[Kungsgeten]

Inspired by the recent thread about 2C and 2D being transfers over 1NT, I wanted to share an idea with you: Inverted Romex Stayman over 1NT. The ideas are in line with Kit Woolsey's thoughts on playing Puppet Stayman over 1NT: responder should only get the information he needs (keeping opponent's in the dark). Compared to most common Stayman NT systems it is also possible to invite with 5M and stop in 2M.

I started sketching a while back and didn't finish all the details, but here's the concept:

1NT--
2C = Inverted Romex Stayman.
2D = Transfer with 4+ hearts.
2M = INV with 5 card suit. Non-forcing.
2NT = Transfer to clubs.
3C = GF with both minors.
3D = GF, asking for 5 card major. Either interested in 5-3 fit, or choice-of-games (COG) with 4 hearts, or GF+ with 5-5 majors.
3M = Not specified at the moment.

The major "novelty" is the 2C response. It is bid with:

a) Weak or GF hands with 5+D. 6+D if GF.
b) Balanced INV+ hands. Not 4H unless also having 4S.
c) Hands with 5+ spades, but not INV with 5S since you could bid 2S directly.
d) GF with 4S and 5+m.
e) INV+ hands with 4-4 majors.

1NT-2C;
2D = Not 4+S, not 5H. Now 2H is a normal Jacoby transfer to spades (excluding invitational hands) and 2S is INV+ with both majors. 2NT is natural INV and 3-level is GF with 4S and 5+m.
2H = 5H.
2S = 4S.
2NT = 5S, min.
3D = 5S, max (bids 3D so responder can pass with a diamond sign-off hand).


I myself quite like using 1NT-2NT or 1NT-3C as "Low Information Puppet Stayman" to find 5-3 and 4-4 major fits, using normal Stayman methods. Here that isn't necessary when having 4S, as you could simply ask with 2C. When having 4H though it is still "needed". The suggestion is to use 3D:

1NT-3D;
3H = No five card major. Now 3S shows 4H, 3NT is to play, 4m is SI with 5-5 majors and short minor, 4H is COG with 5-5 majors.
3S = 5S.
3NT = 5H.

[Zelandakh]

Kungsgeten, on 2020-June-28, 10:38, said:

The major "novelty" is the 2C response. It is bid with:

a) Weak or GF hands with 5+D. 6+D if GF.
b) Balanced INV+ hands. Not 4H unless also having 4S.
c) Hands with 5+ spades, weak or GF.
d) GF with 4S and 5+m.
e) INV+ hands with 4-4 majors.

1NT-2C;
2D = Not 4+S, not 5H. Now 2H is a normal Jacoby transfer to spades (excluding invitational hands) and 2S is INV+ with both majors. 2NT is natural INV and 3-level is GF with 4S and 5+m.

I assume this is a transcription error and you mean that 3m shows 5+m, 4♠ and 3M shows 6+♦ and M shortage?

Kungsgeten, on 2020-June-28, 10:38, said:

1NT-3D;
3H = No five card major. Now 3S shows 4H, 3NT is to play, 4m is SI with 5-5 majors and short minor, 4H is COG with 5-5 majors.

I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. If you do not come up with anything better, perhaps this should be considered as a possible meaning for the unused 3M responses, though I strongly suspect a better answer can be found by rearranging some of the other bids a little bit.

[Kungsgeten]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-28, 11:56, said:

I assume this is a transcription error and you mean that 3m shows 5+m, 4♠ and 3M shows 6+♦ and M shortage?

I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. If you do not come up with anything better, perhaps this should be considered as a possible meaning for the unused 3M responses, though I strongly suspect a better answer can be found by rearranging some of the other bids a little bit.

Yes, there needs to be a sequence to show the GF diamond hands after 1NT-2C; 2D. Since other sequences probably use 3C as a puppet to 3D, I think it makes sense to do so here as well. Could be that GF hands with diamonds are better handled by bidding 3M or similar, or just play 2NT as clubs and 3C as diamonds.

Regarding fits when responding 3D, do you mean when responder have 5-5 majors? I guess it depends on how likely you are to open 1NT without a 3 card major. When having slam ambitions I agree its a bit awkward for opener to bid past 4M to show an accept.

[johnu]

I don't think I saw invitational hands with a 6+ card major.

[Kungsgeten]

johnu, on 2020-June-29, 02:32, said:

I don't think I saw invitational hands with a 6+ card major.

