2NT-3NT artificial

[benlessard]

The lead director X is a loss but nothing compared to the cost of playing transfers/2S range check in a weak NT setup, yet nobody are really worried about those. If youre worried when it goes 2nt--3nt and think that partner may have forgotten it, then dont play it otherwise I like to have more space.

 

Maybe using 3NT as non forcing but showing a certain type of hand (like 33 in both M or 3433/4333 that doesnt really want to go through stayman) make sense

[bluecalm]

The lead director X is a loss but nothing compared to the cost of playing transfers/2S range check in a weak NT setup, yet nobody are really worried about those.

 

This is wrong.

First, many people are worried about it hence increasing popularity of 1N - 2N = invite, at least among people I play with.

Second, doubling 2S is not nearly as lucrative because they could redouble you occasionally and more importantly they have room to check for stoppers/run to some other spot. At 3S level the only thing they can do is to bid 3N and pray.

 

Maybe using 3NT as non forcing but showing a certain type of hand (like 33 in both M or 3433/4333 that doesnt really want to go through stayman) make sense

 

My view is that say 3-2-5-3 hands don't want go through stayman either. I think it's not close and bidding stayman with such hands is auto destruction in pure form, especially if you usual sequence will be: 3C - 3H - 3S - 3N.

[benlessard]

My estimation of cost of 3S = transfer to 3N as the way to get to 3nt is 0.5/0.6imp per board

I think your estimates are off. IMO most case of doubling 3S are long spades and side entries, on those they would lead spades most of the times anyway (lead from a short M when your broke) and if you double with a chubby 4 card you risk getting a XX since many open 2NT with a 5M. Also because of the double, sometimes they will play 4H/5m making rather than 3Nt going down.

 

At MP i agree that the double is a bit painful.

 

yet nobody are really worried about those.

I should have put ...yet most players arent really worried about those (not my case be the way, since im a believer of non transfers over a weak NT)

[bluecalm]

I think your estimates are off.

 

And you based that on what ?

 

Just to start the ball rolling with some numbers. Let's pick perfect hand for puppet stayman:

J65 98 KJ654 976

 

It's perfect because it's weak, the stronger the hand the difference between 4S and 3N is smaller.

According to dd simuls this hand make 4S whooping 17% more often than 3N opposite 5 spades. In practice 3N will score a bit better because 1st lead is much bigger factor against NT contracts but let's forget about it for a while.

17% is 1.7imp/board. How often do you find 5 spades in opener hand ? The answer to that according to my quick simul is 8/100 which means that by having puppet stayman in your arsenal you gain 13.6imp per 100 hand. Now, there are 88 hands left when you land in 3N anyway. If they beat you just 2 times when they otherwise wouldn't you are worse off.

If you are going to just deny my estimations there is no way I convince you or that I argue with you further about it. I am sure though that for anyone willing to make an effort of going through dealt hands it will be completely obvious that 2 out 88 is way below what they actually gain from being able to double your 3C and subsequent 3S bid in some auctions (supposedly after 3H denying majors and 3S as transfer to 3N).

 

And all that is for perfect hand for puppet. Don't forget all the usual hands when you are donating imps by introducing 3S = transfer to 3N as consequence of puppet.

[mgoetze]

which means that by having puppet stayman in your arsenal

 

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

[bluecalm]

I got confused.. but yeah.. this is the right thread as I was responding to benlessard's:

 

Maybe using 3NT as non forcing but showing a certain type of hand (like 33 in both M or 3433/4333 that doesnt really want to go through stayman) make sense

 

Which is to say this is wrong idea as hands which really doesn't want to bid puppet (or 3S) are very frequent and not only consist of some 4-3-3-3's and such.

[Flameous]

I played 2NT - 3NT as 5♠4♥ once before I was introduced to Muppet stayman, since then I've had no need.

 

I do play 2NT - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3♠ as puppet to 3NT and 3NT as showing 5♠4♥.

 

And for bluecalm's comfort, I only use Muppet stayman when I hold 4 card major. (3361 is exception of course) It's not a tool to look for unlikely 5-3 fits but a more precise tool for opener to show shape and diagnose those 5-4 fits.

[johnu]

I'm in the 2NT-3NT artificial camp. 2NT openings take up valuable bidding space, bidding decisions are normally going to be game or slam oriented, so as long as you are playing some kind of reasonably thought out system, the extra sequence provided could be critical to getting to the right denomination and the right level.

 

For those worried about the lead directing problem with 2NT - 3♠, how many play 1NT - 2NT as natural and use a Stayman sequence to invite to 2NT? The lead directing and shape information given by the invitational Stayman sequence have been considered and deemed an acceptable loss for the use of 2NT for some other purpose (at least by the theorists who play it). The loss of an entire round of bidding by opening 2NT tilts the scales to using 3NT as a multi-way bid for me.

