1NT response structure

[MickyB]

It seems to me that Stayman is a poor convention. It is generally accepted that, when one hand is balanced and the other unbalanced, the unbalanced hand should describe itself; Stayman violates that principle. It also discloses declarer's shape, which can help the defence.

 

I suspect it is better to have responder describe his hand, probably anchoring the 2♣ and 2♦ responses to hearts and spades, although I'm not sure which way round would be better - you could have 2♣ showing 4+spades with 2♦ being a fairly standard transfer to hearts. Does anyone know of any structures along these lines? The only one I've found so far is that played by England international, Peter Crouch.

[whereagles]

Have a look at Ron Klinger's 5-card major Stayman book. This is a good book, in which some of the things you say get worked out.

 

Incidently, peter crouch sux. He can't score even if his grandmother was at the goal :)

[Flame]

The Way Forward's 1NT structure might be just what you're looking for.

[Mbodell]

I like the KERI system (Klinger Extension and Range Inquiries) that tries to separate these things nicely so that the responder can captain more intelligently and ask only the appropriate question or tell only the appropriate information. The key trick is that 2♣ becomes a puppet to 2♦ that allows for two meanings for most bids depending on if you go through the 2♣ puppet or not.

[1eyedjack]

I suspect it is better to have responder describe his hand, probably anchoring the 2♣ and 2♦ responses to hearts and spades, although I'm not sure which way round would be better - you could have 2♣ showing 4+spades with 2♦ being a fairly standard transfer to hearts. Does anyone know of any structures along these lines? The only one I've found so far is that played by England international, Peter Crouch.

I proposed a method along these lines back in 2004 in these forums, having already played it this way for a few years with an albeit subjective feel that it was an improvement.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=37834

 

That method uses 2C to show Hearts or balanced, 2D to show Spades.

[glen]

Dating 2000 (but played in the 90s), there is my:

 

ETM (Everything That Matters) Weak/Mini Notrump Structure

 

2♣: Asks for 4♥s (but does not promise ♥s, just asks).

2♦: Asks for 4♠s (but does not promise ♠s, just asks).

2♥/♠: To play, often not four in the other major.

2NT: GI, no four card major.

3♣: Signoff, both minors.

3♦: Asks for weak doubleton major.

3♥/♠: Singleton/void in other major, at least 5-5 in minors.

3NT: To play.

4♣: Gerber.

4♦: Both minors, singleton/void in both majors.

4♥/♠: To play.

4NT: Slam invite.

5♣/♦: To play.

 

After 2♣ and 2♦ asks, 2NT & three level suit bids are transfers to the next suit bid. After the replies to 2♣ or 2♦, responder can bid:

2NT: transfer to ♣s.

3♣: transfer to ♦s.

3♦: transfer to ♥s.

3♥: transfer to ♠s.

3♠: transfer to notrump (choice of contracts).

3NT: To play.

4♣: RKCB in major suit that was asked by responder.

4♦: Ace ask (Gerber)

4♥/♠: To play.

4NT: Slam invite.

5♣/♦: To play.

[Free]

Heeman is great for describing the unbalanced hand. Check it out!

[Gerben42]

It seems to me that Stayman is a poor convention. It is generally accepted that, when one hand is balanced and the other unbalanced, the unbalanced hand should describe itself;

 

It is? I have played many methods where the BALANCED hand, which can have only so many possible shapes, describes further, and the unbalanced hand then takes the decision.

 

Anyway to find my preferred 1NT scheme, read the Bridge World.

[1eyedjack]

It seems to me that Stayman is a poor convention. It is generally accepted that, when one hand is balanced and the other unbalanced, the unbalanced hand should describe itself;

 

It is? I have played many methods where the BALANCED hand, which can have only so many possible shapes, describes further, and the unbalanced hand then takes the decision.

 

Anyway to find my preferred 1NT scheme, read the Bridge World.

I abstain from commenting on whether the opinion of the OP is "generally accepted" on this point (better for unbalanced hand to describe than to ask), but I certainly agree with it personally. We have had this discussion with example hands elsewhere in this forum.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=36457

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=37588

[dake50]

Flip your mind.

From 'how do I bid THIS hand?' TO 'when do we want to be in 3NT, 4M: then 6M, 6NT, 6m; then even partials not NT. When you actually look at those answers the bidding to get there almost answers itself.

