Does the convention have a name?

[relknes]

There is a convention that is part of SAYC, but I have never heard its proper name. Most serious partnerships seem to do away with it anyways in favor of 4 suited transfers or minor suit Stayman, etc, but I was looking for further information on it and didn't know what to search for.

The convention is over a 1N opening, 2♠ is used to force partner to bid 3♣, and responder passes or corrects to 3♦.

[Mbodell]

There is a convention that is part of SAYC, but I have never heard its proper name. Most serious partnerships seem to do away with it anyways in favor of 4 suited transfers or minor suit Stayman, etc, but I was looking for further information on it and didn't know what to search for.

The convention is over a 1N opening, 2♠ is used to force partner to bid 3♣, and responder passes or corrects to 3♦.

 

I play it with a lot of partners, but I've never heard a name for it. I think it is just minor suit signoff. I think (but am not sure) that it is also just "standard" if you don't play 4-way transfers.

[gwnn]

Transfer to either minor

[blackshoe]

Many people, perhaps most, call it a transfer, but it's more properly a puppet, IMO. AFAIK, the convention doesn't have a name.

[kenrexford]

A variation is that 2♠ asks Opener which minor he prefers (bid 2NT with diamond preference, 3♣ with club preference), after which pass of 3♣, bidding 3♣, and bidding 3♦ are all weak actions. The variation allows Responder to know what to do with weak 5-5 minors.

 

There is no name for this convention, either. I would like to nominate "The Drew P. O'Shay Convention."

 

Why "Drew P. O'Shay?" Well, years ago, my grandfather (technically step-gpop), after my grandmother had passed away, went somewhat on the wild side. At some point, my brother and I (kids at the time) were told that grandpa Jerry Behle was now called "Drew P. O'Shay." I have no idea what he was up to, whether this was somehow deemed by him to be a great name, or whether he had some sort of fraud scheme going, or what was up. But, it meant that I could decide which name I liked at the time (Grandpa Droopy or Grandpa Jerry), and then he could decide either to go with my preference (when it did not matter) or to stick with one of the two (perhaps if the law man was over for a visit?).

[neilkaz]

This is called "3 Suit Transfers"...well at it is was where I used to play in the US when it was common when the SAYC card came into being.

[benlessard]

If opener bid 3C with a maximum and 2nt with a minimum = 2S Range check

 

If opener bid 3C/2Nt depending on wich minor he like best = MSS minor suit stayman.

 

Forget about the 2S force to 3C its a poor method.

[jillybean]

If opener bid 3C with a maximum and 2nt with a minimum = 2S Range check

 

If opener bid 3C/2Nt depending on wich minor he like best = MSS minor suit stayman.

 

Forget about the 2S force to 3C its a poor method.

 

I think using 2♠ as a transfer to 3♣/3♦ is a perfectly fine method. If you are in a long

term, serious, advanced, partnership you will likely be playing another method but to call it poor

is misleading.

[Flameous]

Indeed Ken, as Ben aready mentioned, what you are referring is usually known as minor suit stayman. Cool resemblance to your story though :D

 

For what it's worth, I tought this "3-suit" transfer method for beginners. It's at the very least simple enough, even though not very good.

Anyone who has any idea of how NT structure works shouldn't use it.

[Vampyr]

For what it's worth, I tought this "3-suit" transfer method for beginners. It's at the very least simple enough, even though not very good.

Anyone who has any idea of how NT structure works shouldn't use it.

 

It seems OK to me; but it's true that many people who play it leave the 3♥/3♠/3NT continuations idle, which there seems no reason to do.

[jillybean]

 

Anyone who has any idea of how NT structure works shouldn't use it.

Please elaborate.

[gwnn]

I think using 2♠ as a transfer to 3♣/3♦ is a perfectly fine method. If you are in a long

term, serious, advanced, partnership you will likely be playing another method but to call it poor

is misleading.

