BBO Discussion Forums: System after you've bid a 1N overcall - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

System after you've bid a 1N overcall

#1 User is offline   Jinksy 

  • Experimental biddicist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,894
  • Joined: 2010-January-02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-November-04, 15:33

What systems do people play after such sequences as (1M) 1N (P) ?

I'm looking for something relatively simple, but a bit more robust than 'Stayman and RSTs... but probably not into their suit'.
The "4 is a transfer to 4" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
0

#2 User is offline   dboxley 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 2003-March-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 2015-November-04, 15:45

View PostJinksy, on 2015-November-04, 15:33, said:

What systems do people play after such sequences as (1M) 1N (P) ?

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.
0

#3 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2015-November-04, 16:00

System on as if we had opened 1NT is simple and effective. Transfer into their 5+ suit should be takeout, but ignore them if they promised less.

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.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#4 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,956
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2015-November-04, 18:33

View Postdboxley, on 2015-November-04, 15:45, said:

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.


Red suit transfers ?
1

#5 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,587
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2015-November-05, 05:47

Transfers don't make too much sense here. We are not very likely to hold the strong two-suited hands that really benefit from the extra space, and we probably prefer opener to be on lead, if anything.

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.
pretty good defense against a grand with no overtricks given away. --- johnu
0

#6 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-November-05, 05:48

View Postmgoetze, on 2015-November-04, 16:00, said:

and I know what we're doing over (1H)-1NT-(X) too.

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.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#7 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,602
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-November-05, 05:54

We play natural, so that we can take out into all four suits at the 2-level. Whether it's a good idea I don't know.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#8 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2015-November-05, 07:33

View PostZelandakh, on 2015-November-05, 05:48, said:

Always? Say you play 1NT - (X) - 2 as showing the red suits. Is that still the case in the auction (1) - 1NT - (X)?

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.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#9 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2015-November-05, 08:32

A transfer into or natural bid of Opener's minor makes sense as intending to play there, fwiw. With that theory, the only odd natural bids or transfers are majors.

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.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#10 User is offline   olien 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 2008-March-06

Posted 2015-November-05, 21:07

The simplest suggestion I've heard of that mostly uses systems on is that a transfer to their major shows 5+ of the other major and exactly invitational. I believe this is what Kit Woolsey plays and/or suggests. I don't know what is best, but it makes sense to me.
0

#11 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-November-06, 03:38

View Postolien, on 2015-November-05, 21:07, said:

The simplest suggestion I've heard of that mostly uses systems on is that a transfer to their major shows 5+ of the other major and exactly invitational. I believe this is what Kit Woolsey plays and/or suggests. I don't know what is best, but it makes sense to me.

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.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users