For example I want to be in 3NT with no blab when I have a source of tricks, but am I likely to miss 6m on my long suit? How many controls are needed? Max for 1NT? Can I find no-stuff opposite my short?

 

CONTRACT before HAND.

[benlessard]

Im going to give you on hindsight on the reasoning I did when i built my system.

 

A structure over 1Nt can somewhat be calculated like in chess because there arent too much sequence.

 

So my first task was to pull out sequence up on how to reach 2S

 

1Nt-----2S

1NT---- 2H------2S

1Nt-----2D-----2H-----2S

1Nt-----2D-----2S

1Nt-----2C-----2S

1Nt-----2C-----2H-----2S

1Nt-----2C-----2D-----2H-----2S

 

 

How to reach 2H

 

1Nt----2H

1Nt----2D-----2H

1Nt----2C-----2D-------2H

1Nt----2C-----2H

 

 

how to reach 2D

 

1Nt----2D

1Nt----2C-----2D

 

 

Now you decide how many forcing/how many INV you want/ and of course what is your sign off.

 

I did started by D,H and then S

 

1-Obviously 2C & 2D need to be forcing. a D signoff is cool but there is much more important things... If after 1Nt--2C opener response is 80% 2D 20% something else then 2C could be used as a D signoff with a puppet to 3D later..

 

 

2- If we look at hearts

 

(A) I want to sign off

(b ) i want to show or ask for 4 hearts with a INV hands and stay at 2H in 4-4,4-3 fit

(c ) i want to INV with 5 or 6 cards and stay at the 2 level if my partner is min

(D) I Also would find if partner has 5H (puppet stayman)

(E) i want to GF with hearts

(F) i want to GF with both majors

(G) i want to GF with H & show a side suit

(H) i want to ask or show 4H and a longer minor for game/slammish purposes.

(I) miscellanous like 1345, 4441,0355

 

 

A,B,C really need to be at the 2 level at or below 2H.

 

reg stayman doesnt take care of B,C

Keri stayman crunch together B,C

1eyed method crunch A,C

2way stayman does abc but sometimes you play at the 3 level.

1Nt---2C-----2S .(oups i had inv with 5-6 H)

 

 

D is fun to have at the 2 level when opener is minimum (when opener is max and responder has an invite there is no problem as long as you can discover all the 53 fits later) (puppet stayman is a bit unpopular these days but i still like it)

 

What i did was

 

1Nt---2H to play

1Nt---2C---2D----2H INV with 4H (not 4-5 like in Keri)

1Nt---2C---2H (opener has 5H but with a minimum hand)

 

1Nt---2D (all invitationnals hand with a 5or+M, a 6m, with no M)

1NT--2D----2H (i refuse your H inv)

 

ABCD are showned before the 2H contract so all these hand i can play at 2H not 3H or 2Nt

 

 

3-For spades ive wanted the same thing

 

1Nt----2S to play

1Nt----2C-----2D-----2S inv with 4S (not 4-5 like in Keri)

1Nt----2C-----2S (opener has 5S but with a minimum hand)

1Nt----2C-----2D------2H-----2S (responder has 4H inv but opener doesnt have H but has 4S minimum instead)

 

1Nt----2D-----2S -----pass (opener accept a H inv but refuse a S inv and responder pass mean hes got a 5-6S INV)

 

1Nt----2D-----2H-----2S (opener refuse a H inv and responder is having a 5-6S INV wich opener will probably refuse)

 

By crunching together many INV at the 2D and using rejection responses i free up a lot of place and still able to stop in 2M. We never play 3M and rarely 2Nt (much better then in Keri)

 

 

RECAP on the 2 level non GF hands

 

 

1Nt-----2S (to play)

1NT---- 2H------2S (doesnt exist since 2H is to play)

1Nt-----2D-----2H-----2S (responder as 5S or+ INV)

1Nt-----2D-----2S (responder as 5S or+ INV)

1Nt-----2C-----2S (responder as 4S INV)

1Nt-----2C-----2H-----2S (opener has 5H minumum & 2S is a gadget to sign off)

1Nt-----2C-----2D-----2H-----2S (responder has 4H inv but opener has 4S minimum)

 

 

 

 

1Nt----2H (to play)

1Nt----2D-----2H (responder as 5H or+ INV and opener refuse the INV)

1Nt----2C-----2D-----2H (responder has 4H inv)

1Nt----2C-----2H (opener has 5H minimum)

 

 

The 2 level is jam pack with INV sequence and it worked so well that we decided to play a wide ranging 10-14 and 12-15 (red) with often 5M . The downside is that our GF hands are packed mostly at the 3 level so for slams hands its perillous.

