2/1 BWS 2001 Defaults Stayman follow up
#1
Posted 2011-May-07, 02:37
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.
#2
Posted 2011-May-07, 04:06
BWS said:
...
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.
#3
Posted 2011-May-07, 04:14
gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:
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.
#4
Posted 2011-May-07, 11:26
gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:
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.
#5
Posted 2011-May-07, 14:51
gnasher, on 2011-May-07, 04:06, said:
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.
#6
Posted 2011-May-08, 01:20
Lurpoa, on 2011-May-07, 04:14, said:
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.
#7
Posted 2011-May-08, 06:55
peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, said:
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.
#8
Posted 2011-May-08, 07:08
cherdano, on 2011-May-07, 14:51, 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.
#9
Posted 2011-May-08, 07:58
Lurpoa, on 2011-May-08, 07:08, said:
Answered, starting with Gnasher.
#10
Posted 2011-May-08, 08:11
#11
Posted 2011-May-08, 08:54
peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, 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
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#12
Posted 2011-May-08, 10:24
TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-May-08, 08:54, said:
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:
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.
#13
Posted 2011-May-08, 10:45
peachy, on 2011-May-08, 01:20, said:
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.
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#14
Posted 2011-May-08, 11:00
TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-May-08, 08:54, said:
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?
#15
Posted 2011-May-08, 11:58
hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 11:00, 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. "
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.
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#16
Posted 2011-May-08, 12:25
hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 11:00, said:
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:
" 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.
#17
Posted 2011-May-08, 13:28
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
#18
Posted 2011-May-08, 16:02
hrothgar, on 2011-May-08, 13:28, said:
Nor have we ever.
#20
Posted 2011-May-09, 06:45
mike777, on 2011-May-08, 16:56, said:
Right !