1NT response structure

[jdonn]

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?

That's an almost nonexistant concern to me. It's one shape of one hand, and if you just bid stayman with no way to show it you get every fit but the 5-3 (or alternatively, transfer then 2NT and lose only one 4-4). The weak option covers a lot more shapes and a much wider range of hands.

[benlessard]

Yep i like AWM structure. Its a kind of creeping or crawling stayman

 

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...anCrawling.html

 

1nt---2C----2R-----2S is much much better as inv (with or without 4H).

 

1Nt----2D----2H-----2Nt & 1Nt----2H----2S-----2Nt as forcing are great i did play a system like this with 4card M transfer and its very nice. Bypassing 2Nt meant the 5M+4/5m while bidding 2Nt showed 4M+5/6m

 

(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.

 

(Im assuming you are talking of my initial structure not the 1 where 2C tend to show D and 2D tend to show S)

 

No with a maximum opener will still bid 2M in the suit he refuse with a unsuitable hand for suit contract.

 

Kxx

xx

KQxx

KQxx

 

1Nt----2D(multi INV)----2H

 

Is a maximum playing 10-14 yet over 2D invite ill bid 2H refusing a H INV. if partner is 5/5 M inv he will correct to 2S and now ill bid 4S.

 

(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.

 

Yes but i have the D signoff 90% at 2D so it even out. (in Imps not in MP of course)

Also my method allow for 5M opening.

1Nt---2C-----2H(5H min) + 1Nt----2C-----2S (5S min)

 

 

Also the big problem i have with both M weakish hands (5/5 + 5/4) is that the slow way often allow a lead directing.

 

compare

1Nt----2S(to play 5S but maybe 4/5H)

 

VS

 

1Nt----2C (double for C possible)

2D-----(X possible to show a hand not quite strong to overcall 2D) (or if they play a direct 2D as art)

--------2H (both M)

2S i prefer S (now you are sure to get a S lead)

 

 

 

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

This is by far the most important point of the whole matter. Its a transfer vs no-transfer dilemma.

 

Playing 10-14 NV , 12-15 V

 

Soff are-- 0-11, 0-10 pts

 

Inv are 11-13, 10-12 =these are about 3 times more frequnet then if you play a strong Nt

 

Game are 14-16, 13-15

 

Slam are 17+ , 16+

 

Where we win most imps is by far in the Soff area.

 

Our best imps income per sequence are

1Nt---2S etc

1Nt---2H etc

1Nt all pass (most of the time they could make 2 something)

1Nt (2M) pass (3M) going down

1Nt (2X) pass (2Nt) going down

 

Designing a weak nt structure is a unpleasant task because where you work the most will be the rarest sequence and the less profitable while the more direct (stupid) auction will give the most benefit.

 

+ There is facing a passed hand factor. Having 2 structure for 1Nt opener is a bit annoying and having only 1 structure mean the frequency for all the slammish/find the best game gadgets are divided by two.

 

 

 

 

PS we also play the same structure for

 

1C----1D-(waiting)-----1Nt (15-18 or 16-19 may have 5M)

[lexlogan]

Puppet Stayman was originally designed to conceal opener's shape. Unfortunately, simply showing hearts involves bidding all three of the other suits artificially: 1NT-2C!-2D!-2S! .

 

On frequency, you could swap the 2C and transfer sequences : if responder transfers and bids again, he shows only a four-card major, while the Puppet sequences show 5. Note that responder with a weak hand and 5+ in a major still uses the transfer, while hands with 4-4 in the majors still use 2C, rebidding in notrump.

[Free]

Hmmm I thought puppet stayman was invented to find out about 5 card Majors and still rightsiding the contract... :ph34r:

[dake50]

Why not 4-suit xfers starting with 2C -> D ?? Then responder SHOWS(not asks) which 4M he has.

I too hate Stayman as TOO blabby. Why ask just to inform oppts hidden hand has/not 4M?