 

When NV our frequency of 1Nt opening is about 3 times higher then those playing 15-17 Nt. So the need for a sharp system was important for us.If you want the complete system send me a message.

[Mbodell]

By crunching together many INV at the 2D and using rejection responses i free up a lot of place and still able to stop in 2M. We never play 3M and rarely 2Nt (much better then in Keri)

I'm curious as what you mean by the above. Keri, at least the versions I play, also very rarely play in 3M and also doesn't play 2NT very often either (unless you specifically do the range question 1NT-2S planning on the invitational question and planing to play in 2NT or 3NT).

[awm]

I've played a lot of Keri (and modified versions thereof) over the last few years. Some of my observations have been:

 

(1) You don't get to play 2M on a 4-4 fit very often. The issue is that many (but not all) of the hands where opener is minimum with four trumps give us good game prospects when responder has five trumps. Since the 1NT-2♣-2♦-2M sequence shows "invite with 4-5 trumps" this makes opener passing with four cards impractical (except on really bad hands) and so we do fairly often play 3M.

 

(2) You do play 2NT sometimes, most often when responder has a 5-card major invite and opener has doubleton (these hands you can't play in 2M).

 

(3) When you play 2M on a 4-3 fit, it's not the big win it's made out to be in Ron Klinger's book. In fact 2NT seems to play better fairly often. My experience has been that at IMPs it is close to break even whereas at MPs it's actually better to be in 2NT. Part of the problem is that opener's hand (with the three trumps) is obviously balanced and doesn't offer much ruffing help. Another part of the problem is that the Moysian only plays well when the four-trump hand has a strong suit, which may or may not be the case.

 

(4) You lose fairly often on the "garbage stayman" type hands. One particular issue that comes up is when responder has both majors and something just short of a normal invite. Playing stayman, you can bid 2♣ and then raise openers 2M bid or show a garbage stayman hand via 2♥ over 2♦. Playing Keri, you pretty much have to guess whether to invite, risking either 3NT on 23 high with no fit when opener is max, or 2M on a 9-card fit when game is cold.

 

(5) The Keri-style super-accepts of transfers, while they seem nice on paper, almost never come up.

 

(6) The three-level splinter auctions are probably the biggest win from playing Keri over most other notrump structures. Being able to pattern out after major suit transfers is also quite good (although many people can do this via retransfers etc).

 

(7) Being able to determine when opener is 4333 and then select 3NT over 4M on an 8-card fit is a big win when it comes up.

 

(8) Keri is very good for slam auctions when responder has shape opposite the 1NT opening, but not so good at finding the best strain for slam (especially 4-4 minor suit slam) when two balanced hands face each other.

[glen]

This analysis of Keri seems dead on to me.

 

In my last go at a NT structure (everybody who reads the non-natural forum invents their own - its the price of admission to this discussion), I stated these objectives:

 

The key objectives of this (ETM 06) structure are to:

> Provide plenty of choice of game auctions

> Allow responder to show singleton/void on all game going auctions

> Find 4-4 and 5-3 major fits on game going hands

> When finding 4-4 and 5-3 major fits do not reveal too much about opener’s hand

> Let responder show major suit weakness to opener on game going hands

> Permit game invites with 6+ in a minor and 4 in a major

> Have minor suit signoffs as transfers at 2NT or higher to avoid double of 2♠.

 

There was another one I didn't mention at the start, which is permit game invites with a five card major to stop at 2M.

[benlessard]

I find Keri awful. For basically the same reason as AWM there is no distinction between 4 or 5M for invitationnal purpose. Check the difference between my system and between Keri

(1) You don't get to play 2M on a 4-4 fit very often. The issue is that many (but not all) of the hands where opener is minimum with four trumps give us good game prospects when responder has five trumps. Since the 1NT-2♣-2♦-2M sequence shows "invite with 4-5 trumps" this makes opener passing with four cards impractical (except on really bad hands) and so we do fairly often play 3M.

1Nt---2C---2D----2M (show exactly 4) not 4 or 5

(2) You do play 2NT sometimes, most often when responder has a 5-card major invite and opener has doubleton (these hands you can't play in 2M)

1Nt----2D(inv with a unknown 5M or no M)

???

