1NT-2S as clubs, or weak both minors, or diamond invite

[Kungsgeten]

So this is another NT-system idea I thought I'd share. Let's say you play the following:

 

- 2♠ is a transfer to clubs.

- 3♣ is a transfer to diamonds.

- 2NT is something else. Perhaps natural (whoa)!

 

Now you can play super-accepts of the club transfer, so that it includes invitational hands with 6+♣. But then, how do you invite with 6+♦? Well, you could transfer to clubs and then bid 3♦, making the 2♠ response a two-way bid: a transfer to clubs, or an invitational hand with diamonds. That's cool. But what about if we have a weak hand with both minors (5-5)? Well, I guess you could just guess to pass or to choose a minor to transfer to and hope for the best, but perhaps we can do better? What if the 2♠ response is a three-way bid?

 

1NT-2♠ shows one of:

a) 6+♣. Can be weak, strong, or invitational.

b) An invitational hand with 6♦.

c) A weak hand with both minors.

 

The idea is that opener bids clubs if he likes them (accepting an invite):

 

1NT-2♠; 3♣ (opener likes clubs)

Pass = A weak hand with 6+♣, or 5-5 minors.

3♦ = Okay, but I have an invite with diamonds.

3♥♠ = GF with short major and 6+♣.

3NT = Then let's try 3NT!

4♣ = SI with clubs, no shortness.

4♦ = GF with short diamonds and 6+♣.

 

Opener bids 2NT if he doesn't like clubs.

 

1NT-2♠; 2NT (opener doesn't like clubs)

3♣ = I want to play clubs anyway!

3♦ = Then I want to play diamonds! Could be both minors, or invitational with diamonds and bad clubs.

3NT = Well, then let's play 3NT. Could be invitational with diamonds (and something in clubs), or a strongish hand with clubs.

 

The idea is that if opener doesn't like clubs, then he probably has something in diamonds.

[steve2005]

The idea is that if opener doesn't like clubs, then he probably has something in diamonds.

Could like clubs but not enough to accept invite. So might not even have diamonds.

[mike777]

or you can play 1nt =2s as very old fashion:

 

weak with long diamonds

weak with both minors

slam with both minors

 

You can respond with super accept or bid 2nt without.

 

lots of ways to play it

[Kungsgeten]

or you can play 1nt =2s as very old fashion:

 

weak with long diamonds

weak with both minors

slam with both minors

 

You can respond with super accept or bid 2nt without.

 

lots of ways to play it

 

Yes, but then you need some other bids for:

 

1. Weak with clubs.

2. GF with clubs.

3. GF with diamonds.

4. INV with clubs.

5. INV with diamonds.

 

Otherwise I think this old method is fine (the Scanian NT system use it).

 

 

Yet another idea could be to play 1NT-3♣ as INV+ with diamonds, and put the weak diamond hands along with the transfer to clubs. I'm not that fond of the continuations I made up though (perhaps something better is possible?):

 

1NT-3♣ (invitational or GF with 6+♦)

3♦ = Weak diamond suit, so doesn't accept invite. Responder bids on with GF values.

3♥ = Accepts diamond invite, no weak major.

...3♠ = Club shortness. Opener bids 3NT with clubs stopped.

...3NT = To play.

...Others = Diamond slam tries.

3♠ = Accepts diamond invite, weak spade suit.

...3NT = To play.

...4♦ = To play.

...Other = Diamond slam tries.

3NT = Accepts diamond invite, weak heart suit.

...Pass = Has something in hearts.

...4♦ = To play.

...Other = Diamond slam tries.

 

The problem I see with the above is that responder always declares when he is weak with diamonds, and that opener tells about his weakness, rather than responder telling. Not sure how much worse this is, but seems better to let responder do the talking.

[Trick13]

We are doing a little similar, but too early to judge:

 

1NT - 2♠ = balanced strong invite, or weak with long ♣, or invitational with long ♦

Opener bids 3

♣

if accepting; responder corrects to 3

♦

to invite, or 3M which probes for a 4-4M fit

1NT - 2NT = invitational with long ♣ or weak with long ♦, or GF both minors and a weak major doubleton (rebids doubleton)

Opener accepts by bidding 3

♦

; responder corrects to 3

♦

to play, or 3M to show a weak doubleton

1NT - 3m = GF with minor

2NT - 3M = GF with both minors and singleton/void in M

 

Since our 1NT is 10-13 we have two ranges of invite, 2♣ being the other.

