[GaryFisch]

Playing SAYC, my style with 5+ in a minor and game-going values in response to 1NT (11+ in response to a 15-17 opening) is to start with Stayman if I also have a 4 card major. If not, I bid 2♠ to transfer to 3♣, then bid my minor (4♦ to show diamonds as 3♦ would be sign-off). With invitational values, I use Stayman and then 2NT with no fit (ignoring the minor) or respond 3 min directly with no major.

The following sequences show game-going values as follows:

1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦ shows EITHER major and diamonds

1NT-2♣-2♥-3♣ shows 4/5+ spades/clubs

1NT-2♣-2♠-3♣ shows 4/5+ hearts/clubs

The second case is especially useful, as opener has not denied 4 spades. Opener can place the hand in game in either of responder's suits, bid 3NT, bid 3♥ to show 5 in that suit (yes, I open 1NT with a 5 card major), or bid either of responder's suits below game as a slam try. 4NT is a quantitative invitation to 6NT or 6♣ if responder has 6+ in that suit.

There's just one fly in the ointment. What if opener has 2-4-3-4 shape with Qxx or lower in diamonds? Opener doesn't know if the better choice is 3NT or 5♣. The opponents are going to lead diamonds every time. If responder has 3 small diamonds, 5♣ is down right away, but 3NT may have a shot if diamonds are 4-3 - the most likely split. OTOH, if responder has 2 small (or fewer) diamonds, then 5♣ is better, as a 5-3 split is more likely than 4-4.

I suggest 3♦ as an asking bid showing precisely 2-4-3-4 shape. Responder can judge where to place the contract, or can cuebid 4♦ to show control, or use Blackwood (or RKCB) for clubs, or bid 4♣ to suggest bailing out in that contract. (With 3-4-3-3, just bid 3NT, which responder should pass unless seeking a slam.)

Switch the minors, and it becomes more difficult, since the asking bid of 4♣ is past 3NT. I address this by tightening the criteria for 4♣ - opener should have a minimum hand with 3 small clubs (no Q or J). With Q or J, it's best to bid 3NT, hoping for at least Jx or Qx in dummy; with better than minimum and no club honor, 5♦ suggests itself (taking a chance that responder has 2 or fewer diamonds with at most 4 total in ♠/♦). Now, responder can bailout in 4♦, place the hand in 5♦, or even try 4♥. Consider the following hand opposite 1NT:

♠ -- ♥ AQxx ♦AQJxxx ♣ xxx

After Stayman, responder certainly doesn't want to agree ♥ right away, since slam in diamonds is likely with support, so he bids a forcing 3♦. After opener bids 4♣, responder has an easy retreat to 4♥. The opponents take their three clubs, but declarer probably gets the rest. Responder would also correct to 4♥ with this hand if opener bids 3NT after 3♦.

In sum, I think the above agreement solves the biggest problem with the use of Stayman with 4/5+ maj/min, namely, deciding between 3NT and 5 of the minor when there is no 4-4 major fit. It preserves all of the options for slam bidding, and also allows for a bailout in 4 of the minor when there is a vulnerability (3-3, no stopper) in the other minor. It does give up the 3♦ natural bid, but the chance that diamonds are the best spot are so remote that this is not much of a loss - both opener and responder can have at most 4 diamonds. It doesn't solve every problem - there are still the borderline hands with Kx in the unbid minor, where the right call depends on controls and suit texture.

So my questions are:

1. What do you think of this idea?

2. What problems, if any, would come up?

3. Is this use of the 3♦ (or 4♣)bid included in any common system? I've never heard of it being used to show exactly 3 small.

And please don't bother with a response like, "There are plenty of methods out there to deal with these kinds of hands, no need to reinvent the wheel." That's just a not-so-subtle put-down, and I've gotten it enough in this forum.

[GaryFisch]

I have to amend one statement - with Kx in the unbid minor, I'm always going to bid 3NT, since responder would be declarer in 5 min. I want the lead up to the Kx. Ax in the unbid minor might be a borderline case.