[olien]

This system is good opposite a weak NT because the weak/INV hands are played by opener, but when responder has a strong hand, then responder gets to play it:

2♣ standard stayman
2♦ forces 2♥
...........weak with ♥
...........INV with ♠
...........weak or GF with both minors
...........INV with ♣
...........GF with ♦
...........GF with ♥ that wants to play from opener's side
2♥ forces 2♠
...........weak with ♠
...........INV+ with ♥
...........GF with ♠ that wants to play from opener's side
2♠ Natural GF
2NT forces 3♣
..........weak with ♣
..........INV with any 6+ card suit except ♣
..........mild SI with ♣
..........want to play ♣ from opener's side
3♣ forces 3♦
.........weak with ♦
.........GF with ♣
.........want to play ♦ from partner's side
3♦ 5/5+ Majors, INV or better
3M weak
3NT relay to pass
4♣ roman gerber
4♦ weak
4M to play


1NT-2♣:
Opener makes standard re-bids but responder's 3m re-bid is NF
The advantage to this is now you can make a weak Game Try w/ 4M 5+m

1NT-2♦// 2♥:
Pass weak with ♥
2♠ INV 5+♠
2NT weak or GF minors
..........3m preference
................3M both minors GF, shortness
3♣ INV with ♣
3♦ GF with ♦
3M 4M 5+♦ GF
3NT choice of games with primary ♦
4♥ want to play 4♥ from partner's side


1NT-2♥// 2♠:
2NT INV with 5♥
3m 5+♥ 4+m GF
3♥ 6+♥ GF
3♠ splinter
3NT choice of games with 5♥
4m splinters with primary ♥
4♠ want to play 4♠ from partner's hand


1NT-2♠:
2NT normal bid
3x natural with super accept for ♠


1NT-2NT// 3♣
3♦/M Natural INV
3NT mild slam interest with ♣
4♣ strong SI with ♣ but want to play from partner's side
5♣ want to play 5♣ from partner's side


1NT-3♣// 3♦:
3M 4M 5+♣ GF
3NT choice of games type hand with ♣
4♣ strong slam interest with ♣
5♣ to play
5♦ want to play 5♦ from partner's side


Rest of structure is pretty much common sense. Hope you enjoy this

[han]

Some of your bids are more vulnerable in competition because they don't immediately promise a suit. I think rightsiding really isn't important enough to accept this downside.

[Echognome]

I think you have some nice ideas in here and I can see how they could be effective.

As Han describes though, it would be good if you had some notes down on how to handle interference. The 2♦ bid seems especially vulnerable to sort out after interference.

[helene_t]

Looks interesting.

[rbforster]

I agree it seems like a very comprehensive system in terms of constructive bidding. Depending on how weak your NT is, a competing goal might be to make immediate non-forcing bids to make it hard for the opponents to compete. For example,

1N(10-13)-(P)-2♠(to play) - (?)

vs

1N - (P) - 2♥(->2♠) - (?)

gives both a direct double and a delayed double to show different hands, as well as a direct 2♠ bid as some sort of two-suited takeout.

[benlessard]

Quote

Some of your bids are more vulnerable in competition because they don't immediately promise a suit. I think rightsiding really isn't important enough to accept this downside.

Agree 100%.


1Nt----(P)-----2D-------(X)
P*------(3D)----???

*(Opener could XX 2D to show a maximum hand without H support but you lose the meaning of the standard XX).

Opener couldnt complete the transfer because he doesnt like H or couldnt superaccept H.


Now your at the 3 level with a hand that could make 3H/3S/4H/4S/3Nt but could go down in 3H or 3S.


Weak NT is a curious beast youll win most of your imps on stupid auction and lose most of your imps on science.

Just for signoffing

1Nt---(P)-----2S to play is going to bring IMPs vs 1Nt---(P)-----2H (transfer to play)

Playing transfer over a weak Nt is surely playable but no matter how much science you put into it, it likely that direct bidding will give the same reward. Weak nt isnt really for the system geek its for the practical players.

[glen]

benlessard, on Dec 17 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

...Just for signoffing

1Nt---(P)-----2S to play is going to bring IMPs vs 1Nt---(P)-----2H (transfer to play) ...

