Four-way transfers

[Zelandakh]

What you do is transfer to diamonds. Now when partner shows a dislike for diamonds by bidding 3♣, you pass. Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to be so explicit.

You didn't really. It was mentioned further up in the thread, along with the corollary for 2♠ where 2NT shows a minimum and is similarly passable, thus allowing a raise to 2NT to be bundled there.

[Vampyr]

You didn't really. It was mentioned further up in the thread, along with the corollary for 2♠ where 2NT shows a minimum and is similarly passable, thus allowing a raise to 2NT to be bundled there.

 

What does opener do with a minimum and a club fit? Or a maximum without one?

[steve2005]

No. Transferring to clubs and then bidding diamonds will usually be used for a strong hand.

 

What you do is transfer to diamonds. Now when partner shows a dislike for diamonds by bidding 3♣, you pass. Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to be so explicit.

ok see now.

[Zelandakh]

What does opener do with a minimum and a club fit? Or a maximum without one?

2NT with a min, 3♣ with a max. You lose the differentiation on club fit by playing the method.

[Hyperon]

If you're going to play 2s for clubs and 2nt for d, you should play 2s as range finder or clubs.

...

Opener bids 2nt with a min & 3c with an accept.

 

When I transfer to clubs with xxx xx xx KQxxxx and my partner can super accept, I know we have good play in 3NT. This would be impossible to find with your method.

 

The advantage here is that 2c goes back to guaranteeing a 4 card major

 

I don't understand why everyone wants to get rid of bidding Stayman without a 4 card major. After the auction 1NT-2♣-2♠-2NT, the defense will not know whether responder has 4 hearts or not, which can only be a good thing.

[Vampyr]

When I transfer to clubs with xxx xx xx KQxxxx and my partner can super accept, I know we have good play in 3NT. This would be impossible to find with your method.

 

Totally.

 

I don't understand why everyone wants to get rid of bidding Stayman without a 4 card major. After the auction 1NT-2♣-2♠-2NT, the defense will not know whether responder has 4 hearts or not, which can only be a good thing.

 

The leakage is in the concealed hand, which is far more damaging.

[wank]

 

 

I don't understand why everyone wants to get rid of bidding Stayman without a 4 card major. After the auction 1NT-2♣-2♠-2NT, the defense will not know whether responder has 4 hearts or not, which can only be a good thing.

 

they'll have a pretty accurate count on dummy's heart length a quarter of the way into trick 1.

[Lovera]

If it true that in this way starting from 3♣ as direct bidding all suits are natural is true also the low frequency for these biddings either for shape or because honors concetration are not usual to have. The central side of system is more various, interesting and common. Now, as you can see, is showed in examples the use of Stayman with five cards in major (for a 5-3 fit). And what happens if partnership use, instead, regolar or classic Stayman that adopts only five cards in minor suit and is "still alive" ? Why don't explain with this one avoiding a sort of "exclusivety" in developing of bidding ?

[Tramticket]

It makes a big difference. You must bid the suit when you like it. Otherwise you will fail to find your probable best fit when weak with 5/5 minors.

 

Also, if you super-accept by bidding the the next bid up (e.g. 1NT, 2♠; 2NT, 3♣) both opponents know that responder is weak and you have a fit. This is a green light for either of them to compete - e.g. by a take-out double. If you bid the suit to super-accept, then one opponent has already passed when the weakness is revealed.

 

This was from a previous thread (here) and is acknowledged with thanks.

[Lovera]

When i told "on the same track" its meaning is to try to change as few as possible to save examples and developed bidding. But, i ask, what do you think about the not using of regolar or classic Stayman and what can be done yet ?

[Zelandakh]

But, i ask, what do you think about the not using of regolar or classic Stayman and what can be done yet ?

"Regular Stayman" varies according to where you live so I suggest you describe both this and what you are proposing to replace it with if you want opinions. But in general terms there is no problem at all in changing the usage of 2♣ providing the rest of the structure compensates. The important thing is that the NT structure functions as a whole.

[Lovera]

"Regular Stayman" varies according to where you live so I suggest you describe both this and what you are proposing to replace it with if you want opinions. But in general terms there is no problem at all in changing the usage of 2♣ providing the rest of the structure compensates. The important thing is that the NT structure functions as a whole.

Hi. Obvously i am talking about Stayman with only 5m and a doubleton, 2♥=4 heart, 2♠=4 spade and perhaps 4 heart, 2NT=max w/o majors (original version or its any variant). What i am sorry that was not considered in system is this one that for an aim of condivision is more usefull. If it is required the Stayman with 5M to go it on can be considered almost a limitation if not a weakness (i think that you agree it) for the system.

[Lovera]

Now let's consider that pair uses regular Stayman and responder bids 2♣ when has in hand four cards in major using transfers when has a five cards (M or m). In this way the hands indicated in part 4.2 having four cards in major has to be thread via 2♣ and by-passed than there (in the example "The Minor-Major two Suiter the Hand A is 4-2-2-5 with four spades and five clubs). To save example although it needs to find a meaning when responder bids 3♠(=not suit -a card can be removed and collocated in a short suit) and not having five cards in major because had transferred with 2♦ or 2♥ instead. The meaning is that in suit indicated has the controll and ask information if partner cover the remaining two suit ( and in this case opener bids 3NT )or if doesn't cover and in this case cueing sure control in suit indicated but not in the other one plus three cards in transfer suit.

