[slothy]

Hannie, on Dec 6 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

slothy, on Dec 6 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 6 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

whereagles, on Dec 6 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

wonder what they'd think of me...

You won't be able to tell. The English are very polite

Lancaster, yet again, must be a small enclave of misfits extremely unlike rest of population i have played bridge with / against

Geezuz

Hilarious exchange.

Of course Hans, my behaviour at the table is impeccable.

[it is my behaviour off it that has elicited a court injunction, a restraining order and the odd foray of shadow-boxing]

[blackshoe]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

huh... wonder what they'd think of me...

For some reason, this made me think of Jack Nicholson's line (as The Joker) in "Batman": "Wait'll they get a load of me."

[helene_t]

Wackojack, on Dec 6 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

btw I think many of the American conventions are weird

At least nobody plays Capp here, they are weired but not that weired.

[foo]

cardsharp, on Dec 6 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

The specifics are local, but you'll find something similar in many UK clubs.

The first problem for most Acol 12-14 NT pairs is that everyone was told that transfers over notrump was a good idea, but there was never any consensus about the 2♠ response. In my experience 4-way transfers are a fairly new phenomenon and most club players do not use them, so the 2♠ gets used for various poorly thought out ideas.

At least the Lancastrians are using 2NT for something else. Around here, using 2♠ to show a balanced 11 count is combined with still having 2NT as a balanced invitation -- go figure!

And wriggles after 1NT vary enormously, although why you'd play transfers is beyond me.

Paul

Over 1N= 12-14, there actually is a fairly strong majority belief that transfers are nowhere near as useful as they are opposite a strong 1N opening.

The only time they have greater utility than say, Double Barrelled (AKA "Two Way") Stayman, is when 1N= 12-14 is opened in 3rd or 4th.

As for uses for the 2N response to 1N, Grant Baze, Mike Lawrence, Bob Hamman, and a few others of that caliber have all said that the natural invitation, while rare, is useful and better than playing a structure where responder is using Stayman on all invites. Giving information away for free about the closed hand can't be good. Especially when Responder doesn't care as much about the information as the defense (eg- when Responder does not have a 4cM but must use Stayman to Invite).

[Wackojack]

Lets go back to compare the degree of weirdness between what I will call now the 1NT- 2♠ and 1NT-2NT "Lancaster" method and the common North American "4 suit transfer" method.

The Lancaster 2♠ is a nice clear invite either to game or slam. Indeed this method will find the elusive 4-4 or 5-4 minor slam.

Using 4 suit tranfers a balanced invite has to go through "non primissory" Stayman. This is really weird. You ask for a 4 card major when you don't have one yourself. Then you have to tie yourself in knots to show that you really do have a 4 card major when partner announces he has the other. Also when you do hold a strong minor suit hand I read that the intermediate bid rebid i.e 2NT after 2♠, and 3♣ after 2NT, could have different meanings according to agreement. I wonder at club level, how many players have an agreement on what this bid means. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on what is normal.

Compare with the Lancaster method 1NT-2♠ commands 3♣. If responder bids anything except pass or 3♦ it is clear that this is a forward going move.

So in terms of weirdness 4 suit transfers win easily. I spite of that btw I prefer the 4 suit transfer method, but only if we can get clear prior agreements on the whole 1NT bidding structure.

Much the same could be said about many other conventions that mostly seem to originate from the other side of the pond. Yes, many, but my guess is that not all, improve bidding efficacy. (I wont mention the taboo F or G words) Without clear agreements on the options and variations that go with many of these conventions, knowledge of when appropriate to use, and without thought on the coherence of the mix, the simple approach is less accident prone and of course less weird.

[helene_t]

I like Wackojack's analysis. Indeed the Lancaster structure is relatively easy to explain, something important in a club where many partnerships are based on less than 2 minutes of system discussions. Last week when our C-team played against Chorley, they just collected four players and started discussing who would be partnering whom while we were driving down to Chorley.

In the Netherlands, it is very common to play
1NT-2♣
2♥-2♠
2NT-pass
as the equivalent of the natural sequence
1NT-2NT
pass

So not only do you tell opps exactly how many points opener and responder have, you also tell them that opener has four hearts and you give them the options of doubling both black suits (and the room to bid 2♦ over stayman). I know you can produce some impressive slam auctions by putting more hands into the 2♠ sequel to Stayman, but most club players haven't discussed that so it doesn't make too much sense IMHO.

[foo]

Since we are talking about 1N response structures:

2C= Stayman
2D+ H Xfer
2H+ S Xfer

2S! 55 D+C =either interested in slam or weak=
(Opener bids their better minor or 2N if they can't choose.
If Opener bids a minor, Responder passes with a weak hand or
bids Major suit fragment with a strong hand.
Else if Opener bids 2N, Responder chooses a minor with a weak hand or
bids Major suit fragment with a strong hand.)
This response can also be used with a slam interested 64 or 46 in D+C.

2N= Natural
3m= To Play
3M= GF 4cM; 1-OM; 44, 53, or 54 in D+C
3N= To Play
4C+ South African Texas Xfer =to ♥'s=
4D+ South African Texas Xfer =to ♠'s=
4M= To Play

The above works reasonably well over either a Strong or a Weak NT.

[beatrix45]

cardsharp, on Dec 6 2007, 04:18 AM, said:

The first problem for most Acol 12-14 NT pairs is that everyone was told that transfers over notrump was a good idea, but there was never any consensus about the 2♠ response.

Transfers lose some of their luster when using a 12-14 HCP one NT opener.
Pro: Often the 'big' hand has the opening lead running to it - but less an advantage than with the 15-17 HCP variety
Con: On part score suited contracts, the defense sees the weak hand and can better judge its defensive prospects
Con: When reponder has a wildly unbalanced hand, it is visible to the defense
Con: In general, defense is easier when the closed hand is so tightly defined in terms of high cards and distribution

With the dreaded 'kamikaze' 10-12+ HCP one NT nobody advocates transfers