Weak NT Structure

[olien]

This system is good opposite a weak NT because the weak/INV hands are played by opener, but when responder has a strong hand, then responder gets to play it:

 

2♣ standard stayman

2♦ forces 2♥

...........weak with ♥

...........INV with ♠

...........weak or GF with both minors

...........INV with ♣

...........GF with ♦

...........GF with ♥ that wants to play from opener's side

2♥ forces 2♠

...........weak with ♠

...........INV+ with ♥

...........GF with ♠ that wants to play from opener's side

2♠ Natural GF

2NT forces 3♣

..........weak with ♣

..........INV with any 6+ card suit except ♣

..........mild SI with ♣

..........want to play ♣ from opener's side

3♣ forces 3♦

.........weak with ♦

.........GF with ♣

.........want to play ♦ from partner's side

3♦ 5/5+ Majors, INV or better

3M weak

3NT relay to pass

4♣ roman gerber

4♦ weak

4M to play

 

 

1NT-2♣:

Opener makes standard re-bids but responder's 3m re-bid is NF

The advantage to this is now you can make a weak Game Try w/ 4M 5+m

 

1NT-2♦// 2♥:

Pass weak with ♥

2♠ INV 5+♠

2NT weak or GF minors

..........3m preference

................3M both minors GF, shortness

3♣ INV with ♣

3♦ GF with ♦

3M 4M 5+♦ GF

3NT choice of games with primary ♦

4♥ want to play 4♥ from partner's side

 

 

1NT-2♥// 2♠:

2NT INV with 5♥

3m 5+♥ 4+m GF

3♥ 6+♥ GF

3♠ splinter

3NT choice of games with 5♥

4m splinters with primary ♥

4♠ want to play 4♠ from partner's hand

 

 

1NT-2♠:

2NT normal bid

3x natural with super accept for ♠

 

 

1NT-2NT// 3♣

3♦/M Natural INV

3NT mild slam interest with ♣

4♣ strong SI with ♣ but want to play from partner's side

5♣ want to play 5♣ from partner's side

 

 

1NT-3♣// 3♦:

3M 4M 5+♣ GF

3NT choice of games type hand with ♣

4♣ strong slam interest with ♣

5♣ to play

5♦ want to play 5♦ from partner's side

 

 

Rest of structure is pretty much common sense. Hope you enjoy this

[han]

Some of your bids are more vulnerable in competition because they don't immediately promise a suit. I think rightsiding really isn't important enough to accept this downside.

[Echognome]

I think you have some nice ideas in here and I can see how they could be effective.

 

As Han describes though, it would be good if you had some notes down on how to handle interference. The 2♦ bid seems especially vulnerable to sort out after interference.

[helene_t]

Looks interesting.

[rbforster]

I agree it seems like a very comprehensive system in terms of constructive bidding. Depending on how weak your NT is, a competing goal might be to make immediate non-forcing bids to make it hard for the opponents to compete. For example,

 

1N(10-13)-(P)-2♠(to play) - (?)

 

vs

 

1N - (P) - 2♥(->2♠) - (?)

 

gives both a direct double and a delayed double to show different hands, as well as a direct 2♠ bid as some sort of two-suited takeout.

[benlessard]

Some of your bids are more vulnerable in competition because they don't immediately promise a suit. I think rightsiding really isn't important enough to accept this downside.

Agree 100%.

 

 

1Nt----(P)-----2D-------(X)

P*------(3D)----???

 

*(Opener could XX 2D to show a maximum hand without H support but you lose the meaning of the standard XX).

 

Opener couldnt complete the transfer because he doesnt like H or couldnt superaccept H.

 

 

Now your at the 3 level with a hand that could make 3H/3S/4H/4S/3Nt but could go down in 3H or 3S.

 

 

Weak NT is a curious beast youll win most of your imps on stupid auction and lose most of your imps on science.

