1NT: responder->new suit after Stayman/transfer

[42]

Hi!

System: 1NT = 15-17, Stayman and transfer to M (showing a long m is possible via 2♠).

When a fit is found through Stayman and responder has slaminterest ,you have a special system for bidding on, starting with 3♣. So in this case Splinter is out.

I am interested in how you understand these sequences (opps silent):

 

1. 1NT 2♣ // 2♥/♠ 3♦,

2. 1NT 2♣ // 2♥/♠ 4♣/♦

 

3. 1NT 2♦ // 2♥ 3♣/♦/♠

4. 1NT 2♦ // 2♥ 4♣/♦

 

5. 1NT 2♥ // 2♠ 3♥

 

Ty ;)

[pclayton]

Here's what I like to play. Its called "BUST" - Balanced and Unbalanced Slam Tries. Its not too tough on the brain, and its pretty effective.

 

1. 1N - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠. Not too tough. Invitational to 2N with 4♠'s.

 

2. 1N - 2♣ - 2 major - 3 of other major. If you think about it, this is an impossible auction in a standard stayman sequence. So this sequence shows a slam try and an unknown stiff / void. Opener relays to the next step and responder shows the shortness. The sequences work the same after a Jacoby xsfr.

 

3. 1N - 2♣ - 2 major - 4♣. RKC for the major. Same with xsfrs.

 

4. 1N - 2♣ - 2 major - 4♦. The 'idle' bid. This shows a balanced slam try, typically some sort of 4-4-3-2; ♠AKxx ♥KQxx ♦Kxx ♣xx is about right. Jacoby then 4♦ generally shows 6 in the suit. With a 5332, you would rebid 4N.

 

5. 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦. Shows 5-5 in the majors and asked pard to pick a major and the level. Pard is expected to cue bid with a hand that is accepting game. Note that #2 above makes this sequence impossible.

 

Related to #5:

 

6. 1N - 2♠ / 2N (minor suit transfer)- acceptance - 3 of a major. This shows 3 of the OTHER major and is a slam try. Responder may have only 5 pieces in the minor.

 

Related to #6:

 

7. 1N - 2♣ - 2 major - 3 minor or 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣. Because of #6, this sequence is now impossible, so this can sensibly be played as invitational or even a signoff.

 

Getting even further away from the sun:

 

8. 1N - Texas - accept - new suit: should be either exclusion (since other slam tries are available) or asking bids.

 

There may be other related sequences that I am not aware of.

[barmar]

5. 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦. Shows 5-5 in the majors and asked pard to pick a major and the level. Pard is expected to cue bid with a hand that is accepting game. Note that #2 above makes this sequence impossible.

 

Many pairs have other sequences to show 5-5 major hands (it's common to use 1NT-3♥/♠ to show weak/strong majors). Why shouldn't that 3♦ bid be natural, showing 6+ ♦ and an unknown 4-card major? Or maybe even 4=4=5=0? And similar for 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ showing long ♣.

[Gerben42]

1. 1NT 2♣ // 2♥/♠ 3♦,

 

Natural and forcing with 4 in the other major and 5+♦

 

 

2. 1NT 2♣ // 2♥/♠ 4♣/♦

 

Splinter

 

3. 1NT 2♦ // 2♥ 3♣/♦/♠

 

New minor on the 3-level: Natural GF

Jump to 3♠: Splinter

 

 

4. 1NT 2♦ // 2♥ 4♣/♦

 

Splinters

 

5. 1NT 2♥ // 2♠ 3♥

 

Invite 5♥ 5♠

[han]

This is what I think is standard in some circles (maybe what jdonn called Eastern scientific?):

 

1. natural and GF, implies 4 cards in the other major.

 

2. 4C = 1430 keycard Gerber, 4D = balanced slam try. (3oM would be a slam try with unspecified shortness)

 

3. 3C, 3D = natural and GF. 3S = slam try with unspecified shortness.

 

4. 4C = 1430 keycard Gerber, 4D = balanced slam try (stronger than 4M, which is only a mild slam try).

