[mr1303]

What's double (Stayman) then 3D?

[fromageGB]

If you are using X as Stayman, then it should be whatever it means for you after normal Stayman. 5 card diamonds, other major? But I don't like Stayman after their bid.

[Phil]

I suppose the ♣Q is enough to chance 3NT. Imagine the Q somewhere else. Maybe we even have a stiff club.

It seems to me there needs to be a solution to this. If the overcall were 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠, we'd conduct a Lebensohl auction in our sleep. The fact we've chosen to play 'systems on' means we are out of our comfort zone a little. I suppose if we had 44 in the majors without a club stop, we could double and cue 3♣.

Some possible ideas would be transferring into their suit as a stopper ask. Or, transferring to diamonds and bidding 3N seems like a workeable solution even if that means giving up on our mild slam try.

[Fluffy]

Phil when you have GF diamonds I use a neat convention called 3♦ natural GF. After that partner will show stuff accordinly

[Phil]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-26, 23:32, said:

Phil when you have GF diamonds I use a neat convention called 3♦ natural GF. After that partner will show stuff accordinly

I suppose you play everything else natural too over 2♣ intervention?

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 09:07, said:

I suppose you play everything else natural too over 2♣ intervention?

Didn't you stipulate systems on at the beginning (even adding "of course", to preclude/suppress introducing the real agreements some of us employ)?

Does that mean you are interested in other methods, now? Even so, it wouldn't change the given hand; still want to bid a direct 3NT, which is quite natural.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-27, 11:19, said:

Didn't you stipulate systems on at the beginning (even adding "of course", to preclude/suppress introducing the real agreements some of us employ)?

Does that mean you are interested in other methods, now?

Aqua, why do you assume I have an agenda when I post these hands? Am I really that big of a jerk that I'm not interested in sensible solutions to a common problem? I thought before Justin mentioned it that transferring to diamonds and then bidding 3N could be better used as 'doubt about NT' rather than 'mild slam try'. I also would have liked to see some of the uses for 'transferring to their suit' as well.

Furthermore, upthread I even specified, "use whatever system you like over 1N" (as long as its the same system you use outside of interference). So you can employ whatever clever methods you like here. If Fluffy plays 3♦ as "GF with diamonds" outside of competition, he would be inside the lines, although I rather doubt he plays this without competition, although I could be wrong.

[JLOGIC]

FWIW I play transferring to their suit as shortness GF that doesn't want to X (eg a 4450 GF would not want to X since partner passing is bad or a 3361 GF etc).

If you are concerned about hands with no club stopper and no 4cM you can do what you suggest with 2N then 3N or whatever but I still think it's better to just bid 3N and let them find a lead without their partner doing anything.

[glen]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-27, 12:39, said:

... I still think it's better to just bid 3N and let them find a lead without their partner doing anything.

The six card minor, no major fit, no singleton hand types are best bid to 3NT fast. Occasionally one runs into hands were 3NT is not the best spot, but the problems are:

- If you investigate stoppers you will needlessly disclose information on over 95% of the time.
- On the less than 5% where you should avoid 3NT, about 60% of the time it is right to stop in 4 of the minor, but about 40% should bid game, sometimes in a 4-3 major fit, but there is no easy way to figure out. For example on some layouts if a suit is doubleton opposite doubleton, the points "wasted" in this suit can be key, but hard to figure out if makes staying out of a game the best.
- As Justin notes, even when 3NT is wrong, they might lead the wrong suit.

In a bidding contest, the percentages switch to about 95% avoid 3NT, 5% stay in 3NT, and of the 95% at least 60% of the time you should be in a 4-3 major fit, and I love the layouts where you should end in a 4-2 major fit.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 12:29, said:

Furthermore, upthread I even specified, "use whatever system you like over 1N" (as long as its the same system you use outside of interference). So you can employ whatever clever methods you like here. If Fluffy plays 3♦ as "GF with diamonds" outside of competition, he would be inside the lines, although I rather doubt he plays this without competition, although I could be wrong.

My point was exactly that..you specified same system we use outside of interference. Some of us ---over 2C---do not use the same system as we do without interference. Double for Stayman, but other suit bids natural within Leben structure. Maybe that is what Fluffy meant.

[Phil]

I know that some do not play their standard NT system over 2♣, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 95% of pairs do?

[glen]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 15:34, said:

I know that some do not play their standard NT system over 2♣, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 95% of pairs do?

It's hard to say across the board, since a bunch of years ago, it was common practice not to employ the notrump system after any interference.

[PhilKing]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 15:34, said:

I know that some do not play their standard NT system over 2♣, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 95% of pairs do?

It's certainly not common in the UK, and even at international level it is not the majority choice (although all pairs on the Ladies teams I have been involved with play system on).

2♦ natural FTW.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 15:34, said:

I know that some do not play their standard NT system over 2♣, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 95% of pairs do?

I think it's more common to play "system on" in North America than elsewhere.

I wouldn't normally play system-on here, because I want to be able to compete on a 3442 5-count, or on a moderate hand with five diamonds.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-January-27, 18:38, said:

I think it's more common to play "system on" in North America than elsewhere.

I wouldn't normally play system-on here, because I want to be able to compete on a 3442 5-count.

How does system on prevent you from doing so? Do you want partner to bid suits up the line after a double?

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2013-January-27, 18:38, said:

I think it's more common to play "system on" in North America than elsewhere.

I wouldn't normally play system-on here, because I want to be able to compete on a 3442 5-count, or on a moderate hand with five diamonds.

I think this is too literal. Yes, I would X with this while I wouldn't garbage stayman with it, but it's almost a garbage stayman bid and when you know RHO has clubs then that turns it into one. Takeout might be a better definition, however since partner will make stayman responses (but also pass with long clubs), and you might double with say 1453 which is not really a takeout shape, people usually say stayman. FWIW I always say takeout when they've shown clubs, and "cards" when they haven't (like if 2C is one suited) but I think it's all semantics personally. I think people who play systems on and double are playing the same way as me.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-January-27, 18:40, said:

How does system on prevent you from doing so? Do you want partner to bid suits up the line after a double?

I don't necessarily want him to bid 2♦ on all 3334 shapes. If it goes dbl-(3♣), I don't want him to bid 3♠ on a 4342 17-count.

I want to be able to bid dbl-2♦-2♠ on a 54xx competitive hand rather than whatever it would show in an uncontested auction. I want to be able to bid dbl-2♥-2♠ on a 4252 competitive hand. I want to be able to bid dbl-2♦;3♦ on an invitational hand with four diamonds.

If it's "system on except that double is takeout", that's better, as long as it doesn't create any holes by taking away your Stayman-then-new-suit sequences.

Even so, I still like being able to show a competive hand with diamonds. Compared with, say, natural + Rubensohl, playing "system on" gains you the ability to show an invitation with a 5-card major and the ability to show a game-forcing two-suiter. It feels like these hands ought to come up a lot, but do they? I haven't done any analysis of this, but my impression is that when they intervene it greatly decreases the frequency of good responding hands with doubt about strain or level.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-January-28, 11:59

[han]

Phil, on 2013-January-27, 15:34, said:

I know that some do not play their standard NT system over 2♣, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 95% of pairs do?

I don't know any pair that plays system on after 2C. I also can't remember the last time that an opponent overcalled 2C and it didn't show the majors.

If you say that 95% of Orange County pairs play system on, then I believe you but I don't think that it is particularly interesting. I don't know what you and your partner would want to learn from 95% of all orange county pairs.

Among stronger Dutch pairs Transfer lebensohl is quite common, and I think (but don't know) that most play it over a natural 2C as well.