BBO Discussion Forums: 1NT response structure - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1NT response structure Anyone know of anything similar?

#21 User is offline   cwiggins 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 2003-August-05

Posted 2007-December-20, 22:55

Does Kristof Martens's Stayman plus transfers improve over standard stayman?

The following summary is based on "Bidding Like Music: The Martens System."

After 1NT-2C; 2D:
- 2H is garbage stayman
- 2S is a transfer to clubs (could be any strength)
- 2N is invitational
- 3C is a transfer to diamonds (any strength)
- 3D is a transfer to hearts (Smolen equivalent)
- 3H is a transfer to spades (Smolen equivalent)
- 3S is 5-5 in the majors; GF

After 1NT-2C; 2H (shows 4 hearts denies 4 spades):
- 2S = transfer to clubs with 4 spades
- 2N = INV
- 3C = transfer to diamonds with 4 spades
- 3D = transfer to hearts, slammish, no shortness
- 3H = invitational
- 3S, 4C, and 4D = slammish, splinter

1N-2D is a transfer to hearts with 4+ hearts. Responder has 4 when he has a balanced hand and exactly four hearts. (1N-2C; 2S 2N is a transfer to clubs; so a balanced hand with hearts needs to be shown another way.)

In response to the 2D transfer, opener bids:
- 2H any minimum
- 2N maximum but only three hearts
- 3H maximum with four hearts

2H is a "normal" transfer to spades. You can use pretty much whatever you want above 2H. (Personally I like 3x being a splinter.)

This scheme lets you make your "light" invitations with unbalanced hands as well as balanced hands and doesn't give up on garbage Stayman.

In slammish auctions, responder usually gets to show where his shortness is, a critical factor.

One plus of these auctions is that "light invitations" can be done with both balanced and 4M-5+m hands.
0

#22 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2007-December-21, 10:58

Quote

Anchoring 2♣ and 2♦ to ♥ and ♠ seems to not do so well on these hands.


Au contraire they do exceptionnally well on these hands

2C----2D (no fit)-----2H (5 or 6 H inv)
2C----2H (fit min)-----pass

2D----2H (no fit)------2S (5 or 6 S inv)
2D----2S (fit min)-----pass

2S and 2H for direct signoff is also bringing singificant imps over transfer (for signoff hands)

This setup is close to optimal for 0--up to inv hands.

Downside
1-no transfer so for GF and slammish hand this is a minus. But since 2C followed by a new suit would suggest 4H+5x or 5H +4x we are ok

2- doesnt handle puppet or both M too well.


But lets discuss regular stayman with garbage staymnan in IMPs a little bit.

2C---2D (no M)----2H/2S

Here you have a 2 choice to make
1 is 2H/2S inv or (sign off & light inv).
2nd does parnter need to correct with 32.

I strongly believe that INV & no correct is best. So lets call it way 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
way 1=

With all weak 55+,54,64 i have to transfer.

xxxxx
xxxxx
xx
x

i have to transfer therefore 50% of reaching the best contract.

with both 5M invitationnal.

2C---2D----???

Ive still have to make 50% guess unless i hit partner with a 4M

With a 5S/4H INV

2C---2D-----2S INV its perfect.
2C---2D-----2H perfect here too.

with 6/4 inv

2C---2D----2S perfect
2C---2D-----2H perfect


Way 1 is good when responder is 5/4 or 6/4 with inv or when hes 5/5 and opener has a 4M. When responder is weak its useless.





Way 2 = cant correct with 32, sign off or light inv.
--------------------------------------------------------

2C---2D----2H (is to play)
2C---2D----2S (is to play)

With all weak 55+,54,64 i have to stayman if i hit partner with a 4M bingo otherwise im playing the same contract.

EX

xxxxx
xxxxx
xx
x

1Nt---2C----2D----??? 50% guess here.