There is a considerable difference between:

1NT-2♥ transfer; and
1NT-2♥ various

In 1NT-2♥ transfer, either opponent can act with short ♠s.
In 1NT-2♥ various, the player after the 1NT bidder is frozen - not enough to take direct action over 1NT, and now not enough to compete after 1NT-2♥;-2♠ since risks finding out that responder has a nice hand without primary ♠s.

[glen]

olien, on Dec 16 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

... 2♣   standard stayman
...
1NT-2♣:
Opener makes standard re-bids but responder's 3m re-bid is NF
The advantage to this is now you can make a weak Game Try w/ 4M 5+m

I never saw much point in this on bad hands - finding a major fit just spurs the opponents into action. I would prefer:

1NT-2♣-;any-3m as bad invite or close to it.
A weaker hand with a 6+ minor just signs off. Good invites just bash game.

Using this approach, one can take out the ♣s invite out of the 2♦ response in the above structure.

5-4/4-5 major invites are troublesome in many NT structures. If you play:

1NT-2♦ as ♥s weak, or 5+♠s invite+, one can bid it with 5-4 in the majors invite (i.e. 5♠s) if opener always super accepts with 4+♥s, such as:

1NT-2♦;-?
-- 2♥ denies 4♥s, and now 2♠ NF invite
-- 2♠ 4+♥s, would not accept ♠ invite
-- etc.

Likewise:
1NT-2♥ as ♠s weak or ♥s invite+. After 2♥:
-- 2♠ denies 4♥s, and now 2NT NF invite with 5♥s
-- 2NT 4+♠s, would not accept ♥ invite
-- etc.

Even without these considerations, I like the structure as posted and hope to see it in action.

[rbforster]

Some comments and observations on system holes (suggestions to follow):

1. you don't have an obvious way to handle 5=4 and 4=5 major invites cheaply (I guess you can use 1N-2♣-2♦-2M but the same shapes and weak is more common)
2. the 2♠ GF seems a little redundant together with 2♥ and 4♠, but I guess this handles the 5♠+m 2-suiters and the 5♠ balanced invite.
3. do you really need/want 3M and 4♦ as preempts?
4. no bid for both minors invitational
5. your 5+ spade invite (2♦...2♠) is really just 5 spades right, since with 6+ you'd go through 2N...3♠ (1-suiter invite)?

I might suggest a few changes. Well, it turns out to be more than a few, but I think they're good. Basically, if you think about when opener can break the transfer you can get more information in ways that don't cost much...

1. play Texas for the 4M hands that want opener to declare. This is useful even over weak NT to set trumps for RKC. For the "I want to play 4M hands", you still have a direct 4♠ and 2♥->2♠...4♥ so this is basically "free" except for the loss of the 4♦ preempt which no one else plays anyway.

2. After 1N-2N, let opener bid 3♣ with better clubs and 3♦ with better diamonds. This will help most of your responding hand types evaluate well (like the club slam tries and the diamond invites), but also means you can include the "both minors weak" option here (which just passes opener's preference, and right-sides it to boot).

3. Using #2, you can play 1N-2♦-2♥-2N as Inv+ minors (5/5+ when Inv). 3m is now a minimum preference, but 3M by opener can be good hands (either cues or showing minor preference) and 3N can accept while showing no slam interest opposite minors.

4. Using #3, note that after 1N-2♦ all of responder's hands are Inv+ except the heart signoff. This means we can have opener "superaccept" after 1N-2♦ with 4♥s and specified strength (either min or max) and have things work out. Here's a "normal" one where you accept with a ♥ maximum by bidding naturally:

1N-2♦
......2♥ any min, or max with <4♥
......2♠ (♠) 3-4♠, 4♥ max
......2N (♦) 2443 max
......3♣ (♣) 2434 max

then play transfers at the 2-3 level by responder which should get all the right-siding including the heart signoff. You can double check whether all your continuations can handle these sorts of responses, but since you've established a GF with any rebid by responder except 3♦->3♥ it shouldn't be too hard.

