[ArtK78]

I assume that by Weak NT, most posters are using a 12-14 HCP range. I play a 10-12 Mini NT with a couple of partners (1st and 2nd seats nonvul) in the context of a light opening system. Paul Soloway also played a 10-12 1NT opening 1st and 2nd seats nonvul with Bobby Goldman and he advocated this response structure, which I have been using with some success:

1NT ?
2 C = nonforcing Stayman
2 D = forcing Stayman (see below)
2 H = to play
2 S = to play
2 NT = transfer to clubs, many types (see below)
3 C = slightly invitational
3 D = slightly invitational
3 H = preemptive
3 S = preemptive

1NT 2 D (game force)
?
2 H = spades
2 S = hearts
(2NT asks for second suit; 3C = diamonds,
3 D = clubs)
2 NT = five-card minor
(3C asks; 3 D = diamonds, 3 H = clubs)
3 C = both majors
3 D = both minors
3 H = 2-2-4-5
3 S = 2-2-5-4
3 NT = 3-3-3(4)-4(3)
(4 C asks; 4 D = diamonds, 4 H = clubs)

1NT 2 NT = transfer to 3C
3 C ?
pass = clubs
3 D = signoff in diamonds
3 H = 5-5 majors, inv.
3 S = short spades
3NT = short hearts

[TMorris]

I am intrigued by the perceived disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT structure - I play club/tournement bridge in the UK, the majority use a weak NT and everyone bar the occasional beginner uses transfers. I accept that this in itself might be an arguement that transfers are wrong but putting that to one side for the moment.

Why are the disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT any different to using transfers with a strong NT? The advantages are just the same as far as I can see.

I think benlessard is saying that if you don't transfer it is harder to make a protective bid as you have fewer options. I accept this is true but in my experience the decision to protect depends to a large extent on whether you are playing a good pair or not (at MP anyhow) and is significantly outweighed by the advantages that using transfers gives you.

Is it perhaps that if you are using a weak NT when the majority of the field are playing a strong NT there are disadvantages in using transfers so I am not seeing these disadvantages when playing against a mainly weak NT field?

[glen]

World class weak NT pairs that use transfers include:

Martel-Stansby
Dubinin-Gromov
Pazur-Zawislak (in a 10+-13-)

For Martel's thoughts, see what he said here:

Martel Interview

starting with:

Chip Martel said:

I think that playing a sophisticated transfer system is vastly superior to two-way Stayman. ...

[gnasher]

It seems to me that people who dislike transfers facing a 12-14 notrump are usually from places where a strong notrump is the norm. Players who grew up with the weak notrump almost always play transfers.

The arguments in favour of two-way Stayman and weak takeouts have always seemed nonsensical to me. Here is why:

Regarding competition when responder has a signoff in a major:
- Playing transfers, fourth hand gets one chance to act in a live auction and one chance to act in a balancing situation; second hand's only chance to act is when the auction is still live.
- Playing natural weak takeouts, each defender gets a chance to act in a situation where responder is known to be weak.

It's not at all clear that weak takeouts gain in this area. The danger of acting in a live auction is not just that you might go for a penalty; it's also that they may have just been about to bid game, and you have told them how to play it.

Regarding rightsiding:
- If responder has invitational values or less, opener has the stronger hand, so transfers are superior.
- If responder has about the same strength as opener and an unbalanced hand, the holdings that are most likely to need protecting are in responder's short suits (because you'll have to play on his long suits anyway). Our honours in these suits are more likely to be in opener's hand than in responder's hand. Again, transfers are superior.
- If responder has about the same strength as opener and a balanced hand, on average there is no reason to want one player rather than the other to play the hand.
- The only time that transfers lose is when responder is significantly stronger than opener.

It seems to me that the perceived benefits of two-way Stayman are almost non-existent, whereas the disadvantages in terms of reduced accuracy and unwanted leakage of information to the opponents are significant.

