Pard opens 12-14 nt, you have a 5C major

[the hog]

You are being a little harsh on Fluffy, who was playing a non-transfer method with his weak NT partner in Lille. Not to mention Brink-Drijver and plenty of other international players. While I do play transfers, the idea that one has to play them with a weak NT is just wrong. There are plenty of other solutions around, some of which are quite popular in places. Of the alternatives, 2-way Stayman is probably the one most often seen, even if it is (arguably) not the best.

 

The truth is that there are not a huge number of top pairs playing a weak NT throughout these days. Of those that do I guess around 20% are playing something other than Stayman + transfers. Aside from Fantunes, I am not sure how many of these pairs would qualify as "world class" by Ron's standards!

 

Brink Drijver play 9-12 and 15-17. That is a little different, Zel.

[TylerE]

In my experience, playing transfers and a weak nt is a case of two great things that go horribly together. The weak NT puts pressure on the opps that transfers largely remove.

 

I've never found it to be a problem, and I've played transfer opposite pretty much every weak NT range... 10-12, 11-14, 12-14, 12-15, you name it. Modern transfer-based sequences are so good at getting to the right game that giving them up without a system providing equivalent systemic richness (e.g. Scanian) is just massively -EV versus the field.

[mikeh]

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

 

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

 

Put it another way: if we had a decent team playing transfers against a comparable team playing 2 way, and both played sophisticated versions, I doubt that either could claim that their methods gave them any real edge at all.

 

When a good poster asks for assistance with a method she is experimenting with, telling her that one's one methods are so superior that she should stop playing what she wants to try aNd play one's methods instead is incredibly arrogant, even by my standards.

[Vampyr]

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

 

It would be really interesting if you could outline a good 2-way Stayman method and point out the advantages.

 

I know of one advantage in even a simple system -- that you get to play in 2♦. Is that valuable? Or is playing a puppet here a bad idea anyway?

[mikeh]

It would be really interesting if you could outline a good 2-way Stayman method and point out the advantages.

 

I know of one advantage in even a simple system -- that you get to play in 2♦. Is that valuable?

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

 

The methods permit setting trump, when responder fits a suit held by opener, even a 4 card minor, below game, thus maximizing slam exploration. That isn't the only feature

[Vampyr]

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

 

Oh, OK.

[the hog]

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

 

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

 

Put it another way: if we had a decent team playing transfers against a comparable team playing 2 way, and both played sophisticated versions, I doubt that either could claim that their methods gave them any real edge at all.

 

When a good poster asks for assistance with a method she is experimenting with, telling her that one's one methods are so superior that she should stop playing what she wants to try aNd play one's methods instead is incredibly arrogant, even by my standards.

 

That is a bit arrogant itself. A number of people have played sophisticated methods using 2 way Stayman.

[Mbodell]

I think if 12-14 is new to you and uncommon where you are, the best first step of switching to it is to just play your normal strong nt methods and get used to it from there.

 

Obviously, what counts as an invite strength or game forcing strength over 1nt will change, but still the same thing (as in transfer and 2nt is invitiational, but now it shows 11+-12- points instead of ~9 points).

 

The biggest shifts to playing a weak nt are competitive auctions. In particular, how you know your partner has a better hand when they open 1m playing weak nt than they might have playing strong nt (they either need extra shape or extra strength or both).

 

You also have to deal with opponents bidding too frequently over your 1nt (especially if they aren't used to your 1nt) and I suggest you get comfortable defending doubled partscores - even knowing they'll make some of the time (if they don't you aren't doubling enough).

 

And by far, IMO, the most important part of system difference with a weak nt compared to a strong nt is what you do if you get X for penalty. That isn't too important opposite a strong nt, but opposite a weak nt it becomes a bit more important. If your opponents aren't that familiar with weak nt, you might find they play systems on over the X and feel near compelled to bid themselves (or even play systems like DONT with no penalty X available). But likely you'll want to have some way to escape (and my personal advice is to make sure you can play 1ntX and that you aren't forced to play 1ntXX or some 2 level contract).

[rmnka447]

ArtK78 and mike777 provide pretty workable schemes for inviting over a 2 ♣ invitational Stayman.

 

In the sequence --

 

1 NT-----2 ♣

2 ♦/2 ♠-- ?

 

I like bidding 2 NT as an invite with opener bidding 3 ♥ to show 3 on the way to 3 NT instead of bidding 3 ♥ as responder to invite. The 3 ♥ invite may end up getting one level too high when playing a 5-2 ♥ fit opposite a minimum opener.