 

2H = i refuse a H inv (if you have 5 or 6H and a inv hand i refuse)

2S = I refuse a S INV but accept a H inv

2Nt = I accept a M INV but refuse a balanced INV

3C+ i accept all inv

 

So when responder has a 5 or longuer inv hands and opener refuse we play 2M not 2Nt not 3M

(3) When you play 2M on a 4-3 fit, it's not the big win it's made out to be in Ron Klinger's book. In fact 2NT seems to play better fairly often. My experience has been that at IMPs it is close to break even whereas at MPs it's actually better to be in 2NT. Part of the problem is that opener's hand (with the three trumps) is obviously balanced and doesn't offer much ruffing help. Another part of the problem is that the Moysian only plays well when the four-trump hand has a strong suit, which may or may not be the case.

 

I agree, 4-3 fits are not as good as 5-2 fits i believe that most of the time in imps they are better then 2Nt but it no miracle. The problem in Keri is that responder need to pass with a 3card support since partner may have 5. But if responder showed exactly 4 then with ruffing power you may choose moysian or choose to play 2Nt when having no ruffing power.

 

(4) You lose fairly often on the "garbage stayman" type hands. One particular issue that comes up is when responder has both majors and something just short of a normal invite. Playing stayman, you can bid 2♣ and then raise openers 2M bid or show a garbage stayman hand via 2♥ over 2♦. Playing Keri, you pretty much have to guess whether to invite, risking either 3NT on 23 high with no fit when opener is max, or 2M on a 9-card fit when game is cold.

 

Garbage stayman in imps is garbage. If i invite with a 5M and be able to stop in 2M (if partner refuse) I will get basically get the same result. The only time I will lose is when 2H in 4-4 will make while 2S in 5-2,5-3 will fail or that I will invite with 5S and partner will refuse but we make 4H (that rarely happen).

 

With both 5M however im better placed. But these never happen anyway

 

1Nt----2D----2H (I refuse a H inv)------2S (5S or + INV im trying my chance in S now)

1Nt----2D----2S (i refuse in S but accept in H) we will play 4H

 

In Mp garbage stayman is cool but in imps its almost worthless.

 

(5) The Keri-style super-accepts of transfers, while they seem nice on paper, almost never come up.

 

Im not a big superacceptance fan but playing weak nt im pretty sure SA is dubious. And the frequency is low. Super accept is important when responder could be INV and the SA send you to a game that you would have fail to find otherwise. But if responder cannot be INV then SA lose its teeth.

 

(6) The three-level splinter auctions are probably the biggest win from playing Keri over most other notrump structures. Being able to pattern out after major suit transfers is also quite good (although many people can do this via retransfers etc).

 

I wish i had those but there is no room in my system since we dont play transfer we need 2Nt+ 3 level bids + some others space to show many type of GF hands.

 

(7) Being able to determine when opener is 4333 and then select 3NT over 4M on an 8-card fit is a big win when it comes up.

 

I have these gadget but they never come up. So i dont consider this pertinent.

 

 

 

Here is my view on invitationnal hands for IMPs.

 

First of all if you play 12-14 or 15-17 the frequency for Inv hand are just too low to my taste. But if you play 10-14 or 12-15 or 12-16 INV hands are 3-4 times more frequent so we are not talking about the same system at all.

 

INV that allow you to stop far from game have much more values then the others.

 

INV bids to stop at 3m instead of 3Nt

Inv bids to stop at 2Nt instead of 2Nt

INV bids to stop at 3M instead of 4M

 

have little values compared to inv bid that allow me to stop in 2M in 5-2,53 fit or inv bids that allow me to stop in 2M with 4-4,-43 fits.

 

For example a bid to show a INV hands with 5H+5S is only working when if you invite with the wrong major and opener refuse you stop in 2M but you had a big fit in the other major and game make. Or that 3M in the good fit make but 2M in the wrong fit goes down

 

 

.

[1eyedjack]

I like Benlessard's structure and officeglen's also. Will have a good look. Particularly if responder is a passed hand I think that refocussing on invitational hands at the expense of GF is a winner.

