System after you've bid a 1N overcall

[Jinksy]

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'.

[dboxley]

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.

[mgoetze]

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.

[Cyberyeti]

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 ?

[helene_t]

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.

[Zelandakh]

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[mgoetze]

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.

[kenrexford]

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.

[olien]

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.

[Zelandakh]

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.