[shevek]

How do your methods handle these hands?

1) ♠Axxx  ♥x  ♦xx  ♣QTxxxx

You decide you want to play in 3♣ or 4♠. Can you cover both bases?

2) ♠x  ♥KJxxx  ♦xxxx  ♣Axx

You decide this hand is worth an invite. Seem to be 4 choices:
Transfer then 2NT
Transfer then 3♥
Stayman then 2NT over 2♠
Stayman then 3♥ over 2♠. What is that?

What if partner bids 2♦ over 2♣? What is the status of 2♥ & 3♥?

[kenrexford]

On the first, I had a method a while back. The idea was to take advantage of the reality that super-accepts promise four cards (usually). Transfers, then, could be invitational canape hands. If you transferred and then bid a minor, it was canape. If partner super-accepted, you raised to game. This solved problem hands like this.

Of course, this left a problem of what to do with the normal hand for that maneuver. It all ended up rather complicated, but I still think there might be something there to be tapped.

On the second, I also once played that a transfer to hearts and then a 2♠ call showed an unbalanced game try in hearts (like many play for 2♣...2♠). That also has a downside, in that 2♠ in that sequence is artificial, forcing the three-level if spades does end up the trump suit.

[andy_h]

1. My first stayman structure that I was taught was to stayman then 3m to show these type of hands. But that meant the 5+m4M GF hands require you to transfer to the minor and bid the major which wasn't good at all. Plus, the Axxx x xx Q10xxxx hands come up pretty rarely (if we have a spade fit, maybe the opponents will have a heart fit and interfere) and it just isn't worth it.

2. I will transfer to hearts and bid 2NT invite (or in my system, 2♠ playing retransfers). I don't think stayman is good because that becomes a wash when partner might superaccept over our 2♦ transfer. And by transferring and bidding 2NT, I think partner will be pulling to hearts almost always when we have an 8 card fit given the possibility of responder having an unbalanced nature of a hand. The 5M-5m invite hands are always the hard hands to bid, but I guess you just have to make do with what you have.

Responding to the other sequences that were suggested:
- Transfer then 3♥ lacking the 6th heart is a very big lie which could work out very badly.
- Stayman then 3♥ over 2♠ is conventional for me showing an unknown splinter agreeing spades. Though I would have thought the 'standard' meaning would be a GF+ raise in spades (like a quant hand with support)
- Status of 2♥/3♥ over 1NT-2♣-2♦ I would assume would be both majors sign off and smolen, respectively.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on Dec 29 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

Transfers, then, could be invitational canape hands.  If you transferred and then bid a minor, it was canape.  If partner super-accepted, you raised to game.  This solved problem hands like this.

I learned this from an old Hungarian expert book. I thought it was awesome but then on this forum I learned that there are better and more logical meanings

So on 1: 2♠ and sign off in 3♣.

2: 2♦ and 2NT. if partner bids 3♥ I raise it to game.

1NT-2♣
2♠-3♥

is usually played as an artificial slam invite.

[fromageGB]

andy_h, on Dec 29 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

1. My first stayman structure that I was taught was to stayman then 3m to show these type of hands. But that meant the 5+m4M GF hands require you to transfer to the minor and bid the major which wasn't good at all.

I play and have not noticed a problem transferring to a minor then bidding 3M on a 4 card suit on the way to game. (What am I overlooking?) So with me, the sequence of 2♣ followed by 3♣ is to play, with this hand type.
(I don't have an invitational alternative.)

However, while I would be happy to do this over a 2♦ reply, a 2♥ reply may also have 4 spades, so I bid 2♠ which partner may pass with a fit. (I would also bid the same way with a hand that does not want to go to game, so partner can pass the 2♠.) If he converts to 2NT, then I bid 3♣ to play.

