Why or why not use Smolen at the two level?

[movingon]

I have always played Smolen after a jump to the three level after pard opens 1nt and I employ stayman or at the three level after a 2nt opener.

 

A friend asked me why not use Smolen at the two level as well.

 

?? I welcome your ideas.

 

Thanks

 

Noreen (movingon)

[ArtK78]

Because Smolen is used on game forcing hands and the 2 level should be reserved for less than game forcing hands.

[movingon]

Because Smolen is used on game forcing hands and the 2 level should be reserved for less than game forcing hands.

 

so why not use it at the 2 level for invitational hands?

[mikeh]

It is quite playable to use smolen at the 2-level with invitational hands: I used to do so many years ago.

 

Thus 1N 2♣ 2♦ 2M shows 4 in that suit and 5 in the other (one could say 4+ and longer in the other, but we limited it to exactly 54/45), invitational values.

 

However, I stopped using it when I started playing a relay method over 1N, in which after 2♦, 2♥ was an artificial relay, and never got back to it after that partnership ended a few years later.

 

I don't miss it.

 

For one thing, there are other uses to which these sequences can be put. I often play a weak 1N (tho the argument is to some degree applicable in a strong notrump method as well) and prefer to use garbage stayman. I have also learned of what I think is an excellent treatment described in this forum by, I think, Justin Lall, in which a 2♠ rebid by responder shows 5 spades and invitational values, interested only in spades, so that it avoids the usual 2♥ transfer then having to bid 2N invitational even with a hand that has no interest in the absence of a spade fit.

 

So my answer is: it is playable, but I think that there are other uses to which 2M can be put over 2♦ and, in my partnerships, those uses are deemed to be more useful.

[steve2005]

Say you have 5♠ balanced and INV. your gonna go 1N-2♥-2♠-2N.

 

So with a 5-card ♠ invitation you've already decided your willing to play in 2N opposite a min with no fit. So what if you decide all your 5-card balanced ♠ go thru Stayman. Now, there is no reason you can't have your GF hands with 5♠ too. It is possible, now you can use 1N-2♣-3♥/3♠ for other things. Two possibilities are GF 4441 hands or GF hands with 0-1 cards not just the 4441.

 

For ♥ it's realistic to use for INV+ with 5♥4♠ and some GF with 5♥.

 

You can use Smolen at 2-level if you want. The trick is finding useful things for the bids freed up and remembering because you probably will be only playing this with steady partner.

 

For a complete 1N system using 2M as Smolen see Revision on the Bridge systems with Dan site

[1eyedjack]

A friend asked me why not use Smolen at the two level as well.

It would be equally worthwhile to ask whether Smolen at the 3 level is optimal. Perhaps ditching it altogether might be better than expanding its use.

[ggwhiz]

I think you lose too much for the occasional gain.

 

1nt-2♣-2♦-2♥ for me is pass or correct and a long term winner big time even when we land in a 4-3 or 5-2 fit. As a matter of frequency, I'm not prepared to lose that.

 

Invitational hands with 4 spades and 5 hearts bidding 2♠ over 2♦ is clearly awkward providing partner with a costly guess and you can't sign off in your best fit when you are dealt trash with any shape in the majors.

[aguahombre]

We give up the Garbage Staymans, and mini-smolen doesn't take up anything we would rather have it for. But, this is only in a strong NT environment, IMO...with old-fashioned 2-suit xfers, MSS, and Walsh 2D either/or relay.

 

We are fossils, content with the simplicity of these methods --- still leaving 2N and 3m for toys which fill the holes.

[blackshoe]

Always trade offs. For me, 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ shows 5♥ & 4♠ invitational, and 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠ shows 5♠ and 4♥ invitational. 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ shows any weak 5-4 or 5-5, so partner can correct to spades if he likes. So "invitational Smolen" would require some significant changes. I doubt it's worth it.

[Siegmund]

I can't remember the last time my partner deliberately chose the 4-3 fit over the 5-2 fit after 1NT-2C-2D-2M. For me, the answer is exceedingly simple: why not use it? Because it gets you to 3H on all the hands you want to stop in 2H, and only breaks even on the hands where you want to stop in 2S.

 

Game-forcing Smolen at least breaks even all the time - though it gains essentially nothing vs. the standard treatment (it does make opener declarer, but this rarely makes much difference especially when responder is strong.) There are other alternatives at the 3-level -- retransfers all the way from 2NT->C to 3H->3S for instance.

[blackshoe]

Yes. Danny Kleinman's The Notrump Zone has some interesting ideas, including, iirc, retransfers at the three level, but the first time I read it, my head exploded, and I haven't had time to go back for another look.

[aguahombre]

Treadwell preferred reverse Smolen.

[barmar]

It is quite playable to use smolen at the 2-level with invitational hands: I used to do so many years ago.

I use it in a few partnerships.

 

But it doesn't come up very often.

[aguahombre]

I use it in a few partnerships.

 

But it doesn't come up very often.

Many things for which we have a method or plan don't come up very often. The considerations are not frequency alone. They are:

 

1) When they do come up, can we handle them?

--1a)If we can't, do we care?

2) Is there a use for the sequence which we can't handle in another way?

3) Does our 1N package cover everything we want to cover?

 

We pay off when there is a "perfect storm" --playing in our 5-2 fit at the two-level instead of our 4-4 in the other major. Some of those times the score will end up the same. Playing in a 5-2 instead of a 4-3 works out better, IMO,

[barmar]

Many things for which we have a method or plan don't come up very often. The considerations are not frequency alone. They are:

Quite true, which is why I still play it. I'm not a fan of creeping Stayman -- if I have a minimum hand with no 5-card major or 6-card minor, I just pass and hope for the best.

 

I think the primary benefit of invitaitional Smolen is that the lead comes up to the NT opener if you play in a suit, so it's probably only useful in a strong NT context.

[aguahombre]

Why not use it? Because it gets you to 3H on all the hands you want to stop in 2H, and only breaks even on the hands where you want to stop in 2S.

Presumably, for the hands in reference --- where a strong NT and invitational values across from it might only be able to make 2M --- you play natural and invitational 2-bids after a 2D reply rather than Mini-Smolen. For many of these (rare) situations it becomes self-fulfilling; you can only make 2M because you wrong-sided it.

[SteveMoe]

Adding to great comments already made is a simple observation that 1N-2♣-2♦-2♠ forces us to the 3-level if we are to play in ♥. We will be in an 8-card fit a the 3-level. How lucky do you feel?

[barmar]

Adding to great comments already made is a simple observation that 1N-2♣-2♦-2♠ forces us to the 3-level if we are to play in ♥. We will be in an 8-card fit a the 3-level. How lucky do you feel?

Since we'd be in game with another HCP in either hand and the same shape, how bad can it be?

[Siegmund]

Since we'd be in game with another HCP in either hand and the same shape, how bad can it be?

I don't think it is quite that close. To get any use at all out of these sequences you have to be using them on say 6-8 HCP at least. And at least in my area, I think playing them as not invitational at all, just a way to choose between both majors, may well be more popular than the invitations.

[fromageGB]

(it does make opener declarer, but this rarely makes much difference especially when responder is strong.)

 

I think the primary benefit of invitaitional Smolen is that the lead comes up to the NT opener if you play in a suit, so it's probably only useful in a strong NT context.

I don't play it at the 2-level, but the right-siding aspect does make a difference even when opener is weak. Opener has more length in the minors, so on the probable minor lead he is the one with the tenaces into which the opening lead comes, rather than through.