'The most interesting questions from visitors to the Dutch sister site (Bridgevaria.nl)'. 

Dear Peter and Ed,

Can you explain to me whether it's wise or not to play Jacoby-transfers over partner's 1NT overcall, just like over his 1NT opening?
Or is this just a matter of agreement?

Kind regards,
Bob Koot

Answer Ed Hoogenkamp (South)

Dear Bob,

Good question! Firstly: this is of course a matter of agreement.
For many pairs this is the highly relevant question: to what extent do we want to burden our memory? A good advice for many players (also for me!): don't play different systems in similar situations.
I like to cling to my system as much as possible, I like the easy way. This is called system on.

To be honest, I can't think of a reason why playing transfers would be ill-advised. True, one might reason that the 'strong hand should be declarer' argument (normally a good reason to play transfers), is not very valid here, since you know where the points are (in opener's hand). So transfers are less necessary over partner's 1NT overcall than over his 1NT opening. But I don't think that is a good reason to completely change your system.

I only adjust my system if they double our 1NT overcall. Redouble is SOS then (weak, no long suit), whereas a redouble over a double of our 1NT opening shows strength. That's all, for the rest it's system on.

Not so the Norwegians, they like to change and complicate things (after all, they have nothing else to do but memorizing their system, on these long, dark winter nights — of which they have an awful lot). So let's see what Peter has to say.

Un saludo desde  Barcelona

Answer Peter van der Linden (North)

Dear Bob,

Long ago bridge teachers and authors of bridge courses advised against playing conventions over partner's 1NT overcall. No Stayman therefore. And when Jacoby-transfers were introduced the advice became: 'neither Stayman, nor transfers over partner's 1NT overcall.'

Ed however does use Stayman and transfers in that situation and says: 'I can't think of a reason why playing transfers would be ill-advised'.
Sorry Ed, these old teachers did have a reason for their advice: since the left hand opponent has opened and partner has overcalled 1NT, these two have at least 28 HCP between them. Unless you have 9 or more of the remaining 12 HCP (a minor chance) game is not on for your side. Unlike after partner's 1NT opening, when you need 9 out of about 24 remaining HCP.
So over partner's 1NT overcall, it is in most cases a matter of landing in the best part score (unlike over partner's 1NT opening, when you will frequently bid game). So over partner's 1NT overcall it comes in handy if 2♣ and 2♦ are natural bids: meaning you can play those contracts. Especially so, if the opponent after the 1NT overcall has passed (if he doubles, most pairs can end up in 2♣ or 2♦).

Still, I favour playing Stayman and transfers over partner's 1NT overcall, like Ed. My reason is that the old teacher's argument is not strong enough to compensate for the disadvantages of not playing Stayman and transfers. These disadvantages are:
- Without transfers the contract will often be played by the wrong hand (yes, although the whereabouts of the points is known, it still is an advantage that the strong hand, the 1NT overcaller, gets the lead towards him; so I do not agree with Ed).
- Without Stayman you might miss a 4-4 fit in a major.
- And, as Ed said earlier: without Stayman and transfers you have to memorize two systems — mind you, Ed has enough trouble memorizing one!

To conclude: I agree with Ed about system on (but I don't agree with some of his reasoning).
By the way: the discussion has all but subsided: virtually everyone nowadays plays Stayman and transfers over partner's 1NT overcall and a pass by the right hand opponent.

PS: Do you know why Ed doesn't use bidding boxes? Because if he would use them, he would have to lift his sombrero with every bid, in order to grab a bidding card. By old-fashionedly speaking his bids he only has to lift the sombrero once: when sorting his cards.

En hils fra Orkanger