Keri

[straube]

What do you mean with "normal" methods? If pair one plays an entire book of Keri stuff, and the other pair just got together and agreed to play Stayman and Jacoby transfers, well duh, of course the full Keri complex would be better.

 

If on the other hand we would compare the Keri pair with Meckwell, who as far as I know play Stayman but probably have detailed descriptions of more auctions than most of us., then I wouldn't bet against the Meckwell system.

 

To get a fair comparison you would need to compare Keri with a Stayman based approach of similar complexity.

First, apologies because I missed that you were being facetious earlier.

 

Second, I think what you say is exactly right. If you had two system of similar complexity, the one with Stayman would win out.

 

Saying so doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against Keri. I happen to have met Klinger, loved many of the ideas of his book and incorporated them into my own NT structure. I still feel that 2C puppet is unsound.

[NickRW]

You can pick any top level pair whose methods you like and read their names instead of meckwell. The point was that if you are comparing your elaborate methods with the methods of "most people", then surely you are going to win by a landslide. Most people can write their notrump methods on the back of a... how do you call one of those round cardboard things that you put your glass on? Usually with a beer brand logo on it.

 

By the way, did you think the Klinger fans posting here gave a balanced picture?

I think that the thread overall presents a balanced enough picture for an interested reader to be able to pick up Klinger's book and read it with an interested but sceptical eye.

 

You perhaps have to understand that I already came to Keri over strong NT from a start where I was already playing 2♣ puppets 2♦ over a weak NT - but definitely not Keri - so it doesn't seem as foreign to me as it probably does to others. I already had a jaundiced view of standard methods over weak NT - so much of what you read about standard methods is geared to strong NT where "GF" still has some meaning for a passed hand and "slammy" comes up often enough to be relevant. Over a weak NT, you have to mainly think about running away from it and inviting - which gets too little air time in the literature if you're talking about a weak NT - so perhaps I was a little prejudiced against "standard" over strong NT to begin with.

 

Nick

[straube]

You can pick any top level pair whose methods you like and read their names instead of meckwell. The point was that if you are comparing your elaborate methods with the methods of "most people", then surely you are going to win by a landslide. Most people can write their notrump methods on the back of a... how do you call one of those round cardboard things that you put your glass on? Usually with a beer brand logo on it.

 

By the way, did you think the Klinger fans posting here gave a balanced picture?

I think that the thread overall presents a balanced enough picture for an interested reader to be able to pick up Klinger's book and read it with an interested but sceptical eye.

 

You perhaps have to understand that I already came to Keri over strong NT from a start where I was already playing 2♣ puppets 2♦ over a weak NT - but definitely not Keri - so it doesn't seem as foreign to me as it probably does to others. I already had a jaundiced view of standard methods over weak NT - so much of what you read about standard methods is geared to strong NT where "GF" still has some meaning for a passed hand and "slammy" comes up often enough to be relevant. Over a weak NT, you have to mainly think about running away from it and inviting - which gets too little air time in the literature if you're talking about a weak NT - so perhaps I was a little prejudiced against "standard" over strong NT to begin with.

 

Nick

I think Keri would certainly do better for weak NT than for strong NT and it would do better for PH than it would for UPH.

 

With fewer combined points between the hands, loss of sequences will matter less.

[gwnn]

I found a description of Heeman. Looks much like Keri at first glance. I'll look closer later.

not really, in Heeman you can describe all 5M4m and 4M5m below 3N, be it invitational or GF, or at least this is to my understanding.

[Phil]

My take (I played it for close to 10 years and recently dropped it - since we dropped a 12-14 NT):

 

- The 3 level splinters are very useful. As a matter of fact, even if you play 1N - 3M as shortness and a 54 in the minors, I think you can benefit by adding 31(63) to the mix.

 

- I didn't mind 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2M as an invite. I think you are gaining a lot against strong NT pairs that get overboard at the 3 level.

 

- The sequences I absolutely hated were the 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N auctions. Why not just tell the defenders exactly how to defend when responder has a simple game force? While this is useful for slam bidding to go through these histrionics to find a simple 4-4 fit is nonsense.

 

Losing garbage stayman is not a big deal at all. Most of the time you are getting doubled, and you are running with these hands.

[jdonn]

Sheesh it's a coaster han.

[junyi_zhu]

As someone who still plays the system that was linked to (with a few small changes) and has played it for 5+ years now, I have some observations:

 

1) I am relatively certain that overall this has not been a huge win or a huge loss. I did not keep detailed notes about its success, so I will not try to guess based on my scattered memories whether or not it has been a small win or a small loss in that time.