 

Just for signoffing

 

1Nt---(P)-----2S to play is going to bring IMPs vs 1Nt---(P)-----2H (transfer to play)

 

Playing transfer over a weak Nt is surely playable but no matter how much science you put into it, it likely that direct bidding will give the same reward. Weak nt isnt really for the system geek its for the practical players.

[glen]

...Just for signoffing

 

1Nt---(P)-----2S to play is going to bring IMPs vs 1Nt---(P)-----2H (transfer to play) ...

There is a considerable difference between:

 

1NT-2♥ transfer; and

1NT-2♥ various

 

In 1NT-2♥ transfer, either opponent can act with short ♠s.

In 1NT-2♥ various, the player after the 1NT bidder is frozen - not enough to take direct action over 1NT, and now not enough to compete after 1NT-2♥;-2♠ since risks finding out that responder has a nice hand without primary ♠s.

[glen]

... 2♣   standard stayman

...

1NT-2♣:

Opener makes standard re-bids but responder's 3m re-bid is NF

The advantage to this is now you can make a weak Game Try w/ 4M 5+m

I never saw much point in this on bad hands - finding a major fit just spurs the opponents into action. I would prefer:

 

1NT-2♣-;any-3m as bad invite or close to it.

A weaker hand with a 6+ minor just signs off. Good invites just bash game.

 

Using this approach, one can take out the ♣s invite out of the 2♦ response in the above structure.

 

5-4/4-5 major invites are troublesome in many NT structures. If you play:

 

1NT-2♦ as ♥s weak, or 5+♠s invite+, one can bid it with 5-4 in the majors invite (i.e. 5♠s) if opener always super accepts with 4+♥s, such as:

 

1NT-2♦;-?

-- 2♥ denies 4♥s, and now 2♠ NF invite

-- 2♠ 4+♥s, would not accept ♠ invite

-- etc.

 

Likewise:

1NT-2♥ as ♠s weak or ♥s invite+. After 2♥:

-- 2♠ denies 4♥s, and now 2NT NF invite with 5♥s

-- 2NT 4+♠s, would not accept ♥ invite

-- etc.

 

Even without these considerations, I like the structure as posted and hope to see it in action.

[rbforster]

Some comments and observations on system holes (suggestions to follow):

 

1. you don't have an obvious way to handle 5=4 and 4=5 major invites cheaply (I guess you can use 1N-2♣-2♦-2M but the same shapes and weak is more common)

2. the 2♠ GF seems a little redundant together with 2♥ and 4♠, but I guess this handles the 5♠+m 2-suiters and the 5♠ balanced invite.

3. do you really need/want 3M and 4♦ as preempts?

4. no bid for both minors invitational

5. your 5+ spade invite (2♦...2♠) is really just 5 spades right, since with 6+ you'd go through 2N...3♠ (1-suiter invite)?

 

I might suggest a few changes. Well, it turns out to be more than a few, but I think they're good. Basically, if you think about when opener can break the transfer you can get more information in ways that don't cost much...

 

1. play Texas for the 4M hands that want opener to declare. This is useful even over weak NT to set trumps for RKC. For the "I want to play 4M hands", you still have a direct 4♠ and 2♥->2♠...4♥ so this is basically "free" except for the loss of the 4♦ preempt which no one else plays anyway.

 

2. After 1N-2N, let opener bid 3♣ with better clubs and 3♦ with better diamonds. This will help most of your responding hand types evaluate well (like the club slam tries and the diamond invites), but also means you can include the "both minors weak" option here (which just passes opener's preference, and right-sides it to boot).

 

3. Using #2, you can play 1N-2♦-2♥-2N as Inv+ minors (5/5+ when Inv). 3m is now a minimum preference, but 3M by opener can be good hands (either cues or showing minor preference) and 3N can accept while showing no slam interest opposite minors.

