[kenrexford]

I don't play this way usually, but I was playing with a friend from the local club and an auction came up of interest.

You have agreed to play that 1NT-P-2♠ is a transfer to 3♣, planning to pass or correct.

So, for those who use this technique, what is 1NT-P-2♠-P-3♣-P-3M?

[Mr. Dodgy]

short M?

[nickf]

longer clubs than the Major.

nickf
sydney

[the hog]

Long Cs and a Major stiff, or long Cs and a 4 card M - depends what you have agreed.
I like the first interpretation.

[benlessard]

IMO any hand without reasonnable chances of making 5C and without a small shot at 6C should blast to 3Nt stoppers or not. So a m transfer followed by a bid show a pretty good hand.

Secondly With 4M and a long minor the standard way is to start by stayman.

3rd I think looking for 3Nt is a bit more important than looking for slam.
So should 3M be a stiff or a stopper or a 3 card suit ?

Showing a stiff will help you to better judge for slam and still check for 3Nt (but not always)

Bidding a 3 card suit will help you to play in 4-3 --5-3 fits but is less effective for slam.

Bidding a stopper do a better job to get to 3Nt but is a bit useless for slam bidding.


If you frequently have a 5M when you open 1Nt i think 3M should show 3 carder especially at MP.
If you cannot have a 5M then i guess showing a stiff is slighty better.

Just bidding a stopper that can be 2 cards is probably a bad method.

[skjaeran]

I've never played exactly this kind of tranfer. I'm used to a 2♠ as a kind of minor suit stayman, which can be bid with a weak or strong hand with one or both minors.

Playing that, I'm used to playing 3M either as a fragment or a stiff (prefer the latter) with both minors (5-4/4-5), GF+ (slam invite in theory).

[joker_gib]

Here, most people play this as Harald says : stiff or major fragment with 5/4 or 4/5 minors.

I also prefer the stiff cause if you have to play in the Moysian, the strong hand will declare.

[the hog]

joker_gib, on Jul 18 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Here, most people play this as Harald says : stiff or major fragment with 5/4 or 4/5 minors.

I also prefer the stiff cause if you have to play in the Moysian, the strong hand will declare.

Are you sure you read this correctly?
Usually 1NT 3M shows this hand type, not going via a 2S transfer to 3C.

[joker_gib]

The_Hog, on Jul 18 2008, 07:45 AM, said:

joker_gib, on Jul 18 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

Here, most people play this as Harald says : stiff or major fragment with 5/4 or 4/5 minors.

I also prefer the stiff cause if you have to play in the Moysian, the strong hand will declare.

Are you sure you read this correctly?
Usually 1NT 3M shows this hand type, not going via a 2S transfer to 3C.

Yes, I read correctly

I also play that 3M shows this hand but this is not common where I live. They reserve other meanings to 3M : slamish one suiter for example...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont play it, but:

What would partner bid with a strong hand with 6-4,
would he go through stayman?
Most likly the answer is yes, hence 3M cant be real, it
has to be a move toward slam, for us it would show
a concentration of values, but ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

I don't play this way usually, but I was playing with a friend from the local club and an auction came up of interest.

You have agreed to play that 1NT-P-2♠ is a transfer to 3♣, planning to pass or correct.

So, for those who use this technique, what is 1NT-P-2♠-P-3♣-P-3M?

Easy..really easy


new suits cue for clubs.

With that said....3c=4+ clubs for me ...not less.

[dbsboy]

Showing stiff. I like showing stiff.

Since 1NT-2N(♦) has no space to show Club Stiff, I play 1NT-3S=Diamonds + ♠ shortness

[kenrexford]

I must have been somewhat unclear, based on some of the asnwers. "Planning to pass or correct" means that 2♠ shows, normally, either clubs or diamonds and weak. With diamonds and weak, bid 3♦ over 3♣. In other words, sort of 3-way transfers. Not my style, but I was playing partner's card.