Here's a more creative version that superaccepts only on minimums with 4♥ and 2♠ (4 card support for the transfer suit and 2 in OM):

1N-2♦
.........2♥ all hands except mins 24xx
.........2♠ min 2443 (♥+♦)
.........2N min 2434 (♥+♣)

and then after 2♠ or 2N by opener:
.............P to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit
.............2N to play, 5♠ inv hand, no better fit
.............3♣ to play (1 suited clubs, both minors, or ♠+♣ with fit)
.............3♦ to play (both minors or ♠+♦ with a fit)
.............3♥ to play weak with hearts, or a rejected 5♠4♥ invite
.............3♠ GF minor slam try (3N rejects)
.............3N to play, could be 4♠5+♦ or diamond hand no longer interested in 5♦
.............4♥ to play, could be ♥ one suiter or 4♥5+♦

The point here is that responder with only Inv values and 5♠4♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♠ min we can play 2♠ but we can still get to 3♥ when responder has 54xx.

5. Similar to #4, let opener make a relay break after 1N-2♥ to show a minimum with 4♠2♥.

1N-2♥
.........2♠ all hands except mins 42xx
.........2N min 42xx

and then after 2N by opener:
.............P to play, 5♥ inv hand, no better fit
.............3♠ to play, weak spades or a rejected 45xx invite
.............other GFs as before (but giving up 3♠ as spade splinter)

Again, the point here is that responder with only Inv values and 4♠5♥ will now always find a major fit even opposite minimum (finding them isn't too hard opposite maxs afterall), since with opener's 3♥ min he will correct to 3♥ over 2N but we can still get to 3♠ when responder has 45xx.

I like being able to handle the Inv 5/4 majors hands this way (now you transfer to your 4cM and then bid the cheapest step unless partner breaks relay to show a fit). Obviously if opener doesn't break relay and responder shows a 5cM invite, opener will bid 3OM on the way to accepting to recover the potential 4-4 fit. This frees up the garbage stayman sequence 1N-2♣-2♦-2M as a 5M-4OM weak hand which is a nice feature too.

6. 5/5 majors - I like 3♥ as 5/5 Inv and 3♠ as 5/5 GF instead of an omnibus 3♦ for either. Splitting the Inv/GF makes continuations more clear below 3N and doesn't endplay partner when he's opened 22(54) which seems to be one of his more likely shapes when I actually have a 5/5 majors hand. (I'm not sure there are too many hands that fit the direct 3M preempt type to bother catering to these)

7. If 3♦ is free per #6, you could use it to right-side the 5M332 choice of games hands when responder wants opener to play it. Right now responder will declare 4M whenever he has this hand type (2♠...3N or 2♥...3N). You could use

1N-3♦ 5M332 GF (generally forces 3♥)
......3♠ 5♥332 choice
......3N 5♠332 choice

Or you could find another use for the free 3♦ bid, although I'm not sure what you haven't covered yet.

Edit: I seem to have forgotten about the 2N->3♣ signoff hand in my suggestion #2. You can probably include this without too much trouble in the initial 2♠ response for example:

1N-2♠ weak long ♣ or 5+♠ GF
.........2N nothing special
..............3♣ signoff
..............3♦ ♠+♦ GF
..............3♥ ♠+♣ GF (with both majors, use a 5/5 option or Smolen with 5+/4)
..............3♠+ as before
.........3♣ any superaccept for spades
...............P weak clubs
...............3♦+ GF with spades agreed

[mikeh]

I held off on posting for a while, but ...

I think the system looks interesting, and it would be unfair to reject it without trying it. What follows are some specific comments based on a first view and then some more generic comments on weak nt structures.

1. I didn't see a way to show 5/4 4/5 majors.. others have pointed this out... I suppose this is doable by adding some extensions to the 2♣ structure

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

3. I didn't see a way of establishing opener's major as trump when responder has a fit and slam interest.. I assume that this can be done, as is sometimes done over a strong nt, by using 3 of the other major as a generic slam move in support of opener's major.

On a more general level, I personally doubt that a method in which responder describes his hand is as useful as a method in which the initial approach, on big hands, is to have opener do the describing.

I know that some very good players use transfers over weak notrump, so I am not saying that this approach is silly or unplayable, but I do think it is theoretically flawed.

The weak notrump hand is narrowly defined as to point count and relatively narrowly defined in terms of shape. This combination suggests that a method that allows responder to establish an early gf while extracting shape info from opener will have some advantages, especially if the relay can be broken below game, to allow opener to express liking or disliking of his hand in context.