 

4. Using #3, note that after 1N-2♦ all of responder's hands are Inv+ except the heart signoff. This means we can have opener "superaccept" after 1N-2♦ with 4♥s and specified strength (either min or max) and have things work out. Here's a "normal" one where you accept with a ♥ maximum by bidding naturally:

 

1N-2♦

......2♥ any min, or max with <4♥

......2♠ (♠) 3-4♠, 4♥ max

......2N (♦) 2443 max

......3♣ (♣) 2434 max

 

then play transfers at the 2-3 level by responder which should get all the right-siding including the heart signoff. You can double check whether all your continuations can handle these sorts of responses, but since you've established a GF with any rebid by responder except 3♦->3♥ it shouldn't be too hard.

 

Here's a more creative version that superaccepts only on minimums with 4♥ and 2♠ (4 card support for the transfer suit and 2 in OM):

 

1N-2♦

.........2♥ all hands except mins 24xx

.........2♠ min 2443 (♥+♦)

.........2N min 2434 (♥+♣)

 

and then after 2♠ or 2N by opener:

.............P to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit

.............2N to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit

.............3♣ to play (1 suited clubs, both minors, or ♠+♣ with fit)

.............3♦ to play (both minors or ♠+♦ with a fit)

.............3♥ to play weak with hearts, or a rejected 5♠4♥ invite

.............3♠ GF minor slam try (3N rejects)

.............3N to play, could be 4♠5+♦ or diamond hand no longer interested in 5♦

.............4♥ to play, could be ♥ one suiter or 4♥5+♦

 

The point here is that responder with only Inv values and 5♠4♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♠ min we can play 2♠ but we can still get to 3♥ when responder has 54xx.

 

5. Similar to #4, let opener make a relay break after 1N-2♥ to show a minimum with 4♠2♥.

 

1N-2♥

.........2♠ all hands except mins 42xx

.........2N min 42xx

 

and then after 2N by opener:

.............P to play, 5♥ inv hand, no better fit

.............3♠ to play, weak spades or a rejected 45xx invite

.............other GFs as before (but giving up 3♠ as spade splinter)

 

Again, the point here is that responder with only Inv values and 4♠5♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♥ min he will correct to 3♥ over 2N but we can still get to 3♠ when responder has 45xx.

 

I like being able to handle the Inv 5/4 majors hands this way (now you transfer to your 4cM and then bid the cheapest step unless partner breaks relay to show a fit). Obviously if opener doesn't break relay and responder shows a 5cM invite, opener will bid 3OM on the way to accepting to recover the potential 4-4 fit. This frees up the garbage stayman sequence 1N-2♣-2♦-2M as a 5M-4OM weak hand which is a nice feature too.

 

6. 5/5 majors - I like 3♥ as 5/5 Inv and 3♠ as 5/5 GF instead of an omnibus 3♦ for either. Splitting the Inv/GF makes continuations more clear below 3N and doesn't endplay partner when he's opened 22(54) which seems to be one of his more likely shapes when I actually have a 5/5 majors hand. (I'm not sure there are too many hands that fit the direct 3M preempt type to bother catering to these)

 

7. If 3♦ is free per #6, you could use it to right-side the 5M332 choice of games hands when responder wants opener to play it. Right now responder will declare 4M whenever he has this hand type (2♠...3N or 2♥...3N). You could use

 

1N-3♦ 5M332 GF (generally forces 3♥)

......3♠ 5♥332 choice

......3N 5♠332 choice

 

Or you could find another use for the free 3♦ bid, although I'm not sure what you haven't covered yet.

 

Edit: I seem to have forgotten about the 2N->3♣ signoff hand in my suggestion #2. You can probably include this without too much trouble in the initial 2♠ response for example:

 

1N-2♠ weak long ♣ or 5+♠ GF

.........2N nothing special

..............3♣ signoff

..............3♦ ♠+♦ GF

..............3♥ ♠+♣ GF (with both majors, use a 5/5 option or Smolen with 5+/4)

..............3♠+ as before

.........3♣ any superaccept for spades

...............P weak clubs

...............3♦+ GF with spades agreed

[mikeh]

I held off on posting for a while, but ...

