Transfer Or Gameforcing?

[Helmer]

My opps opened 1 ♦ - my partner bid 1 NT

 

What is my bid 2 ♦ ?

 

Is it transfer as usual, or is it a gameforcing bid?

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

I bid it as a transferbid, as I can force later on in the bidding.

 

Our opps doubled - pass from my partner. Now I bid 2 ♥.

 

Still my partner (wanted to) understand it as gameforcing - so he bid 3 NT.

 

I had 8 pts though - but one off.

[lexlogan]

The traditional meaning of 2♦ here is neither transfer nor game force: bidding the opponent's suit is Stayman (showing game invitational values or better), all other suits are natural sign-offs. As such methods have become unfamiliar to players accustomed to transfers, "systems on" is a popular agreement -- you play the same as "front of card" (referring to the ACBL convention card) and don't have to remember a different system.

 

This makes sense when the opening bid was a minor, but obviously leaves an undefined bid when they opened a major. I don't worry much about that -- I've played cue-bid Stayman, suit bids natural when the opening bid was a major, but it's a hassle to remember two different systems, so I normally just play "systems on".

 

SAYC has an odd agreement: no conventional responses except 2♣ as Stayman. This leaves undefined what the cue-bid means -- it could logically be to play after a minor suit opening, but that would make no sense after a 5 card major opening.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the bid means, whatever you have agreed on.

 

A usual partnership agreement is to play "system on",

i.e. the opening bid gets ignored and one plays the

same system as after a 1NT opening bid, this means,

even if opponents opened 1H, showing at least a five

hearts, 2D still would be transfer to hearts.

 

The disadvantage - this cant be optimal, the advantage

- you dont have to learn anything new.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

What lexlogan said. With a pick-up p I would assume it to be transfer, though.

 

Here is a scheme which is popular among advanced players in the Netherlands:

 

- Suit below opps's suit (in this case only 2♣): to play.

- Opp's suit through 2♥: transfer.

- 2♠: Stayman.

[ArtK78]

SAYC has an odd agreement: no conventional responses except 2♣ as Stayman. This leaves undefined what the cue-bid means -- it could logically be to play after a minor suit opening, but that would make no sense after a 5 card major opening.

"SAYC" has no such agreement.

 

The old-fashioned "Standard" meaning of 2♦ is a game forcing cue bid to which opener is to respond as if responder bid Stayman. Any other 2 level bid is to play.

 

Many players play "systems on".

 

Personally, I find that 2-way Stayman works well when partner overcalls. 2♣ is bid on all invitational strength hands and a cue bid is made on all game forcing hands. Opener responds to both as if responder bid Stayman. Other 2 level bids are to play. If the opponent's opening bid was 1♣, then 2♣ and 2♦ are invitational and forcing Stayman, respectively.

 

An improvement is for opener to respond to the game forcing Stayman bid with a bid in the major that he does not have so that responder becomes declarer in 4 of the major when there is a fit. This puts the opening bidder on lead.

[mcphee]

The common approach used with the majority of players is simply, System On, and why not? Why should a partnertship lose methods? Lets take a particular hand, of xxxxx xxxxx xx x LHO opens 1D and partner bids 1NT, what should you do?

1: Pass 1NT , sorry pard I had nada

2: bid 2H to play and find partner with 3 or 4S and 2 small H?

3: As above pick S and find the reverse to be true?

4: bid Stayman and when partner bids 2D bid 2H defining weakness with both majors?

 

#4 strikes me as the big winner ALL the time, isn't that the idea?

 

Should player want to define game going and no game going hands and they have the memory banks to do so that is fine. Frankly I see absolutely no reason to give up the methods simply because good agreements over 1NT makes life easy. Everytime your side opens the bidding 1NT the auctions are easier and more accurate. The same thing applies to NT overcalls.

