Keri

[Zelandakh]

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

 

Here's how mine works.

 

2♣ = weak t/o in ♦/♥ or ♠' date=' or inv no major interest, or inv some 6 carder

... opener normally relays with 2[di'] 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

@straube

It seems that when you say 'splinter' you are also incorporating 5431 hands rather than only 4441 and 5440. When i was referring to splinter bids I was using the more restricted definition. The 5431 hands usually get bid via a different route. The way it works is thus

 

1NT - 3D = 4441 or 5440 with short minor

3H asks (others are natural and pessimistic)

3S = short clubs (diamonds), not good enough to go beyond 3NT

3N = short diamonds (clubs), not good enough to go beyond 3NT

4m = short (other) minor, slammy

 

The parentheses are to indicate that you can play these bids either way as desired.

 

 

@NickRW

Would it not make sense to make an immediate 2M as a weak take-out and to move the 5 card major invites within 2C? This has the effect of continuing the preempt started by 1NT when it is their hand. Also, is it strictly necessary to use 3M after 2C as an invite? Surely with a 6 card major invite it would be possible to show a 5 card invite and then bid 3M next round if partner takes it out. Then you could use these bids for a GF 1-suiter and use 3D/H/S as something else such as splinters. Or is that adding too much complexity for your kids?

[Free]

I never played KERI, I've never encountered someone playing it, I know something about it (but limited) and I've read the entire discussion. But I still wonder why it's so much better than a well established partnership's 1NT structure based on Stayman. I mean, showing shortness isn't difficult in std, playing 2♠ with an INV 5♠ is possible,... There's also some contradiction about some of the stuff like the invites with 4-5M.

[wclass___]

But I still wonder why it's so much better than a well established partnership's 1NT structure based on Stayman..

It is not better. Stayman>>Keri.

[NickRW]

@NickRW

Would it not make sense to...

 

There are all sorts of ways you can tweak it.

 

 

Or is that adding too much complexity for your kids?

 

For my sons, lately, yes. They got up to the point of being average or maybe slightly better club players and then decided they were more interested in beer and girls instead of spending their evening with "a bunch of olds". They still play, sometimes at home, sometimes at the club - but they are not improving and not putting in the effort to do so. My daughter is a different kettle of fish - she will work at the game (if I prod her a bit!) and we're trying out a modified version of Keri at the moment.

 

@wclass ("Stayman>>Keri") - you have your head somewhere smelly. You can argue that there are differences and that one is maybe slightly better than the other - but to argue that one is hugely better than the other is ridiculous.

 

Nick

[hanp]

Bid better, much better.

 

but to argue that one is hugely better than the other is ridiculous.

[NickRW]

Bid better, much better.

Well, I never bought Klinger's book title from the off. There is enough in the book to be very interesting - and there certainly are quite a few good hands for it - but when I started taking a more critical look when facing the "do I really want to learn all this for real" question, I felt that there were holes - which is why I play a modified version.

[Apollo81]

(3) Keri leads you to play a lot of 4-3 major suit fits in 2M instead of 2NT. This is made out to be a win in Ron Klinger's writeup, but I haven't found it to be so at the table. One issue is that the "three" hand is always balanced; 4-3 fits where the 3 hand is 4333 are almost always worse than 2NT for example. Of course, it's possible that I'm not playing these 4-3 major fits as well as I'm supposed to.

My experience has been that there are a number of hands where 2M in the 4(5)-3 fit makes and 2NT does not, or (less often) 2M makes 3 and 2NT makes 2. I would say this roughly offsets the losses, but in my experience people seem to defend worse against 2M than against 2NT, making this a slight win. I think you're probably right about 4333 hands; maybe opener should bid 2NT with 4333 instead of passing.

 

Also I bet your invites are more sound than ours. That's consistent with the difference in our results.

