[DWM]

We have been having good fun and some nice results using a 10-12 point range NT with a 2/1 system.

One thing I have noticed is the traditional continuations after a NT opening a lot of the bidding is orientated towards making the opener declarer. With a mini NT this means that game contracts will be played by the hand with less controls more often than not.

Firstly is it work tinkering with the basic Stayman/Transfers to get stronger hand to play game contracts? If so, secondly, can you suggest a different continuation to NT opening?

[hrothgar]

I rarely play transfers after a mini-NT. I occasionally play transfers after a weak NT (11+ - 14). This is normally based on some combination of

1. Partner doesn't want to learn yet another new bidding structure
2. Some of the complex transfer based structures (for example Scanian) seem to offer enough constructive benefits that its worth using xfers despite the disadvantages in competitive auctions. (Give the frequency of the mini-NT, I think that it pays to have good methods available)

Lots of folks play some very simple stuff: Here's a pretty standard structure

2♣ = Stayman with Game invitational values
2♦ = Stayman with Game Forcing values
(could be single suited with a long minor)
2♥ = Natural and non forcing
2♠ = natural and non forcing
2N = GF with both minors
3♣ = natural and invitational
3♦ = natural and invitational
3♥ = 2 Hearts and 3 Spades, GF
3♠ = 2 Spades and 3 Hearts, GF

[goodwintr]

One answer to the "transfers-or-not" question over mini or weak notrumps was suggested several years ago by William Schramm (in a Bridge World article): it is to play "two-way transfers," either weak in the transferred-to suit or strong in the named suit. 1NT-2H means you are weak with long spades (and you will pass opener's correction to 2S), or you are strong with long hearts (and you will bid again over 2S). Opener gets to be declarer when responder is signing off with a weak hand, and responder often gets to be declarer when he is strong and heading for game (or more). If it goes, say, 1NT-2H; 2S-3C, responder has shown hearts and clubs (and a good hand), not spades and clubs as in standard transfer methods.

One downside to two-way transfers is that you pretty much have to give up "superaccepting." (Not everyone would consider that to be a downside.) If 1NT-2H turns out to be strong with hearts, responder isn't going to care much about how suitable opener is for spades. We "solve" this difficulty by saying signoffs are really signoffs, and using invitational sequences (including Keri) when there seems to be a chance for game.

[pclayton]

Transfers are still a good idea. They set a foundation that you can develop constructive sequences over. Right-siding the contract is a minor aspect to transfers.

2-way stayman is functional, but if you are starting from the ground up, I'd incorporate transfers.

If you want something really easy, try Gladiator. 2♣ relays to 2♦ and is a prelude to a signoff in ♦/♥/♠ or ♣. Other bids are natural and at least invitational.

[ArtK78]

I play the mini-NT (10-12) with one partner. We have agreed that ALL game invitational hands start with 2♣ (Stayman), and ALL game forcing hands (except for a jump to 3NT) start with 2♦ (game-forcing Stayman). Every other call is natural and to play.

2♣ is not, by definition, invitational. Rather, it is less than a game force. Responder can be weak, intending to drop opener in his response. Some play Garbage Stayman, so that a 2♥ rebid by responder is pass or correct, but we prefer to use 2♥ as a natural and invitational call.

A 2NT response to the 1NT opening bid is preemptive with both minor suits.

3-level and 4-level responses (even 4♣) are one-suited hands and to play. If you want to use Gerber, you have to bid 2♦ first.

Playing a 10-12 NT, if you are going to play in game, the responding hand will be the strong hand. So, there is no need for transfers aimed at making the 10-12 NT hand the declarer.

There is something to be said to making the responding hand declarer in the game invitational and game forcing sequences, i.e., transfer responses to Stayman, but we have not taken that step.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Oct 12 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

Transfers are still a good idea. They set a foundation that you can develop constructive sequences over. Right-siding the contract is a minor aspect to transfers.

amen

[mikeh]

Here's my method:

2♣ non-forcing stayman. Includes most invitational hands, so really isn't 'stayman'

2♦: gf stayman. The key is the response structure, designed to maximize responder's chances of declaring the hand, see below

2Major to play

2N either both minors, weak or invitational+ or weak in diamonds

3♣ weak

3♦/♥/♠ invitational: but 3Major is NOT invitational to 3N. opener passes or raises

Over 2♦ gf stayman:

2♥ no 4♥s, may have spades
2♠: 4♥s, denies ♠
2N: 5+ ♣
3♣: 5+ ♦
3♦: 4=4 majors

After 1N 2♦ 2♥, responder asks again, if he wants, via 2♠, over which:

2N: denies 4♠ (3♣ now asks shape)
3♣: 4♠ and 4♦
3♦: 4♠ and 4♣
3♥: 4333 max
3♠: bad 5 card spade suit (we don't open mini 1n with strong 5 card majors)
3N: 4=3=3=3 minimum

Over 1N 2♦ 2♠ (showing hearts) 2N asks for shape: 3♣ shows ♦, 3♦ shows ♣s


etc

[DWM]

From the above I was thinking about something along the lines of

2♣ Stayman (non prom.)
2♦ week Hearts or 5 spades & 4 hearts majors inv +
2♥ week spades or exactly 5 hearts inv +
2♠ exactly 5 spades inv + (less than 4 hearts)
2NT week minor

3 level bids 6+ in suit GF

I know that there are lots of space left and it needs to be expanded. But would like to check if I am covering all the basic bases with the above.

Not too sure the best way of including exploring minor games/slams. Any suggestions?

[han]

I played 2-way stayman (2D with denial responses).

[Gerben42]

2♣ stayman
2♦ asks 2-card major

http://www.geocities...dge/weaknt.html

Quote

I rarely play transfers after a mini-NT. I occasionally play transfers after a weak NT (11+ - 14). This is normally based on some combination of

1. Partner doesn't want to learn yet another new bidding structure

For me too, either that or:

2. We play mixed NT and don't want two structures.