[1eyedjack]

Why not 4-suit xfers starting with 2C -> D ?? Then responder SHOWS(not asks) which 4M he has.

I too hate Stayman as TOO blabby. Why ask just to inform oppts hidden hand has/not 4M?

Not the most helpful of posts, I think.

 

It is my observation that

 

1) a simple and standard set of responses copes well enough with most hands, and

 

2) There is also not enough bidding space for a perfect set of responses - a perfect set being one that will guarantee you to get to the best spot.

 

So, system design is concerned with closing an already fairly narrow gap between existing methods and the optimal, by assigning an intelligent priority to the hand types for which you are resigned for the system not to cope or not to cope well.

 

I doubt that there is much difference in overall effectiveness of any of the souped-up response structures in use. Each method copes better with certain hands but at a cost of coping worse with others. It is the comparison of the bad hands for the systems that distinguish them, and for the most part these are infrequent and/or uncostly.

 

Anyone who wishes to propose a method as superior only has a chance of convincing me of its merits if the entire structure is listed, so that the bad hands for the method are apparent or at least acknowledged. And anyone who tries to suggest that there are no bad hands for their method is deluded.

 

It may well be possible to generate a system of responses as you suggest, based on 2C being a transfer to 2D, whose effectiveness may be comparable with alternative high precision methods against which it is pitted. But unless you put up the entire structure I for one have better things to do with my time than consider it.

[awm]

Here's what I'm playing these days, in my partnership with the most convoluted agreements. I'll start from the highest bids because they're simpler. Our notrump range is 14-16, with frequent upgrades of 13-counts with a good five-card suit.

 

4M = to play

4m = transfer to major (south african); lets us pick who declares or use keycard/exclusion

3NT = to play

3M = four cards in the bid major, 0-1 in the other, will be close to three-suited so typically 4144 or 41(35), can also be 40(45) or 40(36).

3m = four-plus cards in the bid minor, 0-1 in the other, 3-4 cards in each major, again sort of like a three-suiter; can be 4414 or (34)15 or 3316 or various patterns with void in the short minor

2N = transfer to clubs; either 6+♣ to play, or various GF hands with 5+♣, rebids are 3♦ showing 5-5 in the minors GF, 3M showing a 3-card fragment with 0-1 in the other major, 3NT showing a balanced slam try in clubs, 4♣ as 4-6 in the minors slam try, 4♦ is rkc for clubs, higher bids exclusion setting clubs.

2♠ = quantitative game invite, or one-suited game invite, or quantitative slam invite. Opener bids 2NT with a minimum, or otherwise the cheapest suited invite which he would not accept. Various scramble methods available in case opener shows weakness in a suit where responder is also weak (i.e. responder has 3244 invite and opener shows max that would reject hearts).

2♥ = transfer to spades. After this, 2NT shows a GF with ♠+♣, 3♣ shows a GF with 5+♠ and 4♦, 3♦ shows a GF with 5♠+5♦ or 4♠+6♦, 3♥ shows an invitational hand with 5+♠ and 5+♥, 3♠ is a game force with spades (asks cuebid), 3NT is choice of games, higher calls are splinters setting spades. Relay continuations allow responder to pattern out in most cases.

2♦ = transfer to hearts. Continuations similar to after 2♥, with 3♥ rebid being 5+/5+ in the majors GF and 3♠ being slam try in hearts. Transfer followed by 2♠ is any invite with 5♥.

2♣ = forces 2♦. This can be diamond signoff. If not passing 2♦, responder can have invite with one or more 4cM, invite with 5♠, GF with ♦, GF with both majors, or GF with a balanced hand and slam interest. Continuations are:

....... 4♣ = 6-4 in the minors GF

....... 3N = balanced diamond slam try

....... 3M = fragment, 0-1 in the other major, diamond slam try

....... 3♦ = (45)31 or (46)21 shape

....... 3♣ = (45)22 or (45)13 or (46)12 shape

....... 2N = invitational with 44 majors, (45) majors also possible

....... 2♠ = invite or better with 4♥, will not have 4♠

....... 2♥ = invite with 4+♠, or GF relay with a balanced slam try, maybe 4♥ if GF

 

Basically:

 

(1) We give up on playing 2M on declined invites, except for the five spade invite. This structure is focused more on reaching the best game and finding slams. We've observed that playing 2M in seven-card fits is not as much of a win as it's made out to be, especially at MP/BAM scoring.

