Stayman, then 2S

[cherdano]

The uncontested auctions I am asking about are:

(1) 1N-2♣-2♦-2♠

(2) 1N-2♣-2♥-2♠

 

As usual, this is not about your favorite agreement with a regular partner, but about BBO advanced. (IMO, "undefined" should deserve serious consideration.)

 

Some context: In Fred's writeup, 1N-2C-2D-2H is defined as weak with both majors; I think this would be almost universally understood as such, hence is clearly the right choice. He also suggest 3 of other major after stayman and major response as artificial slam try in opener's major.

 

For the record, BWS agrees with Fred's definition and defines 2♠ in both sequences above as "invitational" (I assume: natural).

 

For the record, I think the 3oM agreement is very nice, but somewhat on the borderline of what can reasonably defined in BBO advanced. Say, if I were playing with an (American) advanced/expert, I would expect that he likes the agreement as much as I do, but neither of us would assume that the other would assume that this is the agreement.

[Guest Jlall]

I voted undefined. There is no general consensus on what people play this auction as as far as I've seen.

[MickyB]

I'd expect the former to show 5S4H weak, but that's because it is dominant in the UK.

[kgr]

1N-2C-2D-2H is defined as weak with both majors

If 1N-2C-2D-2H is weak with both majors then IMHO:

- 1N-2C-2D-2S should be weak, both majors , but longer Spades then Hearts.

- 1N-2C-2H-2S : I would say invitational with 4 card S, but this depends of the definition of 1NT-2NT. If 1NT-2NT is natural invitational then you can bid 1N-2C-2H-2NT with an invite and 4 card S.

[cherdano]

1N-2N is transfer to diamonds.

[kgr]

1N-2N is transfer to diamonds.

Then...

If 1N-2C-2D-2H is weak with both majors then IMHO:

- 1N-2C-2D-2S should be weak, both majors , but longer Spades then Hearts.

- 1N-2C-2H-2S : invitational with 4 card S.

 

Because: If you have a weak variant in 2C, then opener will not bid 2NT with both majors (also not is max). And you can't play 1NT-2NT as invite because it is transfer to D. So you have to invite via 1NT-2C-2D/2H/2S-2NT without a major. Therefore 1NT-2C-2H-2NT does not promis a 4 card S and with an invite and a 4 card S you should bid 1NT-2C-2H-2S (because as said opener can still be 4-4 in the majors).

...This leaves the question if it should be a forcing invite?

[whereagles]

Hum.. if

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 2♥

 

is weak, sign-off with both majors, then I suggest

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 2♠

 

as inv with 4 hearts and 5 spades. Resp tried stayman, and now proposes spades as trumps, after seeing opener has no 4 hearts.

 

To invite with 5 hearts and 4 spades, you can try

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 2♠

 

Still, that would leave

 

1NT 2♣

2♥ 2♠

 

as undetermined.

 

I should just add that in SEF, the auction

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 2M

 

is natural 5M + 4 other M, invitational but NF.

[joker_gib]

Hum.. if

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 2♥

 

is weak, sign-off with both majors, then I suggest

 

1NT 2♣

2♦ 2♠

 

as inv with 4 hearts and 5 spades. Resp tried stayman, and now proposes spades as trumps, after seeing opener has no 4 hearts.

 

To invite with 5 hearts and 4 spades, you can try

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 2♠

 

Still, that would leave

 

1NT 2♣

2♥ 2♠

 

as undetermined.

 

Exactly what I play and for

 

1NT 2♣

2♥ 2♠

 

I play weak with 4♠ and 5m+ but ...

 

 

Alain

[Free]

Other :P

 

These days, 2♣ response doesn't promisse a 4 card Major anymore, so you have to show it if you have one. This is important in the 2nd situation. With 5-4M invites you should stay below 2NT, so with 5♥-4♠ you can start with transfer followed by 2♠, and with 5♠-4♥ you start with stayman and find a fit or rebid 2♠ (after 2♦ response).

 

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 5+♠ (and usually 4♥ looking for the best fit first).

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

[Walddk]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

I would reverse it and let 2NT be invitational with 4 spades, and 2♠ invitational without 4 spades. This way, opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

[1eyedjack]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

I would reverse it and let 2NT be invitational with 4 spades, and 2♠ invitational without 4 spades. This way, opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

If opener intends to accept the game try (in Spades) then you gain by placing the declaration with opener. If opener intends to refuse the game try (in Spades) then you gain by playing at a lower level albeit at the cost of responder being declarer (but I reckon that the gain outweighs the cost there). It is certainly more standard, in my experience, for 1N-2C-2H-2S to show an invitational hand with 4 Spades.

 

I have also played 1N-2C-2H-2S to show a weak Spade-Diamond 2-suiter (on rare occasions in which I have played systems were 2C as Stayman promises possession of a 4 card major), ie would have passed any other response to Stayman.

 

Without agreement I would normally assume that 1N-2C-2D-2S showed a weak hand (ie no game interest) with both majors but preference for Spades (2H showing the same hand but denying preference for Spades).

 

I do not endorse or recommend these methods, but if all you are polling is expected standard treatment ...

[Free]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

I would reverse it and let 2NT be invitational with 4 spades, and 2♠ invitational without 4 spades. This way, opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

Yes, both approaches work, but it's not even close to a standard meaning I'm afraid. I've also toyed with that idea, but there's another advantage of playing it natural: opener can pass with a 3 card ♠ and a poor doubleton, afraid of going down in 2NT. When opener plays 4♠, opps know about 4-4-2-2 and a minor, so it's quite easy to defend. Anyway, I don't think there's much difference after all, at most some minor (dis)advantages...

