transfer bids in sayc

[bill1157]

Hi all, I am curious: lately i have been playing sayc online and my various partners attempted to transfer in these sequences:

 

1N-(2C*)-2H** *=unspecified single suit ** transfer to spades

 

(1H)-P-(2H)-2N//(P)-3H* *transfer to spades

 

(1C)-P-(P)-1N//(P)-2D* transfer to hearts

 

As i read , transfers only apply after 1N, 2N, and 2C-2D-2N with double system on otherwise (overcall) system off. Also, not to 1N overcalls.

Has this changed and did i miss something?

 

thanks, Bill

[helene_t]

You are right but not everyone bothers to read the SAYC description before they put "SAYC" on their profile.

[bid_em_up]

1) As i read , transfers only apply after 1N, 2N, and 2C-2D-2N with double system on otherwise (overcall) system off.

 

2) Also, not to 1N overcalls.

 

Has this changed and did i miss something?

 

thanks, Bill

Part 1 is true.

 

Part 2, I think you will find most people will play systems on after a 1N overcall. However, in the original SAYC version, systems were off, iirc. I prefer systems on after 1N overcall.

[neilkaz]

1) As i read , transfers only apply after 1N, 2N, and 2C-2D-2N with double system on otherwise (overcall) system off.

 

2) Also, not to 1N overcalls.

 

Has this changed and did i miss something?

 

thanks, Bill

Part 1 is true.

 

Part 2, I think you will find most people will play systems on after a 1N overcall. However, in the original SAYC version, systems were off, iirc. I prefer systems on after 1N overcall.

The original SAYC card is behind the times and as confusing as guessing what PD plays. Most people say they play SAYC and all it means is 15-17 NT majors and transfers, strong 2C others weak, and with a 2/1 response NOT being GF.

 

Do they play Jacoby 2NT (part of SAYC) ..who knows ? What about sys on ? Who knows, what about nmf (some do) ? etc etc.

 

1) As for the defence to the Capp/Hamilton 2♣ showing a 1 suiter, I was taught the standard defence 20 years ago back in So Cal (where almost the whole club played Hamilton as we called it)is where you ignore the 2♣ bid. Double is Stayman and rest of sys on. This basically means that the 2♣ bid has done nothing to interfere with your auction and all your invites, two suited GF slam probes, etc etc etc are not lost and are played with the 1NT opener as declarer. This is much more effective than SAYC's idiocy of sys off and I suspect this method is standard in some countries. All you lose is the ability to play 2♦ from the wrong side and note that overcaller may just bid his own suit above 2♦ anyhow !

 

2) Isn't 2N unusual here ?

 

3) This is not a 1NT overcall it is a 1NT balance as it is bid in passout seat. I have never played transfers after nor have I played Stayman noting both sides have declined opportunities to t/o X anyhow. Systems are OFF and we can now scramble into what is often our best fit and that is often a minor suit, incl ♣

[bill1157]

The original SAYC card is behind the times and as confusing as guessing what PD plays. Most people say they play SAYC and all it means is 15-17 NT majors and transfers, strong 2C others weak, and with a 2/1 response NOT being GF.

 

Do they play Jacoby 2NT (part of SAYC) ..who knows ? What about sys on ? Who knows, what about nmf (some do) ? etc etc.

 

1) As for the defence to the Capp/Hamilton 2♣ showing a 1 suiter, I was taught the standard defence 20 years ago back in So Cal (where almost the whole club played Hamilton as we called it)is where you ignore the 2♣ bid. Double is Stayman and rest of sys on. This basically means that the 2♣ bid has done nothing to interfere with your auction and all your invites, two suited GF slam probes, etc etc etc are not lost and are played with the 1NT opener as declarer. This is much more effective than SAYC's idiocy of sys off and I suspect this method is standard in some countries. All you lose is the ability to play 2♦ from the wrong side and note that overcaller may just bid his own suit above 2♦ anyhow !

 

2) Isn't 2N unusual here ?

 

3) This is not a 1NT overcall it is a 1NT balance as it is bid in passout seat. I have never played transfers after nor have I played Stayman noting both sides have declined opportunities to t/o X anyhow. Systems are OFF and we can now scramble into what is often our best fit and that is often a minor suit, incl ♣

The comments on sayc are very good. To me though the big problem isn't whether people prefer to bid one way or the other, but that to sit down and say "sayc pd?" should mean we can play a game without alot of discussion and not have misunderstandings about common areas of bidding.

I suspect that if you designed a system to be standard and well thought out it would be very different from sayc (or 2/1 for that matter).

 

Bill

[neilkaz]

On BBO and from my experience at other sites when you agree SAYC, you hope that PD actually knows every nuance. He may, but I've seen only a few US pickups whose profile has said something like " full SAYC...everything per Yellow card".

 

There was no guesswork when playing with him when the bidding went 1NT by then X by him, pass, 2C by me..he knew that I was running from his penalty double (most would I'd hope ..but you'll be surprised :) ) Another example with him...1NT by me, 2H by them..his X was penalty. 1m by me his 2NT was 13-15.

 

Life is easy when all speak the same language, but unfortunately most don't.

 

Tell someone BBO basic ? and they don't even know where to find it to print it, if they don't know it..etc etc.