Posts like the OP tend to get the scientists amongst us posting their own methods, claiming that they are better than the one posted by the OP. I can't help doing so

2♣: stayman, may be very weak, may be (most) invitational hands
2♦: artificial gf, with artificial responses
2M: to play
2N: minors or diamonds: if diamonds, then weak, if minors, weak or strong
3♣: to play
3♦: invitational to 3N, 6+ suit
3M: invitational to 4M: not to 3N (may be 5-5 with a major/minor, may be 6+ major)
3N: to play
4♣: gerber
4♦: texas and so on

The key is the response structure to 2♦:

2♥ denies hearts, silent about spades, responder can bid 2♠ to ask further

Over the 2♠ ask

2N denies spades, 3♣ Baron Corollary
3♣ 4 spades, 4 diamonds
3♦ 4 spades, 4 clubs
3♥ 4333 max
3♠ 5 spades
3N 4333 min

2♠ shows hearts, denies spades. responder can ask shape via 2N, similar structure as after 2♥ response

2N shows 5+ clubs, 3♣ sets trump
3♣ shows 5+ diamonds, 3♦ sets trump
3♦ shows both majors, 3M sets trump

I saw that Ben Lessard feels that weak nt wins due to the opps' stupidity rather than to any good structure.. as someone who has played one range or another of weak notrump for many years, including at a fairly strong level, I disagree. Yes, at the club level or in a stratified event in a regional, the opps will hand you a lot of gifts by inappropriate defensive bidding, but it is possible to have some pretty good auctions to good contracts, if you have good methods.

[keylime]

Mike,

I got to admit, there's a certain sexy feel to your structure there....

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Dec 17 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

Hang on. You *want* to play in 2NT when you probably have an 8- or even 9-card fit outside? Surely it's worth the occasional 7-card fit...after all, you'd transfer to a five-card major knowing it could be a 7-card fit. There's actually more reason to play in the minor here, as partner denying four cards in a specific suit (your four-card major) increases the chance that he has length in another.

At MPs it's more interesting, but at IMPs it seems clear to play 3m. And that's leaving aside the possibility of a 4-6 shape.

In fact, that's one of the few parts of this that I like The rest of it seems too vulnerable to interference (whatever methods you have to cope with it).

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Dec 17 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

On a more general level, I personally doubt that a method in which responder describes his hand is as useful as a method in which the initial approach, on big hands, is to have opener do the describing.

I'd much rather an unbalanced responder described his hand to opener than the other way around. The main reason for this is that if opener hears that responder has a GF with spade shortage, he knows that xxx spade means that they are close to slam, and that KQT spade means that 3NT is probably the spot. If responder, with a spade singleton, hears that opener has three spades, this information helps him very little, because of those two holdings are still possible.

There are other reasons for this too, but Mike+I have debated this before without resolution, so I won't lead into the same discussion again.

[mikeh]

MickyB, on Dec 17 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 17 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

2. I really didn't like the method of bidding invitational 4M 5m hands.. it seems to me that the partnership will be playing a 7 card fit at the 3-level on too many hands.. hands where others will play a superior 2N. This is non-trivial even at imps, and positively dangerous at mps or BAM.

Hang on. You *want* to play in 2NT when you probably have an 8- or even 9-card fit outside? Surely it's worth the occasional 7-card fit...after all, you'd transfer to a five-card major knowing it could be a 7-card fit. There's actually more reason to play in the minor here, as partner denying four cards in a specific suit (your four-card major) increases the chance that he has length in another.

At MPs it's more interesting, but at IMPs it seems clear to play 3m. And that's leaving aside the possibility of a 4-6 shape.

In fact, that's one of the few parts of this that I like The rest of it seems too vulnerable to interference (whatever methods you have to cope with it).

Hang on: the method gets us to 3m when we have close to game values, according to the OP. When opener doesn't fit responder's major, the odds seem pretty high that 2N will be ok even if we miss our 9 card minor suit fit. IOW, 2N will usually play as well or better than 3m when we have a 5-3 minor fit, will frequently (altho not as often) play as well as 3m when we have a 5-4 fit, and will almost always play better when our best fit is a 7 card fit.

This has zero to do with the reasoning behind transferring to 2M when one holds a weak hand with a 5 card major.. in those circumstances, there is a serious risk that the 5 card major will score few tricks if it is not trump. In the posted scenario, depending on the range of the weak notrump, responder's hand will be as strong as or even stronger than opener's.