The big advantage in way 2 is the light INV a light inv need a fit to play game

5431 light inv

1Nt---2C---- if partner have a 4M we will play game otherwise we will play 2S

However with stronger inv you are stuck

5431 good inv

1Nt---2C----2D----smolen is GF.

so with a stronger inv probably transfer followed by 2Nt is best. (yurk IMHO)




way 3 signoff with correction
--------------------------------


with a weak 44,55,54 i can stayman and bid 2H.


weak 5521 or weak 4531,
1Nt---2c----2D-----2H (partner pick ur best maj)


weak 5431 you still need to transfer.
weak 64 transfer is best.

with a light inv 6S4H you can use GS but with a light inv 4621 you might reach 43 instead of 62 fit

light inv 4621

2C---2D (no M)-----2H------2S ( i correct because im 32) IMHO this is no big deal since its unlikely 2S goes down. (ps if your 1nt could be 2245 then you might endup in 42 fit)



Ill leave way 4 (the worse) to you. INV with correction

But i think my point is clear since you have to choose a specific GStayman before getting your cards (inv or no inv correct or no correct) at the end GS is only handling very few hands.


1Nt---2C---2D----2H/2S is 2 prime estate spaces to reserved only for both M hands wich make it clear for me that GS is crap.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#23 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,306
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-December-21, 11:52

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

2 stayman. Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2Red response shows 5+ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5+4 invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2 bid by opener). Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2 shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

2 is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2 followed by 2 by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

2 is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

When compared to the method benlessard suggests:

(1) Both methods will end in 2 when responder has a five spade invite.
(2) Benlessard method will end in 2 when responder has a five heart invite, whereas this method plays 2NT/3 (or 3m if responder 5-5).
(3) This method reaches 3M when a 4-4 major fit materializes on an invite auction but there is no game, whereas Benlessard method plays 2M.
(4) This method always allows to play 2 when responder has a light invite with the majors, whereas Benlessard method basically forces you to game opposite a misfitting maximum.
(5) This method lets you find the better major suit fit when responder is weak with 4-4 or 4-5 or 5-5 in the majors, whereas Benlessard method you have to pass with 4-4 and guess a five card suit with 4-5/5-5. It also allows stayman-and-pass with (34)51 type patterns.
(6) This method lets you explore for both major suit fits and yet still end in 2 on a declined invite with 5-4 majors. Benlessard method doesn't seem to allow that.
(7) This method is substantially better on choice of game or mild slam try hands because of the "transfer and re-transfer" structure.
(8) There will be ups and downs due to the comparison of signing off via transfer and pass versus signing off via a direct signoff bid. I've found that the direct signoff bids are not as big an advantage as people make them out to be. The main reason is that an opportunity for opponents to bid when our side is limited is potentially much less dangerous for them (much more valuable to them) than an opportunity when our side is unlimited. The direct signoff gives each opponent such an opportunity. The transfer gives three opportunities to bid instead of two, but only one of them is in such a balancing situation.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#24 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-December-21, 13:12

awm, on Dec 21 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

2 stayman. Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2Red response shows 5+ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5+4 invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2 bid by opener). Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2 shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

2 is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2 followed by 2 by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

2 is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

These are my favorite methods.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#25 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,661
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2007-December-21, 14:49

jdonn, on Dec 21 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 21 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Here's the method I've seen that appears to work pretty well.

2 stayman. Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2Red response shows 5+ and invitational, but could be a somewhat light invite. This is not forcing. It does not promise length in hearts, although 5+4 invites would bid this way (planning to raise a 2 bid by opener). Bidding 2 followed by 2 over partner's 2 shows both majors with hearts at least as long as spades. Opener is expected to pass or correct to 2. This sequence could be total trash, or could be about a point light of inviting (i.e. a hand that might've looked for game if opener showed a 4-card major).

2 is transfer to hearts. Bidding 2 followed by 2 by responder is artificial and shows an exactly invitational hand with a five-card heart suit. Other followups are game-forcing (re-transfer is nice, or even relay).

2 is transfer to spades, but never invitational. Invites with spades start with 2. So the transfer is either weak (pass 2) or game forcing (bid 2NT+ as retransfer or even relay).

These are my favorite methods.

I use this structure except that:

1NT -- 2 -- 2 -- 2

is invitational with 5 s and 4 s.

I'd like to use garbage Stayman, but how then do you handle invitational hands with 4s-5s?
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#26 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-December-21, 15:46

PassedOut, on Dec 21 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

I use this structure except that:

1NT -- 2 -- 2 -- 2

is invitational with 5 s and 4 s.

