THE WOLFF SIGNOFF (WSO)
The Wolff Signoff came into existence very early in Bobby’s career — in fact, long before many people knew how to spell Wolff. He chose to play an adaptation of the Flint Convention (introduced by world class British player, Jeremy Flint). Flint introduced a method for a partnership to stop short of game after a strong opening call. Specifically, it dealt with a 2NT opening where partner’s 3D response directed the opener to respond 3H. The 3D bidder could pass the forced call of 3H (if that was his suit) or bid 3S, 4C or 4D which the opener was expected to pass.
Bobby saw much merit to this stop-on-a-dime method and in 1956 convinced his friend, partner and mentor Ozzie Jacoby to incorporate it into their system. Ozzie, who was also a popular nationally syndicated Bridge Columnist, did him one better. He labeled the convention Wolff Signoff and for five days running diligently dedicated his column to its effectiveness — recommending its use and showcasing the many different auctions in which it could successfully be applied. Thus, the birth of WOLFF SIGNOFF.
The underlying intent of WOLFF SIGNOFF is to distinguish between a FORCING AUCTION and a SIGNOFF after partner has made an invitational (non-forcing) call of 2NT (not to be confused with an opening 2NT bid). The conditions apply in WSO whether in a contested or uncontested auction and can be applied by either opener or responder. The purpose of this convention is to allow a weak hand to ‘get out’ of the forcing mode after a 2NT invitational call by partner. The warning light goes on when the partner of the NTer bids 3C, forcing a 3D bid and then the club bidder makes the final contract determination. It is predominantly directed at steering the contract away from NT and into a long suit.
THE GENERAL RULE — VERY SIMPLY STATED: WHEN ANY BID (OTHER THAN 3C) IS MADE IN RESPONSE TO PARTNER’S INVITATIONAL 2NT CALL — IT IS 100% FORCING TO GAME.
Since its inception over fifty years ago, it has been expanded to encompass a variety of related auctions. If you check the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, you will only find a brief thumbnail description of the original version. Stay tuned — as I detail the modern application of Wolff Signoff in the week to come.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Judy,
How is this distinguished from a general “check-back” Stayman bid?
Happy New Year,
Mark2
Judy,
I look forward to this series as I use Wolff sign-off but undoubtedly incorrectly or at least not to it’s full potential benefit.
As an aside, your efforts in writing this informative and entertaining blog are appreciated.
John
Hi Mark,
Actually Checkback Stayman and Wolff Signoff have two entirely different goals. Checkback Stayman is an economical way to go forward in the auction, finding information to both determine the right strain (specific suit or NT) and the proper level, all the way from part score to slam.
Conversely, Wolff Sign-off is a method which usually* says, “I know what the right contract is so please follow my discipline and we’ll stop there.” (* On rare occasions it is used to move forward but is mainly for the purpose of staying low and getting out of NT).
Ok Judy, where is the follow-up? it is now late May and the “weeks to come” have expired. In particular please comment on 1) Declarer’s refusal to accept the transfer to 3D and his direct re-bid of 3 responder’s M, and, 2) the use of Responder’s bid of 3D over 2NT to show 6 card major, and 3C to show 5 card major.