a way to bid strong NT with 5M

[Frank_lol_]

I play 15-17 1NT, and I recently thought of a way to bid my 5 card majors after stayman without ruining my system.

With 5 card ♥:

If minimum (15-16), bid 2nt after 2♣ ( stayman)

If you don't have a conventional meaning for 1nt-2c-2x-2nt, it won't affect your system at all. With a invitational hand, you pass or bid 3♥ (or if you think you can make 4♥ because you have 4 card support and a good invite or something, you can also bid it); with a minor with slam invite, you still bid 3m, etc.

if maximum (16-17), bid 2♥ first and bid 3♥ over 2♠, 2NT (to choose between 3NT and 4♥) and 3m (doesnt deny m support)

 

With 5 card♠:

if minimum (15 or very bad 16 that is even worse than a 15), open 1♠ and rebid 3 card minor after 1nt or rebid what ever you bid with 12-14 after a 2/1 so it becomes 12-15.

if maximum (16-17), same as with 5 card ♥.

[Frank_lol_]

What this can't solve:

1. 1NT-2♥-2♠-pass and you are playing a 5-2 fit.

2. The range 12-15 might be too big?

[Edit: 3. You can't show a 5cM after a direct 3NT responce, or if the bidding went 1NT-2C-2H/S-3NT]

 

Edit: rebidding 3 card minor after forcing 1nt won't a problem for us, as we already do that anyways.

[mikeh]

What this can't solve:

1. 1NT-2♥-2♠-pass and you are playing a 5-2 fit.

2. The range 12-15 might be too big?

12-15 is, imo, unplayable

 

In addition, most expert partnerships have complex agreements after 1N 2C, such that your ideas would likely render them impossible to play. It’s common in expert circles (tho far from standard) to play secondary transfers. Thus 1N 2H 2S 2N shows gf values with spades and clubs

 

This means that one can’t bid 1N 2H 2S 2N as invitational, offering a choice of notrump or spades

 

The solution is that all invitational spade hands, with 5 spades, go through stayman

 

In one partnership, 1N 2C 2D 2S is that

 

In m more complex partnership, we play a lot of transfers in a lot of auctions so we bid 1N 2C 2D 2H as a transfer with precisely 5 spades and invitational values (2S instead would be artificial, showing various hands, with all bids below 3N showing other various hands).

 

Other pairs will have other methods,including garbage stayman where they hope to get out in 2M, which is impossible over the 2N rebid, and so on.

 

So my verdict: and interesting idea but I don’t think the gains would be worth giving up other methods.

[Frank_lol_]

12-15 is, imo, unplayable

 

In addition, most expert partnerships have complex agreements after 1N 2C, such that your ideas would likely render them impossible to play. It’s common in expert circles (tho far from standard) to play secondary transfers. Thus 1N 2H 2S 2N shows gf values with spades and clubs

 

This means that one can’t bid 1N 2H 2S 2N as invitational, offering a choice of notrump or spades

 

The solution is that all invitational spade hands, with 5 spades, go through stayman

 

In one partnership, 1N 2C 2D 2S is that

 

In m more complex partnership, we play a lot of transfers in a lot of auctions so we bid 1N 2C 2D 2H as a transfer with precisely 5 spades and invitational values (2S instead would be artificial, showing various hands, with all bids below 3N showing other various hands).

 

Other pairs will have other methods,including garbage stayman where they hope to get out in 2M, which is impossible over the 2N rebid, and so on.

 

So my verdict: and interesting idea but I don’t think the gains would be worth giving up other methods.

 

Thanks for your reply!

Can you explain why 12-15 plays much worse than 12-14?

[Frank_lol_]

I'm not sure what your 'system' is, but there are other simple straightforward and more involved approaches to tackle this problem depending what constraints you are trying to work with.

 

There are definitely more complexed method. I'm intrested in those simple methods though.

[Frank_lol_]

12-15 is, imo, unplayable

 

In addition, most expert partnerships have complex agreements after 1N 2C, such that your ideas would likely render them impossible to play. It’s common in expert circles (tho far from standard) to play secondary transfers. Thus 1N 2H 2S 2N shows gf values with spades and clubs

 

This means that one can’t bid 1N 2H 2S 2N as invitational, offering a choice of notrump or spades

 

The solution is that all invitational spade hands, with 5 spades, go through stayman

 

In one partnership, 1N 2C 2D 2S is that

 

In m more complex partnership, we play a lot of transfers in a lot of auctions so we bid 1N 2C 2D 2H as a transfer with precisely 5 spades and invitational values (2S instead would be artificial, showing various hands, with all bids below 3N showing other various hands).