[ASkolnick]

Not really a new system. Known where we are as 2-way transfers. We currently play it over our weak NT. Either 10-12, 10-13, or 12-14. With one partnership, we play it over everything, but our only strong NT auction is 3-4 Vul of 14-16, so it isn't much of a stretch.

As for super-acceptance over 2D:

2S – Minimum, not 4-4 in majors
Pass To play, Spades Invitational
2NT Weak or Strong with Minors
3C To play, Invite with clubs
3D Diamonds slammish, or Diamonds+Clubs or Diamonds+Hearts
3H 3-4-3-3
3S Look again
3N Never mind
3S 4 Clubs
3N 4 Diamonds
3H To play, weak with Hearts
3S Diamonds and Spades
3N Choice of Games (Diamonds or NT)
4C Blackwood

2NT – Maximum

3C Weak with Minors
3D Diamonds slammish or Diamonds+suit
3H 3-4-3-3 or 2-4-4-3 or 3-4-4-2
3S Look again
3N Never mind
3S 4 Clubs
3N 4 Spades
3H To play, weak with Hearts
3S Spades, choice of games (3NT or 4S)
3N Invite with clubs accepted
4C Blackwood

3C – Minimum 4-4 in majors
Pass Either invite in clubs or weak with minors. Note: We may play in the wrong minor but it considered an acceptable casualty. Can run if doubled.
3D Diamonds slammish or Diamond+suit
3H Doubleton Club
3S Doubleton Diamond
3H To play
3S To play in spades.
3N Choice of games (D or NT)

Over 2H-

2N- 4 Spades, 2 Hearts Min
3C - 4 Spades, 4 Hearts
3D - Asks
3H Min
3S Max
3D - 4 Spades, 3 Hearts Min
3H - 4 Spades 3 Hearts Max

The problem with the super acceptance over 2D was it was not worth the memory taxing. Over 2H, it was not too bad.

[awm]

Another comment about two-way stayman is that invitational hands are pretty common opposite a weak notrump, probably much more common than "slam try hands." Two-way stayman leaves you with no sensible auctions when responder holds a five-card major and an invite. For example:

1NT - 2♣ (weak or invite stayman)
2♠

What does responder bid with 5♥ and an invite? Bidding 2NT misses many 5-3 heart fits, and perhaps some games if opener has a minimum but 3♥ and a small doubleton. On the other hand, bidding 3♥ (assuming it's natural invite) means you play 3♥ in a 5-2 fit fairly often.

1NT - 2♣
2♦

What does responder bid with a 5M invite? You can say 2M, but many play that this is some form of weak hand including both majors. So again you are in the same boat...

Sure, two-way stayman lets you relay to your heart's content when responder has slam interest, but how often do you have slam interest opposite a 12-14 or weaker notrump?

[ASkolnick]

I have played all 3 opposite my weak NT's:

1) Regular transfers
2) Two way stayman
3) Two way transfers

and by far, the easiest to handle is #3. It is true that the 2 Diamond bid is overloaded, but there are pluses and minuses to every auction.

Why I like weak NT is not just to beat the stupid, but every time Mike Lawrence comes up with a what would you rebid, I never have that problem. Sure, I will miss occasional 4-4 fits, but I will tend to preempt them as well.

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 18 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Another comment about two-way stayman is that invitational hands are pretty common opposite a weak notrump, probably much more common than "slam try hands." Two-way stayman leaves you with no sensible auctions when responder holds a five-card major and an invite. For example:

1NT - 2♣ (weak or invite stayman)
2♠

What does responder bid with 5♥ and an invite? Bidding 2NT misses many 5-3 heart fits, and perhaps some games if opener has a minimum but 3♥ and a small doubleton. On the other hand, bidding 3♥ (assuming it's natural invite) means you play 3♥ in a 5-2 fit fairly often.

1NT - 2♣
2♦

What does responder bid with a 5M invite? You can say 2M, but many play that this is some form of weak hand including both majors. So again you are in the same boat...