 

I think the system looks interesting, and it would be unfair to reject it without trying it. What follows are some specific comments based on a first view and then some more generic comments on weak nt structures.

 

1. I didn't see a way to show 5/4 4/5 majors.. others have pointed this out... I suppose this is doable by adding some extensions to the 2♣ structure

 

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

 

3. I didn't see a way of establishing opener's major as trump when responder has a fit and slam interest.. I assume that this can be done, as is sometimes done over a strong nt, by using 3 of the other major as a generic slam move in support of opener's major.

 

On a more general level, I personally doubt that a method in which responder describes his hand is as useful as a method in which the initial approach, on big hands, is to have opener do the describing.

 

I know that some very good players use transfers over weak notrump, so I am not saying that this approach is silly or unplayable, but I do think it is theoretically flawed.

 

The weak notrump hand is narrowly defined as to point count and relatively narrowly defined in terms of shape. This combination suggests that a method that allows responder to establish an early gf while extracting shape info from opener will have some advantages, especially if the relay can be broken below game, to allow opener to express liking or disliking of his hand in context.

 

Posts like the OP tend to get the scientists amongst us posting their own methods, claiming that they are better than the one posted by the OP. I can't help doing so :)

 

2♣: stayman, may be very weak, may be (most) invitational hands

2♦: artificial gf, with artificial responses

2M: to play

2N: minors or diamonds: if diamonds, then weak, if minors, weak or strong

3♣: to play

3♦: invitational to 3N, 6+ suit

3M: invitational to 4M: not to 3N (may be 5-5 with a major/minor, may be 6+ major)

3N: to play

4♣: gerber

4♦: texas and so on

 

The key is the response structure to 2♦:

 

2♥ denies hearts, silent about spades, responder can bid 2♠ to ask further

 

Over the 2♠ ask

 

2N denies spades, 3♣ Baron Corollary

3♣ 4 spades, 4 diamonds

3♦ 4 spades, 4 clubs

3♥ 4333 max

3♠ 5 spades

3N 4333 min

 

2♠ shows hearts, denies spades. responder can ask shape via 2N, similar structure as after 2♥ response

 

2N shows 5+ clubs, 3♣ sets trump

3♣ shows 5+ diamonds, 3♦ sets trump

3♦ shows both majors, 3M sets trump

 

I saw that Ben Lessard feels that weak nt wins due to the opps' stupidity rather than to any good structure.. as someone who has played one range or another of weak notrump for many years, including at a fairly strong level, I disagree. Yes, at the club level or in a stratified event in a regional, the opps will hand you a lot of gifts by inappropriate defensive bidding, but it is possible to have some pretty good auctions to good contracts, if you have good methods.

[keylime]

Mike,

 

I got to admit, there's a certain sexy feel to your structure there....

[MickyB]

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

Hang on. You *want* to play in 2NT when you probably have an 8- or even 9-card fit outside? Surely it's worth the occasional 7-card fit...after all, you'd transfer to a five-card major knowing it could be a 7-card fit. There's actually more reason to play in the minor here, as partner denying four cards in a specific suit (your four-card major) increases the chance that he has length in another.

 

At MPs it's more interesting, but at IMPs it seems clear to play 3m. And that's leaving aside the possibility of a 4-6 shape.

 

In fact, that's one of the few parts of this that I like :) The rest of it seems too vulnerable to interference (whatever methods you have to cope with it).

[MickyB]

On a more general level, I personally doubt that a method in which responder describes his hand is as useful as a method in which the initial approach, on big hands, is to have opener do the describing.

I'd much rather an unbalanced responder described his hand to opener than the other way around. The main reason for this is that if opener hears that responder has a GF with spade shortage, he knows that xxx spade means that they are close to slam, and that KQT spade means that 3NT is probably the spot. If responder, with a spade singleton, hears that opener has three spades, this information helps him very little, because of those two holdings are still possible.