 

Other pairs will have other methods,including garbage stayman where they hope to get out in 2M, which is impossible over the 2N rebid, and so on.

 

So my verdict: and interesting idea but I don’t think the gains would be worth giving up other methods.

Also, we do play garbage stayman, which mean that we will have to go to the 3 level after 2nt.

I still need to discuss this with my partner. Obviously I cant play something that is not even mentioned in the agreement.

[mw64ahw]

There are definitely more complexed method. I'm intrested in those simple methods though.

2♣ Do you have a 5 card Major?

2♦ No - Pass at least 225x weak

2♦ No - look for a 4-4 Major fit

2M Yes - etc

 

Can't be much simpler than that.

You loose garbage Stayman, but I'd just transfer into the 5 card suit or Pass as you're playing for nickels.

[Frank_lol_]

2♣ Do you have a 5 card Major?

2♦ No - Pass at least 225x weak

2♦ No - look for a 4-4 Major fit

2M Yes - etc

 

Can't be much simpler than that.

You loose garbage Stayman, but I'd just transfer into the 5 card suit as you're playing for nickels.

 

Oh, so this is just puppet stayman?

[mw64ahw]

Oh, so this is just puppet stayman?

Yes, although there are various approaches.

I play a non-promissory Puppet Stayman, but the original ones promised a 4-card Major

 

I take the view that I would like to find all 8-card Major fits over 2NT so why not use the same approach over 1NT.

 

The only key difference I have over 2NT is that

2NT-3R-3NT shows 5oM 2M

[mikeh]

Thanks for your reply!

Can you explain why 12-15 plays much worse than 12-14?

It’s just my opinion, of course but, as I discussed in another thread, it seems best for notrump openings and rebids to form a ladder, with no bid showing a greater range than 3 1N as an opening or rebid to show 3 and 2N as an opening or rebid to show 2.

 

The reason is that too wide a range makes responder guess.

 

A good friend and, for several years, a regular partner plays 1N in 1st or second as 11-14. That’s one of the reasons I stopped playing with him other than the occasional game. In club games or at sectionals and, usually, regionals, he’s such a great declarer that he’d often survive our being ‘too high’. But playing strong opps, this became too frustrating.

 

Say 12-15. Responder picks up a flat 10. If opener has 15 we rate to make game more often than not, and definitely want to be there. If he has 14…game is likely borderline.

 

But with 14-15 he’s bidding game if we invite. So far, not a problem other than occasionally we get too high on 24 hcp. Hardly a big deal, especially at imps.

 

The problem is with his more common minimum hands. One is dealt 12-13 far more often than 14-15 so this is a problem that arises frequently.

 

You invite. He has 12. 12 opposite 10 may make 2N but one absolutely prefers to be in 1N…13 opposite 10 will usually make 2N but you’d far rather be in 1N since there’s no bonus for making 2N and a significant minus position when you take only 7 tricks. (I’m ignoring major partials to keep it relatively brief but the same arguments apply)

 

Play 12-14 and partner should pass 1N with flat 10 counts.

 

Thus too wide a range for 1N, opening or rebid, creates losing positions. That’s acceptable if but only if the systemic constraints that forced this upon you offer better compensation. Personally, I’ve not had many bad results from opening an in-range 1N with 5332 and a five card major (bearing in mind that we often upgrade out of 1N with a max and some spots)

 

Hope that helps

[nullve]

With 5 card♠:

if minimum (15 or very bad 16 that is even worse than a 15), open 1♠ and rebid 3 card minor after 1nt or rebid what ever you bid with 12-14 after a 2/1 so it becomes 12-15.

if maximum (16-17), same as with 5 card ♥.

So 12-15 is not a NT opening range.

[PrecisionL]

I agree 12-15 is too wide. My local partner and I have tried various approaches to solve the 15-10 problem.

 

I have played 12-15 frequently from 1990 onward.

 

The best solution IMHO (but not really great) is to use 2♣ as invitational Stayman if responder bids again. Shades of Keri.

 

We also tried including 15 hcp balanced in 1D opening.