Sure, two-way stayman lets you relay to your heart's content when responder has slam interest, but how often do you have slam interest opposite a 12-14 or weaker notrump?

1N 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ natural and invitational....not a problem

1N 2♣ 2♦/♠ 2N invitational, may hold 5 hearts... opener will bid 3♥ with all accepting hands with 3 hearts. Yes, we may miss 4♥ on a 5-3 fit opposite a non-accepting hand with 3 hearts and a ruffing value... it hasn't happened, to my recollection, in all the (many) years I have played the method. We will more often play 2N when 3♥ is superior, but this is more a mp issue than an imp issue, since the difference is most often only a trick... 120 v 140.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Dec 18 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

It seems to me that people who dislike transfers facing a 12-14 notrump are usually from places where a strong notrump is the norm.  Players who grew up with the weak notrump almost always play transfers.

The arguments in favour of two-way Stayman and weak takeouts have always seemed nonsensical to me.  Here is why:

Regarding competition when responder has a signoff in a major:
- Playing transfers, fourth hand gets one chance to act in a live auction and one chance to act in a balancing situation; second hand's only chance to act is when the auction is still live.
- Playing natural weak takeouts, each defender gets a chance to act in a situation where responder is known to be weak.

It's not at all clear that weak takeouts gain in this area.  The danger of acting in a live auction is not just that you might go for a penalty; it's also that they may have just been about to bid game, and you have told them how to play it.

Regarding rightsiding:
- If responder has invitational values or less, opener has the stronger hand, so transfers are superior.
- If responder has about the same strength as opener and an unbalanced hand, the holdings that are most likely to need protecting are in responder's short suits (because you'll have to play on his long suits anyway).  Our honours in these suits are more likely to be in opener's hand than in responder's hand.  Again, transfers are superior.
- If responder has about the same strength as opener and a balanced hand, on average there is no reason to want one player rather than the other to play the hand.
- The only time that transfers lose is when responder is significantly stronger than opener.

It seems to me that the perceived benefits of two-way Stayman are almost non-existent, whereas the disadvantages in terms of reduced accuracy and unwanted leakage of information to the opponents are significant.

It seems to me that the people who dislike 2-way stayman are almost always people who grew up playing transfers

Your last point about information leakage strikes me as bizarre. You espouse a method in which opener is declarer after an auction in which responder goes out of his way to show his hand. I espouse a method in which responder is usually the declarer and has asked opener, dummy, to describe his hand.

Both methods keep the non-describer hand hidden with about the same frequency..altho one could argue that opener's hand is usually more narrowly defined than responder's.... especially on slam hands and 2 level major sign-offs..opposite a 10-12 1N, for example, responder could hold anywhere from 0 to 10 or 11 hcp.

Right-siding suit contracts is not a huge issue, in my experience.


I'm not sure what your point was regarding 'weak takeouts'. If you are referring to a style of defensive bidding over signoff auctions, then I would be happy to discuss them.... a problem many players have, defending weak notrumps, is that the auction 1N P 2♠ sounds weak, but responder can be a 10 count 5332, and competing with a weak hand is very dangerous... not to mention that partner can't tell if you hold a real hand or a weak takeout... but I may well have misunderstood your point.

As for accuracy... well, I have played some pretty sophisticated methods over strong notrump, that don't translate well over weak, and other than those, I very much doubt that your transfer methods are 'significantly' superior to my weak nt structure.

[awm]

There are two possible claims here, and I'm curious which one is being made by those who like two way stayman:

(1) It is actually better on most hands for opener to describe rather than responder. Two-way stayman expects to win substantially on game-plus hands for responder where it is necessary to determine the best game and/or evaluate slam prospects.

(2) Two-way stayman is actually a moderate loser when responder holds most invitational or better hands. However, we expect to win so substantially from our direct signoffs in two of a major (rather than transfer) that they should more than compensate us for these losses.