 

My preferred system:

 

2NT - 3♠ Relay to 3NT

3NT - 4♣ Confi

.......4♦ Super Confi

.......4♥ Heart fragment, 5-5 or better in the minors

.......4♠ Spade fragment, 5-5 or better in the minors

.......4NT 1=1=5=6, 5-6 in the minors

 

Confi and Super Confi are used with balanced or semi-balanced slam+ range hands and can also have 4 or 5 card spade suits so a lead directing double of 3♠ is more likely to end in 3♠XX than usual.

 

For those worried about forgetting their system, play 3NT to play :rolleyes: or spend the time practicing so you remember. Do you ever add a new convention/treatment without practicing?

[bluecalm]

Meh.

You are all wrong and it will be obvious once computers are better than humans at bridge and could solve such problems leaving no doubts. I am writing this to quote myself in 10 years.

Gl playing your puppets and transfers to 3N :)

[kgr]

In Niemeyer 2NT-3NT is 4c♥ and 5c♠.

I have played that, but 3NT sounds to natural and easy to forget.

[Phil]

There's a world of difference between an artificial call at the two level getting doubled and an artificial call at the three level getting doubled. At the two level, you need a reason for the lead, as well as length to pull this off which reduces the frequency. Furthermore, when an artificial call doesn't get doubled, partner doesn't have the same reliable negative inference regarding a pass.

 

After 2N - 3♠, responder doesn't have spades, so a double is pretty safe with nearly any four card suit where we want the lead. At matchpoints, playing this method is borderline silly, considering the frequency of 2N - 3N plop. Even at teams I would want to see some hard evidence that the slams and better games we get to outweigh the lead considerations. I suppose someone of Frances and her partners caliber will not forget this treatment, but it seems outright dangerous for anyone below the elite level, and a single incident where a game or slam is lost because of the lapse takes years of good results to equalize it.

[Vampyr]

I do play 2NT - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3♠ as puppet to 3NT and 3NT as showing 5♠4♥.

 

Why not reverse these? This is how I play. Now you give them one less suit to double.

[benlessard]

17% is 1.7imp/board. How often do you find 5 spades in opener hand ? The answer to that according to my quick simul is 8/100 which means that by having puppet stayman in your arsenal you gain 13.6imp per 100 hand. Now, there are 88 hands left when you land in 3N anyway. If they beat you just 2 times when they otherwise wouldn't you are worse off.

Thanks now I know why your estimation are off.

[MickyB]

Why not reverse these? This is how I play. Now you give them one less suit to double.

 

Presumably to avoid wrong-siding 4♠. I thought the whole point of Muppet was that 5♠3♥ starts with 3♣?

[Vampyr]

Presumably to avoid wrong-siding 4♠. I thought the whole point of Muppet was that 5♠3♥ starts with 3♣?

Oh, OK. I didn't think of that, since I play Kokish, so with the most common range (20-b22) 4♠ is already wrongsided.

[Finch]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of the objections to playing 3S as artificial and including some hands that want to sign off in 3NT. I suspect that the objectors play 3C as artificial, play 3D as artificial, play 3H as artificial... all on hands that have a high probability (I agree not certainty) of ending in 3NT.

 

There is a balance between (i) improving your auction and (ii) helping the opponents. The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for. The debate between 3NT artificial (and needing another way to get to 3NT) and natural is exactly the same. You might well disagree where the balance lies, which is fair enough, but I don't understand comments like 'borderline silly'.

 

FWIW we play 3S as both minors and 3NT as natural after a 2NT overcall of a weak 2 opening because the slam hands are less common and the possibility of a double much higher (particularly after a protective 2NT bid e.g. 2H P P 2NT P 3S...). We play a different 3C bid there as well because choice of the right game is relatively more important and slam auctions less frequent.

[bluecalm]

The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for.

 

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M.

I saw some people play methods like accepting tranfer = support but those are very bad methods imo. Being able to top in 3M is huge after 2N, especially at MP's.

[Vampyr]

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M.

 

This is what I believe as well, and I am surprised to see that Frances disagrees.

[mgoetze]

Oh, OK. I didn't think of that, since I play Kokish, so with the most common range (20-b22) 4♠ is already wrongsided.

 

You mean you play Reverse Kokish.

 

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

[Statto]

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

Not sure I agree, there is such a thing as developments, progress, etc. B-)

[awm]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of the objections to playing 3S as artificial and including some hands that want to sign off in 3NT. I suspect that the objectors play 3C as artificial, play 3D as artificial, play 3H as artificial... all on hands that have a high probability (I agree not certainty) of ending in 3NT.