 

One area in which I have been thinking for some time to make adjustments in my current system is that when responder has a single suited GF hand with a side shortage it may not be necessary to pinpoint the long suit below 3N. Simply showing the location of the shortage and the fact that there is an unspecified single suit may suffice. Opener bids 3NT (or not) based on his holding in the known shortage. Responder can then still pull to a major (but perhaps now give up on slam), or might pass and conceal his minor. At the moment my methods show the long suit and the shortage below 3N, but that may be an inefficient use of resources.

[benlessard]

Not opening 1Nt with 5M what i would play is very close to ur methods.

 

1nt ---???

 

2C tend to show hearts 4+ INV or GF 4+, or any other inv without 4S

2D 4S + INV or GF

2H to play

2S to play

2Nt MSS

3C+ GF with minor

 

 

1Nt---2C?

 

2D no H fit (min or max) denies 4S max

2H fit min (maybe only 3 with ruffing power)

2S Max with 4S no h fit

2Nt+ max fit GF etc

 

 

1Nt---2C-----2D-----???

 

2H i have 5 or+ H inv

2S i have either a balanced inv or a long m inv or a 4M 6m inv(responses in rejection)

2NT+ H GF

 

 

1Nt----2D----???

 

2H no S fit (min or max)

2S fit min

2Nt+ fit max

 

 

1Nt----2D------2H-------???

 

2S INV with 5 or 6 S

2Nt+ GF wiht at least 4S

 

 

Since you have a lot of GF space... all the 4M-5m and the 5M + 4m will fit easily i think. Just being able to do that and inv and stopping at 2 is a big improvement on 2way stayman.

 

 

I would used 2Nt as a mss. and 3C--3D as GF slammish. i would give away the m signoff ive tried to find hands where 3m makes and 1nt doesnt have a play and i couldnt find many. Same for the the weak 5/5m.

 

Its rare that LHO pass when you have a weak 55 in the m or a 7 card suit in the m. (this is of course playing weak nt)

 

For the both GF M hands i think they fit better in 1Nt---2D then in 1Nt---2C

[benlessard]

What you could play also is that 2D could have 4H +5S or 55M or so that sometimes you could stop in 2H

 

 

1Nt----2D----2H (not forcing) so ...

 

1Nt----2D----???

 

2H min i dont have 3S

2S min i have 3S

2Nt min but i super accept S.

3C+ MAX GF

 

 

 

So that with both M inv or with 5S 4H (inv) you can bid 1Nt---2D. You will sometimes play in a 2H in 43 instead in 2S in 52 but its very very small.

[awm]

I agree that benlessard's method will be quite good on the invitational hands. The question is whether this is really worthwhile, since he is losing a lot on the game-forcing or slam try or signoff hand types because essentially all two-level sequences are devoted to invites.

 

As to the garbage stayman hands, there are two times when this is important:

 

(1) Responder is weak with both majors. The ability to play in the better major fit is fairly often the difference between making and not making. Even if it's only the difference between -1 and -2 that will be substantial at IMPs when vulnerable. The weaker the 1NT opening, the more frequent these hands where you have half the values (or less than half) will be.

 

(2) There is also the "both majors light invite" hand. Say I have some 4441 or (45)31 kind of pattern and partner opens 1NT. It will often be the case that if we have an 8-card major fit somewhere, we can take a lot of tricks. We may well make game even if we don't have 25 hcp. But I don't necessarily want to commit to the 23 hcp game when we have no major fit and partner accepts the invite. I don't think these hands are all that unusual, and playing the benlessard method you are basically committed to inviting and getting overboard when no major fit materializes.

 

There's also a point that says even if the slam try hands are infrequent (maybe they are opposite a weak notrump or if responder is a passed hand), there are still a lot of hands where it's important to get to the right game. Obviously we need to find our major suit fits, but just because we have an 8-card major fit doesn't make 4M the right game. We want to avoid 4M when we have 4333 opposite 3532 most of the time, or 4333 opposite 4333. We also might want to play 3NT when responder has a singleton and opener has a strong but slow holding (KQT9 for example) opposite that singleton. These sorts of considerations are often game swings at imps. Similarly, just because we don't have an 8-card major fit doesn't mean 3NT is right; it could easily be right to play a 4-3 fit or play in 5-minor especially if responder has a singleton opposite opener's three small.

 

The structures proposed here seem to throw out this kind of exploration, as well as losing a lot of slam tries. Yes, you will occasionally win when you play 2M instead of 3M, or 2M instead of 2NT. But a lot of times both partials will make, and when they don't it's a small swing. Getting to the wrong game or missing a good slam (or bidding a bad slam) are potentially big swings.

