Slam seeking after 1NT opening

[Gilithin]

I was just drawing your attention on the fact that the prior posters (to which you were replying) had mentioned

 

1NT-2C

2M-3oM

 

as a slam try in M.

 

It seemed you thought they had said so for 2H-2S.

It did not seem so, the most common method really is to play 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ as a good ♥ raise and not 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 3♠. My suggestion is to use 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 3♦ for that and then assign the required hand types (GF ♣, GF ♦, balanced invite) between 2♠, 2NT and 3♣ with some space left over for whatever you want (minor suit Baron or whatever). I cannot see a huge advantage to shoving it up even further to 3♠. If the 5♠ hand is such an issue, rearrange the structure to free up another route - it's really not that difficult.

[smerriman]

It did not seem so, the most common method really is to play 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ as a good ♥ raise and not 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 3♠.

2♠ as agreeing hearts is definitely not standard. If in doubt, Bridge World Standard is a good reference, where experts agreed on:

 

three of a major is ... over 2♦ ... a slam-try in opener's shown major with an unspecified splinter if in the unbid major

[Gilithin]

2♠ as agreeing hearts is definitely not standard. If in doubt, Bridge World Standard is a good reference, where experts agreed on:

While BWS can be useful as a reference guide, it contains plenty of treatments that do not really work together very well. In the short paragraph on NT responses, 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2NT is invitational with 4 spades and 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ appears to be...invitational with 4(?) spades. Well sure, but if you think this is the most common system in the world I am not sure what to say. Additionally, in large portions of the world it is quite normal to play that 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ denies 4 spades. How many of those pairs do you think play 2 different invites for shadings of spade holdings as their most important calls over 2♥?

 

Now if a pair plays a method where to invite 3NT they need to go through Stayman, and some (like jallerton) do, it makes good sense to play this sort of structure. Similarly there are pairs (JLall was one) that like to play 2-suited invites or second round transfers after their 2♥ Jacoby response. In this case they need the 2NT rebid for something other than its natural usage and many of these pairs take 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ for the purpose of showing an invite with 5♠. That also makes perfect sense. But neither of these is close to an international standard. If you look around at various educational sources, the most common method to be recommended is for 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ to be invitational with 5♠ and 4♥. But I cannot think of any good pairs that play that. As a non-American, I learned that if 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2NT promises 4♠ and 1NT - 2♥ -- 2♠ - 2NT is natural, then bidding the other major is a slam try in Opener's major. I am more than happy to agree that there are many possible logical structures to be played here. I am not willing to accept a US-specific committee system like BWS as strong evidence of any type of standard, expert or otherwise.

[smerriman]

I think we just have a different definition of standard, that's all - not necessarily best or even most common, just what I would assume opposite a new partner if we hadn't discussed it. (And what I expect most results would come up with if I searched for 'slam interest after Stayman' in the forums / Google).

[DavidKok]

While BWS can be useful as a reference guide, it contains plenty of treatments that do not really work together very well. In the short paragraph on NT responses, 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2NT is invitational with 4 spades and 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ - 2♠ appears to be...invitational with 4(?) spades.

I play this, obviously 1NT-2♣*; 2♥-2♠* shows an invitational hand with at most 3 spades (with 2NT available to show 4(+) instead).

 

Additionally, in large portions of the world it is quite normal to play that 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♥ denies 4 spades. How many of those pairs do you think play 2 different invites for shadings of spade holdings as their most important calls over 2♥?

Which portions are these? Perhaps I can manage to stay out of them.

 

I am not willing to accept a US-specific committee system like BWS as strong evidence of any type of standard, expert or otherwise.

I thought the BWS standard was created through numerous polls on the website, which is international?

[mikl_plkcc]

1NT - 2♥

2♠ - 4NT = choose between 4NT, 5♠, 6♠ and 6NT

[Gilithin]

I play this, obviously 1NT-2♣*; 2♥-2♠* shows an invitational hand with at most 3 spades (with 2NT available to show 4(+) instead).

Which (as previously mentioned) is fine if you play 4-way transfers and have to go through Stayman for an invite. Most pairs can respond an immediate 2♠ or 2NT with an invitational hand and no 4 card major.

 

Which portions are these? Perhaps I can manage to stay out of them.

Some parts of Scandinavia bid spades in preference to hearts due to that being part of a leading pair's system that was influential. More importantly, the standard system in France and Germany uses 1NT - 2♣ -- 2NT to show both majors meaning that a 2♥ response guarantees hearts only and specifically denies 4 spades. This method is quite widely used across Western Europe.

 

I thought the BWS standard was created through numerous polls on the website, which is international?

Perhaps you should check how the magazine describes it then: "Bridge World Standard is the standard system developed by The Bridge World magazine based on the preferred methods of leading American experts."

[DavidKok]

Some parts of Scandinavia bid spades in preference to hearts due to that being part of a leading pair's system that was influential. More importantly, the standard system in France and Germany uses 1NT - 2♣ -- 2NT to show both majors meaning that a 2♥ response guarantees hearts only and specifically denies 4 spades. This method is quite widely used across Western Europe.

I'm in Western Europe, that's a bummer.

 

Perhaps you should check how the magazine describes it then: "Bridge World Standard is the standard system developed by The Bridge World magazine based on the preferred methods of leading American experts."

Ah, my mistake. I misread BWS for Bridgewinners Standard. Oops.

[Douglas43]

I'm in Western Europe, that's a bummer.

 

Ah, my mistake. I misread BWS for Bridgewinners Standard. Oops.

 

In this bit of Western Europe bidding 2NT with both majors simply doesn't exist, even amongst strong NT players. Why stop your partner from using Stayman as an escape mechanism with a weak hand and 5-4 in the majors? S J Simon explained why that's a bad idea in 1948.