 

2) Honestly if I were going to stop playing it, the primary reason would probably be that it sometimes sides contracts differently than they would be in standard and I would like to create fewer random swings.

 

3) Here are what I see are the primary advantages:

- I think the many splinters and exact shape-showing sequences are a win vs. standard NT systems. As has been mentioned, much of this can be incorporated into a stayman structure if you're willing to futz with it, but I think it fits cleaner into this system.

- Being able to sign off in 2♦ is nice, and I can remember wins from this.

- The convoluted stayman sequence does let you avoid 4M with 4333 opposite 4333

- Being able to handle light invitational hands with (4x)(6x) and (5x)(5x) is usually a win when it comes up.

- There are other sequences that seem like they should be good but they never seem to come up.

 

4) Here are the disadvantages:

- You give them a chance to double clubs and diamonds on normal GF stayman hands.

- You don't have garbage stayman (this probably about cancels the benefits of being able to play 2♦ imo).

- 2♠ is artificial (I would rather play 2NT nat inv all other things being equal)

- There is no way to show (4x)(6x) with a min GF (to invite slam you have to be willing to play 4N).

- Lack of smolen both sometimes wrongsides and makes it awkward to bid 4-5+ and 5+-4+ major suit hands. I can't remember this ever mattering but it's definitely not a pretty part of the system.

- Keri is more vulnerable to opponent bids than is stayman. It's generally obvious what to do when they bid over stayman, I don't find it so over Keri.

 

I see the 2♣ - 2♦ - 2M sequences as approximately break-even. I don't really ever remember +110 when the entire field is -100 in 3, but I also don't remember +110 losing to a long string of +120s. I wouldn't advertise this sequence as the reason to play this system, though.

Good post. I actually never feel garbage stayman is very useful. Suppose you open 1NT with 2-2 in the majors, you just don't have a good place to play after garbage stayman. Therefore, a sign off gadget to 2D certainly looks better than garbage stayman IMO because it most likely may improve the contract.

[straube]

I borrowed quite a bit from Klinger, but I did switch things around, too.

 

Klinger uses a "Game Probe" of 1N-2C, 2D-2N which asks opener for 4 and 5 cd majors. I use the identical structure for my GF (but usually not slam interest) hands except that I bid 2N immediately.

 

1N-2N is puppet stayman. It quickly places us in a GF before the competition can try to confuse the issue by overcalling or doubling. Meckwell uses 2N as puppet stayman, too.

 

The other thing I switched was the splinters. Klinger uses 1 under splinters. For instance 1N-3C would show shortness in diamonds. If opener bids the splinter suit, he shows that he has little wastage in that suit.

 

Two problems I think. The first is that fit-finding should come first and slam investigation should be second. Klinger uses bidding room at the 3 level for a task that ought to take place at the 4-level (after a fit has been found).

 

The other problem is that 1N-3C gets too much room and 1N-3S gets too little room.

 

I play...

 

1N-3D=diamond splinter

1N-3H=heart splinter

1N-3S=spade splinter

1N-2S, (2N/3C)-3D=club splinter

 

This gives the same amount of space for both minor suit splinters.

[Zelandakh]

I play...

 

1N-3D=diamond splinter

1N-3H=heart splinter

1N-3S=spade splinter

1N-2S, (2N/3C)-3D=club splinter

A suggestion from Marc Smith is to use 3D as a splinter in either minor. Then 3H resolves which suit and whether the hand is good enough to move beyond 3NT. That frees the sequence via 2S for something else if you need it at the cost of having less space for these splinter auctions. You can partially solve the bidd space problem of 3S by having that show a heart shortage. That means that you have 4H available as a good raise of spades. The downside is wrong-siding 4M, assuming a strong NT.

 

I am aware that several top pairs use a 2NT or 3C response as a form of Puppet Stayman but I find it difficult to believe that it is as efficient as regular Puppet Stayman if you often open 5M332 hands 1NT. I personally use 2C as Puppet Stayman and 1NT - 2C - 2D - 3C as a modified form of GF Stayman. Thus Responder gradually filters down Opener's hand shape until they get the information they need. This seem very natural to me.

[straube]

I'm not sure how that 3D (either minor) splinter would work.

 

Here's how mine works.

