stayman

[michel444]

Stayman is an exelent tool for asking partner on major holding

Pupet stayman is an intersting try to improve stayman

jacoby transfer add another dimension to the biding

Joppe combine all of then and more

 

slated by Jari Böling, finnish

 

 

2♣ ask

2♦ no Major

2♥ 4/5 cards,♥ does not deny ♠

2♠ 4/5 ♠

after the 2 ♦ response

 

2♥ Majors at least 4-4, pass or correct

2♠ ask and game forcing

2NT inviting 3 NT

3x game forcing with 5(6) cards

3 NT to play

 

2♦ is transfer to ♥

2♥ is transfer to ♠

2♠ transfer to ♣

 

after a transfer you can pass bid game or invite slam

there is more to it the Url of the document is posed above

 

Michel

[michel444]

adding the link

http://users.abo.fi/jboling/bridge/joppent.pdf

the link in my post is to the original in finish

and it don't work

[Gilithin]

So the alternative to Stayman here is that a 2♣ response asks and Opener rebids 2♦ with no 4 card major; 2♥ with 4+ hearts; and 2♠ with 4+♠? I need to think about that one - sounds like a great idea!

[michel444]

So the alternative to Stayman here is that a 2♣ response asks and Opener rebids 2♦ with no 4 card major; 2♥ with 4+ hearts; and 2♠ with 4+♠? I need to think about that one - sounds like a great idea!

when opener respond 2♦ no 4 card major

2♠ ask and is forcing to game

2NT 5 card ♣, 3 ♣ asks for more

// 3♦ 3-3-2-5 (you bid your doubleton)

//3♥ 3-2-3-5

//3♠ 2-3-3-5

3♣ 5 card ♦, 3♦ asks for more:

// 3♥ 3-2-5-3

//3♠ 2-3-5-3

// 3NT 3-3-5-2 (you bid your doubleton, NT replaces ♣)

3 ♦ 3-3-4-3

3♥2-3-4-4 /

3♠3-2-4-4 /

3NT 3-3-3-4

-----------------------------

 

(cf. t-w Stayman 3♣ or Baron 3♣-3NT)

[mw64ahw]

So the alternative to Stayman here is that a 2♣ response asks and Opener rebids 2♦ with no 4 card major; 2♥ with 4+ hearts; and 2♠ with 4+♠? I need to think about that one - sounds like a great idea!

Subtle

[pescetom]

This is exactly the 4 card Stayman we teach beginners, except that we play 2D 2S as a one round force.

I fail to see why it is posted or what it has to do with non-standard systems.

[mikeh]

Michal seems to be a classic example of someone, relatively new to the game and lacking much understanding of the history, development and current overall state of bidding theory, who has a lot of ideas and thinks they represent advances in bidding.

 

Thus he thinks that his ideas (or, to be fair, the ideas of others that have caught his fancy) represent improvements on what he thinks good players play now.

 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that mindset, so long as he eventually realizes that far better bridge minds than his (or at least very good bridge minds with vast knowledge of bidding theory and practice) are far advanced. Heck, when I was learning bridge at university, we collectively had, iirc two bridge books between roughly 8 or 9 of us. At one point someone suggested, in the context of a primitive big club method, that we use the sequence 1D 1M 3M to promise a max with some stiff. Then I thought I was a genius and suggested we jump into the stiff…..not knowing that what I thought was revolutionary (a splinter, though of course we had no name for it) was decades old.

 

I don’t want to dampen his enthusiasm. It’s good for the game to have new players thinking outside of the box. But inexperienced players often don’t know much about the box itself….sometimes they think they’ve invented or discovered something new, only to be told that it’s old news, or that experience shows that there are better mousetraps out there than the one he’s promoting.

 

For example, my stayman in one partnership is

 

2C asks

 

2D denies a major

 

2H shows hearts but denies spades

 

2S shows spades, may have hearts. This is the opposite of standard methods, btw

 

 

1N 2C 2D 2H is a transfer to spades, showing 5S and invitational values

 

1N 2C 2D 2S is an invite to 3N, with at least one 4 card major (with no major, we respond 2S as clubs or range ask)

 

1N 2C 2D 2N is gf with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major

 

 

And so on…the system notes just for stayman run on for some 3 compressed pages. The notes for transfers and extended transfers go on for more pages.

 

It’s not that I hope others will play these methods. As with the methods used by most established expert partnerships they reflect our ideas and are far too memory intensive for any casual partnership.

 

I’ve likened learning bridge as akin to walking up the slope of a hill. One thinks one is about to reach the top….then as one reaches the crest for which one has been aiming, one sees ahead another, higher hill. Get to the top of that and…guess what? There’s another hill, still higher.