It is a poor method because you're throwing away bidding space for no reason. It is not misleading to say that leaving 1N-2♠; 2NT undefined is a poor idea.

[jillybean]

I'm interested in 2♠ ==> 3♣/3♦ being so bad and what you would suggest for beginners+ instead of this treatment.

 

This is one area of my CC that has remained untouched. I have played '3 suit transfers' for all my bridge life, maybe its a case of ignorance is bliss.

I have only recently discussed with my main partner changing 2♠ to MSS,weak diamond hand,5-5 minors weak hand, or a 4-4+ minor suit slam try. Sounds complicated. In this and other partnerships I play 3 way transfer, in 1 other we recently added 4 way transfer.

[mike777]

 

I have only recently discussed with my main partner changing 2♠ to MSS,weak diamond hand,5-5 minors weak hand, or a 4-4+ minor suit slam try. Sounds complicated. In this and other partnerships I play 3 way transfer, in 1 other we recently added 4 way transfer.

 

 

I play this....sounds much more complicated than it is :)

 

most of the time pard has a weak hand with long d.....over 2s you bid your 4card minor..with none you bid 2nt.

[the hog]

If opener bid 3C with a maximum and 2nt with a minimum = 2S Range check

 

If opener bid 3C/2Nt depending on wich minor he like best = MSS minor suit stayman.

 

Forget about the 2S force to 3C its a poor method.

 

Perhaps your last comment s correct, but to play 2S as a range probe or minor transfer is NOT a poor method;

1NT 2S

2N min

3C max

 

over 2NT/3C

3D = Slam try, no 4M, but interested in a 4-4 or better m suit slam, Now 3H = C, 3S = D, 3N = neither, 4C = both.

3H = 5/5 Ms invit

3S = 5/5 Ms Gf

3NT = (I would have had a slam try over a 3C bid)

[kenrexford]

Indeed Ken, as Ben aready mentioned, what you are referring is usually known as minor suit stayman. Cool resemblance to your story though :D

 

For what it's worth, I tought this "3-suit" transfer method for beginners. It's at the very least simple enough, even though not very good.

Anyone who has any idea of how NT structure works shouldn't use it.

 

I always thought MSS was to bid 4-card minors or 2NT with none. what do I know?

[relknes]

Thanks, everyone, for your help. I am currently leaning toward 2♠ as a range check or weak minor signoff. The reason for this is that I am hoping to experiment with a slightly wider range weak NT (12-15). The wide range makes the ability to sort out the 12-13 point hands from the 14-15 point hands critical in some sequences, and the weak nature of it makes it necesary to have ways to run to a suit contract with a weak hand and a long suit.

Since 2♠ handles the invitational hands, what is the best convention to use 2NT for, when paired with this 2♠? I am leaning toward 5-5 minor hands, either weak or strong (the weak version passes opener's preference while the strong version bids a major singleton or void). Is there a better use for it?

[gwnn]

I'm interested in 2♠ ==> 3♣/3♦ being so bad and what you would suggest for beginners+ instead of this treatment.

 

This is one area of my CC that has remained untouched. I have played '3 suit transfers' for all my bridge life, maybe its a case of ignorance is bliss.

I have only recently discussed with my main partner changing 2♠ to MSS,weak diamond hand,5-5 minors weak hand, or a 4-4+ minor suit slam try. Sounds complicated. In this and other partnerships I play 3 way transfer, in 1 other we recently added 4 way transfer.

It is a poor method because you are throwing away bidding space for no reason. Would you agree with me that the following Stayman method is bad:

1N-2C

2D undefined

2H hearts

2S spades

2NT neither

?

 

4 suit transfers are better. What Ken wrote is also better.

[jvage]

Here in Norway the method is used by almost everyone and is called "Minor Stayman". The response-structure varies however, both if 2NT or 3♣ shows better diamonds/clubs (I have not seen it used as rangeask) and if a following 3♥/♠ shows slaminvitational with clubs/diamonds respectively (may also have a strong one-suiter) or a singelton with 55 minors.