Without prior agreement 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ is a cheaper (than 2NT) way of showing an invitational hand with spades. It's been cited that way in the methods described for beginners /intermediate players in the EBU magazine, on the basis that it is normal for opener to bid 2♥ with both majors, so opener could have spades as well as hearts. As this is the novice and beginner forum, I'd definitely advise any such readers to play 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ as natural in line with that teaching.

I play a lot of pairs and at pairs it is well worth having for the odd time that you only make 8 tricks in spades.

[Gilithin]

S J Simon explained why that's a bad idea in 1948.

I agree with Skid completely and do not play the Extended Stayman responses. Nonetheless, you have to accept that a large portion of bridge players in Western Europe, particularly France and Germany, do use this method. Most of those players find the concept of using Stayman with a weak hand to be a completely alien idea. I actually play with a German regularly and even my partner is not wholly convinced after having seen it bid from me many times.

[pescetom]

I agree with Skid completely and do not play the Extended Stayman responses. Nonetheless, you have to accept that a large portion of bridge players in Western Europe, particularly France and Germany, do use this method. Most of those players find the concept of using Stayman with a weak hand to be a completely alien idea. I actually play with a German regularly and even my partner is not wholly convinced after having seen it bid from me many times.

 

Extended Stayman responses were the norm in Italy until a decade or so ago, but they were more elaborate:

2♦ = no 4cardM, minimum

2♥ = 4card hearts

2♠ = 4card spades

2NT = no 4cardM, maximum

3♣ = both 4cardM, minimum

3♦ = both 4cardM, maximum

 

Extended responses are fast disappearing in favour of 3-response now, but some older club players still use them and will haughtily refuse to disclose. What is still widely considered alien is not so much the concept of Stayman with a weak hand but rather Stayman without promising a 4card major, which is odd considering that the majority now have no other way to invite to 3NT. The announcement regulations take a solomonic stance, privileging a 3-response Stayman which promises a major, a combination which almost nobody actually plays.

[mikl_plkcc]

Extended Stayman responses were the norm in Italy until a decade or so ago, but they were more elaborate:

2♦ = no 4cardM, minimum

2♥ = 4card hearts

2♠ = 4card spades

2NT = no 4cardM, maximum

3♣ = both 4cardM, minimum

3♦ = both 4cardM, maximum

 

Extended responses are fast disappearing in favour of 3-response now, but some older club players still use them and will haughtily refuse to disclose. What is still widely considered alien is not so much the concept of Stayman with a weak hand but rather Stayman without promising a 4card major, which is odd considering that the majority now have no other way to invite to 3NT. The announcement regulations take a solomonic stance, privileging a 3-response Stayman which promises a major, a combination which almost nobody actually plays.

 

Isn't 1NT-2NT invitational to 3NT there? I have never played any systems where 1NT-2NT is not natural and will never do.

 

Inviting 3NT is so common after 1NT opening that it won't worth giving up the natural bid for this.

[Gilithin]

Isn't 1NT-2NT invitational to 3NT there? I have never played any systems where 1NT-2NT is not natural and will never do.

 

Inviting 3NT is so common after 1NT opening that it won't worth giving up the natural bid for this.

You should at least consider it, 1NT - 2NT as a natural invite is significantly less efficient than most reasonable alternatives. You do not even give up more information using 2♠ as a range ask, so you are essentially saying that the risk of a lead-directing double here is worth the crippling of your bidding system.

[pescetom]

Isn't 1NT-2NT invitational to 3NT there?

 

It was when they played 4-card majors, but when they switched to 5 they took up the (flawed) US standard of 4-way transfers without the emerging fix of 2♠ Range Ask. So now most players have to go through Stayman to invite in NT.

 

I have never played any systems where 1NT-2NT is not natural and will never do.

Inviting 3NT is so common after 1NT opening that it won't worth giving up the natural bid for this.

Going through 4-card Stayman and exposing opener's 4cM with no interest in it is crazy, I agree.

But a 2♠ Range Ask does the same job, with only slight detriment to the logic of a clubs transfer, unless they can see that you rarely use it with a balanced hand (1NT includes 5cM and 1NT-4NT remains a quantitative invite) in which case it offers a cheap lead directing double.

[Gilithin]

But a 2♠ Range Ask does the same job, with only slight detriment to the logic of a clubs transfer, unless they can see that you rarely use it with a balanced hand (1NT includes 5cM and 1NT-4NT remains a quantitative invite) in which case it offers a cheap lead directing double.

What is the difference in Italy between an immediate 4NT and 2♠ followed by 4NT? And what do you use a direct 4♠ for if not range ask Baron?

[pescetom]

What is the difference in Italy between an immediate 4NT and 2♠ followed by 4NT? And what do you use a direct 4♠ for if not range ask Baron?

 

As I said previously, almost nobody in Italy plays Range Ask, most are forced to go through Stayman to make an invite to 3NT. So there is no standard about Range Ask. I was just agreeing that it is a good idea to play it (if you use 2NT as transfer to diamonds) and pointing out a potential weakness.

 

FWIW in my own system which includes 2♠ Range Ask, we currently leave 1NT 4NT as natural and do not define 1NT 2♠; 2NT 4NT. So it would be possible to differentiate two invites to 6NT or to just use the 2♠ Range Ask, at the expense of memory load and/or mistakes (1NT 2♠; 2NT 3NT is a mild invite to 6♣).

 

I suggest a natural 1NT 4NT is perfect for beginners :) It's how to invite to game that is more difficult to recommend, but if we really want people to start with transfers to minors then I guess they need to learn Range Ask too.