[Lurpoa]

Anybody to help me ?

Playing BWS2001 it is not clear to me what a 3♣or 3♦ by responder is after he initiated Stayman (bidding without interventions)

Stayman followed by 3 ♣or 3♦ is ?


Following the general default, I would say it certainly is forcing, 5card of the bid minor and a 4card major. But is it merely showing game-going values, or is it showing slam-intrest (as it would be playing SAYC).

I tend to believe that the slam-intrest hand is the most efficient solution.

May I hear your opinions please. Thank you.

[gnasher]

In BWS it means whatever you and your partner think it should mean:

BWS said:

When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or nonforcing and there is no explicit agreement:
...
in a noncompetitive situation, treat as forcing or nonforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer

As for what it should mean in the context of the rest of BWS: this is the only way to bid a hand with four of a major and five of a minor (a transfer to a minor followed by a new suit is defined as shortage). With a game-going 4-6, it would be silly to have to guess what game to play, so I don't think it should promise a slam try. Of course, opposite a very suitable opener, a game-going hand might make slam anyway.

[Lurpoa]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:

In BWS it means whatever you and your partner think it should mean:


As for what it should mean in the context of the rest of BWS: this is the only way to bid a hand with four of a major and five of a minor (a transfer to a minor followed by a new suit is defined as shortage). With a game-going 4-6, it would be silly to have to guess what game to play, so I don't think it should promise a slam try. Of course, opposite a very suitable opener, a game-going hand might make slam anyway.

So just a game going hand with doubts about 3NT as a final destination.... ???
Seems reasonable as well. Ijust had some doubts, because in SAYC this sequence shows slam intrest.....

Bottom-line seems to be, that it is one of those sequences that need to be agreed with Partenr.

Thanks for your input.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:

.....a game-going hand might make slam anyway.

The situation (Stayman, then 3m) is forcing for sure. But, could be either a hand showing doubt about strain or a hand with slam interest. After two of the 3 possible responses to Stayman, the follow-ups to 3m can clarify what is happening. After the other one (2H), it might get complicated.

1N-2C
2S-3D...3H can be used as a sort of LT type bid with a top NT opener and diamond support. It cannot be natural, because with 4-4 in the majors, opener would have bid 2H the first time. If responder had rebid 3C instead, opener would have a choice of 3D or 3H to show that. In the cases where opener has a max for the minor, responder has room to shut down if she did not have slam interest.

1N-2C
2D-3m..The NT opener has choices of cues at the 3-level to show cooperative interest in the minor slam.

However:

1N-2C
2H-3D...things could get murky. Obviously 3S now would set the 4-4 spade fit. But is 3H agreement of the minor with a max or merely showing a fifth heart?

1N-2C
2H-3C...3D is available, so the above problem is moot.

Another question to answer for your partnership: Does Stayman followed by 3m always show 4M and the longer minor? Having some other way to show one-minor slam interest would be helpful. It doesn't have to be 4-suit xfers; Walsh relays also work just fine in conjunction with 2-suit xfers.

[cherdano]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:

In BWS it means whatever you and your partner think it should mean:


As for what it should mean in the context of the rest of BWS: this is the only way to bid a hand with four of a major and five of a minor (a transfer to a minor followed by a new suit is defined as shortage). With a game-going 4-6, it would be silly to have to guess what game to play, so I don't think it should promise a slam try. Of course, opposite a very suitable opener, a game-going hand might make slam anyway.

I am sure everybody who helped constructing BWS or was on the panel to vote on it, as well as 99% of the readers who participated in the polls, assumed that this sequence is forcing. It's so obvious to everyone that it didn't occur anyone to mention it.

[peachy]

 Lurpoa, on 2011-May-07, 04:14, said:

So just a game going hand with doubts about 3NT as a final destination.... ???
Seems reasonable as well. Ijust had some doubts, because in SAYC this sequence shows slam intrest.....

Bottom-line seems to be, that it is one of those sequences that need to be agreed with Partenr.

Thanks for your input.

Moreover, 1NT-2C-2whatever-3m in SAYC does not promise a four-card major; this is the only way to start slam auction in a minor, if playing SAYC.

[Lurpoa]

 peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, said:

Moreover, 1NT-2C-2whatever-3m in SAYC does not promise a four-card major; this is the only way to start slam auction in a minor, if playing SAYC.

Well, well.... indeed... reading the SAYC boklet, I think you are right. I wasn't really aware of that... and would have corrected with a 44 in the majors. But thinking about it, after the slam-intrest, it cannot hurt, to show the 4card spades too.... at the 3level...it is still possible, responder has 4♠ and 5 or more in his minor.