Let's take hearts first. You transfer to hearts with 2D. Then like this:

1NT-2D; 2H--
2S = 4 hearts, INV+.
2NT+ = 5+ hearts. Not invitational with 5 hearts.

So you can put INV with 6H here. Since INV with 5 hearts bids 2H directly, you could for instance use transfers:

1NT-2D; 2H--
2NT = 4+ clubs.
3C = 4+ diamonds.
3D = 6+ hearts, GF.
3H = 6 hearts INV.

Or similar.

With 5+ spades you start by responding 2C. I was mistaken in the original post (will edit), you bid 2C also with 6S and invitational values. If opener rebids 2D then you can transfer to spades with 2H and then play whatever methods you like. Again its possible to use transfers or similar, since 2NT isn't needed for INV hands with 5 spades.
It gets a bit more tricky when opener rebids 2H (showing 5 hearts). I haven't thought out all the details here, but as an example:

1NT-2C; 2H--
2S = To play.
2NT = INV.
3C = Puppet to 3D. Weak or strong with diamonds.
3D = GF with 5+ spades.
3H = INV.
3S = INV with 6 spades.
3NT = To play.
4m = Cue bid for hearts.
4H = To play.

If opener instead rebids 2S or higher you've found a 10+ fit (if you had an invitational hand with 6S), so make a slam try or bid game.

[Zelandakh]

johnu, on 2020-June-29, 02:32, said:

I don't think I saw invitational hands with a 6+ card major.

That one is pretty easy to deal with I think but a more serious flaw comes in the form of invitational hands with 5-4 in the majors. Since 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ has to cover all invitational hands with both majors, from 4-4 and up, there is no safety at all on these in finding a potential 3-5 fit whenever Opener is minimum. You might be willing to give up on the fit and play in 2NT on some of these but there will be many hands where the presence of fit alone is enough to make game and you are essentially accepting a big hit on all of those hands. Now the 5♥4♠ hand could be handled by disallowing Opener to pass a 2♥ response with 4 spades even with a bare minimum but the 5♠4♥ hand is not so easy to fix without a more substantive change.

But my biggest issue with the structure so far is just that I am struggling to see the gain. Both minors GF at 3♣ is very nice of course but it in no way makes up for losing out on some important major-oriented hand types. It is not like we are giving away less information than in a 2♣ Puppet structure. And the big bonus that causes the issues, stopping in 2M on 5M invites, is one of those things that sounds great but in reality has some issues. In particular, if Opener passes with a fit they are risking missing a game, and if Opener only ever passes with a misfitting minimum, is 2M really much better than 2NT? This is why I took great pains in my 1NT structure for (almost) every distributional invite to end at 2NT.

There are parts of the structure I do like though. In particular the use of 3 suit transfers and passing diamonds through 2♣ is one I have advocated for a long time as it just makes the numbers work really well. And I feel a sense of deja vu in that when I was working out my Puppet structure, dealing with the 5♠4♥ invite was the key piece of the puzzle to make it all come together. If you solve this one the rest will probably work well enough. Would you be willing to have Opener rebid 2NT over 2♠ with a minimum 2♠4♥ hand? That would probably work but you are potentially leaking a lot of information on a hand type where it is quite serious (misfitting 2NT contract) so if you can find an alternative solution, that would almost certainly be better. The same could also be said of the earlier suggestion of bidding 2♠ over 2♥. In any case, I personally would not play a method that just ignored 5M4M invitational hands, so I think you should at least have a good think about whether the 2M invite is worth the cost here.

[Kungsgeten]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-29, 04:25, said:

I think but a more serious flaw comes in the form of invitational hands with 5-4 in the majors.

But my biggest issue with the structure so far is just that I am struggling to see the gain.

My guess is that I'll never play this structure, but its nice to tinker with ideas. Regarding 5-4 majors I agree that it is a flaw. Actually I find it to be a flaw in many NT structures if playing 1NT-2C; 2D-2H as "garbage". In the NT structure I actually play the 5-4 majors INV hands are the weakest part I'd say.

Anyway in the presented method I think solving 5-4 majors could be done. A simple approach would be to give up "transfers after transfer" and play something like:

1NT-2D; 2H--
2S = INV+ with 4H.
2NT = INV with 5H and 4S.
Higher = Many methods to choose from showing 5+H and GF values or 6H and INV values.

1NT-2C; 2D-2H; 2S--
2NT = INV with 5S and 4H.

