BBO Discussion Forums: Where do bad players get their ideas from? - BBO Discussion Forums

It's easy to play 2♦ after a weak NT playing transfers; bid 2♣, and pass partner's forced 2♦ response.

Oh, you're still playing Stayman? Sorry about that; guess you're out of luck. Of course, if you were playing 2-way Stayman, you couldn't bid 2♦ to play either.

I see that I have designed my systemic responses to 1NT completely backwards. The main goal appears to be to be able to play in 2♦.

I am going to change my system right away.

ArtK78, on 2014-July-07, 14:08, said:

Yes, you should listen to beatrix45 who is an expert. I know this for a fact because I read it on the internet.

Brink-Drijver play variable nt. No transfers when weak (9-12). Their reason: Transfers are easy to defend.

A natural weak take-out works better opposite a weak NT, because declarer has a wider range than he would have if he had taken out a strong NT. This makes the honours more difficult to place for the defenders.

Another reason is that the opponents still could have game (or think that they might have game) so there is more to win by making their auction difficult.

They play 2-way Stayman so they don't have a weak take-out in diamonds either.

helene_t, on 2014-July-07, 16:07, said:

To be fair, this is a wide-range mini, not a weak NT.

Quote

A few people who play 2-way Stayman play 2♣ as a relay to 2♦, so they do have a weak takeout in diamonds.

More popular is to play Checkback Stayman this way.

In the early 1990's a pair from the American Midwest named Meckstroth and Rodwell started to play the Kamakazi 1NT opener. Many others copied them, and much discussion ensued, both at the bars after the game and in the bridge literature of the time. Eventually, an old guy from California named Marshall Miles came up with a best practice system to use when playing it. Sue Emery, the editor at the time, published it in the ACBL monthly bulletin. Mr. Miles system did not use transfers, and he argued against their use with any weak notrump opener, quite convincingly, imo.

Vampyr, on 2014-July-08, 16:08, said:

Yes but I think that is problematic to play 2♣ as a relay to 2♦ in combination with weak take-outs in the majors. What to do with invitational hands with a 5-card major then? Maybe you could play KERI, modified so that
1NT-2♣
2♦-2NT
is invitational with 4-4 in the majors, while
1NT-2NT
is a natural invite.

2♦ would be GF Stayman then.

where do bad players get their ideas? From this site perhaps. Plying tfs over a 12-14 NT is fine and leads to sensible hand exploration. Over a 10-12 NT it is still possible of course for memory reasons, especially if your NT varies according to vul. Better is Gladiator if you can remember the 2 separate systems.

the hog, on 2014-July-10, 04:16, said:

Yeah - it seems pretty intuitive that transfers over a 12-14 1NT are pretty close to neutral ev in terms of right-siding the contract. The break even point may be around the 12 point mark - who knows? Obviously the people who discussed it in midwest bars after thrashing lols in the regionals back in the day know "the answer". The truth is it does not matter much, so playing the same responses over a mini as over a strong NT is perfectly acceptable to avoid memory overload.

helene_t, on 2014-July-07, 16:07, said:

I played 2 way stayman with my dad (over 10+-13 NT). My reasoning was that 2M NF is much harder for the opps to deal with than transferring when it is their hand. Similar to why transfer preempts are bad, it gives them the ability to pass then X, X then X, X then pass etc, and most importantly pass then balance(and allows the other side more bids, eg 1N p 2D transfer, X showing a good hand, 2H, X responsive/card showing). When your NT range starts that low, one of the main advantages is making it hard for the opps since their ranges are so wide (like any other preempt). I mean it's obviously a tough spot for them if it goes 1N p 2H and they have to decide whether to get in with 2S or not (they want to, but they would also bid 2S with a good hand and their partner has no idea). This is not an issue vs transfers if they get to pass over the transfer and then balance 2S, or just overcall 2S directly, or X the transfer showing cards and then bid 2S. Playing transfers allows them to have more accuracy in figuring out at a lower level how much values they have.

That said, if it was our hand I would certainly prefer to play transfers than 2 way stayman, transfers are just better for constructive bidding. I think people who are likely to play 9-12 or 10-12 or 10-13 NT are more likely to be the types who want to steal more/more effectively. I'm sure that's true of Brink-Drijver and obv my dad and me heh.

Rightsiding was never a concern. It is super tilting to see people use rightsiding as an important reason on whether or not to play transfers lol.

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-10, 15:25, said:

I always thought 2-way Stayman was inefficient. Why have two different ways to ask for a 4-card major? Maybe something efficient could be build around:
2♦=Stayman
2♣=Puppet to 2♦, responder subsequently describes some hand that is not suitable for Stayman, for example
-- 2M=inv, 5+ M
-- 2N=one of the invitational smolen hands
-- 3m=invitational

akwoo, on 2014-July-01, 19:15, said:

Unless they can look at their partner and predict who should be playing it.