 

There are other reasons for this too, but Mike+I have debated this before without resolution, so I won't lead into the same discussion again.

[mikeh]

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

Hang on. You *want* to play in 2NT when you probably have an 8- or even 9-card fit outside? Surely it's worth the occasional 7-card fit...after all, you'd transfer to a five-card major knowing it could be a 7-card fit. There's actually more reason to play in the minor here, as partner denying four cards in a specific suit (your four-card major) increases the chance that he has length in another.

 

At MPs it's more interesting, but at IMPs it seems clear to play 3m. And that's leaving aside the possibility of a 4-6 shape.

 

In fact, that's one of the few parts of this that I like :) The rest of it seems too vulnerable to interference (whatever methods you have to cope with it).

Hang on: the method gets us to 3m when we have close to game values, according to the OP. When opener doesn't fit responder's major, the odds seem pretty high that 2N will be ok even if we miss our 9 card minor suit fit. IOW, 2N will usually play as well or better than 3m when we have a 5-3 minor fit, will frequently (altho not as often) play as well as 3m when we have a 5-4 fit, and will almost always play better when our best fit is a 7 card fit.

 

This has zero to do with the reasoning behind transferring to 2M when one holds a weak hand with a 5 card major.. in those circumstances, there is a serious risk that the 5 card major will score few tricks if it is not trump. In the posted scenario, depending on the range of the weak notrump, responder's hand will be as strong as or even stronger than opener's.

 

When we have invitational values with a 5 card major, we transfer and then bid notrump... precisely to avoid 3M on a 5-2 fit... yet the suggested method goes out of its way to find and play in the 5-2 3-level fit, in a minor to boot!

 

As for the 4-6, in fact if the method was changed so that 3m showed a 6 card suit, then I begin to like it.. now 3m will almost always play as well or better than 2N, and knowledge of the 6th card will allow opener to bid 3N on hands on which fear of a 4-5 hand might cause him to reject the invite.

[MickyB]

When we have invitational values with a 5 card major, we transfer and then bid notrump... precisely to avoid 3M on a 5-2 fit... yet the suggested method goes out of its way to find and play in the 5-2 3-level fit, in a minor to boot!

We transfer then bid NT because that is the way to show an invite with five. We still expect partner to correct to 3M on a minimum with three, even though it might be 5332 opposite 4333.

 

Here responder is definitely unbal and will miss a 5-4 fit if he doesn't show the minor now. What is more, should he consider his hand unsuitable for playing in his suit, he can still rebid 2NT as in standard.

 

What does it matter that it's a minor suit? Unlikely the oppo will compete now, so it only makes about an imp difference...guess that adds up, but still - I expect 3m to be safer most of the time.

[helene_t]

Whether 3m should show 5 or 6 sounds more like a matter of judgment than a matter of system, IMHO. In any case opener is asked to bid 3N if his hand (in context) is a maximum and otherwise pass (or bid 3♠/4♠ if there must be a fit there)

[dake50]

Why do promoters of transfer structures keep Stayman?? Make 2C -> 2D also, then Smolen-esque if both Majors; 3-suit splinter rebids with assumed Major/ switcher for 'unassumed' Major.

[olien]

1) As to the 5/4 4/5 Major hands. If GF then bid stayman and re-bid 3M (smolen or not up to you) and if <GF then sign off in 2M like standard garbage stayman. when i said standard stayman, I was referring to a pretty standard stayman structure (i.e. 3oM as strong raise of opener's M)

 

2)the debate on 4M 5m 2♣ followed by 3m, use judgement, it's not mandatory.

 

3)Also, responder does get to describe GF unbalanced hands and opener can judge the suitability of their hand for responder.