[akwoo]

In Seattle there's a bunch of people who play 10-13 1N openings, including the worst 10s imaginable, in every seat at every vulnerability, at least in certain partnerships.

 

I've always said "When I declare(*) as well as XXX (someone whom mikeh surely knows) I'll play 10-13."

 

(*) by which I mean swindle bad contracts, though his technical skills are very good too.

[DavidKok]

I play 10-13 in certain situations, I think it's very good. But you do need different agreements, i.e. we play 2♣ exactly invitational (or weak and trying to run) and 2♦ artificial GF. It's a preemptive tool rather than a constructive one.

[thepossum]

Why do people complicate stuff so much

 

5M is part of (strong) 1NT. Just stick with tried and true methods and stop making the game unnecessarily complex and tediously dull

 

PArtnerships of all forms, ideally IMO, are made up of intelligent independent entities

 

If you feel like doing something within broad parameters then why not

 

A convention I really like for responder is Smolen but I never have yet had chance to use it

[mw64ahw]

Why do people complicate stuff so much

 

5M is part of (strong) 1NT. Just stick with tried and true methods and stop making the game unnecessarily complex and tediously dull

 

PArtnerships of all forms, ideally IMO, are made up of intelligent independent entities

 

If you feel like doing something within broad parameters then why not

 

A convention I really like for responder is Smolen but I never have yet had chance to use it

I don't use, but Quest Transfers are similar to Smolen, but GI instead of GF https://bridge.fandom.com/wiki/Quest_transfer

[helene_t]

It is a reasonable approach.

 

Unsurprisingly, similar ideas have come up before. For example, Gerben Dirksen suggested (I am not sure if he invented it himself):

2NT in response to Stayman: 5 hearts, minimum

3[clin response to Stayman: 5 hearts, maximum]

With spades he would not open 1NT. There is a case for opening these hands 1NT with hearts but not spades - Richard Pavlicek's website presents some statistics that back it up.

[Frank_lol_]

So 12-15 is not a NT opening range.

 

I cant really understand you here.

[Frank_lol_]

It’s just my opinion, of course but, as I discussed in another thread, it seems best for notrump openings and rebids to form a ladder, with no bid showing a greater range than 3 1N as an opening or rebid to show 3 and 2N as an opening or rebid to show 2.

 

The reason is that too wide a range makes responder guess.

 

A good friend and, for several years, a regular partner plays 1N in 1st or second as 11-14. That’s one of the reasons I stopped playing with him other than the occasional game. In club games or at sectionals and, usually, regionals, he’s such a great declarer that he’d often survive our being ‘too high’. But playing strong opps, this became too frustrating.

 

Say 12-15. Responder picks up a flat 10. If opener has 15 we rate to make game more often than not, and definitely want to be there. If he has 14…game is likely borderline.

 

But with 14-15 he’s bidding game if we invite. So far, not a problem other than occasionally we get too high on 24 hcp. Hardly a big deal, especially at imps.

 

The problem is with his more common minimum hands. One is dealt 12-13 far more often than 14-15 so this is a problem that arises frequently.

 

You invite. He has 12. 12 opposite 10 may make 2N but one absolutely prefers to be in 1N…13 opposite 10 will usually make 2N but you’d far rather be in 1N since there’s no bonus for making 2N and a significant minus position when you take only 7 tricks. (I’m ignoring major partials to keep it relatively brief but the same arguments apply)

 

Play 12-14 and partner should pass 1N with flat 10 counts.

 

Thus too wide a range for 1N, opening or rebid, creates losing positions. That’s acceptable if but only if the systemic constraints that forced this upon you offer better compensation. Personally, I’ve not had many bad results from opening an in-range 1N with 5332 and a five card major (bearing in mind that we often upgrade out of 1N with a max and some spots)

 

Hope that helps

 

But that example won't really come up; You can't pass 1NT after 1S because the opener can't rebid 1NT. 1S-1NT-2C is 12-bad18 already (for us at least), so the opener will almost always bid 2NT with flat 10 or correct to 2S with something worse. (or maybe this is losing bridge?)

 

I don't know how much effect 12-15 will have on gf 2/1 auctions, so I leave that to those more experienced players (like you:D).

 

Edit: 1x -1y - 1nt is 12-14 under any circumstances (unless I downgrade 15-pointers, which I don't do often)