Anyway, playing this style, would you bid 2♠, and then 3♥, with my actual hand?

♠Axx ♥-- ♦Kxxxxx ♣Q10xx

[helene_t]

Just a minor rant: I don't like the explanation "transfer to clubs" since it suggests that it shows clubs while in fact it shows either clubs or diamonds.

[RichMor]

Ken,
<<
Anyway, playing this style, would you bid 2♠, and then 3♥, with my actual hand?
♠Axx ♥-- ♦Kxxxxx ♣Q10xx
>>

Yes, as long as you and pard have a general style of shortness-showing bids.

[vuroth]

Forgive me if I'm in over my head, but...

ACBL SAYC (http://web2.acbl.org.../play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf) uses 2♠ as transfer to 3♣, after which partner passes or bid 3♦. This use shows a weak hand, better suited to the minors than 1NT.

ACBL SAYC also uses 1NT-3♣ and 1NT-3♦ as 6-card suit, invitational to 3NT.

ACBL SAYC also uses baby food.

This doesn't leave a whole lot of room for minor suited GF/slam interest hands, especially if you're lacking a 4cM.

Given the above choices, if I wanted to GF, I'd bid 2♠, since at least it's forcing, then bid again.

...

Whether or not you're playing anything remotely close to ACBL SAYC (and I don't suspect that you are), maybe the answer to "what does it mean" is best answered by "what isn't covered by any of our other agreements?"

[kenrexford]

RichMor, on Jul 18 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

Ken,
<<
Anyway, playing this style, would you bid 2♠, and then 3♥, with my actual hand?
♠Axx ♥-- ♦Kxxxxx ♣Q10xx
>>

Yes, as long as you and pard have a general style of shortness-showing bids.

The problem would not be a problem if we had discussed this, of course.

My question was as to general understandings. If someone says to me that they play this general approach, and I have this hand, I don't know what people who say that they use this approach mean when they bid 2♠ and then 3♥. Maybe people who use this approach do not have any meaning at all for this sequence unless they have specifically discussed this sequence.

I was curious, because I do not use this technique, but I was wondering is there was an "expert standard" understanding for this sequence. Maybe no experts today use, or in the past used, this approach.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

I was curious, because I do not use this technique, but I was wondering is there was an "expert standard" understanding for this sequence. Maybe no experts today use, or in the past used, this approach.

I'm not aware of anyone who plays 2S = sign-off-in-a-minor then doing anything else over the forced 3C bid other than sign off in a minor.

if I had agreed to play this method (which I'm not certain I would do), I would bid 3D natural game forcing on the sample hand, bid 3NT over 3H from partner, bid 4C over 3S from partner and pass 3NT.

But then I don't like inventing system at the table if I have an alternative way of bidding the hand.

[RichMor]

Ken wrote;
(I haven't figured out how to use the nice 'qoute' feature yet)

<<
If someone says to me that they play this general approach, and I have this hand, I don't know what people who say that they use this approach mean when they bid 2♠ and then 3♥.

I was curious, because I do not use this technique, but I was wondering is there was an "expert standard" understanding for this sequence.
>>

I can't speak to an expert understanding, but I have played this method in the past usually without extended discussion.

Anyway, when responder bids above 3♦ that shows both minors and GF or better values. In absence of a specific agreement, I would expect responder to bid a major 'fragment' instead of shortness. The general principle is something like: when a bid shows 2 suits plus some other distributional feature, the other feature is length.

As an analog, suppose you play Flannery 2♦ showing 5♥ and 4♠. When responder bids 2NT, opener's rebid in a minor shows a fragment in that suit.

But some pairs prefer a general principle of showing shortness as the 'other feature'.

So my either/or answer means 3♥ shows either length or shortness, based on your pair's general style.

[rogerclee]

In all my partnerships that play 4-suit transfers, this is a slam try with shortness in the major. I don't see how this is extremely different from that method.

I think this is standard.