 

I think it was Hamman who said, and I’m paraphrasing, when asked about how it felt to have mastered the game, that he hoped one day to find out.

 

I think Michal is still on one of the early hills. Hey, the best players in the world also started on that first tiny hill.

[michel444]

Michal seems to be a classic example of someone, relatively new to the game and lacking much understanding of the history, development and current overall state of bidding theory, who has a lot of ideas and thinks they represent advances in bidding.

 

Thus he thinks that his ideas (or, to be fair, the ideas of others that have caught his fancy) represent improvements on what he thinks good players play now.

 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that mindset, so long as he eventually realizes that far better bridge minds than his (or at least very good bridge minds with vast knowledge of bidding theory and practice) are far advanced. Heck, when I was learning bridge at university, we collectively had, iirc two bridge books between roughly 8 or 9 of us. At one point someone suggested, in the context of a primitive big club method, that we use the sequence 1D 1M 3M to promise a max with some stiff. Then I thought I was a genius and suggested we jump into the stiff…..not knowing that what I thought was revolutionary (a splinter, though of course we had no name for it) was decades old.

 

I don’t want to dampen his enthusiasm. It’s good for the game to have new players thinking outside of the box. But inexperienced players often don’t know much about the box itself….sometimes they think they’ve invented or discovered something new, only to be told that it’s old news, or that experience shows that there are better mousetraps out there than the one he’s promoting.

 

For example, my stayman in one partnership is

 

yes

thank you My name is MICHEL no A in my name

i am a novice in bridge

i played for my first time bridge in 1980

we play at home 3 friend

it was poker bridge

you look at your hand and try to figure what is in dummy by the bid of your friend

who win the auction get the dummy hand

 

in 1984 I played in tournament with Zero knowledge of biding

after few tournament i found 2 book on bridge Acol and Goren

i read the 3 book and made all possible mistake in biding

after playing 1 year in tournament i knew i still have a lot to learn

i even played with Ziad 2 time

2 year later i had a regular partner and we were using 1 of the oldest version of Precision

 

I can remember why but at 1 moment our partnership ended. by this time had a colection of 20 book on bridge

and in 1 day i gave my old partner all my book on bridge .

YES I AM NEW TO THE BRIDGE game

 

MICHEL

2C asks

 

2D denies a major

 

2H shows hearts but denies spades

 

2S shows spades, may have hearts. This is the opposite of standard methods, btw

 

 

1N 2C 2D 2H is a transfer to spades, showing 5S and invitational values

 

1N 2C 2D 2S is an invite to 3N, with at least one 4 card major (with no major, we respond 2S as clubs or range ask)

 

1N 2C 2D 2N is gf with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major

 

 

And so on…the system notes just for stayman run on for some 3 compressed pages. The notes for transfers and extended transfers go on for more pages.

 

It’s not that I hope others will play these methods. As with the methods used by most established expert partnerships they reflect our ideas and are far too memory intensive for any casual partnership.

 

I’ve likened learning bridge as akin to walking up the slope of a hill. One thinks one is about to reach the top….then as one reaches the crest for which one has been aiming, one sees ahead another, higher hill. Get to the top of that and…guess what? There’s another hill, still higher.

 

I think it was Hamman who said, and I’m paraphrasing, when asked about how it felt to have mastered the game, that he hoped one day to find out.

 

I think Michal is still on one of the early hills. Hey, the best players in the world also started on that first tiny hill.

[michel444]

BARON

 

40 year ago in the first book of bridge

I learned the convention BARON

the description

after a 2NT opening 3♣ by responder ask for 4 cards

the response are

3♦ 4 cards ♦

3♥ 4 cards ♥ (2-3♦

3 ♠ 4 cards ♠ ()/

3NT 4 cards ♣ --> 3=3=3=4

 

I search the net and Found a different meaning for BARON (in Simon convention page) 0/

Baron a convention over 1NT or 2NT

2♠ ask on minor

IDK if the older Baron was changed or the translation change the name ...

MICHEL

[michel444]

I removed the link to the original JOPPE

the link don't work

the translation to English version is a 3 page PDF

[michel444]

adding the link

http://users.abo.fi/jboling/bridge/joppent.pdf

the link in my post is to the original in finish

and it don't work

to put link in last

this is the link is to the 3 page PDF translation of JOPPE in English

[mikeh]

Sorry for misspelling your name. That was bad of me

 

Also, obviously I didn’t know your history. However, I stand by my deductions as your knowledge of this wonderful game. Sorry about that, but even if you don’t like it, perhaps entertain the notion that you actually don’t know anywhere near as much as you think you do. To be fair, I often suspect that there’s much more to the game than I understand, lol. That’s precisely why the game is so interesting.