[MickyB]

I don't like to admit it, but maybe I was wrong :rolleyes:

 

As Adam says, Stayman handles the weak hands and the "light invites" fairly well. Anchoring 2♣ and 2♦ to ♥ and ♠ seems to not do so well on these hands. Other structures in this thread have put all the low level bids into showing these hands, which seems to make life harder on the strong hands.

 

It seems to me that while game-forcing, unbalanced hands would rather describe themselves, there simply isn't room for that to work for most weak and invitational hands - you have very limited space to work with when the best contract may well be at the two-level, so you need the better defined hand to continue describing itself.

[cwiggins]

Does Kristof Martens's Stayman plus transfers improve over standard stayman?

 

The following summary is based on "Bidding Like Music: The Martens System."

 

After 1NT-2C; 2D:

- 2H is garbage stayman

- 2S is a transfer to clubs (could be any strength)

- 2N is invitational

- 3C is a transfer to diamonds (any strength)

- 3D is a transfer to hearts (Smolen equivalent)

- 3H is a transfer to spades (Smolen equivalent)

- 3S is 5-5 in the majors; GF

 

After 1NT-2C; 2H (shows 4 hearts denies 4 spades):

- 2S = transfer to clubs with 4 spades

- 2N = INV

- 3C = transfer to diamonds with 4 spades

- 3D = transfer to hearts, slammish, no shortness

- 3H = invitational

- 3S, 4C, and 4D = slammish, splinter

 

1N-2D is a transfer to hearts with 4+ hearts. Responder has 4 when he has a balanced hand and exactly four hearts. (1N-2C; 2S 2N is a transfer to clubs; so a balanced hand with hearts needs to be shown another way.)

 

In response to the 2D transfer, opener bids:

- 2H any minimum

- 2N maximum but only three hearts

- 3H maximum with four hearts

 

2H is a "normal" transfer to spades. You can use pretty much whatever you want above 2H. (Personally I like 3x being a splinter.)

 

This scheme lets you make your "light" invitations with unbalanced hands as well as balanced hands and doesn't give up on garbage Stayman.

 

In slammish auctions, responder usually gets to show where his shortness is, a critical factor.

 

One plus of these auctions is that "light invitations" can be done with both balanced and 4M-5+m hands.

[benlessard]

Anchoring 2♣ and 2♦ to ♥ and ♠ seems to not do so well on these hands.

 

Au contraire they do exceptionnally well on these hands

 

2C----2D (no fit)-----2H (5 or 6 H inv)

2C----2H (fit min)-----pass

 

2D----2H (no fit)------2S (5 or 6 S inv)

2D----2S (fit min)-----pass

 

2S and 2H for direct signoff is also bringing singificant imps over transfer (for signoff hands)

 

This setup is close to optimal for 0--up to inv hands.

 

Downside

1-no transfer so for GF and slammish hand this is a minus. But since 2C followed by a new suit would suggest 4H+5x or 5H +4x we are ok

 

2- doesnt handle puppet or both M too well.

 

 

But lets discuss regular stayman with garbage staymnan in IMPs a little bit.

 

2C---2D (no M)----2H/2S

 

Here you have a 2 choice to make

1 is 2H/2S inv or (sign off & light inv).

2nd does parnter need to correct with 32.

 

I strongly believe that INV & no correct is best. So lets call it way 1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

way 1=

 

With all weak 55+,54,64 i have to transfer.

 

xxxxx

xxxxx

xx

x

 

i have to transfer therefore 50% of reaching the best contract.

 

with both 5M invitationnal.

 

2C---2D----???

 

Ive still have to make 50% guess unless i hit partner with a 4M

 

With a 5S/4H INV

 

2C---2D-----2S INV its perfect.

2C---2D-----2H perfect here too.

 

with 6/4 inv

 

2C---2D----2S perfect

2C---2D-----2H perfect

 

 

Way 1 is good when responder is 5/4 or 6/4 with inv or when hes 5/5 and opener has a 4M. When responder is weak its useless.

 

 

 

 

 

Way 2 = cant correct with 32, sign off or light inv.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

2C---2D----2H (is to play)

2C---2D----2S (is to play)

 

With all weak 55+,54,64 i have to stayman if i hit partner with a 4M bingo otherwise im playing the same contract.