[straube]

I never played KERI, I've never encountered someone playing it, I know something about it (but limited) and I've read the entire discussion. But I still wonder why it's so much better than a well established partnership's 1NT structure based on Stayman. I mean, showing shortness isn't difficult in std, playing 2♠ with an INV 5♠ is possible,... There's also some contradiction about some of the stuff like the invites with 4-5M.

Unless you Stayman and partner happens to bid a fitting major, it is difficult to show shortness. Lets say opener has both majors and you have 4-1-4-4 or 4-1-5-3. He rebids 2H and you're kind of stuck as far as showing your pattern is concerned....unless you have other bids to handle that.

 

Keri has the immediate shortness showing bids at the 3-level, so Keri would be fine showing the 4-1-4-4 pattern. Keri can't show the 4-1-5-3 pattern. With that hand, the bidding proceeds 1N-2C, 2D-3S which shows 4S/5+D and furnishes no information about the residues.

 

Totally separate issue now, but a minor point I don't like about Keri is that

1N-2C, 2D-2S, 2N can displace the partnership from a 5-2 or even 6-2 spade fit.

[Zelandakh]

Unless you Stayman and partner happens to bid a fitting major, it is difficult to show shortness.

This rather depends on your Staymanic methods. For example, it is possible to play

1NT - 2C - 2H

3D = good raise in hearts (optionally can also ask for 3433 shape)

3H = INV

3S/4m = splinter

 

and

1NT - 2C - 2S

3H = good raise in spades (optionally can also ask for 4333 shape)

3S = INV

4m/H = splinter

 

An alternative tweak that I have seen recommended is to use a bid of 3oM as an ambiguous splinter. With a little re-structuring there are plenty of bids in the Stayman structure to handle shortages in addition to the immediate splinter bids we previously discussed. It is trickier using Puppet Stayman when you have a 4-4 heart fit though (in compensation it is easier with a 5-3 fit and break-even with 4-4 spade fit).

[straube]

Unless you Stayman and partner happens to bid a fitting major, it is difficult to show shortness.

This rather depends on your Staymanic methods. For example, it is possible to play

1NT - 2C - 2H

3D = good raise in hearts (optionally can also ask for 3433 shape)

3H = INV

3S/4m = splinter

 

and

1NT - 2C - 2S

3H = good raise in spades (optionally can also ask for 4333 shape)

3S = INV

4m/H = splinter

 

An alternative tweak that I have seen recommended is to use a bid of 3oM as an ambiguous splinter. With a little re-structuring there are plenty of bids in the Stayman structure to handle shortages in addition to the immediate splinter bids we previously discussed. It is trickier using Puppet Stayman when you have a 4-4 heart fit though (in compensation it is easier with a 5-3 fit and break-even with 4-4 spade fit).

Yes, I've seen that sort of thing.

 

I use 1N-2C, 2M-3D as a size ask with a fit. I see 1N-2C, 2M-3M as GI being mostly redundant. I guess a raise avoids lead directing doubles.

 

I've experimented with 1N-2C, 2M-3D, 3L-4m as various things.

 

Here's one scheme and there's obviously room for more complication...

 

1N-2C, 2H-

.....3C-forces 3D

..........3D

...............3H-4-1-3-5

...............3S-4-3-1-5

...............3N-4-2-2-5 slam invite (traditional meaning uses other route)

...............4C-spade splinter

...............4D-4-2-2-5 stronger slam invite

.....3D-fit, size ask

..........3H-min

..........3S-max

..........3N-max 3433

...............4m-cue?

.....3H-4-1-5-3

.....3S-4-3-5-1

.....3N-4-2-5-2 slam invite

.....4C-splinter

.....4D-splinter

[blackshoe]

Heh. You know, it's funny. I read Kleinman's The Notrump Zone a couple of years ago, and basically my eyes just glazed over. Yet here I am asking about Keri. And we've got 4 pages of replies, mostly discussing how to "fix" either Keri or Stayman. :P