[jackchung]

Hi, Does anyone like to Wolff sign-offs after 2NT rebid? I have some questions about it .
The most diffcult is ♣ suit.
1. In this sequence:
1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 4♣
Is 4♣ Gerber ?
2. In this sequence:
1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 4♣
Someone told me 4♣ is sign-offs. So it's very diffcult if i have a real slam hand.At first, i can't use minor RKCB now, 4N is danger when my trump is ♣. It is worse i don't know how to let my partner know what i want to do. 3nt is mild slam try, he maybe pass. should i start to cue @ 4 level ?
3. In this sequence:
1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥
Someone says bid the other major after 3♦ means the other minor slam try.I don't think i will bid 1♠ first when i have stronger ♦suit and sound hand. i like to ask the openner pass or correct to 3♠.But:
1♣ - 1♥ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠
What is 3♠ ?
Bridge is too diffclut for me.

[Echognome]

Make life easy. Play transfers.

[jdonn]

1. Yes
2. "Someone" was wrong.
3. "Someone" was right.

[maggieb]

Echognome, on Mar 6 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

Make life easy.  Play transfers.

I think this is rather rude, off-topic, and unhelpful.

1) 4♣ is not Gerber the way I play, I play it is a natural slam try with 5-5 in the black suits. This is a very descriptive bid that tells partner that values in the black suits are very good, and only sharp values in the red suits are useful.

2) Just play this is a stronger slam try in clubs.

3) Standard is that this shows a slam try in diamonds. Your second sequence is also a slam try in diamonds. I have never found that this comes up a lot, so maybe showing some other hand is more useful. I'll leave it up to the bidding theorists to work out a better meaning.

Bridge is too difficult for me too .

[Echognome]

maggieb, on Mar 6 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

Echognome, on Mar 6 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

Make life easy.  Play transfers.

I think this is rather rude, off-topic, and unhelpful.

Sorry you feel that way. I certainly didn't intend it as rude. Whether it is off-topic (a system to play after a 2NT rebid!) or unhelpful, that is for people to have their own opinion. You have expressed yours.

[maggieb]

Echognome, on Mar 6 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

maggieb, on Mar 6 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

Echognome, on Mar 6 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

Make life easy.  Play transfers.

I think this is rather rude, off-topic, and unhelpful.

Sorry you feel that way. I certainly didn't intend it as rude. Whether it is off-topic (a system to play after a 2NT rebid!) or unhelpful, that is for people to have their own opinion. You have expressed yours.

How do transfers work? Why is it easier/better than Wolff? What are the gains and losses from playing transfers?

Maybe if your post addressed any of these points, instead of just being a bash against Wolff without answering any of the OP's questions, I would think it was a little less rude, a little more on topic, and quite helpful!

[Echognome]

Well it's a hijack of the thread then.

Would you have felt better with:

"I'm terribly sorry, but I do not care much for Wolff. It's a reasonable system, but I think transfers are just as good, and probably better, but incredibly easy to learn. However, rather than make you read all about transfers after 2NT (which can be found on a myriad of threads) I will just suggest that you consider them and ask if you would like to find out more information about them."

[jdonn]

I think maggieb is the one being rude and unhelpful here and taking the thread off topic, and that if echognome had explained transfers thoroughly that would have made his post MORE off-topic.

[Phil]

Gnome, the problem is you've already partially hijacked the thread when you make a comment like, "just play transfers, bla, bla". You are bound to get a response like,"uh, why (and what)"

I can't remember discussing these in quite a long time, and even you and I had some implementation issues with them.

I've gone back to Wolff in a lot of my partnerships, because frankly, it is simpler (for me anyway).

[hanp]

Well, gnome's answer could have been longer but the OP did ask whether people like Wolff sign off so I don't have a problem with his post. I don't have strong feelings on the subject, I think both Wolff and transfers are fine and both are infinitely better than playing without an agreement.

[Echognome]

Phil, on Mar 6 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

Gnome, the problem is you've already partially hijacked the thread when you make a comment like, "just play transfers, bla, bla". You are bound to get a response like,"uh, why (and what)"

I can't remember discussing these in quite a long time, and even you and I had some implementation issues with them.

I've gone back to Wolff in a lot of my partnerships, because frankly, it is simpler (for me anyway).

I made a suggestion. I purposely didn't elaborate. I don't expect responses suggeting I'm being rude or trying to take it off-topic. I certainly didn't expect grief.

I don't remember any implementation issues with them. It's a pretty rare sequence anyway.

[jackchung]

Hi. very thanks for your help. I don't think anyone was rude.
About wolff, i think i can modify 3 other major after 3 diamonds as something else, such as cue( open suit fit well ). and i will give up any partsores contracts of club.
About transfers, i like to use in such sequence:
1♥-1♠-2nt-?.
Would u give me some advice?
Bridge is so diffcult, with your help, i will never give up.