 

1N-3D (14-16. showing diamond shortness)

3H-3S (showing 4 and not 5 hearts, showing 4 spades and not 4 hearts)

4C-4D (says opener knows a fit and likes his hand, 4D asks for the fit)

5C-6C (says the fit is clubs, accepts the slam invitation)

 

1N-2S (14-16, size ask)

2N-3D (minimum, club shortness)

4H (promises 5 hearts but opener doesn't like his hand)

 

1N-3H (14-16, heart shortness)

3S-3N (showing 4 and not 5 spades, COG)

4S (opener prefers to play a 4-3 fit)

 

1N-3D (14-16, diamond shortness)

3H-4C (showing 4 and not 5 hearts, responder likes his hand and knows of a fit)

4D-4H (asks for the fit, hearts are the fit)

 

1N-3D (14-16, diamond shortness)

3S-3N (shows 4 and not 5 spades and denies 4 hearts, COG)

4D-5C (shows opener is worried about diamonds, responder chooses clubs)

 

1N-3D (14-16, diamond shortness)

3S-4D (shows 4 and not 5 spades and denies 4 hearts, responder wants help

.............finding a fit and has slam values)

6C (opener accepts slam and has a club fit)

[aguahombre]

who TF is Keri?

[MickyB]

I believe Keri was the name of Klinger's daughter, who died very young.

[blackshoe]

IIRC, she was 20. http://www.montefiorehome.com.au/ArticleDo...202007.pdf.aspx

[Free]

I found a description of Heeman. Looks much like Keri at first glance. I'll look closer later.

not really, in Heeman you can describe all 5M4m and 4M5m below 3N, be it invitational or GF, or at least this is to my understanding.

Indeed. Plus you have various methods for both minors, weak, invite, GF or SI. And you have a method to investigate slams with balanced vs balanced hands and stay below 3NT if you don't have enough controls.

 

That being said, the biggest drawback is that you consume too much space showing a GF 2-suiter (you end in 3♥ or 3♠ showing a 5-4, both suits are known). If you have an extreme 2-suiter however you're pretty much screwed. I once held a 6-5 distribution, needless to say we got to a crappy slam which happened to make because of good honour location and a giant double fit... I no longer play Heeman because of the disadvantage of extreme hands.

[2Macchiato]

Sorry, Keri does nothing for me. Amuses me why people think it's so good!

[zenko]

I play it in wk NT structure, and it works fine, probably better than it would with strong NT, but you do need to memorize quite a bit. I am not sure did anybody mentioned it so far, IMO one of the main advantages of KERI is 2NT F rebid by responder after any transfer acceptance that lets bid effectively with both 5M-4m and 5M-5m hands, among other things.

 

I am aware that similar feature can be incorporated in regular NT structure ( I think Brogeland have something like that in the system he plays), but you need to fiddle quite a bit to make it fit.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, Keri does nothing for me. Amuses me why people think it's so good!

Apparently it does do something for you, then. :P

[2Macchiato]

So, partner opens 1N - everything for me revolves around the use of the (semi-vacant) 2 ♠ response.

 

Once you determine what you are comfortable with:

 

one (or more) from: Raise to 2N / Baron / Clubs (weak or strong with 2N/3C options) / either minor weak or strong..

 

Then you know what the rest of your system requirements will be and can accommodate for example 4 Maj 6 Minor (weak or otherwise) into your agreed responses.

 

I see no particular reason to abandon relatively standard Stayman (promissory or otherwise) and (at least 2 Suit) Transfers and continuations simply to cater for those 1 in 2000 hands Bridge is hard enough at times without resource to complex memory checks!

 

And good point Blackshoe :P

[zenko]

You have point as long as you play the same NT range as the most of the field, so when you end up in the wrong contract using normal methods you will probably have a lot of company. But if you play ranges that are anti-field you need methods that will offset that, otherwise you might be the only one ending up in say 3N with xx opposite Jx in a suit, etc.

[mikegill]

Not that I think anyone cares at this point, but I'm an idiot and you definitely can show (x4)(x6) hands GF.

[gwnn]

And how do these two pieces of information relate to each other? :P

[2Macchiato]

Not that I think anyone cares at this point, but I'm an idiot and you definitely can show (x4)(x6) hands GF.

I'm sure 4-6 GF isn't a problem. If someone can enlighten me as to the extra value to a system Keri offers (or Gladiator for that matter) then I'm willing to listen and suggest it can or should already there for any established partnership in any given situation - whether it be some form of Lebensohl (or similar) in competition - or various Stayman sequences with continuations (to give but 2 examples).

 

Bridge is not (an exact) science - you show what you have and partner can react accordingly.

