Rose Petal Glasses

[mike777]

ok without smolen i went down the stayman trail 3cl to hear my pard reply 3n/t????

i was hoping for 3diamonds -if pard bids 3 diamonds would any one understand what 4 diamonds means (second question) as in 1n/t-2cl-2d-3d!!!

 

well over 3n/t i now bid 4hts-pard now bid 5d- passed out bad 4 spades is contract pard 3/2 majors

 

if one transfers 3hts -3sp-4hts im sure pard would assume slam on

 

interesting with 5/5 majors when is it weak and when is it strong,which route to differentiate regards

I do not think:

2nt=3h

3s=4h forces slam. I do not even think 4h is 100% forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

As far as this example goes, it's not that bad an agreement to have

 

It seems fairly bad to me to have zero ways to bid diamonds, when you already have multiple alternatives to be able to show both majors. 6d pays a slam bonus also.

[CSGibson]

6d plays a slam bonus also.

SHHHHH! The fewer people who know that, the better. Don't let them all in on our secrets like that, Stephen!

[sfi]

OK, did some internet research.  Apparently pirate22 plays an old convention called Weissberger which uses 1nt-2c-2d-3d to show both majors.  This is practically unheard of in the U.S., but had some popularity in English Acol 50 years ago, predating transfers.

 

Almost no one uses this any more!  Since we now have transfers, there are other ways to show both majors, and stop lower, so the convention doesn't have the utility it would without transfers, plus it takes away ability to show good hands with diamonds.

It was certainly fairly common in Texas in the early 90's. The notes I have (which were a straight copy of Soloway's system with someone) suggest that we used:

 

- Stayman & 3♦ to show invitational 5-5 hands

- Stayman & 4♦ to show game-only 5-5 hands

- Transfer to spades and bid hearts to show slammish 5-5s

 

Hands with long diamonds started with 2NT.

 

We had no problems with it.

[ninja89]

Sorry for not making it clear; I was aiming to say that you can have agreements in conjunction with this method which would enable you to show other, just as important hand types. The important thing is to have those agreements. I agree, by itself the convention is not ideal. But then again, I think that 2NT-3C-3D-4D as asking partner to "pick a major" in a puppet stayman sequence is also bad by itself, if your style is to open 2NT with a 5M and to ask about 5M with a 3 card M and 5-6 diamonds. Again, other agreements are needed in combination with this convention.

 

Anyway, as far as this example goes, I was not aware that pirate22 had pointed out his system of responses and follow-ups to 2NT. If there is no way to show diamonds, perhaps this convention should be scrapped. Since we don't know, it seems a bit presumptuous to simply denounce the convention. As sfi shows, it can work.

[Stephen Tu]

Anyway, as far as this example goes, I was not aware that pirate22 had pointed out his system of responses and follow-ups to 2NT. If there is no way to show diamonds, perhaps this convention should be scrapped. Since we don't know, it seems a bit presumptuous to simply denounce the convention. As sfi shows, it can work.

 

If you read pirate's previous posts, it's clear he was asking the context of general play with random partners on BBO. He was proposing this as a "cardinal rule" for all bridge players. Not "my special NT responding system with 4w xfers and strong 4M5+d going through the minor transfer first".

 

I think in the forums if you don't declare system it should be assumed discussion should be in context of SAYC / 2/1 / Bridge World Standard, not "guess what my pet obscure system is even though I didn't specify anything" or even "stone age Acol".

[ninja89]

Yes good point, I missed that. Sorry. I performed the cardinal sin of stating my evidence without looking at it. I don't think he was proposing this as a "cardinal rule" though, he just didn't know better.