So the answer is yes, but I am only in a spade game if opener has 4 spades and does not have 4 hearts.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 No
#2 Tranfer followed by 2NT,
Transfer followed by 3H is out, I have only 5
Stayman followed by 2NT over 2S showes at best 4 hearts, and
this is not even the case in all methods, but I have 5
Stayman followed by 3H over 2S is a gameforcing raise for spade
2H over 2D is for most scrambling, i.e. weak 4-4, asking partner to show
his better major
3H over 2D is Smolen, showing 5 spades, 4 hearts

With kind regards
Marlowe

[shevek]

andy_h, on Dec 29 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

1. My first stayman structure that I was taught was to stayman then 3m to show these type of hands. But that meant the 5+m4M GF hands require you to transfer to the minor and bid the major which wasn't good at all. Plus, the Axxx x xx Q10xxxx hands come up pretty rarely (if we have a spade fit, maybe the opponents will have a heart fit and interfere) and it just isn't worth it.

Andy, I realise that Stayman then 3x is now played as forcing. However, if you play 4-way transfers, how are these Stayman sequences better than transferring then bidding your major? That's what I have always done with the gain of super-accepts plus avoiding interference over 2♣.

I guess that some use a minor transfer then 3M as a shortage. Is there any other reason to prefer the Stayman route on 4M/5m GF hands?

[mike777]

If you stayman and then bid yourminor ...partner can cue-accept at the 3 level. If you transfer and then bid your major at the three level partner cannot cue=accept at a low level and partner cannot accept yourmajor at a low level.


Playing your style say:

1nt=3c(d)
3d=3s
? partner is at the 4 level already.


but:

1nt=2c
2d=3d
3h......accept d, cue h.



You can still have a slam even if partner does not super accept your minor suit tfr.

[inquiry]

At one time I had a partnership that played an "invitational 2♦" response to an opening bid of 1NT. It used paradox responses. If partner would accept a game try in hearts, he has to bid beyond 2♥, if he would not, he bids 2♥. If he would accept game in hearts but not in spades, he would bid 2♠, etc. That would solve hand two nicely, the bidding would be... ,

1NT- 2♦
2♥ --> end auction
other --> get to game

A two heart response would DENY a game try in hearts. So the auction would end in 2♥ if partner bid 2♥ or game in hearts/NT if he bid something else. You basically never get to 3M after opening 1NT, you play 2M or 4M. It had some successes, but wrong hands 2M contracts when really weak as the auction is 1NT-2M to signoff in the major.

[Stephen Tu]

If you are willing to play a "pass or bash" strategy over NT (e.g. no 2nt invite after stayman, bid game or just decide to pass 1NT to begin with), you can use 1nt-2c-2x-2nt as transfer to clubs, with 3c = transfer to diamonds, to handle multiple strength ranges. There's also a method (described in the book "Notrump bidding the Scanian way"), that does the same things with these bids, but includes invitational 4 cd hands in the transfer bids, with various consequences for how opener accepts & various gains & losses vs. more traditional methods.

[andy_h]

shevek, on Dec 30 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

andy_h, on Dec 29 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

1. My first stayman structure that I was taught was to stayman then 3m to show these type of hands. But that meant the 5+m4M GF hands require you to transfer to the minor and bid the major which wasn't good at all. Plus, the Axxx x xx Q10xxxx hands come up pretty rarely (if we have a spade fit, maybe the opponents will have a heart fit and interfere) and it just isn't worth it.

Andy, I realise that Stayman then 3x is now played as forcing. However, if you play 4-way transfers, how are these Stayman sequences better than transferring then bidding your major? That's what I have always done with the gain of super-accepts plus avoiding interference over 2♣.

I guess that some use a minor transfer then 3M as a shortage. Is there any other reason to prefer the Stayman route on 4M/5m GF hands?

I think it is very important for us to have the maximum amount of space to exchange information to determine which strain we belong in. The obvious example are the 5m4M GF hands. If the systemic way to show that is via transfer to the minor and bid the major, regardless if partner superaccepts or not, you have no idea whether we belong in 3NT or 5m because the partnership doesn't have the space to bid out values. (Eg. 1NT-2♠(clubs)-2NT/3♣-3♠. If opener has 1 red suit stopped and responder is 5431 with shortage in that red suit, is he now to guess what to bid? Compare that to 1NT-2♣-2♦/2♥-3♣, now the partnership has enough space to sort it out. If it turns out that the partnership doesn't have a fit for the minor and there's a wide open suit for 3NT, you might even get the chance to play in 4M on a 4-3 fit!)