[MickyB]

1N-2N is transfer to diamonds.

Ah, if Stayman is non-prom then I agree with Koen - 1N:2C, 2H:2S should be inv with 4 spades, 1N:2C, 2D:2S should be to play.

[Finch]

That is what I would assume with a random UK pick-up partner.

[Guest Jlall]

At least the brits all agree :P

[david_c]

Yep, agree with Mike, Frances etc. :P

[Walddk]

Yep, agree with Mike, Frances etc. :)

You are never too old to learn :P Generally speaking, I am not impressed with British (Acolish) bidding theory. I have said it before, and I still think that Acol is a system of the past. Too bad that innocent youngsters are led astray.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

So.. what would you say is a modern system? Just curious...

[david_c]

Yep, agree with Mike, Frances etc.  :)

You are never too old to learn :P Generally speaking, I am not impressed with British (Acolish) bidding theory. I have said it before, and I still think that Acol is a system of the past. Too bad that innocent youngsters are led astray.

Oh, you needn't worry about me Roland, I gave up Acol long ago. And for what it's worth, I would prefer 2♠ here to show an invitational hand with 5 spades (saying nothing about hearts) in both these sequences. That's definitely not standard though.

[Walddk]

So.. what would you say is a modern system? Just curious...

Britain has many very good card players, but the system lets them down, and as a result they don't achieve the international results they should. Yes, I know that Hamman-Soloway play 4-card majors, but that is part of a strong club system, and they are more like the exception to the rule of how far you can get playing a 4-card major system.

 

A modern system is not 4-card majors. I can mention several other approaches, but basically I think it's much better to play 5-card majors. To be fair, many British pairs of the "younger" generation have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and have started to change their old-fashioned system.

 

As just one example of how hampered you are by opening a 4-card major before a 4-card minor is an auction like this:

 

1♠ - 2♦

3♦

 

That can still be 4-4. It doesn't make sense at all in my opinion. Another is the light 2/1 responses (8+). It might have worked well in the 50's and 60's, but it doesn't now. It's much too difficult to control.

 

This is not really the topic in this thread, but now that you asked ....

 

I am prepared to get some stick, but I really think it's a sin that new British bridge players must learn Acol.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

So.. what would you say is a modern system? Just curious...

2♠ is either balanced game try or a club suit. With ♣ suit it can be weak or strong.

 

Opener bids 2NT if he would have passed 2NT game invite. HE bids 3♣ if he would have accepted 2NT game invite, Responder then, passes 2NT if he had balanced game invite, and he bids 3♣ if he had clubs (and presumably a major) and weak. And he bids 3NT or anything else but 3♣ if he had clubs and strong.

 

This obviosly means if 2♠ was balanced or clubs, what does an immediate 2NT rebid mean and what does a direct 3♣ rebid mean. I refer you to etm victory webpages for more details.

 

I am not suggesting this for BBO advanced however.

[luis]

Puppet to 2NT to show a hand with a 4 card major and a 5 card minor and invitational values.

3m directly over the Stayman response is then forcing with a 5 card minor, generally a slam try since you don't make a transfer with only 5 cards.

[MickyB]

Roland -

 

Weak NT, 4 card majors and strong NT, 4 card majors are two very different systems. The former has little merit beyond simplicity, the latter certainly has its moments.

 

Playing weak NT I'd expect 1S:2D, 3D to be 5S4D NF. I don't know whether it would be normal to rebid 2NT or 3D on a weak NT if playing 4cM, 14-16 NT - I suspect 2NT would be normal, in which case 3D would still show 5-4. Most of the strong NTers play 2/1 (almost) GF.

[Finch]

Yep, agree with Mike, Frances etc.  :)

You are never too old to learn :P Generally speaking, I am not impressed with British (Acolish) bidding theory. I have said it before, and I still think that Acol is a system of the past. Too bad that innocent youngsters are led astray.

 

Roland

A couple of points.

 

David, Mike and I have said what would be considered standard for this auction in this country. None of us has said that we consider that best, or whether we actually play those sequences that way.

 

This is all about continuations after a 'standard' Stayman response to a 'standard' 1NT opening, and isn't really about Acol at all.

 

In fact, the first time I had the sequence 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2S with someone whom I now play a lot with, he passed 2S thinking I had a weak hand with spades and a minor. So that sequence is not as 'standard' as perhaps it could be.

[hrothgar]

Said it before, said it again: In order to work efficiently, bidding systems need to be well integrated. You can't take votes about individual bidding sequences in isolation from the rest of the system (or, in this case, in isolation from the rest of the NT module). Let me rephrase that - you can, but you end up with a damn crappy system.

 

Comment 1: There are a 1001 different treatments over NT. Even within a limited geographic range there is nothing really approaching standard.

 

Comment 2: Consider (once again) that the FD file is intended both for disclosure AND for teaching programs. Polling the BBO forum isn't nearly as important as talking to teachers and finding out what they prefer to present to students.

 

Comment 3: Pick a single, well designed NT system and copy this faithfully. I don't care if you decide to standardize on the Scanian NT structure, Keri, Washington Standard, WJ2005, or what have you. I do care that the structure as a whole is well designed and well documented.