When we have invitational values with a 5 card major, we transfer and then bid notrump... precisely to avoid 3M on a 5-2 fit... yet the suggested method goes out of its way to find and play in the 5-2 3-level fit, in a minor to boot!

As for the 4-6, in fact if the method was changed so that 3m showed a 6 card suit, then I begin to like it.. now 3m will almost always play as well or better than 2N, and knowledge of the 6th card will allow opener to bid 3N on hands on which fear of a 4-5 hand might cause him to reject the invite.

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Dec 17 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

When we have invitational values with a 5 card major, we transfer and then bid notrump... precisely to avoid 3M on a 5-2 fit... yet the suggested method goes out of its way to find and play in the 5-2 3-level fit, in a minor to boot!

We transfer then bid NT because that is the way to show an invite with five. We still expect partner to correct to 3M on a minimum with three, even though it might be 5332 opposite 4333.

Here responder is definitely unbal and will miss a 5-4 fit if he doesn't show the minor now. What is more, should he consider his hand unsuitable for playing in his suit, he can still rebid 2NT as in standard.

What does it matter that it's a minor suit? Unlikely the oppo will compete now, so it only makes about an imp difference...guess that adds up, but still - I expect 3m to be safer most of the time.

[helene_t]

Whether 3m should show 5 or 6 sounds more like a matter of judgment than a matter of system, IMHO. In any case opener is asked to bid 3N if his hand (in context) is a maximum and otherwise pass (or bid 3♠/4♠ if there must be a fit there)

[dake50]

Why do promoters of transfer structures keep Stayman?? Make 2C -> 2D also, then Smolen-esque if both Majors; 3-suit splinter rebids with assumed Major/ switcher for 'unassumed' Major.

[olien]

1) As to the 5/4 4/5 Major hands. If GF then bid stayman and re-bid 3M (smolen or not up to you) and if <GF then sign off in 2M like standard garbage stayman. when i said standard stayman, I was referring to a pretty standard stayman structure (i.e. 3oM as strong raise of opener's M)

2)the debate on 4M 5m 2♣ followed by 3m, use judgement, it's not mandatory.

3)Also, responder does get to describe GF unbalanced hands and opener can judge the suitability of their hand for responder.

4) the asssumed NT range is 11-14 or similar

5) i must admit that the system is vulnerable to interference however, think of it this way:
.......a) the opponents, even if they bid, have no cue-bid available
.......b) they can not make a lead directional double for fear of finding out that their suit is responder's suit (i.e. 1NT-(p)-2♥-(X)-p-(p)-XX!!!)
Simply put, the opponents also don't know what responder has

6) INV hands with both minors are rare, to say the least. can sign off or GF.

7) 1NT-2♦// 2♥-2♠ is INV with EXACTLY 5-card ♠

8)being able to bid stayman and sign off in 3m is nice, say partner opens a weak NT and you have:

xx Qxxx xx AKxxx or similar, wouldn't you like to bid stayman and see if partner has 4-card ♥ and if he doesn't be able to sign off in 3♣?

[awm]

I'll just quote my response on the other notrump systems thread.

awm said:

I've had some very bad experiences playing methods where 2♦ is either a transfer to hearts or various invites that need not include hearts. It seems like opponents sometimes bid over the 2♦ call and sorting out the alternatives becomes a total nightmare.

I'd recommend that responses to 1NT should generally guarantee length in a particular suit, or guarantee invitational values... and to stay away from calls that are "either/or." But to each his own.

[benlessard]

Quote

I saw that Ben Lessard feels that weak nt wins due to the opps' stupidity rather than to any good structure

Not what ive meant .

What ive say is that your going to win imps with "simple & stupid bidding" and lose imps on "science hands".

Most of the wins come from

1Nt---all pass.

1Nt----(P)-----2M-----all pass.

1Nt----(2??)
etc.

All the tough slams hands are those where you are likely to lose imps since youve youve lost a lot of bidding space by opening 1Nt and not being able to transfer. By transfering you open yourself to direct bidding (X, cuebid,) and to delayed bidding ( pass followed by X,2Nt,new suits)

To my knowledge most top level weak Nt dont play transfers.