I'd like to use garbage Stayman, but how then do you handle invitational hands with 4s-5s?

That's an almost nonexistant concern to me. It's one shape of one hand, and if you just bid stayman with no way to show it you get every fit but the 5-3 (or alternatively, transfer then 2NT and lose only one 4-4). The weak option covers a lot more shapes and a much wider range of hands.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#27 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2007-December-21, 16:32

Yep i like AWM structure. Its a kind of creeping or crawling stayman

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...anCrawling.html

1nt---2C----2R-----2S is much much better as inv (with or without 4H).

1Nt----2D----2H-----2Nt & 1Nt----2H----2S-----2Nt as forcing are great i did play a system like this with 4card M transfer and its very nice. Bypassing 2Nt meant the 5M+4/5m while bidding 2Nt showed 4M+5/6m

Quote

(4) This method always allows to play 2♥ when responder has a light invite with the majors, whereas Benlessard method basically forces you to game opposite a misfitting maximum.


(Im assuming you are talking of my initial structure not the 1 where 2C tend to show D and 2D tend to show S)

No with a maximum opener will still bid 2M in the suit he refuse with a unsuitable hand for suit contract.

Kxx
xx
KQxx
KQxx

1Nt----2D(multi INV)----2H

Is a maximum playing 10-14 yet over 2D invite ill bid 2H refusing a H INV. if partner is 5/5 M inv he will correct to 2S and now ill bid 4S.

Quote

(5) This method lets you find the better major suit fit when responder is weak with 4-4 or 4-5 or 5-5 in the majors, whereas Benlessard method you have to pass with 4-4 and guess a five card suit with 4-5/5-5. It also allows stayman-and-pass with (34)51 type patterns.


Yes but i have the D signoff 90% at 2D so it even out. (in Imps not in MP of course)
Also my method allow for 5M opening.
1Nt---2C-----2H(5H min) + 1Nt----2C-----2S (5S min)


Also the big problem i have with both M weakish hands (5/5 + 5/4) is that the slow way often allow a lead directing.

compare
1Nt----2S(to play 5S but maybe 4/5H)

VS

1Nt----2C (double for C possible)
2D-----(X possible to show a hand not quite strong to overcall 2D) (or if they play a direct 2D as art)
--------2H (both M)
2S i prefer S (now you are sure to get a S lead)



Quote

(7) This method is substantially better on choice of game or mild slam try hands because of the "transfer and re-transfer" structure.
This is by far the most important point of the whole matter. Its a transfer vs no-transfer dilemma.

Playing 10-14 NV , 12-15 V

Soff are-- 0-11, 0-10 pts

Inv are 11-13, 10-12 =these are about 3 times more frequnet then if you play a strong Nt

Game are 14-16, 13-15

Slam are 17+ , 16+

Where we win most imps is by far in the Soff area.

Our best imps income per sequence are
1Nt---2S etc
1Nt---2H etc
1Nt all pass (most of the time they could make 2 something)
1Nt (2M) pass (3M) going down
1Nt (2X) pass (2Nt) going down

Designing a weak nt structure is a unpleasant task because where you work the most will be the rarest sequence and the less profitable while the more direct (stupid) auction will give the most benefit.

+ There is facing a passed hand factor. Having 2 structure for 1Nt opener is a bit annoying and having only 1 structure mean the frequency for all the slammish/find the best game gadgets are divided by two.




PS we also play the same structure for

1C----1D-(waiting)-----1Nt (15-18 or 16-19 may have 5M)
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#28 User is offline   lexlogan 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 2003-March-27

Posted 2007-December-21, 23:18

Puppet Stayman was originally designed to conceal opener's shape. Unfortunately, simply showing hearts involves bidding all three of the other suits artificially: 1NT-2C!-2D!-2S! .