[Zelandakh]

Does the traditional way not get you more?

 

2♠ = 2NT invite; or clubs, weak/GF

2NT = both minors, weak; or diamonds, weak/GF

3m = nat, INV

[Kungsgeten]

Does the traditional way not get you more?

 

2♠ = 2NT invite; or clubs, weak/GF

2NT = both minors, weak; or diamonds, weak/GF

3m = nat, INV

 

Yes it might, that depends on what you want to use the other bids for. I've been playing 2NT as diamonds (weak/INV/GF) or both minors (weak), which works fine. Opener bids diamonds if he likes them, so if he doesn't like diamonds you can pass with the both minors hand. However I wanted to play 2NT as Puppet Stayman, and 3D as GF with 5-5 minors. That left 2S and 3C to handle the one-suited minor hands, as well as both minors weak.

[Zelandakh]

I wanted to play 2NT as Puppet Stayman, and 3D as GF with 5-5 minors. That left 2S and 3C to handle the one-suited minor hands, as well as both minors weak.

In that case my suggestion would be either the classic: 2♠ to handle 2NT invites and the club hands; 3♣ for both minors, weak; and to pass the diamond hands through Stayman (if you want a direct invite and minor suit invites are unimportant to you). Or the more complex 2♠ = both minors, weak; or diamonds, weak; or clubs, weak/GF; 3m = nat, INV; with Stayman handling 2NT invites and GF diamond-based hands. To make the latter work, use 2NT over 2♠ to show diamond preference over clubs.

 

Obviously some other solutions are also possible. What do Meckwell do? That would probably be my first model if designing a system with 2NT Puppet.

[straube]

I think you have to look at the entire structure instead of just a few (2S, 2N, 3C) bids because everything else is affected by the choices you make here.

 

Most of my favorite NT structures use 2S as some form of size ask. 2N as just an invite is nice because it can't be doubled for a lead, but bad because any response to 1N that isn't forcing just gives up a lot of sequences. 1N-3m as GI (popular in my area) is criminal.

 

It's also better for responder's rebids to also be forcing for the same reason. 1N-2S, 2N-3C as a club bust (which I use) has to be recognized as a sequence loss but so would 1N-2N, 3C-3D as a diamond bust.

 

Maybe for this reason, most of the top (imo) NT structures give up weak minor suit stayman. It's usually just too expensive to find out that opener has a club preference and stop in 3C. Weak mss only helps when you're exactly 5/5 (if you're 6/5 just transfer to your 6-cd suit). If you've given up weak mss you just tough it out in 1N; you're not going to guess the better minor and risk a 5-2 fit at the 3-level.

 

I've never played it, but I was very impressed with Adam and Sieong's NT structure which can be found with this link...

http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~awm/bridge/awm-sieongNT.pdf

 

They use 2S as a size ask and then opener rebids 2N with minimums but starts to super-accept with maximums. E.g. 1N-2S, 3D would show that opener has a maximum, would accept a club invite but not a diamond invite.

 

A structure I had worked out before seeing Adam and Sieong's has the disadvantage in not being able to invite in a minor, but it does use 2N as Puppet Stayman which is a great blunderbuss bid for getting to the most likely game with less information leakage while preventing overcalls or lead-directing doubles. I assume Meckwell still uses 2N as Puppet Stayman. I wrote up my structure here a few posts down... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42716-bestmost-comprehensive-nt-structure/

[nullve]

I think balanced invites are a waste of space opposite a nominal 3-point range that is narrower than usual because of not-so-sloppy hand valuation, but I guess that's a tiny minority view. (Which of course makes me wonder, has anyone ever switched to a "pass or bash" paradigm and later switched back?)

 

I think it's best to sign off in a minor via 1N-2♣(Stayman); 2x-3m-1(something); 3m(relay, but forced)-P. The Stayman route puts less pressure on opps, of course, but it also has the bonus that Responder can pass Opener's response with suitable shape.