 

4) the asssumed NT range is 11-14 or similar

 

5) i must admit that the system is vulnerable to interference however, think of it this way:

.......a) the opponents, even if they bid, have no cue-bid available

.......b) they can not make a lead directional double for fear of finding out that their suit is responder's suit (i.e. 1NT-(p)-2♥-(X)-p-(p)-XX!!!)

Simply put, the opponents also don't know what responder has

 

6) INV hands with both minors are rare, to say the least. can sign off or GF.

 

7) 1NT-2♦// 2♥-2♠ is INV with EXACTLY 5-card ♠

 

8)being able to bid stayman and sign off in 3m is nice, say partner opens a weak NT and you have:

 

xx Qxxx xx AKxxx or similar, wouldn't you like to bid stayman and see if partner has 4-card ♥ and if he doesn't be able to sign off in 3♣?

[awm]

I'll just quote my response on the other notrump systems thread.

 

I've had some very bad experiences playing methods where 2♦ is either a transfer to hearts or various invites that need not include hearts. It seems like opponents sometimes bid over the 2♦ call and sorting out the alternatives becomes a total nightmare.

 

I'd recommend that responses to 1NT should generally guarantee length in a particular suit, or guarantee invitational values... and to stay away from calls that are "either/or." But to each his own.

[benlessard]

I saw that Ben Lessard feels that weak nt wins due to the opps' stupidity rather than to any good structure

Not what ive meant .

 

What ive say is that your going to win imps with "simple & stupid bidding" and lose imps on "science hands".

 

Most of the wins come from

 

1Nt---all pass.

 

1Nt----(P)-----2M-----all pass.

 

1Nt----(2??)

etc.

 

All the tough slams hands are those where you are likely to lose imps since youve youve lost a lot of bidding space by opening 1Nt and not being able to transfer. By transfering you open yourself to direct bidding (X, cuebid,) and to delayed bidding ( pass followed by X,2Nt,new suits)

 

To my knowledge most top level weak Nt dont play transfers.

[ArtK78]

I assume that by Weak NT, most posters are using a 12-14 HCP range. I play a 10-12 Mini NT with a couple of partners (1st and 2nd seats nonvul) in the context of a light opening system. Paul Soloway also played a 10-12 1NT opening 1st and 2nd seats nonvul with Bobby Goldman and he advocated this response structure, which I have been using with some success:

 

1NT ?

2 C = nonforcing Stayman

2 D = forcing Stayman (see below)

2 H = to play

2 S = to play

2 NT = transfer to clubs, many types (see below)

3 C = slightly invitational

3 D = slightly invitational

3 H = preemptive

3 S = preemptive

 

1NT 2 D (game force)

?

2 H = spades

2 S = hearts

(2NT asks for second suit; 3C = diamonds,

3 D = clubs)

2 NT = five-card minor

(3C asks; 3 D = diamonds, 3 H = clubs)

3 C = both majors

3 D = both minors

3 H = 2-2-4-5

3 S = 2-2-5-4

3 NT = 3-3-3(4)-4(3)

(4 C asks; 4 D = diamonds, 4 H = clubs)

 

1NT 2 NT = transfer to 3C

3 C ?

pass = clubs

3 D = signoff in diamonds

3 H = 5-5 majors, inv.

3 S = short spades

3NT = short hearts

[TMorris]

I am intrigued by the perceived disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT structure - I play club/tournement bridge in the UK, the majority use a weak NT and everyone bar the occasional beginner uses transfers. I accept that this in itself might be an arguement that transfers are wrong but putting that to one side for the moment.

 

Why are the disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT any different to using transfers with a strong NT? The advantages are just the same as far as I can see.

 

I think benlessard is saying that if you don't transfer it is harder to make a protective bid as you have fewer options. I accept this is true but in my experience the decision to protect depends to a large extent on whether you are playing a good pair or not (at MP anyhow) and is significantly outweighed by the advantages that using transfers gives you.