Also, the near slam zone auctions are now less defined because when you transfer to the minor and bid the major, if opener has a fit for the major he may be unnecessarily need to cue to give away info when responder might just be 10 high cards with no slam interest, but the auction is so high already that you get little information exchanged. (Eg. 1NT-2NT(diamonds)-3♣/3♦-3♥-? Is 3♠ by opener a 3nt probe? Or is it Agreeing hearts? Or is it a 2-way thing that might give responder a headache? Compare this to 1NT-2♣-2M-? If opener has hit responder's major, I think the standard expert sequences allow responder to 1) show any shortage (via 3oM), 2) have a GF+ raise in the major (via 4♣), 3) keycard (via 4♦).)

Also, this allows what you had mentioned is that you can utilise a minor transfer and a 3x bid to show 6+m GF with a shortage which is perfect for a strain seeking of 3NT vs. 5m and it may produce a good slam too. Don't you just hate it when you have 6m and like 11highs with a major shortage, you blast 3NT and they run the first 5 tricks in your shortage when 5m is cold?

Anyway, the advantages you gain are tremendous at the "cost" of the inability to show the 6-7HCP hands of (41)(62) which, in essence as I mentioned before, that the opponents may still help you out.

And as to the point about the opponents interfering over 2♣ when responder has a gameforcing hand. I wouldn't mind at all if they interfere because that gives us even more information and it also allows us to penalise them when necessary. If they interfere at the 3level this would be a wash as they would also overcall had you transferred to a minor.

[Fluffy]

shevek, on Dec 29 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Stayman then 3♥ over 2♠. What is that?

Balanced slam try in spades.


The hand you have show I can bid it 2 ways, if invitational I think transfer then 2NT i sthe only way to handle. But if upgrading to GF I'd bid something really artificial:

1NT-2♦ (forces 2♥)
2♥-2♠ (5M,4m,3-1 might have spades and not hearts)
2NT-3♥ (1♠5♥-43 or 34 in the minors).

[whereagles]

shevek, on Dec 29 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

How do your methods handle these hands?

1) ♠Axxx  ♥x  ♦xx  ♣QTxxxx

You decide you want to play in 3♣ or 4♠. Can you cover both bases?

2) ♠x  ♥KJxxx  ♦xxxx  ♣Axx

You decide this hand is worth an invite. Seem to be 4 choices:
Transfer then 2NT
Transfer then 3♥
Stayman then 2NT over 2♠
Stayman then 3♥ over 2♠. What is that?

What if partner bids 2♦ over 2♣? What is the status of 2♥ & 3♥?

Hand 1: no. I'd play either 3♣ or a game (4♠ or 5♣). Cannot cater for both unless it were a passed hand.

Hand 2: under standard methods, I'd say transfer + 2NT.

Also under standard, 1NT-2♣-2♦-??

2♥ = 4 spades, 5 hearts, inv.
3♥ = 4 spades, 5 hearts, GF (or 4H5S if you play smolen)

NOTE: this is what the book I read advocates (french one). Naturally, in my own system I tweaked it to my taste

[shevek]

Thanks Andy. Complete & convincing. As you know, I'm way out of touch with mainstream bidding theory.

[gnasher]

Heeman lets you show invitational 5-4 and 4-5 shapes, without a huge loss of accuracy on otehr hands.

[straube]

1. 1N-2C, 2H-2N,
.....P=nonfitting minimum (i.e. stuck in 2N)
.....3C-nonfitting maximum (i.e. partner expects to hear 3N but you pass instead)


2. 1N-2D, 2H-2S,
.....2N-nonfitting minimum
..........P or 3D as nf