Extended Stayman, why this?

[jtfanclub]

His version is the following:

2♦: Minimum, both majors.

2♥: Minimum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

2♠: Minimum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

2NT: Minimum, neither major.

3♣: Maximum, neither major.

3♦: Maximum, both majors.

3♥: Maximum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

3♠: Maximum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

 

To me, it seems more logical to use:

2♦: Minimum, neither major.

2♥: Minimum, 4 hearts, may have 4 spades.

2♠: Minimum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

2NT: Maximum, neither major.

3♣: Maximum, both majors

3♦: Not used.

3♥: Maximum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

3♠: Maximum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

 

The only real difference is that I've combined the 2♦ and 2♥ bids into 2♥, and moved all of the non-major bids down a step. But that's a big difference, because it allows you to stop in 2 of a major across any minimum, not just a minimum with a fit. And you can now stop at 2NT across any hand that doesn't have a major suit.

 

Let's see if I can convert a problem hand to 15-18 NT...

 

KJxxx

Kxxx

xxx

x

 

If partner has a minimum with no fit, I want to be at 2 spades.

If partner has a maximum with no fit, I don't mind being at 3 spades.

If partner has 4 hearts and a minimum, I want to play in 2 hearts.

If partner has 4 spades and a minimum, or 4 hearts and a maximum, I want to be in game.

 

In Klinger's system, I can't use Stayman. The problem is, after 2NT (partner's most likely bid), I have no convenient rebid. I can't even bid 3♠, since that's a game force.

 

The only significant change I can find for responder's rebids is

1NT 2♣

2♥ 2♠

 

In Klinger's system, this is not forcing, so you can play in a 4-3 spade fit if your partner has 4 hearts. Unfortunately, you cannot play in a 4-3 spade fit if your partner does not have four hearts, which to me is the far more important case.

 

In my case, this is forcing: opener is forced to rebid 2NT with fewer than 4 spades, and bids higher (but not higher than 3♠) with 4 spades. It doesn't seem to lose us much, not unless there's some case where I want to bid Stayman with 5+ spades and fewer than 4 hearts, and I cannot imagine such an animal.

 

Am I missing anything? Why did he make his system the way he did?

 

P.S. It may be worth pointing out that I'm using an opening NT of 12-15, rather than 15-18. For reasons that he mentions in his book, I feel a greater need to respond with both majors, even if across a minimum I don't believe we can make 2NT.

[Free]

Hmmm, weird stuff... My extended stayman is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better :D but a little complicated (relay stuff, you know)

[scoob]

Hmmm, weird stuff... My extended stayman is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better :rolleyes: but a little complicated (relay stuff, you know)

well?

[Free]

For those who are interested, I can mail it to you. PM your email address :rolleyes:

 

note: I'm too lazy to start typing all these relay biddings in this editor, knowing most people will just not use it.

[junyi_zhu]

His version is the following:

2♦: Minimum, both majors.

2♥: Minimum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

2♠: Minimum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

2NT: Minimum, neither major.

3♣: Maximum, neither major.

3♦: Maximum, both majors.

3♥: Maximum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

3♠: Maximum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

 

To me, it seems more logical to use:

2♦: Minimum, neither major.

2♥: Minimum, 4 hearts, may have 4 spades.

2♠: Minimum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

2NT: Maximum, neither major.

3♣: Maximum, both majors

3♦: Not used.

3♥: Maximum, 4 hearts, less than 4 spades.

3♠: Maximum, 4 spades, less than 4 hearts.

 

The only real difference is that I've combined the 2♦ and 2♥ bids into 2♥, and moved all of the non-major bids down a step. But that's a big difference, because it allows you to stop in 2 of a major across any minimum, not just a minimum with a fit. And you can now stop at 2NT across any hand that doesn't have a major suit.

 

Let's see if I can convert a problem hand to 15-18 NT...

 

KJxxx

Kxxx

xxx

x

 

If partner has a minimum with no fit, I want to be at 2 spades.

If partner has a maximum with no fit, I don't mind being at 3 spades.

If partner has 4 hearts and a minimum, I want to play in 2 hearts.

If partner has 4 spades and a minimum, or 4 hearts and a maximum, I want to be in game.

 

In Klinger's system, I can't use Stayman. The problem is, after 2NT (partner's most likely bid), I have no convenient rebid. I can't even bid 3♠, since that's a game force.

 

The only significant change I can find for responder's rebids is

1NT 2♣

2♥ 2♠

 

In Klinger's system, this is not forcing, so you can play in a 4-3 spade fit if your partner has 4 hearts. Unfortunately, you cannot play in a 4-3 spade fit if your partner does not have four hearts, which to me is the far more important case.

 

In my case, this is forcing: opener is forced to rebid 2NT with fewer than 4 spades, and bids higher (but not higher than 3♠) with 4 spades. It doesn't seem to lose us much, not unless there's some case where I want to bid Stayman with 5+ spades and fewer than 4 hearts, and I cannot imagine such an animal.

 

Am I missing anything? Why did he make his system the way he did?

 

P.S. It may be worth pointing out that I'm using an opening NT of 12-15, rather than 15-18. For reasons that he mentions in his book, I feel a greater need to respond with both majors, even if across a minimum I don't believe we can make 2NT.

One big problem is that your 3 level bids take up a lot of space and it's hard for responder to show his shortness, sometimes, it's very important.

[Flame]

Isnt Ron klinger the one who invented keri ?

Maybe this extended stayman isnt ment to be the best thing.

[the hog]

Isnt Ron klinger the one who invented keri ?

Maybe this extended stayman isnt ment to be the best thing.

Yes Flame. He has not played this stuff for years. The revised Keri is excellent.

 

Ron

[pclayton]

Ron: do you have any links to Klinger's revised Keri? I've been playing it per the 'book', but it seems to be tweaked somewhat.

[the hog]

No link Phil, but I have the file. Send me your email address and I'll pass it on.

[Flame]

There is a file in franch here

keri

Is this the revised keri ?

[whereagles]

No link Phil, but I have the file. Send me your email address and I'll pass it on.

Can you send it to me as well? I'm playing the "book" version and would like to see what are the latest developments ;)

[tlgoodwin]

The French-language version referenced above does not appear to be the "revised standard Keri" that started this thread. I've had some trouble deciphering the outlines presented here -- probably my own limitations, no fault of the outlines -- and would appreciate it if someone could send me a copy of the Keri file mentioned above. My e-mail address is goodwintr@adelphia.net

 

One observation about opener's rebids of 2NT(D) and 3C over 2C to show minimum hands with six-card minors: What if opener has an invitational 4-4-4-1 and hears 3C? There are other shapes where opener has a singleton in responder's long minor, and would prefer to be playing in two of a major. Even 4-5-2-2 might be happier playing in 2H on a 5-3 fit, than 3C on a 6-2. I guess I am wondering if the "new" 2NT and 3C rebids are truly valuable. (I am just asking, as I have no doubt at all that Mr. Klinger knows a lot more about the value of these sequences than I do!)

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can send me the Keri file.

[ArcLight]

I've read a few of Klingers books and he advocates using some conventions that I don't think are worth using (though they are fun to reda about!).

 

For example, he mentions SCROLL, a system to find voids developed by the Australian Expert Seres. While its great to find voids, they are infrequent, and if I remember there was a cost in using SCROLL, either in cue bidding, splinters, or RKCBW.