If the claim is the first, then it seems like we could construct a bidding contest to evaluate it. We'd generate a bunch of hand pairs where opener holds a weak notrump and have people bid them out using their favorite methods.

If the claim is the second, then this will be harder to evaluate because it's more of a "four-handed" problem and depends on things like how the opponents play a double of a transfer bid in direct position and how aggressively opponents jump into the auction when responder is unlimited versus when responder is known to hold "less than game" values.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Dec 19 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Your last point about information leakage strikes me as bizarre.

Suppose that responder has five spades and a raise to game. Playing transfers, the only thing the opponents learn is how many spades opener has. Perhaps I've misunderstood how it works, but playing two-way Stayman, don't they also find out whether opener has four hearts?

Quote

Right-siding suit contracts is not a huge issue, in my experience.

In general, or in the specific case of responding to a weak notrump? I'd agree that with a game force opposite a 12-14 notrump there isn't much to be gained either way. I'm glad that you also think this, but rightsiding is certainly one of the reasons that some people give for playing two-way Stayman opposite 12-14.

Quote

I'm not sure what your point was regarding 'weak takeouts'.

Sorry - I hasn't realised that this wasn't an internationally used term. By "weak takeout" I meant using
  1NT (pass) 2M
as a natural signoff.

I was comparing the difficulties of competing against
  (1NT) pass (2♥) [natural, to play]
and
  (1NT) pass (2♦) [transfer, intending to pass 2♥]
My point was that although the transfer sequence makes life easier for fourth hand, it makes things harder for second hand.

Quote

As for accuracy... well, I have played some pretty sophisticated methods over strong notrump, that don't translate well over weak, and other than those, I very much doubt that your transfer methods are 'significantly' superior to my weak nt structure.

Playing 2-way Stayman, when responder has a 5-card major and a 4-card minor, what methods are available to investigate the best game?
Playing 2-way Stayman, when responder has a marginal one-suited slam try with a shortage, how does he investigate slam without going past four of his major?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-December-19, 15:46

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 19 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

There are two possible claims here, and I'm curious which one is being made by those who like two way stayman:

(1) It is actually better on most hands for opener to describe rather than responder. Two-way stayman expects to win substantially on game-plus hands for responder where it is necessary to determine the best game and/or evaluate slam prospects.

(2) Two-way stayman is actually a moderate loser when responder holds most invitational or better hands. However, we expect to win so substantially from our direct signoffs in two of a major (rather than transfer) that they should more than compensate us for these losses.

If the claim is the first, then it seems like we could construct a bidding contest to evaluate it. We'd generate a bunch of hand pairs where opener holds a weak notrump and have people bid them out using their favorite methods.

If the claim is the second, then this will be harder to evaluate because it's more of a "four-handed" problem and depends on things like how the opponents play a double of a transfer bid in direct position and how aggressively opponents jump into the auction when responder is unlimited versus when responder is known to hold "less than game" values.

We must be reading different posts, because I don't agree with your analysis.

I do NOT think that 2-way stayman suffers (compared to transfers) on most invitational sequences, and have no idea how you can make that suggestion.

Invitational hands with 5 card heart suits are more difficult for 2-way stayman bidders, using a structure similar to the one I posted earlier.

But invitational hands with 5 spades are easier, and, the last time I looked, 5 card spade suits occur with about the same frequency... with transfers, you must bid 2N over the 2♠ bid, and then play 3♠ on 5-3 or 5-4 hands.. while 2-way stayman bidders remain at the 2-level. I accept that this situation, in theory, is probably less of a benefit than the 5 card heart situation is a cost, but neither is a high-frequency, nor a high-cost, issue, so the differences are miniscule, not, as you argue 'moderate'.