 

The name is a bit misleading, as the following true story exemplifies. When Geir Helgemo was around 16 (he was already a very good player) he was introduced to this convention, without any explanations. When partner bid 2♠ after his 1NT opening he "naturally" responded in normal Stayman-manner by showing his 4 diamonds with 3♦. At the table this was a success, as I remember the story Geir actually wanted to continue playing "real" minor-Stayman for a while...

[Cascade]

The method is ok. This doesn't mean that it cannot be enhanced and made even better.

 

Obviously having a meaning for a 2NT rebid is an enhancement. It is also possible to add meanings for higher rebids. I have played 3Major to show both minors with shortage in the suit bid:

 

1NT 2♠

3♣ 3♥/♠ 2155/1255 or similar

[Flameous]

Assuming you don't dedicate any of the three lvl bids for weak or slammish minor hands: (I still play 3m as invitational, I think most don't)

You have 2♠ and 2NT bids to handle whole lot of minor suit hands and in addition natural invite. (Although you can survive without it if you so choose)

 

I think there are two ok methods, which both have been mentioned. Other being 2♠ a range ask, including SO with long minor or SI with long minor. 2NT then is both minors, weak or slammish. (This is a bit simpler but gives opps a chance to double 2♠ n all your inv auctions)

 

Other which I tend to play is 2NT natural and 2♠ as minor suit stayman, which I can bid with all minor oriented hands. (But I wouldn't cramp slam invitational (54) minor hands here, that's too much)

 

Mainly my point is that using 2♠ simply as transfer to clubs, even perhaps including single suited slam invites, you can't bid it with 55 minor hands, which you could easily do if just playing MSS.

 

Space for slam hands is awfully tight after MSS, so if someone has a good structure for continuations, I'd like a look.

My current version: http://toohighagain.blogspot.com/2011/05/mss-continuations.html

 

I guess playing "real MSS" where 3m is 4 cards and 2NT none would be much better for slam exploration and could handle more hand types easily. I actually never really realized that all you have to give up is weak club hands. Though which bid to dedicate for them then...

[Quartic]

 

Mainly my point is that using 2♠ simply as transfer to clubs, even perhaps including single suited slam invites, you can't bid it with 55 minor hands, which you could easily do if just playing MSS.

 

 

Why not?

 

1NT - 2♠ - 2NT/3♣ - 3♦... both minors, slam try.

[mycroft]

When I play it, I explain as "weak or strong in either minor."

 

I prefer a lot of other meanings as well, but it's only wasteful of useful space if they were going to use it - which most don't.

 

However, please avoid in explanations the T word. It is *not* a transfer to clubs, and there *will* be problems when fourth-hand has a 3♣ overcall he didn't get to make.

 

ESPECIALLY (in the ACBL, at least, where this applies), don't *Announce it* as a Transfer. Even if it were, it's still an Alert.

[Zelandakh]

Mainly my point is that using 2♠ simply as transfer to clubs, even perhaps including single suited slam invites, you can't bid it with 55 minor hands, which you could easily do if just playing MSS.

If you do not include strong 1-suited hands then you can handle all relevant 2-suiters as well as the (semi-)balanced invite without a probem. After 1NT - 2S; 2NT (or 3C) 3C (or pass of 3C) = weak; 3D = clubs with hearts; 3H = clubs with spades; 3S = both minors for example. You can handle the strong 1-suited hands via an immediate 3C response. Alternatively, if you handle the 4M5+C hands via Stayman then you can just devote one of the follow-up bids to both minors (rather than shortage); or, if none of these appeals, you can make a special sequence to handle both minor hands - an immediate 3 level response that is not used for something else for example. I am naturally a little biased towards the first of these options since it is part of my preferred 1NT response structure. ;)