(2) We have a lot of "siding" control for contracts, playing virtually all invites from the stronger (opening) side and often having the choice of who declares on GF hands with suits.

(3) We lose the "garbage stayman" hands but gain the diamond signoff at the two-level.

(4) We have very accurate methods for responder to show a GF with virtually any common shape. This helps a lot on "choice of game" or "find a light slam" type of hands.

(5) We have fairly extensive relays starting with 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ and 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠, allowing us to find minor suit fits when responder has a balanced slam try and so forth. This is one of the big downsides of Keri as best I can tell.

(6) There is some "low information" property because opener will typically show max/min on the 1NT-2♣-2♦-2M sequences, which conceals whether an invitational auction has taken place (i.e. responder could've been game forcing the whole time). We also conceal whether opener has four cards in the other major that responder doesn't hold via this sequence. Of course when opener has no major we do reveal responder's major-suit holding (which stayman leaves ambiguous). Of course, responder's hand is coming down as dummy anyway, but it might help on opening lead.

 

I know this structure is very different in spirit from the Benlessard structure and a lot of others mentioned here. I think it's more similar to the jdonn structure, except that we replaced stayman with puppet (and garbage stayman with diamond signoff) and added a lot of shape relays on top of it. Obviously this is hard to compare, because our structure is designed more towards a "strong notrump" with a narrow range and finding the best game, rather than towards a "weak notrump" with a wide range and stopping low on invites as much as possible.

[benlessard]

Im not sure about the forced 2D vs almost forced 2D

 

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

 

or

 

1Nt----2D----2D (almost forced may have 4M & 5M)

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

1Nt----2C----2S (5S minimum)

 

You can even add

 

1Nt----2C----2Nt (4S4H max)

1Nt----2C----3C (3253 or 2353 max)

1Nt----2C----3D (3235 or 2335)

 

the downside is that you are sometimes going to play 3D instead of 2D but (often with a 10 card fit) or 4C instead of 3C (with an 11 card fit) but you can show a nice addition of hands.

 

Because our 1M opening are never 5332 we are forced to open them 1Nt/1C so we really need the puppet stayman so we play the almost forced 2D.

 

 

PS

AWM do you get some lead directing X after 1Nt----2C----2D----2H(S inv)

 

my feeling is not really since you play a strong nt and responder is at least inv and you can declare on both side to play a S game or a S partscore.

 

Some sequence a suprinsingly immune to lead directing.

[awm]

A few points here:

 

(1) We have not noticed many lead directional doubles. Sometimes these kinds of doubles help us in any case, since we can redouble to play, or at least we are forewarned about the lead and now have methods to check for stoppers (whereas without the lead directional double we might blast into 3NT with no stopper and you never know when opponents will find the right lead).

 

(2) We do not particularly like giving extraneous information about opener's hand, nor do we like taking up space that responder might need to pattern out. In particular showing a 5-card minor over 1NT-2♣ seems very poor. We also routinely bid 2♣ puppet to diamonds with bad hands and five diamonds, so we're hardly guaranteed a huge fit when opener has three diamonds.

 

(3) We've found that 5332 hands opposite balanced hands with 3-card support often play better in notrump rather than 4M. Thus we are not particularly eager to find opener's five-card major on such hands (not to mention it helps the opponents on lead). Note that hands with singletons normally show their singleton (i.e. 1NT-3m, 1NT-2♣/2NT-3M), so we can easily get to 4M on a 5-3 in these situations.