[Vampyr]

Hi. Obvously i am talking about Stayman with only 5m and a doubleton, 2♥=4 heart, 2♠=4 spade and perhaps 4 heart, 2NT=max w/o majors (original version or its any variant).

 

Is this really the original version? In any case it is not very popular nowadays, when most people play some form of garbage Stayman.

[Zelandakh]

Is this really the original version? In any case it is not very popular nowadays, when most people play some form of garbage Stayman.

It looks like a good example of what I wrote before, that "Regular Stayman" varies according to where you are. It is also certainly true that 2NT was used for a maximum without a major and that 2♠, rather than 2♥, was bid with both majors in the prototypical versions, not only from Stayman/Rapee but also from Marx. The other major difference that I know of between then and now is that "Forcing Stayman" was the original standard. That means, for example, that 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2M would be forcing rather than invitational.

 

So to go back to Lovera's question, "what do you think about the not using of regular or classic Stayman", I would say that that would be an excellent idea if classic means the 1945/1946 publications! As a general rule, skipping 70 years of bidding theory will tend to allow for the odd improvement here and there. :lol:

[Lovera]

It looks like a good example of what I wrote before, that "Regular Stayman" varies according to where you are. It is also certainly true that 2NT was used for a maximum without a major and that 2♠, rather than 2♥, was bid with both majors in the prototypical versions, not only from Stayman/Rapee but also from Marx. The other major difference that I know of between then and now is that "Forcing Stayman" was the original standard. That means, for example, that 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2M would be forcing rather than invitational.

 

So to go back to Lovera's question, "what do you think about the not using of regular or classic Stayman", I would say that that would be an excellent idea if classic means the 1945/1946 publications! As a general rule, skipping 70 years of bidding theory will tend to allow for the odd improvement here and there. :lol:

What you said about improving it is innegable also by me but the original version (directly by author) is basic for any ultherior version "fashionable" too. In this meaning (classic is for regular) you must read what i told. Not that anyone can use but, considering basic as "more common" and propedeutic to other version(s) a referring it'd been welcome instead jump to last(=up-to-date) version of it (or, the same, the converse).

[Lovera]

This my "variation" at the system from book can be considered also a kind of "guideline" apts to simplify bidding in (and surely anyones will do it for own use) avoiding particolarities and complexity having although the almost (with any necessary changing because a major suit there is not) same bid developing (that i don't show- see book for correlation). The hands can be divided into two groups : 1) invitational (ending in game if partner can help you) or less 2) for game (when is bidded a new suit to show force) and more. Because partner hand is opposite 1NT opener you must consider only MW, devalutation for honors not protected and longness and revaluted when a fit has found inserting shortness (Goren points) more. Are used for slam RKB and Kickback (with the same schale of RKB used for) while on direct bidding at third level (nat.) cue-bid (not ultheriorly detailed).

[Lovera]

Where instead bid developing is more different is in part "4.4.4 Splinter after a minor suit transfer" when applying the asking for suit control. There is showed Hand A (..from a club competition..) in three different situations (Examples 1, 2, 3 with 4♥ as splinter). Instead bidding changes in 3♥ with answer 3NT for Examples 1 and 2 and via Kickback you end in 6♣ for Ex. 1 and 5♦ for Ex. 2 whilest for Ex. 3 3♥(=ask for cover)-3♠(=only spade is covered and not diamond) ending in 4 or 5 clubs.

[Lovera]

About holding with 4 cards and an honor in the case of super-accept the author talk about in No Trump book addictions (see New sheet) at the end of Table of content (index of book). Here a my example :North ♠ AKx ♥ Qxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Axxx South ♠ x ♥ KJxxxx ♦ AQx ♣ KJx Bidding: N-S 1NT-2♦, 3♥(=SA)-4NT, 5♠-6♥. A case to consider is also when you have an holding of three cards usually with a top honor but if instead you have two top honors this one can be bidded as four cards it be almost equivalent to.

[Vampyr]

What book are you talking about?

[Lovera]

What book are you talking about?

The book indicated in post #3.

[Lovera]

As i've already told my aim is to simplify this complex system in a way (that you can redifine as like ultheriourly) for using non restricted at few partner(s) that know conventinated biddings in. Also in Ch. V my indicated biddings flow. Strangely, considering the many types of these ones, the (i.e. when transfer on diamond suit) "1NT - 2NT, 3NT" seems off. But it can be not so. For instance, when i've spoken by my indication of holding of three cards with two tops honors (to consider as a four cards suit) this can solve for you eventually bidding problem. On the same theme we can consider the support, rare but possible, having four cards and two top honors (AK, AQ or KQ). In this case you must priorly indicate it broken-the-transfer (3NT instead of 3♣ or 3♦) meaning (this one is another my optional adjuntive information) that all major suits are covered plus this extra support or when a major alone is covered (i.e heart) indicating it (3♥ covered, spade not plus this extra support).