[michel444]

Sorry for misspelling your name. That was bad of me

 

Also, obviously I didn’t know your history. However, I stand by my deductions as your knowledge of this wonderful game. Sorry about that, but even if you don’t like it, perhaps entertain the notion that you actually don’t know anywhere near as much as you think you do. To be fair, I often suspect that there’s much more to the game than I understand, lol. That’s precisely why the game is so interesting.

I am not offended

I don't know what is right thing people say in English .

maybe Appologie accepted ?

I just got note of Lukasz slawinski on Lead in defense

Hard to read and harder to understand :

"an integral part of bridge is competition in the development of biding system's

the opprtunity for inventing and testing of biding and convention is one of the main atraction of bridge there should be no restriction on biding system and conventions /

at tournaments and congresses "

 

Lukasz slawinski

 

Michel

[Gilithin]

BARON

Baron was a version of Acol developed in the earliest (1940s) days of the system. It incorporated a number of features that have become standard in modern versions of the system, most notably requiring 5 hearts for a 2♥ response over 1♠. One of the things that Baron was noted for is conventions that specifically looked for a 4-4 suit fit in potential slam auctions. In the UK at least, this means that any convention involving bidding 4 card suits up-the-line can be described as Baron. The most common of these are:-

 

1suit - 2NT = 16+ (semi-) balanced

1NT - 2♠ = NT invite or (semi-) balanced slam interest

2NT - 3♣ = most slam hands without a 5 card major or 6 card minor

 

In addition to these, some pairs prefer to use Puppet Stayman over 2NT and shift their Baron response to 3♠ or 4♠ instead. Finally, one of the biggest issues with the Baron 3♣ response is wrong-siding. To fix this, there is a version called Skip Baron, where Opener bids suits they hold and Responder bids suits they do not hold. For example, the auction 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3NT would here mean that Opener has 4+ diamonds and Responder has 4 hearts + 4 spades and no slam interest opposite a misfitting minimum.

 

I have personally played all of these (except 2NT - 3♠) at one time or another. The only one still on my card is 2NT - 4♠. Baron is great if you just want something quick and easy but it is very rarely the optimal way of building a system.

[michel444]

Baron was a version of Acol developed in the earliest (1940s) days of the system. It incorporated a number of features that have become standard in modern versions of the system, most notably requiring 5 hearts for a 2♥ response over 1♠. One of the things that Baron was noted for is conventions that specifically looked for a 4-4 suit fit in potential slam auctions. In the UK at least, this means that any convention involving bidding 4 card suits up-the-line can be described as Baron. The most common of these are:-

 

1suit - 2NT = 16+ (semi-) balanced

1NT - 2♠ = NT invite or (semi-) balanced slam interest

2NT - 3♣ = most slam hands without a 5 card major or 6 card minor

 

In addition to these, some pairs prefer to use Puppet Stayman over 2NT and shift their Baron response to 3♠ or 4♠ instead. Finally, one of the biggest issues with the Baron 3♣ response is wrong-siding. To fix this, there is a version called Skip Baron, where Opener bids suits they hold and Responder bids suits they do not hold. For example, the auction 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ - 3NT would here mean that Opener has 4+ diamonds and Responder has 4 hearts + 4 spades and no slam interest opposite a misfitting minimum.

 

I have personally played all of these (except 2NT - 3♠) at one time or another. The only one still on my card is 2NT - 4♠. Baron is great if you just want something quick and easy but it is very rarely the optimal way of building a system.

thank you very much !

[pescetom]

I’ve likened learning bridge as akin to walking up the slope of a hill. One thinks one is about to reach the top….then as one reaches the crest for which one has been aiming, one sees ahead another, higher hill. Get to the top of that and…guess what? There’s another hill, still higher.

As someone who has passed decades cycling the Alps and is trying to master bridge, I can only agree :)

 

2D denies a major

2H shows hearts but denies spades

2S shows spades, may have hearts. This is the opposite of standard methods, btw

But exactly (so far) what Goren said he preferred in 1964 B-)

 

My stayman in best partnership is:

2D denies a 5 card major

2H/S shows a 5 card major

 

But as always the devil is in the details.

[mikeh]

As someone who has passed decades cycling the Alps and is trying to master bridge, I can only agree :)

 

 

But exactly (so far) what Goren said he preferred in 1964 B-)

 

My stayman in best partnership is:

2D denies a 5 card major

2H/S shows a 5 card major

 

But as always the devil is in the details.

Trust me: Goren’s head would explode if he read our system notes😀 which would be very messy, given that he’s been dead for many years