 

Of course, any sequence where you start with invitational Stayman and bid 2 NT doesn't necessarily guarantee a 4 card major because you use a direct 2 NT for the minors. Our KO teammates, who play a similar structure to yours, prefer using a 2 NT rebid with opener showing 3 with 3 ♥ as a way of inviting.

[helene_t]

Jill, I have an old book for Beginners that is still in print - 5 Card Major Bridge Teacher's Manual. In it, it uses 1NT - 2♣; 2x - 2M as INV with a 5-card suit. In the rare case of 1NT - 2♣; 2♠, 2NT shows 4 OR 5 ♥, INV. 1NT - 2♣; 2x - 3M (where x DOES NOT = M) is GF with a 6+ card Major, looking for cuebids.

 

GF 5-card Majors go through 2♦. I might also suggest that you ditch 3♣ as Puppet and slightly adjust your 2♦ bid so that: 2M = 4 cards, may have the other Major / 2NT = No 4-card Major / 3M = 5 cards, and use whatever you want for 3m.

I think this is very sensible but I wonder what to do with an invitational hand with six hearts. Maybe a direct 3h shows this but that means that you can't stop in 2h. Playing 2c followed by hearts as invitational at least gives you the chance to stop in 2h but maybe it is too much of a disadvantage not to distinguish between 5 and 6 card invites. And a direct 3h must mean something :) In Wei precision it is preemptive iirc.

 

What do you do as a passed hand? Transfers and 2way stayman are both silly. You could lower the range to 11+ to 14- and then play weak takeouts in four suits. But if a third/fourth seat 1nt is mildly constructive, playing 2d as an invite in an unknown major is sensible.

 

3h by a passed hand could be an invite witg 55 majors.

 

Rmnka447 gives good advice btw.

[whereagles]

I've always played transfers, though mostly for memory's sake. So far, so good.

And yeah there's a reason the post count on these fora went down by 1/2...

[helene_t]

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

For example:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/28977-weak-nt-structure/

[campboy]

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

 

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

I don't think this is a particularly unfair comparison. If OP wants to switch from strong to weak NT, it is not worth the extra effort of finding and learning a sophisticated 2-way Stayman method that is only going to break even with the transfer methods she already knows how to play.

[ArtK78]

I have always played 2-way Stayman when playing a weak NT except when my partner insisted on using transfers. I find that 2-way Stayman is superior to transfers when playing a weak NT - more so when playing a mini NT (10-13, used to be 10-12), as I do with my regular partner. Obviously, some have other opinions, including one poster who may often be wrong but is never in doubt.

 

The idea of rebidding 2NT holding 5 hearts on the auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ is interesting. We may incorporate it into our structure. Amazingly enough, in all of the years that I have played my current 2-way Stayman structure (about 20 years), this sequence has never come up.

 

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

 

On the other hand, playing a mini NT opposite a passed hand is downright silly. In those situations where my regular partner and I employ the mini-NT (1st & 2nd seats nonvul), we also open 1 of a suit on all 10 counts. So, if partner is a passed hand, he has less than 10 HCP. Opening a 10-13 1NT opposite a hand known to have less than 10 HCP seems silly to me. We play strong 1NT openings opposite passed hands.

[mikeh]

I have always played 2-way Stayman when playing a weak NT except when my partner insisted on using transfers. I find that 2-way Stayman is superior to transfers when playing a weak NT - more so when playing a mini NT (10-13, used to be 10-12), as I do with my regular partner. Obviously, some have other opinions, including one poster who may often be wrong but is never in doubt.

 

The idea of rebidding 2NT holding 5 hearts on the auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ is interesting. We may incorporate it into our structure. Amazingly enough, in all of the years that I have played my current 2-way Stayman structure (about 20 years), this sequence has never come up.

 

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

 

On the other hand, playing a mini NT opposite a passed hand is downright silly. In those situations where my regular partner and I employ the mini-NT (1st & 2nd seats nonvul), we also open 1 of a suit on all 10 counts. So, if partner is a passed hand, he has less than 10 HCP. Opening a 10-13 1NT opposite a hand known to have less than 10 HCP seems silly to me. We play strong 1NT openings opposite passed hands.