 

Having a way to invite with a long, good minor looks good on paper, and seems to have been a priority for almost every system designer since Belladonna(?), but is it really that useful in practice? I'm honestly not sure I've reached/avoided a (resp.) good/bad 3N contract the last 10 years (say) because of some gadget that allowed me to show this hand type. Am I alone in this?

[Kungsgeten]

Of course we have to look at the entire structure. The best way to handle minor suit single suiters, and weak with both minors, are probably to use more bids. The idea presented was more geared towards "what if you only have these two bids to handle these hands", than to be the best solution.

 

The bids were supposed to be used in this structure:

 

1NT--

2C = Stayman, but not "3NT or 4M" type of hands, and not INV with 4H (unless also 4+ spades). May be weak with both majors, or 4M and 5+m. Includes strong balanced SI hands, looking for a fit.

 

2D = Asking for four hearts. May be a normal transfer, or INV with 4 hearts, or INV without a major.

 

2H = 5+ spades.

 

2S, 3C = As described in this post.

 

2NT = Puppet Stayman. GF asking for five, and maybe also four, card major. Could also be a hand that want to show their own five card major, but at the same time suggesting 3NT even if a fit exists.

 

3D = GF, 5-5 minors.

 

3M = GF, (31)(54)

 

3NT = To play.

 

 

After studying one of Glen Ashton's very similar NT structures, I think I'll go with 3C as Puppet Stayman instead, and use 2S and 2NT as regular minor suit transfers (with 2NT possibly being a sign-off with both minors). Glen has a nice way after the major suit transfers for the COG hands with 5M. The thing we give up is being able to find a heart fit when opener have five hearts and two spades, while responder have five spades and three hearts. It is possible to handle these via 2C Stayman, but it has some problems.

 

I do think that my suggestion could be a viable option though, for instance if you play 2NT as Meckwell version of Puppet Stayman (which includes (31)(54)), and 1NT-3M as 4441 type of hands.

[straube]

I would devote more machinery to showing shortness.

 

For example, 1N-3H as 3-1-(54) is more limited than it needs to be. It could include 4-1-4-4 or 4-1-(53) shapes as you have space to locate a 4-4 spade fit. Like 1N-3H, 3S-3N would be 3-1-(54) now and asking opener to pull without a stopper.

 

Or say you're dealt a 3-1-3-6 pattern. You could bid 3H here and if you have the machinery for opener to show unease with 3N, you could insist on clubs later. Or maybe opener has 5 spades and can show them via a confident bid of 4S. Maybe opener has 5 or 6 diamonds, no heart stop and bids a diamond game.

[glen]

... After studying one of Glen Ashton's very similar NT structures ...

 

Btw with my wife we play (for about 15 years now):

2♠ is a transfer to clubs, or game invite in ♦s

2NT is a natural invite

3♣ is a transfer to ♦s, signoff or game forcing

3♦ asks for a five card major

 

This is not what I would use in an expert partnership

[Hilver]

What about this:

* 1NT - 2♠ = transfer to ♣

With at least 3 clubs and one honnour in ♣ and a maximum NT, OH bids 2NT

 

* 1NT - 2NT = transfer to ♦

With at least 3 diamonds and one honnour in diamonds and a maximum NT OH bids 3♣

 

* 1NT - 3♣ = Puppet Stayman, asking for 4- or 5-card in a major; GF

 

* 1NT - 2♣ = relay Stayman, not necessarily promising a 4-card major

 

Jan

[blackshoe]

Or this:

 

1NT-2♠ asks opener if he's minimum or maximum for his opening bid. Responder might have a balanced invite, or a weak or strong (slam interest) club suit.

1NT-2NT asks opener to bid his better minor. Responder might have a weak or strong diamond suit, or a weak or strong hand with both minors.

1NT-3♣ is Romex Stayman (see below. I like this better than puppet.)

1NT-3♦ shows game values with both minors.

1NT-3M shows 5-4 or 4-5 minors, shortage in the bid major, game values.