[mycroft]

An other common agreement (as game-forcing hands opposite 26+ HCP in pd and LHO aren't all that common, and you're in charge anyway) is systems off, cue=Stayman (for remaining major, if after 1M; cue-and-bid has the appropriate (probably strong) meaning. After all, let's reverse the suits from McPhee - x xx xxxxx xxxxx. LHO opens 1H and partner 1NT, what do you do?

 

1: Pass 1NT, "sorry pd"

2,3: bid... well I guess you have to bid 2S, if you're playing it MSS, or guess which minor to get right at the 3 level

4: yeah, you're still guessing, but you can bid 2C or 2D to play and at least get out.

 

I find the number of times I have "bailout in a minor" far exceeds the number of times I have a game-force; so I'll take those natural suits back, TYVM. After 1S-1NT, I pay out sometimes, sure; and with mcphee's hand, I get to guess (but isn't 1NT-2C; 2D-2H weak *with 4=5* in standard, when 2H isn't one-round-forcing? Are you sure you'll get to 2S when 2) is in effect?)

 

Michael.

[skjaeran]

I prefer system on after a 1NT overcall, both after a direct overcall (15-18) and after a balancing 1NT (11-14); that is garbage stayman and 4-way transfers, 3-level splinters.

[Free]

The common approach used with the majority of players is simply, System On, and why not? Why should a partnertship lose methods?

Actually in some situations you lose options when you play system on: 1♥-1NT-p-2♦ as transfer doesn't make any sense... That frees up the 2♦ bid, so why not make use of it?

 

I prefer every bid as transfer. Transfering opps suit is a replacement of Stayman. Biggest disadvantage of this is when opps opened 1♣ or 1♠, but otherwise it's great to describe a lot of hand types since every bid is forcing, and it's extremely easy to remember.

 

Example: 1♥ - 1NT - p - ?

2♣ = 5+♦ (the extra option)

2♦ = stayman

2♥ = 5+♠

2♠ = (5)6+♣

 

After stayman, opener can even cuebid to deny a Major (always nice to stay low). This also means that we still have garbage stayman available after a 1♦ opener, but not after a 1♣ opener... Maybe change system according to opener's suit :)

[Gerben42]

I usually prefer system on when opponents have bid a MINOR, system off if they have bid a MAJOR.

 

Without discussion with partner I would assume system off.

 

What lexlogan said. With a pick-up p I would assume it to be transfer, though.

 

Misunderstanding potential!

[han]

Without discussion with partner I would assume system off.

Misunderstanding Potential!

[jdonn]

Systems on for sure, with or without discussion. It's been a very long time since I have heard of anyone not playing systems on.

[Gerben42]

Well you heard it here first :P

 

So with a forum poster I'll assume system on.

[blackshoe]

SAYC has an odd agreement: no conventional responses except 2♣ as Stayman. This leaves undefined what the cue-bid means -- it could logically be to play after a minor suit opening, but that would make no sense after a 5 card major opening.

"SAYC" has no such agreement.

That turns out not to be the case. :P

 

From the ACBL's SAYC booklet, page 6, under "Defensive Bidding":

 

A 1NT overcall shows 15–18 points and a balanced hand (preferably a stopper in opener’s suit). No conventional responses are used by the responder to the 1NT overcall except 2C, which is Stayman.

[ArtK78]

SAYC has an odd agreement: no conventional responses except 2♣ as Stayman. This leaves undefined what the cue-bid means -- it could logically be to play after a minor suit opening, but that would make no sense after a 5 card major opening.

"SAYC" has no such agreement.

That turns out not to be the case. :P

 

From the ACBL's SAYC booklet, page 6, under "Defensive Bidding":

 

A 1NT overcall shows 15–18 points and a balanced hand (preferably a stopper in opener’s suit). No conventional responses are used by the responder to the 1NT overcall except 2C, which is Stayman.

OK - Never saw this system book before.

 

There are a lot of things on the ACBL website that are new to me. One is this.