On frequency, you could swap the 2C and transfer sequences : if responder transfers and bids again, he shows only a four-card major, while the Puppet sequences show 5. Note that responder with a weak hand and 5+ in a major still uses the transfer, while hands with 4-4 in the majors still use 2C, rebidding in notrump.
Paul Hightower
0

#29 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2007-December-22, 02:59

Hmmm I thought puppet stayman was invented to find out about 5 card Majors and still rightsiding the contract... :ph34r:
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#30 User is offline   dake50 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,211
  • Joined: 2006-April-22

Posted 2007-December-22, 04:46

Why not 4-suit xfers starting with 2C -> D ?? Then responder SHOWS(not asks) which 4M he has.
I too hate Stayman as TOO blabby. Why ask just to inform oppts hidden hand has/not 4M?
0

#31 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2007-December-22, 05:52

dake50, on Dec 22 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Why not 4-suit xfers starting with 2C -> D ?? Then responder SHOWS(not asks) which 4M he has.
I too hate Stayman as TOO blabby. Why ask just to inform oppts hidden hand has/not 4M?

Not the most helpful of posts, I think.

It is my observation that

1) a simple and standard set of responses copes well enough with most hands, and

2) There is also not enough bidding space for a perfect set of responses - a perfect set being one that will guarantee you to get to the best spot.

So, system design is concerned with closing an already fairly narrow gap between existing methods and the optimal, by assigning an intelligent priority to the hand types for which you are resigned for the system not to cope or not to cope well.

I doubt that there is much difference in overall effectiveness of any of the souped-up response structures in use. Each method copes better with certain hands but at a cost of coping worse with others. It is the comparison of the bad hands for the systems that distinguish them, and for the most part these are infrequent and/or uncostly.

Anyone who wishes to propose a method as superior only has a chance of convincing me of its merits if the entire structure is listed, so that the bad hands for the method are apparent or at least acknowledged. And anyone who tries to suggest that there are no bad hands for their method is deluded.

It may well be possible to generate a system of responses as you suggest, based on 2C being a transfer to 2D, whose effectiveness may be comparable with alternative high precision methods against which it is pitted. But unless you put up the entire structure I for one have better things to do with my time than consider it.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#32 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,306
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-December-22, 12:27

Here's what I'm playing these days, in my partnership with the most convoluted agreements. I'll start from the highest bids because they're simpler. Our notrump range is 14-16, with frequent upgrades of 13-counts with a good five-card suit.

4M = to play
4m = transfer to major (south african); lets us pick who declares or use keycard/exclusion
3NT = to play
3M = four cards in the bid major, 0-1 in the other, will be close to three-suited so typically 4144 or 41(35), can also be 40(45) or 40(36).
3m = four-plus cards in the bid minor, 0-1 in the other, 3-4 cards in each major, again sort of like a three-suiter; can be 4414 or (34)15 or 3316 or various patterns with void in the short minor
2N = transfer to clubs; either 6+ to play, or various GF hands with 5+, rebids are 3 showing 5-5 in the minors GF, 3M showing a 3-card fragment with 0-1 in the other major, 3NT showing a balanced slam try in clubs, 4 as 4-6 in the minors slam try, 4 is rkc for clubs, higher bids exclusion setting clubs.
2 = quantitative game invite, or one-suited game invite, or quantitative slam invite. Opener bids 2NT with a minimum, or otherwise the cheapest suited invite which he would not accept. Various scramble methods available in case opener shows weakness in a suit where responder is also weak (i.e. responder has 3244 invite and opener shows max that would reject hearts).
2 = transfer to spades. After this, 2NT shows a GF with +, 3 shows a GF with 5+ and 4, 3 shows a GF with 5+5 or 4+6, 3 shows an invitational hand with 5+ and 5+, 3 is a game force with spades (asks cuebid), 3NT is choice of games, higher calls are splinters setting spades. Relay continuations allow responder to pattern out in most cases.
2 = transfer to hearts. Continuations similar to after 2, with 3 rebid being 5+/5+ in the majors GF and 3 being slam try in hearts. Transfer followed by 2 is any invite with 5.
2 = forces 2. This can be diamond signoff. If not passing 2, responder can have invite with one or more 4cM, invite with 5, GF with , GF with both majors, or GF with a balanced hand and slam interest. Continuations are:
....... 4 = 6-4 in the minors GF
....... 3N = balanced diamond slam try
....... 3M = fragment, 0-1 in the other major, diamond slam try
....... 3 = (45)31 or (46)21 shape
....... 3 = (45)22 or (45)13 or (46)12 shape
....... 2N = invitational with 44 majors, (45) majors also possible
....... 2 = invite or better with 4, will not have 4
....... 2 = invite with 4+, or GF relay with a balanced slam try, maybe 4 if GF