 

I have long played that 2N over opener's 2♠ response to 2♣,in a 2-way method, is invitational and may hold 5 hearts. This has to be superior to having to rebid 3♥ which risks confronting opener with no good option when he has a minimum and only 2 hearts. Playing 2N with a 5-3 heart fit, by comparison, is not a big deal. 2N often makes the same number of tricks, since it would be rare for opener to have significant ruffing values, and when, as is often the case, it doesn't, then the difference is most often only 1 trick.

 

It doesn't arise often :D

 

As for passed hand bidding, I do in one partnership play 12-14 and open that in 3rd seat if not vulnerable but otherwise only in 1st and 2nd. We ostensibly play the same methods as opposite 1st and 2nd, but that it simply because we don't want 3 response structures. The reality is that we lose any use for 2♦ as artificial so it becomes 'natural', but again this rarely arises.

 

When I played 10-12, we would play it only in 1st and 2nd, altho for a brief time in one partnership we tried it in 3rd at favourable, simply for the preemptive value.

 

Btw, while I like 2 way, especially the method I usually play, my own view is that a detailed transfer method is as good as 2-way, gaining on some layouts and losing on others.

[rmnka447]

I have always played 2-way Stayman when playing a weak NT except when my partner insisted on using transfers. I find that 2-way Stayman is superior to transfers when playing a weak NT - more so when playing a mini NT (10-13, used to be 10-12), as I do with my regular partner. Obviously, some have other opinions, including one poster who may often be wrong but is never in doubt.

 

The idea of rebidding 2NT holding 5 hearts on the auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ is interesting. We may incorporate it into our structure. Amazingly enough, in all of the years that I have played my current 2-way Stayman structure (about 20 years), this sequence has never come up.

 

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

 

On the other hand, playing a mini NT opposite a passed hand is downright silly. In those situations where my regular partner and I employ the mini-NT (1st & 2nd seats nonvul), we also open 1 of a suit on all 10 counts. So, if partner is a passed hand, he has less than 10 HCP. Opening a 10-13 1NT opposite a hand known to have less than 10 HCP seems silly to me. We play strong 1NT openings opposite passed hands.

Certainly, some adjustment needs to be made in methods when a weak NT is opened in 3rd or 4th seat. Game force Stayman really doesn't apply anymore as responder can at best only have an invitational hand. That leaves a 2 ♦ response for some other use. For our teammates, a passed hand 2 ♦ response is an August 2 ♦ bid. It asks for opener's longest major to be bid (bidding ♥ if equal). It normally provides a way to run out of 1 NT with a 2 suited hand, but the responding hand could be up to invitational values if holding a 5-5 hand. It provides an assured way to get to at least a 7 card fit if you hold a "garbage" Stayman hand.

 

I don't see a third seat weak NT as a problem unless we catch partner with a complete bust. Those seem to come a lot less often than everyone fears. OTOH, opening 1 of a minor in 3rd seat certainly makes it easier for the opponents to get in the auction. If the points are fairly evenly distributed, then 1 NT really makes it tough for the opposition to compete.

 

BTW, just for the record, my favorite partner and I just play a non-forcing Stayman with weak NTs. We play weak NTs in all positions and all vulnerabilities. We don't play transfers. A 2 ♦ response is an August 2 ♦ bid.

[Jinksy]

My main problem with weak NT opposite a passed hand is the possibility of P inviting when I'm bottom-end. NV I think the preemptive value in third is ok, vul it's probably more dangerous than it's worth, but I really want to be able to sensibly bid for the part score with a decent 12 or mediocre 13 safe in the knowledge that I can cut the auction off below 2N.

[MrAce]

My main problem with weak NT opposite a passed hand is the possibility of P inviting when I'm bottom-end. NV I think the preemptive value in third is ok, vul it's probably more dangerous than it's worth, but I really want to be able to sensibly bid for the part score with a decent 12 or mediocre 13 safe in the knowledge that I can cut the auction off below 2N.

 

That's why I like color sensitive NT ranges.

[Vampyr]

I don't see a third seat weak NT as a problem unless we catch partner with a complete bust. Those seem to come a lot less often than everyone fears. OTOH, opening 1 of a minor in 3rd seat certainly makes it easier for the opponents to get in the auction. If the points are fairly evenly distributed, then 1 NT really makes it tough for the opposition to compete.

 

Still, I play strong in 3rd at teams, if my partner consents.

[jillybean]

This thread has been enlightening for me, from both a "fellow bbf personality" aspect and system wise.