 

There is a balance between (i) improving your auction and (ii) helping the opponents. The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for. The debate between 3NT artificial (and needing another way to get to 3NT) and natural is exactly the same. You might well disagree where the balance lies, which is fair enough, but I don't understand comments like 'borderline silly'.

 

I suspect the point is that there are a large number of hands opposite a 2NT opening where you just want to play in 3NT. When you use a red-suit transfer bid (or stayman, for that matter) it's because you suspect there is a strong possibility that 3NT will not be your best game. Thus you give the opponents the opportunity to double for the lead in exchange for better game bidding. Also, the lead-directing double tends to be a lot less useful against a suit contract than 3NT, and when you transfer you suspect pretty good odds that 3NT will not be the final contract. At minimum, if opponents do lead direct (and opener doesn't have the suit locked up) you have a very reasonable place to run (a major fit of 5-2 at worst).

 

Forcing 3NT signoff hands to go through 3♠ (or 3♣, for that matter) means you are sending a large number of hands where you never aspire to any contract other than 3NT through a method that allows a lead directing double. Your only gains from this are going to be on awkward slam hands which are certainly less frequent. Further, you don't have a good place to run most of the time if they lead-direct and opener doesn't have the suit controlled (unlike the transfer auction). Similarly, bidding puppet with a (32)xx hand will occasionally get you to a superior 4M game, but far more often you have simply helped the opponents on defense.

 

It does seem like a poor tradeoff to me.

[MickyB]

You mean you play Reverse Kokish.

 

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

 

'Normal' Reverse Kokish [putting 22-24 through 2H] is indeed flawed - has anyone ever actually used this to stop in 3m? Wrong-siding is a much more frequent issue.

 

However, when the range is 20-21 or so, opening 2C [to allow you to stop in 2M] or rebidding 2H [to allow you to stop in 3m] is much more reasonable. Maybe Kokish thought of this method and discarded it for some reason; but then again, maybe he didn't.

[Statto]

The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for.

Huh? Showing a 2-suiter, finding a 5-3 fit, doesn't everyone know that? Not to mention slam tries...

[gnasher]

Huh? Showing a 2-suiter, finding a 5-3 fit, doesn't everyone know that? Not to mention slam tries...

You can do all of those without playing transfers. After 2NT-3♠ (natural), opener bids 3NT without spade support, or cue-bids with spade support. After 2NT-3♠;3NT, responder shows a new suit by bidding it. 2NT-3♠;3NT-4♠ shows a slam try.

 

What you would lose by not playing transfers is:

- The ability to play in 3M.

- The option for opener to break a transfer.

- The sequence 2NT-3♦;3♥-3♠ (but you get 2NT-3♥;3♠ instead).

- The rightsiding benefits.

- Information leakage when opener cue-bids unnecessarily.

 

What you would gain is:

- Responder knows immediately whether there's a major-suit fit, which simplifies slam sequences.

- The unused sequence is 2NT-3♦ instead of 2NT-3♠.

- Reduced opportunities for lead-directing doubles.

[Finch]

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M. I saw some people play methods like accepting tranfer = support but those are very bad methods imo. Being able to top in 3M is huge after 2N, especially at MP's.

 

No. You don't need transfers to play in 4M, offer choice of games or make a slam try. Gnasher pointed out a couple of other potential advantages (and disadvantages) of playing transfers.

 

"Being able to stop in 3M" is not "huge" at either IMPs or at MPs. It's an extremely rare hand. I was persuaded to change to (ostensibly) playing game forcing transfers when my partner asked me to name one - one - hand ever where we had used a transfer to stop in exactly 3M and it was the right spot. I couldn't. (In fact we play accepting the transfer = support so responder could pass this if he wants, but often we'll just pass 2NT instead on a 0-count.) There hasn't been one where we've missed out since, either. There was a hand in a match the other week where both tables played in 3H-3 on the auction 2NT-3D-3H-Pass (we were defending). 2NT would have been 2 off, so playing our methods we would either have gained an imp or two, or played in 3NT-3 for a flat board.

 

Now I've pointed it out, keep a look out for hands where you stop in 3M and it's a better spot than 2NT. Don't forget that hands where partner breaks the transfer and you go off in game don't count. Nor do hands where partner doesn't break the transfer but game makes. I admit my main focus is on IMPs, so personally I am particularly interested in where 3M makes and 2NT (or 3NT/4M) goes off.

 

By the way, my 2NT openers are generally very disciplined so I will have doubleton support for partner's major. If you like opening 2NT on 5431s or 4441s with a singleton top honour, never mind 6322s, that is likely to make stopping in 3M worse, because opener might rustle up 8 tricks playing on his own long suit.