As for game and slam decisions, when one hand is narrowly defined and has a minority of the partnership assets, it seems to me to make sense that that hand do the describing. I noted an earlier post to the effect that knowing location of high cards was important, as indeed it is. The poster (I am too lazy to go back and id the poster) argued that, for example, opener with xxx in a suit would be encouraged if responder showed a stiff. It occurred to me then that I was unaware of any transfer method (other than specialized methods for (31)(54) or 4441 hands) in which responder showed a stiff at a low level. Thus, if responder has slam interest with, say, 1543 shape, he shows hearts then diamonds and never really shows his stiff..

Furthermore, while I have seen discussion of rightsiding, right-siding a part score may gain 6 imps... right-siding a slam may gain 17 imps, and transfers overwhelmingly rate to wrong side slams when opener has a balanced 10-12 or 12-14... responder will almost always hold the bulk of the high cards, and is the one most likely to hold something like Kx in a side suit.

In fairness, while I like 2-way stayman (if tweaked.. I don't like and don't play 'regular' 2-way stayman), I am sure that a transfer based method can work very well. Indeed, I just read, and copied the write-up on Heeman, and I think I will try to convince someone to play it with me.... I need to think about it a bit more in order to see if this is a good method over all ranges.

[awm]

mikeh, on Dec 19 2008, 04:58 PM, said:

We must be reading different posts, because I don't agree with your analysis.

I do NOT think that 2-way stayman suffers (compared to transfers) on most invitational sequences, and have no idea how you can make that suggestion.

I was not presenting an analysis. I was asking a question. You have answered my question.

Since you are claiming that a two-way stayman (with complex followups of course) approach is better for invite/game/slam bidding -- let's have a bidding challenge of sorts. I'll come up with a randomly generated set of hands where opener has a weak notrump and responder has invitational or better values, and we can see which notrump methods do best in the two-handed auction.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Dec 19 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

Quote

As for accuracy... well, I have played some pretty sophisticated methods over strong notrump, that don't translate well over weak, and other than those, I very much doubt that your transfer methods are 'significantly' superior to my weak nt structure.

Playing 2-way Stayman, when responder has a 5-card major and a 4-card minor, what methods are available to investigate the best game?
Playing 2-way Stayman, when responder has a marginal one-suited slam try with a shortage, how does he investigate slam without going past four of his major?

With a gf hand and 5 card major and 4 card minor, with the values to consider an 11 trick contract in a minor (which is a rare but not impossible combination), responder bids 2♦.

Opener's bids:

2♥ denies hearts, may hold spades. Denies a 5 card minor, denies 5-4 minors. We do NOT open 1N with 4 major 5 minor.. no rebid issues (perhaps more accurately, few rebid issues)

Now 2♠ asks

2N denies spades, and 3♣ now extracts precise shape...

Note that if responder is not interested in the minor, having learned that it is going to be a 4-4 fit at best, he can break the relay at any time.

3♣ shows 4 spades and 4 diamonds.. responder can set trump via 3♦.

3♦ shows 4 spades and 4 clubs... responder can only set clubs by bidding 4♣... but in the analogous transfer situation, depending on how one plays 3 red after 1N 2♥ 2♠ 3♣, opener may be unable to show real club support below the 4 level.. is 3♥ a cue in clubs, or a concentration of values, etc. I concede that transfers will usually handle this exact situation somewhat better than my 2-way method.

If opener responds 2♠, showing hearts, then 2N asks for description as above... 3♣/♦ show the other minor.

Where 2-way gains on the 5 major 4 minor responding hand is when a 9 card minor is found, especially in the slam zone... opener bids 2N for clubs and 3♣ for diamonds, and responder sets trump at the 3-level. Note that many transfer players will never even find the fit.. with 5422 shape, an indifferent 4 card minor, and marginal slam values, most would bid 3N or 4N over the transfer acceptance... who, after all, suggests Qxxx in a minor as a trump suit with borderline values? Find that opener has 5 cards in the suit, and valuation will change. I am not going to oversell this point.. it is a low frequency, albeit high-gain, event.