 

When I decided to try weak nt, (my whim) I knew my partner had played weak nt 10 years ago so I was happy to go with his system. I usually play what my partners want to play and only until I've used the gadget for a while do I suggest modifications or replacements. This often happens after reading, learning and asking questions here. When my partner and I have talked about 2 way stayman, we have been talking about the 2C non force and 2D game force '2 way stayman'. This is what he refers to as “2 way stayman.”

 

Previously, I have only ever played strong no trump and transfers so the '2 way stayman' showing an invitational 5 card major was foreign to me and now that I understand, fills in a lot of gaps

Am I going to to play transfers over weak nt? I may try them in future but for now I'll be happy to play my partners system.

[mikestar13]

The 12-14 weak NT is a fairly good place to adopt a "pass or bash" style for NT hands: if we aren't going to look for a suit fit, respond 3NT with a 12 count and pass with 11. This makes it tougher on the enemy (you won't be in 2NT-1, they can't make close doubles of 1NT-2NT-3NT), and opens up conventional uses of 2NT to solve some problem hands. This concept fits equally well for 2-way Stayman or transfer methods. Something for you and partner to think about. Meckwell have used pass or bash opposite 14-16, John Montgomery (author of Revision Club) even advocates it opposite 16-18! (His Precision method opens balanced hands with less than 16 1♦, and his 1♣ promises shape or extra strength.)

[Mbodell]

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

 

I play weak nt always and/or variable mini and weak nt. I don't think it is a disaster to have a weak or mini nt opposite a passed hand (even in a system that opens basically all 10 point hands). It does mean that you are opening 1nt as a preempt, more than 1nt as a constructive game finding auction. I do think that in that case it is worth changing your system and essentially having all bids show the majors and/or spades. This is after having a large number of cases where we successfully got the preempt in, then transferred to the 2-red landing spot, then saw the opponents balance. If you are opening 1nt and game is off the table, pass and let them struggle, unless you have the boss suit.

[yunling]

Two-way stayman is inefficient. If you really dislike transfers, my suggestion is to play something like

2♣=normal stayman

2♦=ask 2-card major

[rmnka447]

This thread has been enlightening for me, from both a "fellow bbf personality" aspect and system wise.

 

When I decided to try weak nt, (my whim) I knew my partner had played weak nt 10 years ago so I was happy to go with his system. I usually play what my partners want to play and only until I've used the gadget for a while do I suggest modifications or replacements. This often happens after reading, learning and asking questions here. When my partner and I have talked about 2 way stayman, we have been talking about the 2C non force and 2D game force '2 way stayman'. This is what he refers to as 2 way stayman.

 

Previously, I have only ever played strong no trump and transfers so the '2 way stayman' showing an invitational 5 card major was foreign to me and now that I understand, fills in a lot of gaps

Am I going to to play transfers over weak nt? I may try them in future but for now I'll be happy to play my partners system.

Sorry to respond to your post so late but was off at a tournament.

 

I just wanted to highlight a few things that are important when playing weak NTs.

 

First, you and your partner need some methods of getting to a decent resting spot when 1 NT is doubled for penalties. So long as your reasonably nimble at doing so when you can, 1 NT doubled becomes a lot less scary. Personally, I find the fear of going for a phone number in 1 NT doubled to be grossly overrated. In about 40+ years of playing weak NTs, I can count the big sets on one hand. Those have been more than offset by the times 1 NT doubled made or the doubler's partner couldn't sit so pulled the double to an inferior contract.

 

Second, you and your partner need to have clear understandings how to handle interference over 1 NT. One of the joys of playing weak NTs is collecting some +300s and +500s when responder has values and a stack.

 

Third, playing transfers is less important when game going hands are equal in strength. And if you have a major suit slam after a weak NT, the stronger hand would likely be exposed if you play transfers. Natural 2 ♥/2 ♠ signoffs also keep you playing the hands in the same direction as the strong NTers.

 

Finally, and most importantly, please understand that the auctions after opening 1 of a minor are significantly different than when playing strong NTs. For strong NTers, a 1 of a minor opener is a minimum (12-14) hand 75% of the time. For weak NTers, a 1 of a minor opener is a minimum hand only about a third of the time. And those minimum hands are unbalanced minimums. You may want to redefine some simple sounding sequences to be a little different meaning than they would when playing strong NTs. For instance, it becomes more important for an unbalanced minor hand to simply rebid the minor to limit the hand. Certainly you should expect reverses to come up more often and need to be clear on your agreements over them. One of the ongoing advantages you'll find of these "stronger" minor openings is that you'll be bidding more minor suit games and slams when it's right to do so.

 

Good luck!!