System after you've bid a 1N overcall
#1
Posted 2015-November-04, 15:33
I'm looking for something relatively simple, but a bit more robust than 'Stayman and RSTs... but probably not into their suit'.
#2
Posted 2015-November-04, 15:45
Jinksy, on 2015-November-04, 15:33, said:
I'm looking for something relatively simple, but a bit more robust than 'Stayman and RSTs... but probably not into their suit'.
Not sure what RSTs means but I play systems on and xfer into their suit is GF, denies 4 of OM and shows doubt about playing NT.
#3
Posted 2015-November-04, 16:00
Can you devise a more effective scheme for each specific auction? Surely yes... But will you be able to remember it?
Another advantage of the system on approach is that you know what your bids mean if 3rd hand competes. I've discussed 1NT-(2H) in depth, so (1H)-1NT-(2H) can't rattle me, and I know what we're doing over (1H)-1NT-(X) too.
-- Bertrand Russell
#5
Posted 2015-November-05, 05:47
So:
2 of their suit is stayman, 2 of anything else is to play, 2NT invitational, 3 of anything is forcing (or invitational+ transfers if you prefer).
3 of their suit could be a (31)(54) self-splinter, especially if you also play that in response to a 1nt opening.
Alternatively, if you want the benefits of transfers without the drawbacks:
2-of-a-suit-below-theirs: to play
2theirsuit through 2♥: transfers
2♠: stayman
If their suit can be less than four cards, probably we have to play system on. Maybe a system that catters more to the invitational hands and less to the strong hands is better. For example, if they open a nebolous 1♦:
2♣: stayman
2♦: invite or stronger on-suiter. Paradox responses
2M, 3m: to play.
#6
Posted 2015-November-05, 05:48
mgoetze, on 2015-November-04, 16:00, said:
Always? Say you play 1NT - (X) - 2♦ as showing the red suits. Is that still the case in the auction (1♥) - 1NT - (X)?
We have had this subject a number of times at BBF. Basically there are 2 main approaches, either system on or using the cue bid effectively to replace Stayman. I have always done the former but the proponents of the latter style made some good points in the last thread on the subject. The former also needs some rule for the sequences that would normally have shown the opponents' suit. The two main ideas I can remember seeing posted here are general force (typically INV+ without a stopper) or showing a specific suit (transfer) but no doubt there were plenty of other things suggested (take-out? shortage? can't remember!). Perhaps someone will take the time to track down the last thread, it was not so long ago, probably around Summer 2015, and had a good selection of information in it.
#7
Posted 2015-November-05, 05:54
#8
Posted 2015-November-05, 07:33
Zelandakh, on 2015-November-05, 05:48, said:
Well, I don't play that, but if you do, then sure, go for it. The point is it is better to know exactly what your bids mean than to try and guess how partner is adapting them to the situation.
-- Bertrand Russell
#9
Posted 2015-November-05, 08:32
Suppose 1S open. There is something to be said for a 2H advance as natural, to play, with 2D still a "transfer." After the transfer is completed, 2S could then cancel the transfer and be the cue. Super accepts cater to the cue meaning.
-P.J. Painter.
#10
Posted 2015-November-05, 21:07
#11
Posted 2015-November-06, 03:38
olien, on 2015-November-05, 21:07, said:
That is fine if they bid spades but it seems a waste of a bid to use (1♥) - 1NT - (P) - 2♦ as an invite with spades. Surely better for a bid of our major to be the natural invite and, in the 1♥ case, for 2♦ to replace whatever 2♠ would have meant unless we are playing a very unusual NT structure.