Roy

helene_t, on 2014-July-11, 02:23, said:

Helene:

The name "Two-Way Stayman" is a bit of a misnomer. True, both the 2♣ and 2♦ responses ask for distributional information, with first priority being major suit length. But the primary purpose of Two-Way Stayman is to immediately inform opener whether the partnership is in a game forcing auction. That is a high priority opposite a mini-NT opening. Furthermore, the 2♣ response, which is the less than game forcing response, can be made on nothing. So it serves as a warning to opener to proceed with caution.

Transfer responses and regular Stayman convey no strength information to opener. Aside from other drawbacks, this is a major flaw when dealing with a mini-NT, as opener will not know if it is wise to bid should 4th hand enter the auction over 2♣. The problem exists with regular weak NT openings and with strong NT openings as well, but is not as pronounced.

By the way, the scheme of responses that you suggest above does not include an immediate drop dead bid of 2 of a major. This is an important bid opposite a mini-NT, as it is highly preemptive. It forces the opposition to intervene at a fairly high level after the opponents have exchanged a significant amount of strength and distributional information. The structure that you propose is fine if the opponents don't intervene (in fact, it is no doubt better), but it allows the opponents into the auction at a lower level.

Yes I understand, but aren't lots of sequences redundant? What's the difference between
1NT-2♣/♦
2bananas-3NT
for example?

helene_t, on 2014-July-11, 09:01, said:

If you just want to play 3N or 4M depending on whether your partner has a major suit fit, start with 2C to avoid (more) information leakage. If you care about something else for slam or choice of game purposes, start with 2D. Don't consider 2D stayman, just consider it a game forcing relay.

helene_t, on 2014-July-11, 09:01, said:

The method of two-way Stayman that I play uses transfer responses by opener so that if a major (or minor) suit fit is found responder, who is the stronger hand, will be the declarer. For example, here are the immediate responses to a 2♦ game forcing Stayman bid:

2♥ - 4+ spades, not 4 hearts
2♠ - 4+ hearts, not 4 spades
2NT - a five card minor (responder asks with 3♣, thus winding up declarer no matter which minor the partnership plays in)
3♣ - both 4 card majors
3♦ - both 4 card minors
3♥ - 2-2-4-5
3♠ - 2-2-5-4
3NT - 3-3-(4/3) (responder asks for which 4 card minor by bidding 4♣)

If responder bids 2♣ - less than game forcing Stayman, opener's rebids are the same as normal Stayman played by the vast majority of players. But a 3NT rebid by responder should be impossible as responder has denied game forcing values.

As I mentioned in my prior post, one of the main purposes of Two-Way Stayman is to let opener know right away whether the partnership is looking for game at a minimum or whether the partnership is just looking for the best place to play, possibly bidding game if responder has invitational values facing a maximum opener.

ArtK78, on 2014-July-11, 10:02, said:

Again you are very focused on rightsiding, and not at all about information leakage. IMO playing your methods bidding 2D instead of 2C with a hand that wants to play 4M opposite a fit for the M, and 3N otherwise, would be a mistake. You gain that you get to play from responders side, you lose that if you do not have a major suit fit you have given the opposing side information about declarers shape (possibly a lot of information) which will help them in the defense. Playing from the 15 count instead of the 11 count is really not that important, the defense knowing declarers exact shape or even just that he has a 5 card minor is. And more often than not you will not have a fit if responder has only 1 4 card major.

Also I'm not sure what point you are making that it is important for opener to know if declarer has GAME GOING strength or not. If responder just wants to know about 4 card majors before placing the contract it does not matter if opener doesn't know he's going to bid game until he does it. What would happen if I were playing these methods with you and chose to bid 2C then 3N lol, would you be greatly confused and not know what to do? It wouldn't matter.

Anyways <3 2 way stayman 4 life. At least we agree on that

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-11, 10:13, said:

I am not focusing on rightsiding - I am merely incorporating it into the methods. There is certainly no reason to avoid rightsiding the contract if you can accomplish it.

I am focusing on bringing partner into the picture as soon as possible. If our goal is game (at a minimum) or slam, partner should know immediately. If our goal is game (at a maximum) or safety, partner should know that as well. He will be in a better position to deal with potential competition if he is aware of our potential and our limitations as soon as possible. It also means that after a "nonforcing" 2♣ Stayman bid that every bid can be passed. I can't think of any bid by either partner after a 2♣ response that is forcing (except for the 2♣ bid itself).

You certainly can bid 2♣ followed by 3NT. I can't stop you from doing it. You are violating system for reasons known only to you. I can only assume that you believe that your hand has no need to declare a potential major suit contract and you were trying to steer the declarership to me. OK, I can buy that. But you will be hard pressed to come up with a good example of such a hand where you KNOW that this is the case.

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-10, 15:25, said:

Suppose that you have a 1444 10-count. Which auction would you rather face:
or

Quote

But these auctions aren't similar, because after a transfer preempt the transferror is known to be weak, but after a 1NT opening the transferror is unlimited.

gnasher, on 2014-July-11, 11:25, said:

It is really six of one and a half-dozen of the other. If you happen to have the perfect takeout double of the suit that the opposition wants to declare at the 2 level, fine. Then you are in a great position. For all those times when you don't happen to have that hand, the 2 of a major bid really puts it to you.