 

5. Slam try with unspecified shortness.

[42]

Why shouldn't that 3♦ bid be natural, showing 6+ ♦ and an unknown 4-card major? Or maybe even 4=4=5=0? And similar for 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ showing long ♣.

We defined that this way, but we had a discussion about whether it is invitational, plain GF or slaminterested. Most of the time, you just bid 3NT with a GF hand and hope that they don't lead the M that isn't well stopped, or?

[Chamaco]

Why shouldn't that 3♦ bid be natural, showing 6+ ♦ and an unknown 4-card major?  Or maybe even 4=4=5=0?  And similar for 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ showing long ♣.

We defined that this way, but we had a discussion about whether it is invitational, plain GF or slaminterested. Most of the time, you just bid 3NT with a GF hand and hope that they don't lead the M that isn't well stopped, or?

In order to discuss this, it is very important to define the structure of transfers over 1NT.

 

a. What does it mean if you xfer to a minor and then bid your major, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ?

 

b. What does it mean if you xfer to a MAJOR and then bid your MINOR, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ?

(e.g. some people, including Fantoni-Nunes, and many others in Italy, play that xfer to a major followed by showing a minor is INVITANTIONAL only, and shows 4 cards in the major and 6+ in the minor).

[42]

Why shouldn't that 3♦ bid be natural, showing 6+ ♦ and an unknown 4-card major?  Or maybe even 4=4=5=0?  And similar for 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ showing long ♣.

We defined that this way, but we had a discussion about whether it is invitational, plain GF or slaminterested. Most of the time, you just bid 3NT with a GF hand and hope that they don't lead the M that isn't well stopped, or?

In order to discuss this, it is very important to define the structure of transfers over 1NT.

 

a. What does it mean if you xfer to a minor and then bid your major, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ?

 

b. What does it mean if you xfer to a MAJOR and then bid your MINOR, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ?

(e.g. some people, including Fantoni-Nunes, and many others in Italy, play that xfer to a major followed by showing a minor is INVITANTIONAL only, and shows 4 cards in the major and 6+ in the minor).

We don't play 4-way transfers. We bid 2♠ which is either invitational for NT, or responder has a long minor, weak or slaminterested.

 

to b.: they play transfer to M and then bidding a minor with 4M6m? Not via Stayman?

[Chamaco]

to b.: they play transfer to M and then bidding a minor with 4M6m? Not via Stayman?

Yes, xfer then new suit at 3 level (of lower ranking) shows 46 or better (6+ in the new suit) but INVITATIONAL only, nonforcing.

 

While this is not widespread at intermediate/advanced level, quite a few experts (e.g. playing in the nationals finals) play this way in Italy, but there are thousands of methods around,so perhaps this is not standard and miht lead to troubles to play without strict agreements.

 

===

 

BTW I think that this tends to work better in conjunction with some relay scheme instead of classic stayman, so it might screw up the rest of the NT structure.

 

===

 

Having tried it, I can only say I like it, but there are better players than myself that can assess how much this works better or not than other schemes.

[kenberg]

If I read this correctly you have some conditions:

 

1N-2S shows a long minor. I take it that this means either minor, and thus 1N-2N is natural.

 

1N-2C-2H-3C is, or might be, the start of a "special system".

 

Splinters, directly, are out.

 

No doubt these conditions have an effect on the rest of the structure. For example, I play with one partner that 1N-2C-2H-3C is strong, shows clubs, shows a major. Usually the major is spades, but if after 3C- something -? responder bids 4H then that is to be taken as a club suit, a heart fit, and a slam try. Under the conditions you impose I have no idea if this is sensible. It depends, I guess, on your special sequences.

 

These things are all so interwoven that it seems to me you take someone's system whole or not at all. Using your methods for some bids, and someone else's for other bids, may not work out so well.

 

 

On the positive side, it seems a couple of the responses present very good methods, so just adopting one of them completely could be very satisfactory. Or you can try to interweave them with your stated conditions, if you can make it work

 

Ken