 

Is it perhaps that if you are using a weak NT when the majority of the field are playing a strong NT there are disadvantages in using transfers so I am not seeing these disadvantages when playing against a mainly weak NT field?

[glen]

World class weak NT pairs that use transfers include:

 

Martel-Stansby

Dubinin-Gromov

Pazur-Zawislak (in a 10+-13-)

 

For Martel's thoughts, see what he said here:

 

Martel Interview

 

starting with:

I think that playing a sophisticated transfer system is vastly superior to two-way Stayman. ...

[gnasher]

It seems to me that people who dislike transfers facing a 12-14 notrump are usually from places where a strong notrump is the norm. Players who grew up with the weak notrump almost always play transfers.

 

The arguments in favour of two-way Stayman and weak takeouts have always seemed nonsensical to me. Here is why:

 

Regarding competition when responder has a signoff in a major:

- Playing transfers, fourth hand gets one chance to act in a live auction and one chance to act in a balancing situation; second hand's only chance to act is when the auction is still live.

- Playing natural weak takeouts, each defender gets a chance to act in a situation where responder is known to be weak.

 

It's not at all clear that weak takeouts gain in this area. The danger of acting in a live auction is not just that you might go for a penalty; it's also that they may have just been about to bid game, and you have told them how to play it.

 

Regarding rightsiding:

- If responder has invitational values or less, opener has the stronger hand, so transfers are superior.

- If responder has about the same strength as opener and an unbalanced hand, the holdings that are most likely to need protecting are in responder's short suits (because you'll have to play on his long suits anyway). Our honours in these suits are more likely to be in opener's hand than in responder's hand. Again, transfers are superior.

- If responder has about the same strength as opener and a balanced hand, on average there is no reason to want one player rather than the other to play the hand.

- The only time that transfers lose is when responder is significantly stronger than opener.

 

It seems to me that the perceived benefits of two-way Stayman are almost non-existent, whereas the disadvantages in terms of reduced accuracy and unwanted leakage of information to the opponents are significant.

[ASkolnick]

Not really a new system. Known where we are as 2-way transfers. We currently play it over our weak NT. Either 10-12, 10-13, or 12-14. With one partnership, we play it over everything, but our only strong NT auction is 3-4 Vul of 14-16, so it isn't much of a stretch.

 

As for super-acceptance over 2D:

 

2S – Minimum, not 4-4 in majors

Pass To play, Spades Invitational

2NT Weak or Strong with Minors

3C To play, Invite with clubs

3D Diamonds slammish, or Diamonds+Clubs or Diamonds+Hearts

3H 3-4-3-3

3S Look again

3N Never mind

3S 4 Clubs

3N 4 Diamonds

3H To play, weak with Hearts

3S Diamonds and Spades

3N Choice of Games (Diamonds or NT)

4C Blackwood

 

2NT – Maximum

 

3C Weak with Minors

3D Diamonds slammish or Diamonds+suit

3H 3-4-3-3 or 2-4-4-3 or 3-4-4-2

3S Look again

3N Never mind

3S 4 Clubs

3N 4 Spades

3H To play, weak with Hearts

3S Spades, choice of games (3NT or 4S)

3N Invite with clubs accepted

4C Blackwood

 

3C – Minimum 4-4 in majors

Pass Either invite in clubs or weak with minors. Note: We may play in the wrong minor but it considered an acceptable casualty. Can run if doubled.

3D Diamonds slammish or Diamond+suit

3H Doubleton Club

3S Doubleton Diamond

3H To play

3S To play in spades.

3N Choice of games (D or NT)

 

Over 2H-

 

2N- 4 Spades, 2 Hearts Min

3C - 4 Spades, 4 Hearts

3D - Asks

3H Min

3S Max

3D - 4 Spades, 3 Hearts Min

3H - 4 Spades 3 Hearts Max

 

The problem with the super acceptance over 2D was it was not worth the memory taxing. Over 2H, it was not too bad.