[thebiker]

I would be interested to learn where to find different responding structures after a
rebid of 2NT in a natural system
ie
1G 1P
2NT ?
I am mainly interested in natural - Acol type systems, where a 2NT rebid normally
shows 17-18 or 18-19

Any information on where to find different respoanding structures would be appreciated. ie books, magazines, or the internet or maybe even a copy of someones system notes

Many thanks in advance

Brian Keable (England)
Alias thebiker

[ArcLight]

Eric Kokish has a system described in his 2/1 software (sold on BBO), and also in Bobby Hammans new software CD.

[kenrexford]

My somewhat unorthodox suggestions for this auction are described in Cuebidding at Bridge: A Modern Approach, from Masterpoint Press, if you are interested.

[mcphee]

Wolfe sign off is a popular approach.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

here a link, explaining the wolff sign off:
http://bridgehands.c...lff_Signoff.htm

Another option would be to play NMF, not as
good as Wolff sign off, but it does not really matter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to play below game in a contract other than 2NT? If you decide you do, Wolff signoff is the way to go. If you decide you do not, forget about Wolff and simply play New Minor Forcing on the 3-level.

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Nov 20 2006, 04:03 PM, said:

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to play below game in a contract other than 2NT? If you decide you do, Wolff signoff is the way to go. If you decide you do not, forget about Wolff and simply play New Minor Forcing on the 3-level.

And even playing NMF, you can sign off,
at least sometimes.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

Transfers are simple and work pretty well.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Nov 20 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Transfers are simple and work pretty well.

ooh, I don't think transfers are that simple.

I like the logic of extended Wolff. Its a little brain damage, but its worth the headaches if you get the right hand.

[the hog]

For heaven's sake guys. The poster wants Acol, not some perverted form of 2/1 or SA. There would be VERY few Acolites who did not play a 2NT rebid as a GF or certainly very close to a GF. Trying to stop on sixpence with structures such as Wolff signoff are a total waste of time imo. Playing Acol where the responder will have a 6+ count, how often do you want to stop at EXACTLY the 3 level when you have a minimum point count of 24+

[jikl]

For me in Acol a 2NT rebid shows 19-20, with a 1NT rebid being 15-18 using Crowhurst to eke out shape and strength. So I am definitely in gameforce land now with a 2NT rebid.

Sean

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Nov 21 2006, 05:24 AM, said:

For heaven's sake guys. The poster wants Acol, not some perverted form of 2/1 or SA. There would be VERY few Acolites who did not play a 2NT rebid as a GF or certainly very close to a GF. Trying to stop on sixpence with structures such as Wolff signoff are a total waste of time imo. Playing Acol where the responder will have a 6+ count, how often do you want to stop at EXACTLY the 3 level when you have a minimum point count of 24+

It always struck me that 1x-1y-2N showed pretty much the same in any of the common natural systems (acol, sayc, 2/1 etc). In all cases the requirements for 1-suit response are about the same, and the requirements for a hand that is too strong to open 1N or rebid 1N (whichever way round you play them) is about the same. Perhaps the only significant difference is that 1x could be on a 3 card suit. And even some Acol players do that (at least in Clubs).

That said, I agree that Wolff seems like a bit of a waste of resources, considering the number of times that you will want to stop in 3-suit (whatever basic system). But then, it depends what alternative use you make of the resources. Probably better than not playing anything formal at all.

[thebiker]

Thanks everyone for your input so far.
I don't mind hearing about complicated methods - I am an Acol player but like to learn what other players do

It strikes me that Wolff Sign off players have some good ideas after 1m 1M 2NT
but how do they play 1C 1D 2NT and 1H 1S 2NT Sequences?


Does any one out there know any of the details of a version of Wolff played / devised by English internationals Raymond Brock and Tony Forrester some years ago.
Bascially it went
1X 1Y
2NT 3C 3C Puppet to 3C a la Wolff
3D Checkback
3H Slam try for X
3S Slam try for Y

I have never seen a full decription of all the sequences that they used and would like to know more

many thanks

Brian Keable
alias thebiker

[brianshark]

Wolff is mainly useful if you frequently respond quite light (with 4/5 points), which some experts recommend, especially if you play 5 card Majors, and/or short ♣, where you might want to respond with a 6 card major suit and 4 points or so, in an attempt to find a better part score.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Steve Robinson in his "Washington Standard" book has most bidding situations explained in some detail.

He plays 1m-1M-2NT-3C* as a puppet to 3Ds
1any-1M-2NT-3C-3D-3 of the same major(is sign off)
1m-1S-2NT-3H* as a weak 5S and 4H hand

A rebid of 3Ds over 2NT 'by an unpassed hand' is a slam try in openers minor.
A rebid of 3Ds over 2NT 'by a passed hand' is 'checkback' for a 5-3 major fit.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

Here's what I remember about extended Wolff: Say it starts 1♣ - 1♠ - 2N

3♣--> 3♦. 3♠ is a signoff (more on this below)
3♦ = Checkback with either 5♠ or 4♥
3♥ = Denotes 5-5 and is forcing
3♠ = Slam try, since a direct 4♠ is a signoff
3N = S.O.
4♣ =Gerber (yeah, Gerber LOL)

After 3♣---> 3♦:

3♥ = Artificial Slam try in the 4th suit (♦'s)
3♠ = As above
3N = Mild slam try in opener's minor
4♣ = Strong slam try in clubs

You'd need to work out some of the variations with a 1♦ opener.

As a side note; Bridge Today had an article on Weichsel Signoffs a few years ago. The main difference is after an initial 1♣ - 1♦ response. 3♣ is still a puppet to 3♦, but a subsequent 3M showed shortness and a slam try. A direct 3M showed 4 of the OTHER major, I believe.

[1eyedjack]

I tend to use all 3 level continuations for shape clarification. Slam tries are not normally clarified until the 4 level, after the shape has been nailed down. I find that there is just enough room at the 3 level to find any major fit that is going as well as enable responder to show any singleton or void, and in limited circumstances enable some range clarification as well. Unfortunately we can only do this by giving up on playing in 3-suit. But that does not overly bother me, contrasted with the possible up-sides.

[jikl]

The structure I use for shape completion is this:

1x - 1y
2NT - 3♣
?

Features are shown up the line, features being:

3 card support for y
5 card x suit
New 4 card suit

However, note that the 2NT bid does not deny a major suit higher than y, for instance:

1♣ - 1♦
2NT

This may still have a 4 card ♥ suit or ♠ suit.

Sean

Edit: Oops, forgot to add that if ♣ is your lowest (only) feature you bid 3NT