miserable, nigh unplayable standard, but its a standard none-the-less

To the extent that people are pushing back against your new improved definition of SAYC, its probably because having yet another random, ignorant crank hectoring people regarding their own ill conceived notions of what is/is not standard doesn't make things better. Its amusing, in a sad sort of way, but really doesn't add any value.

If you want to create your own new improved bidding system, please do so.
Just don't call it SAYC.

And please feel free to sign it.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-03, 10:27, said:

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

Classic. One of the best lines ever to appear on these Fora.

[Stephen Tu]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-03, 10:27, said:

But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

OKbridge client/server, not BBO.

[hrothgar]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-July-03, 11:12, said:

OKbridge client/server, not BBO.

D'oh!

Thanks

[the hog]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-03, 10:42, said:

Classic. One of the best lines ever to appear on these Fora.

Richard does not mince words.

[beatrix45]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-03, 10:27, said:

Beatrix,

Some members of the forums often feel constrained to be polite in their responses. I've found that this slows things down.

You're very opinionated and very ignorant. This might serve you well in whatever fishbowl you live in.
It don't work so well out in the the big bad world where folks actually know something.

Here's some background that might prove useful.

Back before there was dirt, the ACBL thought that the wide range of conventions that people were using was diminishing the popularity of the game. The ACBL responded by creating a simplified set of agreements that came to be known as SAYC. SAYC served a couple of purposes

1. Two players who met at a convention desk could agree to play SAYC without the need for discussion
2. The ACBL introduced a number of SAYC only events which failed miserably

The SAYC agreements where documented on a pamphlet that the ACBL printed up back in the early 80s.
This is the genesis of the miserable booklet that you are complaining about.
(Note, this is hardly something new. It's been around for several decades)

Like most things created by the ACBL, the SAYC system was badly flawed.
No one used it. It was in the process of being condemned to the dustbin of history.
But then, one fateful day, something horrible happened: Matt Clegg needed a simply bidding system to include with the BBO OKB client and he stumbled onto the SAYC booklet. Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting fools were exposed to this system and started to claim that they played it.

I think most everyone on this forum will agree that SAYC sucks.
To the extent that the system has any virtue what-so-ever, its that it defines a standard.
It's a miserable, nigh unplayable standard, but its a standard none-the-less

To the extent that people are pushing back against your new improved definition of SAYC, its probably because having yet another random, ignorant crank hectoring people regarding their own ill conceived notions of what is/is not standard doesn't make things better. Its amusing, in a sad sort of way, but really doesn't add any value.

If you want to create your own new improved bidding system, please do so.
Just don't call it SAYC.

And please feel free to sign it.

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

[diana_eva]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 18:21, said:

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

I don't understand why you do not read the detailed explanations from this thread, the whole history of SAYC is there. There is no author, the booklet is an official document published by the American Contract Bridge League.

[JonnyQuest]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 18:21, said:

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

It is not your refusal to read the information supplied to you. You float somewhere between an unwillingness to comprehend and an inability to comprehend.

Being purposefully obtuse is not a good way to go through life.

https://www.youtube....h?v=k80nW6AOhTs

[hrothgar]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 18:21, said:

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

Some combination of no one knows and no one cares.

Let me try to make this simple for you:

No one out there is claiming that SAYC is a good system. Nor does anyone besides you care who wrote it.
For all I know, the changes that you suggest are better. I don't have a dog in that fight.

People are stating that SAYC

1. Refers to a specific system with a well known reference
2. That reference doesn't match what you claim

As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone on this thread except for you is in agreement about these points.

You might want to spend a little more time wondering why everyone thinks you're wrong and a little less fixating on the way folks self describe their rankings.

One last point you might want to ponder... When multiple people in a thread are opening mocking you, there might be something wrong with your line of argument.

[beatrix45]

Who wrote the 'booklet'? What's wrong? The cat got your tongue?

[mike777]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 19:45, said:

Who wrote the 'booklet'? What's wrong? The cat got your tongue?

ACBL

next question?

[JonnyQuest]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-03, 19:45, said:

Who wrote the 'booklet'? What's wrong? The cat got your tongue?

Wow. Snappy retort. Really. Brilliant actually. We're in awe.

A shame you're not open to the possibility (albeit a slim one) that someone else may know more than you do.

But it has become painfully apparent you cannot will not be fixed.

https://www.youtube....h?v=8suVjclu8Zo

[hrothgar]

Its interesting to note that "Beatrix" joined the forums pretty close to when 32519 joined up.

Don't suppose the moderators could compare the source IPs the users log in from...