[PFormaini]

Pirate:

Why on Earth would you use Stayman with 2 5-card suits? It is worthless - and does nothing except provide your OPPONENTS the chance to either make a lead-directing double or else locate a possible club fit for a sacrifice against your major suit game.

There is no need for Stayman in this situation. Transfer into one major and them show the other at the 4 level.

But 3NT is inane under ANY set of circumstances. If your partner bid it, times to have a LONG discussion about when suit fits are to be preferred.

[1eyedjack]

For those who don't want an overly complicated system of continuations over 2N they can bolt on re-transfers, so that
2N-3H-3S-4C = 5-5 in spades and hearts
2N-3H-3S-4D = Spades and clubs
2N-3H-3S-4H = Spades and diamonds

or alternatively
2N-3H-3S-4C = Spades and diamonds
2N-3H-3S-4D = Spades and hearts
2N-3H-3S-4H = Spades and clubs.

Alternative 2 has a slight advantage when you have diamonds
Alternative 1 has a slight advantage when you have clubs or hearts, most notably that it allows opener to show interest with 4D. But either method allow you to show both forcing and non-forcing hands with 5-5 in the majors.

I prefer an alternative scheme altogether, but this seems to bolt reasonably seemlessly onto other methods.

[gnasher]

This thread seems to be rich in dogma.

Using 1NT-2C;2D-3D to ask for three-card majors, called Extended Stayman in England, used to be fairly normal in English Acol - in 1974, Crowhurst wrote that this was the "generally agreed" meaning. The details are similar to (but not identical to) the method described as Weissberger in the ACBL Encyclopedia.

This isn't inconsistent with playing transfers. If 1NT-2C;2D-3D covers all game-forces with 54/45/55 in the majors, you can use 1NT-2D;2H-2S, 1NT-2H;2S-3H and 1NT-2C;2D-3H/S to show other hands. I do, in fact, play this in one of my partnerships (though I'm not suggesting that this makes it any less obscure).

If 2NT-3C;3D-4D isn't needed for something more useful, it seems quite sensible to use it to show 5-5 in the majors. When responder is weak, it ensures that the contract is rightsided; when he has a marginal slam try, it means that he can find out whether there's a nine-card fit before deciding whether to make a try; if he does make a slam try, he'll know more about opener's shape and will be able to evaluate prospects better. Again, I don't mean to imply that this makes it standard.

[ninja89]

Following up on gnasher's comments, you could incorporate several other features after 2NT-3C-3D too. For instance, with 5=4 in the majors, bid 3H as a transfer to S. With 4=5, however, and only game-going values, bid 3NT. 3S serves as a puppet to 3NT, after which responder can show slam interest with a long minor naturally. 4C could show 4=5 and slam-interest, 4D used as extended stayman. It's easy to tweak things depending on what your priorities are, if, for instance, you want a way to show 5=5 and slam-interest while going through 3C. Either way, it certainly clarifies things once you transfer to a major initially.

Anyway, the point of all that is: you can make agreements work. In some cases they might not be that great, but in most cases they will work better for your having discussed and understood them in your partnership. As far as this example goes, it's not that bad an agreement to have. The relative obscurity of it is of little relevance.

[mike777]

pirate22, on May 22 2009, 01:42 AM, said:

you hold IMPS all non vuln pard dealer(N)2n/t-20-22 you south East passes ?????

Your hand QJ972---107632--984---void

when 6 answers come in---- ill pose another question please explain any bids,you make and visions

regards

3h

[mike777]

pirate22, on May 22 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

ok without smolen i went down the stayman trail 3cl to hear my pard reply 3n/t????
i was hoping for 3diamonds -if pard bids 3 diamonds would any one understand what 4 diamonds means (second question) as in 1n/t-2cl-2d-3d!!!

well over 3n/t i now bid 4hts-pard now bid 5d- passed out bad 4 spades is contract pard 3/2 majors

if one transfers 3hts -3sp-4hts im sure pard would assume slam on

interesting with 5/5 majors when is it weak and when is it strong,which route to differentiate regards

I do not think:
2nt=3h
3s=4h forces slam. I do not even think 4h is 100% forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

As far as this example goes, it's not that bad an agreement to have

It seems fairly bad to me to have zero ways to bid diamonds, when you already have multiple alternatives to be able to show both majors. 6d pays a slam bonus also.

[CSGibson]

Stephen Tu, on May 23 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

6d plays a slam bonus also.

SHHHHH! The fewer people who know that, the better. Don't let them all in on our secrets like that, Stephen!

[sfi]

Stephen Tu, on May 23 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

OK, did some internet research.  Apparently pirate22 plays an old convention called Weissberger which uses 1nt-2c-2d-3d to show both majors.  This is practically unheard of in the U.S., but had some popularity in English Acol 50 years ago, predating transfers.

Almost no one uses this any more!  Since we now have transfers, there are other ways to show both majors, and stop lower, so the convention doesn't have the utility it would without transfers, plus it takes away ability to show good hands with diamonds.

It was certainly fairly common in Texas in the early 90's. The notes I have (which were a straight copy of Soloway's system with someone) suggest that we used:

- Stayman & 3♦ to show invitational 5-5 hands
- Stayman & 4♦ to show game-only 5-5 hands
- Transfer to spades and bid hearts to show slammish 5-5s

Hands with long diamonds started with 2NT.

We had no problems with it.

[ninja89]

Sorry for not making it clear; I was aiming to say that you can have agreements in conjunction with this method which would enable you to show other, just as important hand types. The important thing is to have those agreements. I agree, by itself the convention is not ideal. But then again, I think that 2NT-3C-3D-4D as asking partner to "pick a major" in a puppet stayman sequence is also bad by itself, if your style is to open 2NT with a 5M and to ask about 5M with a 3 card M and 5-6 diamonds. Again, other agreements are needed in combination with this convention.

Anyway, as far as this example goes, I was not aware that pirate22 had pointed out his system of responses and follow-ups to 2NT. If there is no way to show diamonds, perhaps this convention should be scrapped. Since we don't know, it seems a bit presumptuous to simply denounce the convention. As sfi shows, it can work.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Anyway, as far as this example goes, I was not aware that pirate22 had pointed out his system of responses and follow-ups to 2NT. If there is no way to show diamonds, perhaps this convention should be scrapped. Since we don't know, it seems a bit presumptuous to simply denounce the convention. As sfi shows, it can work.

If you read pirate's previous posts, it's clear he was asking the context of general play with random partners on BBO. He was proposing this as a "cardinal rule" for all bridge players. Not "my special NT responding system with 4w xfers and strong 4M5+d going through the minor transfer first".

I think in the forums if you don't declare system it should be assumed discussion should be in context of SAYC / 2/1 / Bridge World Standard, not "guess what my pet obscure system is even though I didn't specify anything" or even "stone age Acol".

[ninja89]

Yes good point, I missed that. Sorry. I performed the cardinal sin of stating my evidence without looking at it. I don't think he was proposing this as a "cardinal rule" though, he just didn't know better.