[Cyberyeti]

 P_Marlowe, on 2014-September-26, 05:34, said:

PS: As stated by Mattias, and the way I played it in the days I played Acol, 2M after 2C showes an
inv. hand. The issue are not the 54 hands, but the hands with only a 5+ card major suit and inv.
strength.
Playing this way, you only loose the option to look for your best 43 fit, if responder is weak
with 44 in the majors.

Almost nobody in the UK plays 2♦ as artificial if not playing transfers. The people not playing transfers are usually VERY old school and will play 2♦ WTO.

So what do you do with a 4513 6 count if 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ is invitational ? transfer to hearts ?

You end up with nonsenses like playing 2♥ with AKxx, xx, xxx, KQ10x opposite QJxx, xxxxx, Q, Jxx where they draw trumps and cash a lot of diamonds in 2♥ but 2♠ has chances, admittedly they make 3N but aren't going to bid it.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2014-September-25, 13:15, said:

The foundation CC, which is probably what OP refers to, does not have transfers, and still the 3-level responses are described as showing slam interest:

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ation-level.pdf

In the minors, yes. It is unclear what Stayman followed by 3m means (and whether it depends on whether the minor is ♣ or ♦.

In any case, if the quoted note belongs to this convention card, then it was not poorly worded but simply incorrect.

[steve2005]

Two-way Stayman was suggested but criticized add adding a complexity.

I think it actually makes things simpler as you always know what is forcing and what Is INV which is a difficult concept for beginners even for higher strength players.

[helene_t]

Maybe, to be practical, we just have to make the least confusing among non-ridicolous bids with this hand. Which is Stayman followed by 2NT (or a raise of a major of course). Simply avoid Stayman followed by a new suit as opener won't be sure what it means. Of course you can say that Stayman followed by 2♥ is ok for this particular hand because it may work regardless of how opener interprets it.

Part of the reason for not playing transfers is that partner won't be in doubt of the meaning of
1NT-(x)-2♦
and
(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♦

So playing two-way stayman, or flint, or major doubleton relay, or whatnot, kinda defeats the purpose.

[bluechip10]

 Liversidge, on 2014-September-24, 23:48, said:

I have a new partner who is OK-ish with Stayman but doesn't want to learn Jacoby Transfers just yet. We play Acol - Weak No Trump.
With this hand, what is my bid? With my other partner I would not have used Stayman but transferred to hearts and then bid 2♠ invitational. Here I think I have to sign off in 2♥ even though game may be on if partner is max.
What if I changed the ♣Q for ♣K?

---

Easy one. Bid 2 hearts, showing 5 hearts and no chance for game (12-14 1NT opener). I discount the responder's hand and call it a "lousy" 11 points. If 13-15, then 3 hearts (invitational and showing 5 hearts).

[Vampyr]

 bluechip10, on 2014-September-27, 12:20, said:

3 hearts (invitational and showing 5 hearts).

This is traditionally forcing in natural systems.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2014-September-27, 13:27, said:

This is traditionally forcing in natural systems.

I don't know which natural system you played, but it was always invitational to me as a beginner, although it's something else entirely to me now.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-27, 14:42, said:

I don't know which natural system you played, but it was always invitational to me as a beginner, although it's something else entirely to me now.

It's forcing in basic Acol, and was in Goren's system as well. It is also forcing in rubber bridge, which allows almost no artificial or conventional bids.

[mycroft]

So, in England, Stayman-then-2M is invitational, 5; which means that 2M direct is to play and 3M direct is forcing.
in North America, Goren may have said the same thing, but Garbage Stayman took hold, and even without transfers, Stayman-then-2M was 5M-4oM, weak; 2M was to play, and 3M direct was INV. Frequently with a 2♦ ART GF, of course...

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2014-September-29, 10:57, said:

So, in England, Stayman-then-2M is invitational, 5; which means that 2M direct is to play and 3M direct is forcing.

No it isn't. Very few people play 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ as anything other than potential garbage opposite a weak no trump, but the rest is right if you don't play transfers.

[the hog]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-27, 14:42, said:

I don't know which natural system you played, but it was always invitational to me as a beginner, although it's something else entirely to me now.

In traditional Acol, SA, 2/1 etc this has always been 6+H forcing.

[Vampyr]

 the hog, on 2014-September-29, 19:08, said:

In traditional Acol, SA, 2/1 etc this has always been 6+H forcing.

6+? And with a 5-card suit you...

[the hog]

Yes 6+. I guess 5 if you are unbelievably old fashioned that you do not play transfers. Or unless you play a complicated Gladiator style system which I used to play with one partner only - his choice, but it was certainly effective. To those who argue that transfers are unnecessary in a wnt system, I say "You are wrong". The options given by transfers are legion and outweigh the disadvantages.

[Vampyr]

 the hog, on 2014-September-29, 22:21, said:

Yes 6+. I guess 5 if you are unbelievably old fashioned that you do not play transfers.

Well, that is what the thread is about.

[Cyberyeti]

 the hog, on 2014-September-29, 19:08, said:

In traditional Acol, SA, 2/1 etc this has always been 6+H forcing.

In traditional acol, 1N-3♥ was 6+♥ forcing (and we still play this alongside transfers to show one suited slam interest)

[RMB1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-30, 03:59, said:

In traditional acol, 1N-3♥ was 6+♥ forcing (and we still play this alongside transfers to show one suited slam interest)

In traditional acol, without transfers, 1N-3♥ was 5+♥ forcing: choice of games with 5 ♥ or slam try.

[Cyberyeti]

 RMB1, on 2014-September-30, 04:43, said:

In traditional acol, without transfers, 1N-3♥ was 5+♥ forcing: choice of games with 5 ♥ or slam try.

True, I forgot about the second meaning