[Lurpoa]

 cherdano, on 2011-May-07, 14:51, said:

I am sure everybody who helped constructing BWS or was on the panel to vote on it, as well as 99% of the readers who participated in the polls, assumed that this sequence is forcing. It's so obvious to everyone that it didn't occur anyone to mention it.

I don't think the question is "forcing of not ?" , but: does this sequnece show slam-intrest or just a game-going hand, which is not sure if 3NT is the best contract. Tx for your input.

[aguahombre]

 Lurpoa, on 2011-May-08, 07:08, said:

I don't think the question is "forcing of not ?" , but: does this sequnece show slam-intrest or just a game-going hand, which is not sure if 3NT is the best contract. Tx for your input.

Answered, starting with Gnasher.

[cherdano]

Sorry I can't read anymore it seems. Anyway, it is game-forcing and doesn't promise slam interest.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, said:

Moreover, 1NT-2C-2whatever-3m in SAYC does not promise a four-card major; this is the only way to start slam auction in a minor, if playing SAYC.

Does everyone/anyone agree with this ?
I've never heard of it .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don't know if this is from 2001, but is what I learned shortly thereafter:
1NT - 2C
2M - 3m = 4oM/5+m, GF slammish, ie no fit for M

1NT - 2C
2D - 3m = 4 cards M / 5+m GF slammish

[gnasher]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-May-08, 08:54, said:

Does everyone/anyone agree with this ?
I've never heard of it .

It's not really a matter of opinion. The definition of SAYC is available here:

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

SAYC booklet said:

RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 15–17 1NT OPENING

2♣ is "non-forcing" Stayman, meaning that the bidding may stop in two of a suit. Opener rebids 2♥ with 4–4 in the majors. If responder rebids three of either minor, he shows slam interest and at least a five-card suit.

If three of a minor showed a four-card major, I expect it would say so.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, said:

Moreover, 1NT-2C-2whatever-3m in SAYC does not promise a four-card major; this is the only way to start slam auction in a minor, if playing SAYC.

gnasher.... thx for the ACBL link on SAYC, but NOWHERE does it validate the above statement.

It does NOT say " does not promise a four-card Major " after:
1NT - 2C
2any - 3m = 5+minor, slammish

So, if the auction goes ( the way I might play it ):
1NT - 2C
2H - 3m = 4 cards ♠ /5+m, GF slammish
??
...3S = 4/4 in the majors, interested in slam
...4S = 4/4 and not interested in slam

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
In other words, anytime Responder bids 3m-after-Stayman( and Opener's reply), he DOES promise a four-card Major.

[hrothgar]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-May-08, 08:54, said:

Does everyone/anyone agree with this ?
I've never heard of it .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don't know if this is from 2001, but is what I learned shortly thereafter:
1NT - 2C
2M - 3m = 4oM/5+m, GF slammish, ie no fit for M

1NT - 2C
2D - 3m = 4 cards M / 5+m GF slammish

And how, pray tell, were you taught to show a single suited hand with a minor and game forcing values?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 11:00, said:

And how, pray tell, were you taught to show a single suited hand with a minor and game forcing values?

As Aquahombre said in his post #4 :
" Having some other way to show one-minor slam interest would be helpful. It doesn't have to be 4-suit xfers; Walsh relays also work just fine in conjunction with 2-suit xfers. "

But I see neither are mentioned in the ACBL SAYC booklet.
Only the minor sign-offs and invites are stated.

Sooo, I guess that only leaves the Stayman sequence .... ugh.

[aguahombre]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 11:00, said:

And how, pray tell, were you taught to show a single suited hand with a minor and game forcing values?

I was "taught" the SAYC way to play noncompetitive NT sequences, but quickly discovered way back in the late 60's that Stayman followed by G.F should really have a major.

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-May-08, 11:58, said:

As Aquahombre said in his post #4 :
" Having some other way to show one-minor slam interest would be helpful. It doesn't have to be 4-suit xfers; Walsh relays also work just fine in conjunction with 2-suit xfers. "

Being staid old farts, we choose the Walsh Relay option; but we have seen 4-suit xfer sequences in the hands of competent pairs, and they seem to work nicely, too.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-08, 12:25, said:

Being staid old farts, we choose the Walsh Relay option; but we have seen 4-suit xfer sequences in the hands of competent pairs, and they seem to work nicely, too.

In other worlds, you're not actually playing SAYC

[aguahombre]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 13:28, said:

In other worlds, you're not actually playing SAYC

Nor have we ever.

[mike777]

I was wondering why BW has not started polling for BWS 2011?

[Lurpoa]

 mike777, on 2011-May-08, 16:56, said:

I was wondering why BW has not started polling for BWS 2011?

Right !