[Chamaco]

Hi all !

I'd like to know how good players play when pard overcalls 1NT (natural strong NT, say 15+/18) and RHO passes.

Some players seem to play "system on" just as if pard had opened 1NT (2C stayman, xfers, etc etc).
This is plausible for memory strain, but does not seem quite efficient;

some others use the cuebid of opps suit as a "Staymanic" relay, even if they have a 5+ bagger. The 5 bagger CANNOT be shown via a xfer, because the 2 level bids would be natural signoff.
For instance, if the bidding goes (1H)-1NT-(pass)-?
2m/2S = to play
2H = relay, asking primarily for a 4-4 fit in spades, but can be also a GF hand with 5+ spades or other shapes.

I have talked with a few top level national players at my club, and they say it's VERY inefficient to use 2C as stayman in this sequence, and that, at least some sequences - such as this one - should allow one to bid clubs when you indeed have clubs (they refer to all the conventions that use a bid of 2/3 clubs as artificial).

They say that the memory savings of using "plain system on" would be justified only for club players.

I'd be interested in hearing the various approaches from the BBO expert panel :-)

Thanks

Mauro

[FrancesHinden]

I believe all the English national team use system on with only minor tweaks. I'll tell them they are 'club players' next time I see them....

We use system on with one exception: the response that would usually be a transfer to opener's major shows a singleton or void in the suit, usually with a 3-suiter.

My normal 'system on' allows me to make a weak t/o into 3m if I want to, it's only 2C that I can't play in (in one partnership I can also play in 2D).

Things are very different after a protective 1NT (e.g. 1H P P 1NT P), because second seat is far more limited and 4th seat has a wider range. Now I play 2C as a range/major suit enquiry, the cue as showing shortage in the suit and other 2-level bids as natural sign-offs. 2NT is invitational opposite a minimum.

[Cascade]

Almost everyone that I know of or have played against or with plays system on. In fact I cannot remember a single person that has another method - not counting minor tweaks.

I agree it is not efficient.

[helene_t]

A popular compromise between transfers and natural is:

Below opp's suit: natural
Opps's suit until/including 2♥: transfer
2♠: relay.

Note that this is similar to Rubin transfers.

Over a balancing 1NT, 2♣ as a range-check Stayman is nice if 1NT in balancing seat has a wider range, say 12-16

[whereagles]

I like system on after both direct and balancing 1NT. There's a lot to be said for simplicity

As for what "transfer to the cue" means, it can of course be the 3 suiter, but there is another interesting use for it: it asks "were you joking about your stopper or not?" e.g.

(1♥) 1NT (pass) 2♦ <--- "you kiddin' me or not?"

Now opener can:
- Bid the cue 2♥ showing 1/2 stopper (say Qxx or Jxx).
- Bid 2NT showing a solid stopper.
- Bid a suit with xxx for a "stopper".

Note that this goes in line with the principle of hand pattern and strength first, location of high cards later.

[Chamaco]

FrancesHinden, on May 24 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

I believe all the English national team use system on with only minor tweaks. I'll tell them they are 'club players' next time I see them....

This joke alters a bit the meaning of the words of my post (or perhaps it just witnesss how bad is my english).

The persons I refer to did not say "Only club players play system on".

Basically they said that there are good players who do that, but in their opinion this is not justified in terms of cost-benefit (memory strain vs efficiency).

Indeed, I do not have the experience nor the skill to make such an evaluation, that's why I posted here.

Thanks for the contribution

[foo]

Theory says "Systems On" is not optimal.
1= you want the Opening bidder on lead
2= Unlike when We open 1N, a 1N overcall situation usually involves at least one strain we have no desire to play in.
3= Unlike when We open 1N, the odds of a game Our way are far less.

All of the above argues for some form of bidding where Advancer's calls are more or less natural and the cue-bid is Staymanic.

For all that, as Frances noted some very good pairs play Systems On or a slightly changed variation of Systems On.

One reason is memory overhead. Another is that "natural + cue as Stayman" does not allow Us to describe as many hand types and probe as delicately for fits.

Pick your poison. YMMV.

[cherdano]

I wonder whether full system on (with NO modifications) might be the best choice after P-P-1S-1N at red vs white...

[foo]

cherdano, on May 24 2006, 06:24 AM, said:

I wonder whether full system on (with NO modifications) might be the best choice after P-P-1S-1N at red vs white...

