Build A Better Mousetrap

[masse24]

My partner and I play 2/1 with 4 suit transfers.

We play a Standard strong NT range of 15-17.

 

So:

1NT - 2♠ (transfer to ♣'s)

 

And:

1NT - 2NT (transfer to ♦'s)

 

And:

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 2NT (Invitational-denies 4 card major)

 

And:

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠ (Invitational with a 4 card ♠ suit)

 

This is the GIB system as well, and, I had thought to be rather standard. The drawback being that it wrong sides a possible ♠ contract.

 

However the following alternative method came up:

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 2NT (Invitational values, does NOT deny four ♠'s)

3♠ - (3NT/4♠) :blink: (3♠ showing a max NT and four ♠'s) The advantage being that it right sides the ♠ contract.

 

Would love some feedback. At face value it does not have any major flaw, but, maybe others could enlighten me as to which is the better mousetrap.

 

Thanks! :)

[antonylee]

Well, first of all you can't play in spades anymore with a 4-4 fit (with opener holding also 4 hearts) and say 15 opposite 8.

[sfi]

However the following alternative method came up:

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 2NT (Invitational values, does NOT deny four ♠'s)

3♠ - (3NT/4♠) :blink: (3♠ showing a max NT and four ♠'s) The advantage being that it right sides the ♠ contract.

 

Would love some feedback. At face value it does not have any major flaw, but, maybe others could enlighten me as to which is the better mousetrap.

 

Thanks! :)

 

My partner and I did something similar to this a long time ago (actually switching the meanings of 2♠/2nt) to right side the spades. The significant flaw is that you get one level too high when you want to play a spade partscore. My partner tried to name this idea after me but that plan died a merciful death.

 

Your method doesn't have that particular problem. But it has two separate downsides:

 

- The strong hand has to show both majors with a good hand on this auction whether or not responder has either, which is very useful to the opposition.

- You can never play a spade partial with a 4-4 fit if opener has both majors.

 

Your method does have one advantage in that it frees up the 2♠ bid. If you can think of something good enough that it outweighs the negatives, then you are on to something. They are significant negatives though.

 

There are better ways to achieve the same effect, IMO. For instance you can use a 2S response as "invitational, balanced or clubs." That means that 2C can now guarantee a major. The tradeoff there is that you don't find the skinny 3nt games based on the club suit.

 

Another option is to use another convention entirely. I don't actually know Keri any more than a brief overview from teammates last month, but I think that it goes some way to addressing this sort of a problem.

[awm]

What Sam and I play is:

 

1NT - 2♠ = balanced invite, or single-suited minor invite, or 3NT bid worried about xx opposite xx in a major

.... 2NT = "I have a minimum" (responder passes with balanced invite, bids 3m natural with minor invite, bids 3M with GF and xx suit)

.... 3♣ = "I have a max but a bad hand for clubs" (responder bids 3NT with balanced invite+, passes with club invite, bids 3♦ with diamond invite)

.... 3♦ = "I have a max but a bad hand for diamonds" (responder bids 3NT with balanced invite+ or club invite, passes with diamond invite)

.... 3M = "I have a max, good for either minor, but xx in this major"

.... 3NT = no worries, I accept all invites

 

1NT - 2NT = transfer to clubs, weak or GF

1NT- 3♣ = transfer to diamonds, weak or GF

 

This way 2♣ can guarantee a major (actually we bid it with a few slam tries without a major too, but not with major-less invites).

[Kungsgeten]

Another alternative might be:

1NT-2♣;

2♦ - no 4 card major

2♥ - 4+ hearts, not 4 spades

2♠ - 4+ spades, not 4 hearts

2NT - 4-4 majors, minimum hand

3♣ - 4-4 majors, maximum hand

 

If opener bids 2NT or 3♣, responder transfers to the preferred major at the 3-level (then passes, cue bids or bid game), passes 2NT (with an invitational hand and no major, since partner has a minimum) or bids 3NT over a 3♣ response.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't wory too much about the rightsiding issue. The downside of swapping 2♠ and 2NT is that you can't stop in 2♠ and that they can double 2♠ for the lead. I think those downsides weigh stronger than the rightsiding issue.

 

Playing 2♠ as forcing (whether natural or swapped) allows you to put some other hand types into that bid, though.