Basically:

(1) We give up on playing 2M on declined invites, except for the five spade invite. This structure is focused more on reaching the best game and finding slams. We've observed that playing 2M in seven-card fits is not as much of a win as it's made out to be, especially at MP/BAM scoring.
(2) We have a lot of "siding" control for contracts, playing virtually all invites from the stronger (opening) side and often having the choice of who declares on GF hands with suits.
(3) We lose the "garbage stayman" hands but gain the diamond signoff at the two-level.
(4) We have very accurate methods for responder to show a GF with virtually any common shape. This helps a lot on "choice of game" or "find a light slam" type of hands.
(5) We have fairly extensive relays starting with 1NT-2-2-2 and 1NT-2-2-2, allowing us to find minor suit fits when responder has a balanced slam try and so forth. This is one of the big downsides of Keri as best I can tell.
(6) There is some "low information" property because opener will typically show max/min on the 1NT-2-2-2M sequences, which conceals whether an invitational auction has taken place (i.e. responder could've been game forcing the whole time). We also conceal whether opener has four cards in the other major that responder doesn't hold via this sequence. Of course when opener has no major we do reveal responder's major-suit holding (which stayman leaves ambiguous). Of course, responder's hand is coming down as dummy anyway, but it might help on opening lead.

I know this structure is very different in spirit from the Benlessard structure and a lot of others mentioned here. I think it's more similar to the jdonn structure, except that we replaced stayman with puppet (and garbage stayman with diamond signoff) and added a lot of shape relays on top of it. Obviously this is hard to compare, because our structure is designed more towards a "strong notrump" with a narrow range and finding the best game, rather than towards a "weak notrump" with a wide range and stopping low on invites as much as possible.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#33 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2007-December-22, 19:48

Im not sure about the forced 2D vs almost forced 2D

1Nt---2C---2D forced

or

1Nt----2D----2D (almost forced may have 4M & 5M)
1Nt----2C----2H (5H minimum)
1Nt----2C----2S (5S minimum)

You can even add

1Nt----2C----2Nt (4S4H max)
1Nt----2C----3C (3253 or 2353 max)
1Nt----2C----3D (3235 or 2335)

the downside is that you are sometimes going to play 3D instead of 2D but (often with a 10 card fit) or 4C instead of 3C (with an 11 card fit) but you can show a nice addition of hands.

Because our 1M opening are never 5332 we are forced to open them 1Nt/1C so we really need the puppet stayman so we play the almost forced 2D.


PS
AWM do you get some lead directing X after 1Nt----2C----2D----2H(S inv)

my feeling is not really since you play a strong nt and responder is at least inv and you can declare on both side to play a S game or a S partscore.

Some sequence a suprinsingly immune to lead directing.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#34 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,306
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-December-22, 22:15

A few points here:

(1) We have not noticed many lead directional doubles. Sometimes these kinds of doubles help us in any case, since we can redouble to play, or at least we are forewarned about the lead and now have methods to check for stoppers (whereas without the lead directional double we might blast into 3NT with no stopper and you never know when opponents will find the right lead).

(2) We do not particularly like giving extraneous information about opener's hand, nor do we like taking up space that responder might need to pattern out. In particular showing a 5-card minor over 1NT-2 seems very poor. We also routinely bid 2 puppet to diamonds with bad hands and five diamonds, so we're hardly guaranteed a huge fit when opener has three diamonds.

(3) We've found that 5332 hands opposite balanced hands with 3-card support often play better in notrump rather than 4M. Thus we are not particularly eager to find opener's five-card major on such hands (not to mention it helps the opponents on lead). Note that hands with singletons normally show their singleton (i.e. 1NT-3m, 1NT-2/2NT-3M), so we can easily get to 4M on a 5-3 in these situations.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users