As for the marginal slam interest with a long suit and shortness, responder bids 2♦ then sets trump (altho the pair can, obviously, play in notrump on occasion) and then cue-bidding ensues... opener cue-bids with a good hand in context, or signs off... if responder is still interested opposite a sign-off, he can cue over 3N... he may never specifically show his shortness, but he can certainly find out enough to determine whether slam is playable... I have played this method in some fairly tough competition, and while overall my results at those levels have been nothing to write home about, I can assure you that slam bidding has not been one of the problems. On some hands (say hands on which a 4 suit transferor would show a minor then bid 3M on shortness) the transfer will offer some edge.. but overall, the difference will be immaterial.

One reason that weak notrumpers are not as handicapped by these issues as strong notrumpers would be is that weak notrumpers have fewer values to show... so when they do cue bid, they are able to show more of their hand than would a strong notrumper making the same calls. Once a weak notrumper has show liking for partner's suit and two side Aces (as an example) he doesn't have much left unshown.. whereas the responder to a strong notrumper (with a correspondingly weaker hand than the responder to a weak notrumper with the same slam interest) has more holes to cover and less knowledge of opener's hand.

This is one reason why, while I like 2-way over weak, I dislike it over strong. It is also the reason that my feelings are that over 12-14, there is little to choose, but over 10-12, as an example, 2-way is significantly better.

Over strong, I much prefer a transfer based method.

[mikeh]

awm, on Dec 19 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 19 2008, 04:58 PM, said:

We must be reading different posts, because I don't agree with your analysis.

I do NOT think that 2-way stayman suffers (compared to transfers) on most invitational sequences, and have no idea how you can make that suggestion.

I was not presenting an analysis. I was asking a question. You have answered my question.

Since you are claiming that a two-way stayman (with complex followups of course) approach is better for invite/game/slam bidding -- let's have a bidding challenge of sorts. I'll come up with a randomly generated set of hands where opener has a weak notrump and responder has invitational or better values, and we can see which notrump methods do best in the two-handed auction.

You'd need a LOT of hands to prove anything.. I don't see anyone posting that either method is hugely superior/inferior. 20 hands that showed, say, 12 one way and 8 the other, may convince the partisans of the approach that 'won' 12.. but I doubt that there would be any profound statistical signifiance... and, of course, the reality will be that on many hands both methods lead to the same outcome, while on others, deciding which outcome was better would be impossible.

BTW, I don't think that I said 2-way was better for invitational sequences. Nor do I think that it is significantly better for game bidding, esp opposite 12-14 as opposed to say 10-12, where I do think it is better. I do think that it is better for slam bidding, but by no means on every slam-suitable hand.

[awm]

The problem I see come up a lot is that responder has some shapely hand, and the right contract depends a lot on opener's holding opposite the shortage. For example, say partner opens a 12-14 notrump and I hold:

♠AQxxx
♥x
♦AQJx
♣Qxx

Obvious game force, so I relay and find out partner has the likely shape of 2344. But is this:

♠xx
♥KQT
♦xxxx
♣AKJx

Here 3NT has reasonable chances and other games are pretty lousy.

♠Kx
♥Qxx
♦xxxx
♣AKxx

Here I would like to be in 4♠, although 5♦ also has some play. I don't think I'd want to be in 3NT, where I basically need my "heart stopper" to stand up and even then will need a bit of luck with the suit breaks.

♠Kx
♥xxx
♦Kxxx
♣AKxx

Here 6♦ is actually quite good; it would be embarrassing to play this in 3NT on a heart lead.