 

Romex Stayman:

 

1NT-3♣ asks for opener's major suit holdings. Then:

 

3NT shows 4-4 in the majors

3♠ shows 5 spades

3♥ shows 4 or 5 hearts (3♠ asks which, then 3NT shows 4)

3♦ shows any other hand, then 3♥ asks if opener has 4♠

[Zelandakh]

1NT-3♣ is Romex Stayman (see below. I like this better than puppet.)

Why do you see this as advantageous over Muppet (3♥ and 3NT reversed) or the low-information, right-siding version of Puppet:

 

3♦ = 3+ spades and/or 4+ hearts

... - 3♥ = spade ask, no interest in hearts (4 spades; or to play 3NT; or interest in a minor)

... - ... - 3♠ = 4 spades

... - ... - 3NT = 2-3 spades

... - 3♠ = 4 hearts

... - 3NT = 4-4 majors

... - 4♣ = 4+ spades, 4+ hearts, SI

... - 4♦ = 5 spades, 4 hearts

3♥ = 5 hearts

3♠ = 5 spades

3NT = 2 spades, 3 hearts

[Kungsgeten]

What about this:

* 1NT - 2♠ = transfer to ♣

With at least 3 clubs and one honnour in ♣ and a maximum NT, OH bids 2NT

 

* 1NT - 2NT = transfer to ♦

With at least 3 diamonds and one honnour in diamonds and a maximum NT OH bids 3♣

 

* 1NT - 3♣ = Puppet Stayman, asking for 4- or 5-card in a major; GF

 

* 1NT - 2♣ = relay Stayman, not necessarily promising a 4-card major

 

Jan

 

I actually think it is better to play that opener bids 3m if he likes the suit, and the first step if he doesn't. The reason is that then 2NT can be used with weak hands with 5-5 minors (you pass 3C if opener doesn't like diamonds). It is not guaranteed to work, but at least give you the option.

 

The way you write is actually what we play now, but it is very seldom our Stayman doesn't have a four card major (basically only with balanced hands and slam interest, but could perhaps be a weak hand with 3-3-6-1 or 3-3-1-6 too). I'm not very fond about bidding Stayman with invitational hands without a major, as it gives information to the opponents. The only invitational hand where we bid Stayman is with four spades.

[Kungsgeten]

1NT-3♣ is Romex Stayman (see below. I like this better than puppet.)

 

Puppet Stayman is an abused name of a convention, since it can serve so many different purposes.

 

1. 1NT-2C = Puppet Stayman. Asks five card major. Also shows various hands interested in a major fit, or perhaps no interest at all. Some also include weak hands with diamonds.

2. 1NT-2C = Puppet Stayman. Some play that opener always bid 2D, so it doesn't ask for a five card major.

3. 2NT-3C = Puppet Stayman. "Standard" seems to be that 3D now shows four card major(s), and 3NT denies a four+ major. Responder could be interested in one, or both, of the majors.

4. 1NT-3C = Puppet Stayman. Some play this the same way as 2NT-3C above, which seems to be what you're implying.

5. 1NT-3C = Puppet Stayman. Many play that opener always bid 3D if he hasn't got a five card major. Now opener only tells what responder wants to know (responder doesn't have both majors).

6. 1NT-2NT = Puppet Stayman. You use 2NT as Puppet instead of 3C. One less bid for the opponents to double for the lead. Meckwell also includes (31)(54) into this bid.

7. 1NT-2NT = Puppet Stayman. Nullve had an idea to use this as Puppet, but responder could also have a five card major and a hand that offers a choice of 4M and 3NT, even though a fit exists.

 

I would not be suprised if there are more versions, also called Puppet Stayman.

[wank]

2s weak or strong in clubs/invitational in diamonds/invitational balanced

2n 5 card puppet stayman - opener doesn't reveal his major holdings. Also includes (31)(45) shapes.

3c weak or strong in diamonds

 

The only hand you don't cover is invitations with clubs

 

I play 2nd round transfers after 1nt-2r. This gives me a free bid to show 2 variations of 5M choice of game, allowing opener to play 3nt with 3 card support which among many other issues solves the one nullve is after in 6