Regarding the gains the thought process started with the NT system I currently play. We play a normal 2C Stayman response, but due to our 2D response it is unfrequent to hold 4 hearts when bidding 2C. Our 2D response is three-way: a) 5+ hearts, normal transfer. b) INV with 4 hearts. c) INV without a major.
We also play 1NT-3C as Puppet Stayman, so COG hands with 4H goes through there. Because of this, our 2C response covers the following:

a) Hands with at least 4-4 majors, any range.
b) INV hands with 4 spades.
c) Weak hands intending to pass the response.
d) 4M and 5+ minor, weak or GF (we can sign-off in 3m if we do not like the response).
e) Balanced hands with slam interest that want to ask opener's shape (can find out five cards suits, 4-4:s and 4333).

A flaw in this method is that hand type B is very common, and responder does seldom want to know if opener have 4 hearts. Adding to this opener also rebids 2H when holding 4-4 majors. So I've tinkered with alternative methods where 2C is basically "Stayman but focusing on spades" and 2D is used as Stayman for hearts.

[Zelandakh]

Kungsgeten, on 2020-June-29, 05:22, said:

1NT-2D; 2H--
2S = INV+ with 4H.
2NT = INV with 5H and 4S.

I am sure you know that is similar to my method and in my view it is a lot more efficient than the traditional structure. Here the new 2♠ rebid means that you can remove the 4♥ cog hand from the 3♦ response. By also including an ask for 5 spades in the 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ sequence, you could therefore make your 3♦ response a pure 5-5, which would be a major improvement.

Kungsgeten, on 2020-June-29, 05:22, said:

1NT-2C; 2D-2H; 2S--
2NT = INV with 5S and 4H.

That would work and is quite logical. Essentially the 2 hand types are just trading places against a standard structure. Putting it together:-

2♣ = 5+♦ weak; or 5+♠ weak; or 4+♠ INV+; or 6+♦ GF; or no M INV
... - 2♦ = <4♠, <5♥
... - ... - 2♥ = 5+♠
... - ... - ... - 2♠
... - ... - ... - ... - 2NT = 4♥ INV
... - ... - ... - ... - 3m = 4+m GF (if you switched these you could potentially include 6+♠ SI here but it is tight)
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 5+♥ INV
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 6+♠ INV (or SI if you want to respond 2♠ on these)
... - ... - 2♠ = 44xy INV
... - ... - 2NT = no M INV (I would consider switching these for consistency. If you did you could potentially include minor suit Baron in the 2♠ rebid)
... - ... - 3♣ = 5+♦ GF
... - ... - 3♦ = 4♠5+♣ GF (are you sure you are not better off here using 3m = 4♠5+m and 3M = 6+♦ 0-1M?)
... - 2♥ = 5♥ (you appear to be missing a call over this for a 4♠5+♣ SI hand)
... - ... - 2♠ = 5+♠ weak
... - ... - 2NT = x2yz INV
... - ... - 3♣ = 5+♦, puppet to 3♦
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+♠ GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 3+♥ INV
... - ... - 3♠ = 6+♠ INV
... - 2♠ = 4♠
... - ... - 2NT = no M INV
... - ... - 3♣ = 5+♦, puppet to 3♦
... - ... - 3♦ = 4+♠ GF (?)
... - ... - 3♥ = ask "do you have 5♠?" (?)
... - ... - 3♠ = 4+♠ INV
2♦ = 4+♥
... - 2♥ = <4♥
... - ... - 2♠ = 4♥ INV; or 4♥5+m GF (6+♥ SI could also be included here, if desired)
... - ... - 2NT = 5♥4♠ INV
... - ... - 3♣ = 5+♥4+♣ GF
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+♥4+♦ GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 6+♥ INV (or SI if you want to respond 2♥ on these)
2M = 5M INV
2NT = 6+♣
3♣ = both minors GF
3♦ = 5+♥5+♠ GF
3M = ? (6+M SI would be logical if not using either of the other suggestions for this hand type)
--

OK, I think this all more or less fits together now except for that pesky 4♠5+♣ hand. Since 2♠, 2NT and 3♥ are more or less forced there, you either need to respond 2♠ with the 6+♠ INV type or make it so that 3♦ is 5+♠ or 4♠5+♣. Alternatively, you could take the 4♠5+♣ hand out of the 2♣ response and move it to one of the 2NT-3♠ responses. For example, you might use 2NT = 6+♣ weak; or 5+♣4+other GF and 3♣ = 6+♣ GF. Either way, this is not too far from being playable and with a few more optimisations it could even be quite good.