 

EX

 

xxxxx

xxxxx

xx

x

 

1Nt---2C----2D----??? 50% guess here.

 

The big advantage in way 2 is the light INV a light inv need a fit to play game

 

5431 light inv

 

1Nt---2C---- if partner have a 4M we will play game otherwise we will play 2S

 

However with stronger inv you are stuck

 

5431 good inv

 

1Nt---2C----2D----smolen is GF.

 

so with a stronger inv probably transfer followed by 2Nt is best. (yurk IMHO)

 

 

 

 

way 3 signoff with correction

--------------------------------

 

 

with a weak 44,55,54 i can stayman and bid 2H.

 

 

weak 5521 or weak 4531,

1Nt---2c----2D-----2H (partner pick ur best maj)

 

 

weak 5431 you still need to transfer.

weak 64 transfer is best.

 

with a light inv 6S4H you can use GS but with a light inv 4621 you might reach 43 instead of 62 fit

 

light inv 4621

 

2C---2D (no M)-----2H------2S ( i correct because im 32) IMHO this is no big deal since its unlikely 2S goes down. (ps if your 1nt could be 2245 then you might endup in 42 fit)

 

 

 

Ill leave way 4 (the worse) to you. INV with correction

 

But i think my point is clear since you have to choose a specific GStayman before getting your cards (inv or no inv correct or no correct) at the end GS is only handling very few hands.

 

 

1Nt---2C---2D----2H/2S is 2 prime estate spaces to reserved only for both M hands wich make it clear for me that GS is crap.

[awm]

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

 

2♣ stayman. Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♠ over partner's 2Red response shows 5+♠ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5♠+4♥ invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2♥ bid by opener). Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♥ over partner's 2♦ shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2♠. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

 

2♦ is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2♦ followed by 2♠ by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

 

2♥ is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2♣. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2♠) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

 

When compared to the method benlessard suggests:

 

(1) Both methods will end in 2♠ when responder has a five spade invite.

(2) Benlessard method will end in 2♥ when responder has a five heart invite, whereas this method plays 2NT/3♥ (or 3m if responder 5-5).

(3) This method reaches 3M when a 4-4 major fit materializes on an invite auction but there is no game, whereas Benlessard method plays 2M.

(4) This method always allows to play 2♥ when responder has a light invite with the majors, whereas Benlessard method basically forces you to game opposite a misfitting maximum.

(5) This method lets you find the better major suit fit when responder is weak with 4-4 or 4-5 or 5-5 in the majors, whereas Benlessard method you have to pass with 4-4 and guess a five card suit with 4-5/5-5. It also allows stayman-and-pass with (34)51 type patterns.

(6) This method lets you explore for both major suit fits and yet still end in 2♠ on a declined invite with 5-4 majors. Benlessard method doesn't seem to allow that.

(7) This method is substantially better on choice of game or mild slam try hands because of the "transfer and re-transfer" structure.

(8) There will be ups and downs due to the comparison of signing off via transfer and pass versus signing off via a direct signoff bid. I've found that the direct signoff bids are not as big an advantage as people make them out to be. The main reason is that an opportunity for opponents to bid when our side is limited is potentially much less dangerous for them (much more valuable to them) than an opportunity when our side is unlimited. The direct signoff gives each opponent such an opportunity. The transfer gives three opportunities to bid instead of two, but only one of them is in such a balancing situation.

[jdonn]

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

 

2♣ stayman. Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♠ over partner's 2Red response shows 5+♠ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5♠+4♥ invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2♥ bid by opener). Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♥ over partner's 2♦ shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2♠. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

 

2♦ is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2♦ followed by 2♠ by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

 

2♥ is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2♣. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2♠) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

These are my favorite methods.

[PassedOut]

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

 

2♣ stayman. Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♠ over partner's 2Red response shows 5+♠ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5♠+4♥ invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2♥ bid by opener). Bidding 2♣ followed by 2♥ over partner's 2♦ shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2♠. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

 

2♦ is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2♦ followed by 2♠ by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

 

2♥ is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2♣. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2♠) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

These are my favorite methods.

I use this structure except that:

 

1NT -- 2♣ -- 2♦ -- 2♥

 

is invitational with 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s.

 

I'd like to use garbage Stayman, but how then do you handle invitational hands with 4♠s-5♥s?