[zenko]

Not that I think anyone cares at this point, but I'm an idiot and you definitely can show (x4)(x6) hands GF.

I'm sure 4-6 GF isn't a problem. If someone can enlighten me as to the extra value to a system Keri offers (or Gladiator for that matter) then I'm willing to listen and suggest it can or should already there for any established partnership in any given situation - whether it be some form of Lebensohl (or similar) in competition - or various Stayman sequences with continuations (to give but 2 examples).

 

Bridge is not (an exact) science - you show what you have and partner can react accordingly.

Like Yogi Berra said "You can see a lot just by observing"

 

If you care to read what many of us wrote here you will find a lot of features of KERI that do not exist elsewhere (or do exist but are underdeveloped), those features clearly add value, the only issue is is that value worth the trouble of learning it and how much it annoys you to get occasional anti-field bad result because of KERI.

 

Charlie Parker used to talk bad about alto sax all the time until he really tried to play it, after that he did not want to play any other, maybe you would feel the same about KERI if you give it a try.

[NickRW]

If someone can enlighten me as to the extra value to a system Keri offers (or Gladiator for that matter) then I'm willing to listen

When I was teaching my kids to respond to a weak NT, I taught them:

 

2♣ = weak t/o in ♦/♥ or ♠, or inv no major interest, or inv some 6 carder

... opener normally relays with 2♦ and responder passes or makes the obv call

2♦ = stayman, inv or better

2♥/♠ = inv 5 cards - not forcing.

2NT = xfer to clubs

3x = forcing

 

It is simple.

 

It works well as well as anything for beginners.

 

Being able to stop in 2♦ is a winner sometimes - but you don't have garbage stayman which can be a loser. As has elsewhere been pointed out it is about a push.

 

Being able to stop in 2M with an inv hand can be a plus when it comes up as the people playing transfers will be in 2NT or 3M - it doesn't happen as often as one might think though. It does allow you to invite with some moderately shapely hands that are a tad light for playing 2NT opposite a non fitting min.

 

Having responder play the weak major take outs when opposite a weak NT is overall a slight plus I think. Weak take outs opposite a weak NT cover a wide range of hands and more is known about the opener than the responder - so it is (sometimes) better to keep the unknown hand hidden.

 

It has quite a lot of ways of inviting, less ways of forcing - which is certainly good opposite a weak NT from 3rd or 4th hand - and is arguably not a bad idea at MP opposite 1st or 2nd seat as invite hands are common opposite a weak NT (and ones you want to force with not so common) - and frequency of gain is an impportant MP consideration.

 

I won't say it is the best thing since sliced bread - but it works fine enough.

 

Nick

[straube]

If someone can enlighten me as to the extra value to a system Keri offers (or Gladiator for that matter) then I'm willing to listen

When I was teaching my kids to respond to a weak NT, I taught them:

 

2♣ = weak t/o in ♦/♥ or ♠, or inv no major interest, or inv some 6 carder

... opener normally relays with 2♦ and responder passes or makes the obv call

2♦ = stayman, inv or better

2♥/♠ = inv 5 cards - not forcing.

2NT = xfer to clubs

3x = forcing

 

It is simple.

 

It works well as well as anything for beginners.

 

Being able to stop in 2♦ is a winner sometimes - but you don't have garbage stayman which can be a loser. As has elsewhere been pointed out it is about a push.

 

Being able to stop in 2M with an inv hand can be a plus when it comes up as the people playing transfers will be in 2NT or 3M - it doesn't happen as often as one might think though. It does allow you to invite with some moderately shapely hands that are a tad light for playing 2NT opposite a non fitting min.

 

Having responder play the weak major take outs when opposite a weak NT is overall a slight plus I think. Weak take outs opposite a weak NT cover a wide range of hands and more is known about the opener than the responder - so it is (sometimes) better to keep the unknown hand hidden.

 

It has quite a lot of ways of inviting, less ways of forcing - which is certainly good opposite a weak NT from 3rd or 4th hand - and is arguably not a bad idea at MP opposite 1st or 2nd seat as invite hands are common opposite a weak NT (and ones you want to force with not so common) - and frequency of gain is an impportant MP consideration.

 

I won't say it is the best thing since sliced bread - but it works fine enough.

 

Nick

That seems really pretty good for a NT structure opposite a passed hand. I suppose after...

 

1N-2D, 2H would show a minimum with 4 hearts so one could play there. If responder had 4 spades (and not hearts) he would just rebid 2S.

 

I guess the downside is that it wrongsides contracts quite a lot.