[kenrexford]

Well, if you must be all technical about 100% right-siding, then you transfer to hrearts but bid 3NT with 5♥/4♠ or 3♠ with 5♥/0-2♠.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Oct 11 2007, 09:37 PM, said:

Well, if you must be all technical about 100% right-siding, then you transfer to hrearts but bid 3NT with 5♥/4♠ or 3♠ with 5♥/0-2♠.

5♥ 4♠ bids stayman. I can't figure out what distribution you are you suggesting after that.

I was wrong about 100% finding fits since responder can't be sure on 3-5 in the majors either way, but neither can any form of stayman that I have ever heard of. I suppose if you wanted you could play 3♦ then 3♠ as showing 5 hearts and fewer than 3 spades, and 3♦ then 3NT as showing 3-5 in the majors. But I wouldn't bother.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Oct 11 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 11 2007, 09:37 PM, said:

Well, if you must be all technical about 100% right-siding, then you transfer to hrearts but bid 3NT with 5♥/4♠ or 3♠ with 5♥/0-2♠.

5♥ 4♠ bids stayman. I can't figure out what distribution you are you suggesting after that.

I was wrong about 100% finding fits since responder can't be sure on 3-5 in the majors either way, but neither can any form of stayman that I have ever heard of. I suppose if you wanted you could play 3♦ then 3♠ as showing 5 hearts and fewer than 3 spades, and 3♦ then 3NT as showing 3-5 in the majors. But I wouldn't bother.

That's the beauty of this Batchelder approach.

1. All major fits can be found, no matter who has the five-card suit or who has the 3-card suit. There are no missing links and no ambiguities.

2. All but one are completely right-sided, and even that one can be right-sided if you want.

3. Super-acceptances by Opener are possible whenever he has five hearts and a heart fit is established, 3 hearts and a heart fit is established, or 4 spades with fewer than four hearts and a spade fit is established, plus after regular transfers; I know of now Puppet approach that allows Opener super-acceptances like these.

BTW -- if you seriously dislike the idea of the 3♥ transfer not being accepted with 5♥/2♠, then you may get the same effect if 2NT-3♠ is a relay to 3NT (then pass as the raise to 3NT) and you elect 2NT-P-3NT to show specifically 5♥/3♠.

[3for3]

One thing I like that hasn't been suggested:

If you have opened 2nt on a hand with a good 6 card minor; bid 3nt. Not only will this keep you out of some poor 5-2's when partner has a yarb; you can occasionally find a slam when partner has the right 10 count or so.

Danny

[Free]

kenrexford, on Oct 11 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 11 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 8 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 8 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 9 2007, 08:14 AM, said:

If I am playing Batchelder Puppet, ...

I just love this name.

Where did it come from and what is the process for naming these things.

This is something that I have played for many years without any knowledge that it had a name.

The names came from our ancestors, as they played bridge around the fire, celebrating their Wooly Mammoth kill.

Actually, I just call it this because I have heard that Jim Batchelder invented the approach, at least the version I like.

Dunno where you know this Jim Batchelder from, but this is just the response scheme Romex uses...

Really?

Just to make sure they are the same:

3♣ asks.

Opener bids:

3NT = 44
3S = 5♠
3♥ = 4-5♥ (3♠ asks if 5)
3♦ = 2-4♠/2-3♥; 3♥ asks about spades (3♠=3, 3N=2, high=4); 3♠ asks if 2 or 3 hearts
3♦...3♠ is 5♥/4♠
3♥ is bid with 5♠, 2-3♥; Opener can bid 3NT with 2♠/5♥

If that's the same as Romex, I been befrauded!!!

The responses are identical (see my blog for more details).

Doesn't 2NT-3♣-3♦-3♠ show 5 SPADES and 4♥? With 5♥4♠ you can just transfer...

[kenrexford]

Free, on Oct 13 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 11 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 11 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 8 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 8 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 9 2007, 08:14 AM, said:

If I am playing Batchelder Puppet, ...

I just love this name.

Where did it come from and what is the process for naming these things.

This is something that I have played for many years without any knowledge that it had a name.

The names came from our ancestors, as they played bridge around the fire, celebrating their Wooly Mammoth kill.

Actually, I just call it this because I have heard that Jim Batchelder invented the approach, at least the version I like.

Dunno where you know this Jim Batchelder from, but this is just the response scheme Romex uses...

Really?

Just to make sure they are the same:

3♣ asks.

Opener bids:

3NT = 44
3S = 5♠
3♥ = 4-5♥ (3♠ asks if 5)
3♦ = 2-4♠/2-3♥; 3♥ asks about spades (3♠=3, 3N=2, high=4); 3♠ asks if 2 or 3 hearts
3♦...3♠ is 5♥/4♠
3♥ is bid with 5♠, 2-3♥; Opener can bid 3NT with 2♠/5♥

If that's the same as Romex, I been befrauded!!!

The responses are identical (see my blog for more details).

Doesn't 2NT-3♣-3♦-3♠ show 5 SPADES and 4♥? With 5♥4♠ you can just transfer...

2NT-P-3♣(asking)-P-
3♦(2-4♠/2-3♥)-P-3♠(asks about hearts)

This does not show five spades and four hearts. As you mentioned, you would transfer with five hearts and four spades. When Responder goes through 3♣, he cannot have 5♥+4♠ because then he would have no way to ask about both suits after 3♦ (Opener could have 4♠ and 3♥, or either one, or neither, and you cannot ask about both).

With five spades and four hearts, you use 3♣. That is correct. However, after 3♦, you would never ask about hearts (by bidding 3♠) because Opener's 3♦ showed 2-3 hearts, making a fit impossible, whereas Opener's spade length is 2-4, which makes a 5-3 or 5-4 spade fit possible. So, with 5♠+4♥, Responder would bid 3♥.

3♠, asking about heart length, cannot be 5♥+4♠, as mentioned. Thus, we can surmise that a 3♠ call shows five hearts and three spades, the holding where an initial 3-5 spade fit might exist but where now only a 5-3 heart fit might exist.

I just reviewed your write-up of the Romex responses, and I see that this is, in fact, what I learned. I think you have the follow-up of the 3♠ call wrong, however. As you can see from what I have put together, your write-up makes no sense in that regard.

There are two missing problem patterns for the approach, the first being the 5♥+4♠, where you transfer (and bid 3♠, or 3NT for 5♥+4♠ and 3♠ for 5♥+0-2♠ if a purist). This solves the problem of 3♣-P-3♦ and needing to ask about two suits.

The other problem hand is 5♠+3♥. If you bid 3♣ and hear 3♥, you must ask about hearts (3♠) to find out if you have a 3-5 heart fit, but you can never check on whether you have a 5-3 spade fit. With that pattern, the solution is either to allow Opener to reject a 3♥ transfer (bidding 3NT instead) when 5♥+2♠ (which gives up the 3NT super-acceptance and jeopardizes ability to transfer to spades to play on bust hands) or to use a direct 3NT for that pattern (if 3♠ is a relay to 3NT for a minor slam try, or of course game only in NT; this allows lead-directional doubles or passes). If the 3NT direct option is taken, then perhaps 3♦...4♠ might be a slammish 5♥+3♠...

[Free]

Aha, so we've discovered some differences

[kenrexford]

This is funny, the more I look into things.

Apparently, Romex got everything right, up to the responses to 3♦ (2NT-3♣-3♦-?). (Apparently this Romex structure was also spotted by Flint and Miles independently, with the same omission.) However, none of these folks figured out that the basic structure allowed handling all of the 5-3's as well, being jammed onto the 5-4 problem too much.

So, it appears that Jim did first move onto that next step after all.