In the two-way-stayman-plus-relay style I don't really see how to resolve this problem. In my own transfer based methods the auction would be:

1NT(1) - 2♥(2)
2♠(3) - 3♣(4)
3♦(5) - 3♥(6)

(1) 12-14
(2) Transfer to ♠
(3) Accept transfer
(4) 5+♠ and exactly 4♦
(5) Relay; either 4+♦ or 2♠ with a weak round suit
(6) 5-1-4-3 pattern (high singleton)

At this point the first hand bids 3NT, the second hand bids 4♦ (diamond fit with poor control of hearts and some wasted values; opener should try 4♠ here and play there), the third hand bids 4♥ (showing a non-minimum with no wastage) over which responder can push on to slam.

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Dec 19 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

But invitational hands with 5 spades are easier

Easier than Stayman then 2S?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Dec 19 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

responder bids 2♦.

Opener's bids:

2♥ denies hearts, may hold spades.
...

Perhaps we're having another misunderstanding about terminology, but you seem to be describing an artificial 2♦ bid which bears little resemblance to Stayman. When I said that Stayman and transfers is a more accurate method than Two Way Stayman, I didn't mean to condemn every artificial 2♦ response to 1NT that has ever been or will ever be invented.

Quote

Where 2-way gains on the 5 major 4 minor responding hand is when a 9 card minor is found, especially in the slam zone... opener bids 2N for clubs and 3♣ for diamonds, and responder sets trump at the 3-level. Note that many transfer players will never even find the fit.. with 5422 shape, an indifferent 4 card minor, and marginal slam values, most would bid 3N or 4N over the transfer acceptance... who, after all, suggests Qxxx in a minor as a trump suit with borderline values?

If I were investigating slam, I would most certainly tell my partner about Qxxx. How else is he supposed to know that KJx is a better holding than Kxx?

Quote

As for the marginal slam interest with a long suit and shortness, responder bids 2♦ then sets trump (altho the pair can, obviously, play in notrump on occasion) and then cue-bidding ensues... opener cue-bids with a good hand in context, or signs off... if responder is still interested opposite a sign-off, he can cue over 3N... he may never specifically show his shortness, but he can certainly find out enough to determine whether slam is playable...

Are you seriously arguing that the four cue bids available between 3♠ and 4♠ are as effective as a splinter in establishing how well the hands fit?

[benlessard]

Quote

The problem I see come up a lot is that responder has some shapely hand, and the right contract depends a lot on opener's holding opposite the shortage. For example, say partner opens a 12-14 notrump

Agree 100% that why relaying the balanced hand is pretty dumb.

[mikeh]

Quote

Perhaps we're having another misunderstanding about terminology, but you seem to be describing an artificial 2♦ bid which bears little resemblance to Stayman.  When I said that Stayman and transfers is a more accurate method than Two Way Stayman, I didn't mean to condemn every artificial 2♦ response to 1NT that has ever been or will ever be invented.

I posted my structure in the first post I made in this thread. I referred to it in a passage that you then quoted... including the reference to 'my' structure. You began your first post with a sweeping generalization about 'those' who favour 2-way stayman.. I assumed, from the foregoing, that you had read the posts whose contents you were criticizing. That assumption appears to have been in error.

Quote

If I were investigating slam, I would most certainly tell my partner about Qxxx.  How else is he supposed to know that KJx is a better holding than Kxx?

Wow... let me see if I understand this.

You would, on a slam-interest hand, transfer and then show a Qxxx 4 card minor, because partner won't otherwise know that Kxx is an inferior holding to Kxx? So that he will co-operate with KJx but not with Kxx?

Hmmmm... I guess then that, as responder, you do NOT bid QJxx suits. I mean, how could you? What is the point? Partner will devalue Kxx.. he needs KJx to co-operate, and, unfortunately for your method, you hold that precious Jack.

On a more serious note, I appreciate that we do not always get our posts exactly right.. we may end up posting a silly example of a valid point.. I have certainly been guilty of the silly example mistake, even if my underlying point wasn't valid

But I repeat.. with a borderline hand, I doubt that we should be introducing weak 4 card minors as potential slam level trump suits... how is partner to know whether Kxxx is great... it may be opposite QJxx but it surely is not opposite Qxxx.