[Free]

Rightsiding 4♠ won't compensate the losses from having to play 3♠ instead of 2♠.

[Zelandakh]

Try this (apologies for any typos, I did this by hand):

 

2♣ = Puppet Stayman

... - 2♦ = no 5 card major

... - ... - 2♥ = asks if 4 spades are help, no interest in a 4-4 heart fit

... - ... - ... - 2♠ = 4 spades

... - ... - ... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV

... - ... - ... - 2NT = 2-3 spades, min

... - ... - ... - others = nat, 2-3 spades, max

... - ... - 2♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades

... - ... - ... - 2N = 2-3 hearts, min

... - ... - ... - ... - 3m = nat (Baron)

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 5 hearts, GF (implies 3 spades)

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 0-1 spades

... - ... - ... - 3m = 2-3 hearts, 4+ m, max

... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, min

... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 4 hearts, max

... - ... - ... - 3N = 4333, max

... - ... - 2NT = 4 hearts, 4 spades, INV

... - ... - 3♣ = Stayman promising both majors 4-4 or 5-4

... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 3 card major, no 4 card major

... - ... - ... - ... - 3M = Smolen

... - ... - ... - 3M = 4 cards, fit

... - ... - ... - 3N = 2245

... - ... - 3♦ = 5+, SI

... - ... - 3♥ = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds, SI

... - ... - 3♠ = 5 diamonds, 4 clubs, SI

... - 2♥ = 5 hearts

... - ... - 2♠ = range ask

... - ... - 2N = puppet to 3♣

... - ... - 3♣ = puppet to 3♦

... - ... - 3♦ = GF heart raise

... - ... - 3♥ = INV raise

... - ... - 3♠, 4m = splinters

... - 2♠ = 5 spades

... - ... - 2N = nat, INV

... - ... - 3♣ = puppet to 3♦

... - ... - 3♦ = minor suit Baron

... - ... - 3♥ = GF spade raise

... - ... - 3♠ = INV raise

... - ... - 4♣♦♥ = splinters

2♦ = 5+ hearts

... - 2♥

... - ... - 2♠ = 3-way range ask (balanced invite, clubs, strong 1-suiter)

... - ... - ... - 2N = min, 2 hearts

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♣ = 4 clubs, GF

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs, GF

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 6+ hearts, SI

... - ... - ... - 3♣ = max, 2 hearts, GF

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 4+ clubs

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 6+ hearts, SI

... - ... - ... - 3♦ = max, 3+ hearts, GF

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = SI

... - ... - ... - ... - 3N = mild slam try

... - ... - ... - 3♥ = min, 3+ hearts

... - ... - 2N = 5 hearts, 4 spades, INV

... - ... - 3♣ = 4+ diamonds, GF

... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ spades, GF

... - ... - 3♥ = 6+ hearts, INV

... - ... - 3♠, 4m = splinters

2♥ = 5+ spades

... - 2♠

... - ... - 2N = nat, INV

... - ... - 3♣ = 2-way bid (diamonds or strong 1-suited)

... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 2 spades, 4+ diamonds

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 6+ spades, SI

... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 2 spades, 2-3 diamonds

... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 6+ spades, SI

... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 3+ spades, 2-3 diamonds

... - ... - ... - others = 3+ spades, 4+ diamonds

... - ... - 3♦ = 4+ clubs, GF

... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ hearts, INV

... - ... - 3♠ = 6+ spades, INV

... - ... - 4♣♦♥ = splinters

2♠ = range ask, incorporating club transfer

... - 2N = min

... - ... - 3♣ = sign off

... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts, SI

... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades, SI

... - ... - 3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds, SI

... - ... - 4♣ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds, strong SI

... - 3♣ = max

... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts, SI

... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades, SI

... - ... - 3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds, SI

... - ... - 4♣ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds, strong SI

2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

3m = nat, slammy

3M = 3-suited with short m

 

If you do not like using Puppet then the whole thing is adaptable to regular Stayman, gaining Crawling Stayman and invitational minors in the process. This Puppet structure was actually adapted from the regular Stayman one. The key to how this works is for diamond hands to go via Stayman while club hands generally do not. Of course there are many many possible NT structures available. I do not believe in any one of them being better than every other one. Rather you have to decide what are the most important aspects and then include them into a scheme that both you and your partner find logical.