 

Hard to believe that the SAYC agreement is something that virtually no one in the world plays. It is a deviation from old-fashioned standard bidding.

 

Of course, the booklet also says that:

 

OVERVIEW

The ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) was created to be the required system to be used in a Standard Yellow Card event. The object was to provide a simple, modern method that will lead to a good, solid understanding in a partnership when both players have read this booklet.

Because this system was to be used by each pair, the game was free of a wide variety of possibly complex systems. There was no necessity to Alert or ask questions since everyone was playing the same method.

 

That is just not true. The Standard American Yellow Card was invented to give new partnerships, especially last-minute partnerships at tournaments, a bare-bones system to play to facilitate them getting into the game. Standard Yellow Card Events came later. It would make no sense to invent SAYC events and then create an SAYC system for the events.

 

Here is a posting on the SWAN Bridge website:

 

* SAYC was originated in the late 80's by the ACBLwith the intent of providing a 'no frills' easy to use system with any pick up partner. The notes we offer reflect, for the most part, a standard summary of SAYC as it was originally intended. While the BRIDGE FORUM notes essentially adhere to standard SAYC, they also reflect several variations, which, while common and popular, are not considered "standard" in any published version of SAYC that we have yet seen. Where an "upgrade" to standard versions of SAYC is mentioned here, it will be presented in red with a notation as to the standard treatment it replaces. A more complete treatment of SAYC, including 14 lesson notes, is available from Bridge Forum International. BRIDGE FORUM teachers are also available to provide group, partnership, and individual lessons, including on-the-spot feedback and follow-up analyses of hands played. Just e-mail Ned Downey (ned-maui) at sngmaui@get.net or Caitlin at caitlin@bridge-forum.com.

 

Note: In the SWAN Bridge version of SAYC, here is the description of the 1NT overcall:

 

An Overcall of 1NT shows 15-18 points, a balanced hand and stopper(s) in opener's suit. In response, all systems are "on." [in standard versions, only Stayman is "on."]

 

So, while you are correct that the "Standard" version of SAYC [sSAYC???] says only 2♣ Stayman is on over a 1NT overcall, there are other versions of SAYC with different treatments.

[blackshoe]

The Standard American Yellow Card was invented to give new partnerships, especially last-minute partnerships at tournaments, a bare-bones system to play to facilitate them getting into the game.  Standard Yellow Card Events came later.  It would make no sense to invent SAYC events and then create an SAYC system for the events.

I wasn't there. Presumably, you were, since you assert this so positively. OTOH, if you're basing it on what Swan Games says, well, it *is* a system devised by the ACBL, so if they say one thing, and the folks at Swan Games say something different, I gotta ask, were they there? B)

 

So, while you are correct that the "Standard" version of SAYC [sSAYC???] says only 2♣ Stayman is on over a 1NT overcall, there are other versions of SAYC with different treatments.

 

What you're saying here is that there is no such thing as a "standard" system, if there is more than one version of it. I agree. If you define "Standard American Yellow Card" as the system devised by the ACBL and described in their SAYC booklet, then there is only one standard, and that's it, and any other system that calls itself "SAYC", isn't SAYC. OTOH, you can, if you like, define "Standard American Yellow Card" (or "SAYC") as any system whose developer has given it that name, and then there are multiple versions of "SAYC", and as you say there is no one "standard". Personally, I take the former view. I suppose that puts me in a minority. :)

 

Or, as Mr. Lincoln put it about a century and a half ago, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

[ArtK78]

As a matter of fact, I was there, in a sense.

 

I remember when the SAYC was introduced. The SWAN games version of the facts is what I remember.

 

After the introduction of the SAYC, there was interest in providing some events limited to SAYC. If I remember correctly, these events occurred at North American Championships only, as side events. Interest in holding these events died out almost as quickly as it arose. I don't believe there are any SAYC events being conducted now.