Well, even if They are playing 4cM, the odds of Us ever wanting to play in ♠'s is remote after a 1N overcall. That seems to argue that any calls we use to show ♠ when We open 1N should show something else when We overcall 1N....

[Echognome]

foo, on May 24 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

cherdano, on May 24 2006, 06:24 AM, said:

I wonder whether full system on (with NO modifications) might be the best choice after P-P-1S-1N at red vs white...

Well, even if They are playing 4cM, the odds of Us ever wanting to play in ♠'s is remote after a 1N overcall. That seems to argue that any calls we use to show ♠ when We open 1N should show something else when We overcall 1N....

I somehow think you are missing Arend's point completely.

A similar situation is (1m) - Dbl - (1M) - ?

What would you play Dbl and 2M as?

[whereagles]

Echognome, on May 24 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

A similar situation is (1m) - Dbl - (1M) - ?

What would you play Dbl and 2M as?

Dbl = take-out, 44 unbid suits.
2M = natural

[david_c]

I play "system on" with Mark, but that's partly because we play Keri which has fewer redundant sequences than Stayman does in this situation.

Before that I liked to play "system on over a minor, off over a major".

[foo]

Echognome, on May 24 2006, 06:58 AM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

Well, even if They are playing 4cM, the odds of Us ever wanting to play in Opener's suit is remote after a 1N overcall.  That seems to argue that any calls we use to show Opener's suit when We open 1N should show something else when We overcall 1N....

I somehow think you are missing Arend's point completely.

A similar situation is (1m) - Dbl - (1M) - ?

What would you play Dbl and 2M as?

??? You think We often want to play in Opener's suit? Or are you trying to say something else?


as for (1m)-X-(1M)-??

X= Unbids =or= Unbids with tolerance for GOP's Major
2m= worth discussion. Vs a Strong NT pair, "natural" is reasonable!
2M= If 2m is Natural, then the only Cue Bid available is this. LR+ or GF values.
(However, one must also protect against the old Contested Auction 1M Response Psyche...)

[Free]

I prefer everything in transfer, transfering opener's suit is stayman. So:

1♥ - 1NT - pass - ?

2♣ = trf ♦
2♦ = stayman
2♥ = trf ♠
2♠ = trf ♣

[jdonn]

I'm with those who has never met anyone that I can remember who plays anything but systems on, with the exception that some I know have defined transferring to the opponent's suit as something special, like three suited short in that suit for example.

[mikestar]

The main opposition to System On is the Granoveters. They do no play transfers as they believe it is better to have the opener on lead, even though the lead is going through the NT hand. They may well be correct vs. a Roth-Stone pair, but against modern light openings I'd rather have the lead ride up to the NT bidder, just as after a 1NT opening.

[JanM]

I can add a significant number of world champions to the list of "club players" who play "system on" (perhaps with minor tweaks). Just to make sure I wasn't being old fashioned, or US-centric, I took a quick look at some of the convention cards from Estoril. 2 of the 3 Italian pairs play "system on" as do all three Swedish pairs and all three Chinese pairs. I figured that was enough of a sample to make more investigation unnecessary

[glen]

The structure available in ETM Gold Premium can now be found at:

http://www.bridgemat...com/1ntover.pdf

With my wife we play system on which works for the vast bulk of hands

[bestguru]

I discovered an interesting variant of systems on with tweak for the transfer into opps suit. The tweak being an astounding reversion to natural with a hand too weak to show the stopper (apparently possibly half stopper) any other way. Perhaps a nice 2 count with 5 to the Q. I would say this method was novel, but definitely less efficient.

[Flame]

foo, on May 24 2006, 07:20 AM, said:

Echognome, on May 24 2006, 06:58 AM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

Well, even if They are playing 4cM, the odds of Us ever wanting to play in Opener's suit is remote after a 1N overcall.  That seems to argue that any calls we use to show Opener's suit when We open 1N should show something else when We overcall 1N....

I somehow think you are missing Arend's point completely.

A similar situation is (1m) - Dbl - (1M) - ?

What would you play Dbl and 2M as?

??? You think We often want to play in Opener's suit? Or are you trying to say something else?


as for (1m)-X-(1M)-??

X= Unbids =or= Unbids with tolerance for GOP's Major
2m= worth discussion. Vs a Strong NT pair, "natural" is reasonable!
2M= If 2m is Natural, then the only Cue Bid available is this. LR+ or GF values.
(However, one must also protect against the old Contested Auction 1M Response Psyche...)

The normal way is to play
X = 4 cards in the major
2M = natural.