[jillybean]

I’ve never played Smolen. To me, it always seemed like a lot of memory strain for very little practical benefit, not to mention forgets.
I would much rather use my memory cells for conventions like XYZ, Multi

It makes me wonder: for your average club player, why bother? Is it really that much of a benefit to keep the 15-17 NT hand concealed?
For more serious partnerships, is it a standard tool. How often does it actually swing a board compared to just playing a simpler, standard alternative?

[DavidKok]

Over here Smolen is standard, even in less serious partnerships.

I think in practice it has a very minor impact on your score. It almost never comes up, and when it does, regularly you will retreat to 3NT, and even if you do end up in 4M frequently the siding will not matter. In fact, I think this is true for a lot of conventions - their impact individually is very marginal, and it only starts mattering if you have multiple similar agreements that you are interested in.

[mike777]

JB Multi??????


Multi is still banned in 99.99% of ACBL games we will ever play in.

I even asked our local club if with permission of the table I could experiment with Multi....before I got the sentence out of my mouth, it was a firm NO!

I suppose in friendly BBO online games it is allowed.


-----------------


Agree with everything DAVIDK said

[P_Marlowe]

We play Smolen, after 1NT and 2NT ... we keep our agreement in sync.
As DaveKok said Smolen after 1NT is standard, but most players would play a version of
Puppet Stayman after a 2NT opening, 5 card majors are more often in a 2NT opening,
and Smolen does not work with Puppet, ...,
3D as an answer to 3C puppet usually showes a 4 card major, Standard Stayman ... 3D denies.

Does it come up often: No. Would it matter, if we dropped it: No. But it is ok.

[dave251164]

AI Overview
Playing the Smolen convention in bridge is generally considered worth it for partnerships that regularly play standard Stayman and want to find hidden 5-3 major suit fits.

Benefits of Smolen
Correct Declarer: It keeps the stronger 1NT hand as the declarer, protecting the strength from the opening lead.Clarifies Distribution: It solves the problem of having 5 cards in one major and 4 in the other after a Stayman sequence (1NT - 2♣ - 2♦).Easy Memory: Bidding the 3-level in the 4-card major actually promises a 5-card suit in the other major (e.g., bidding 3♥ shows 5 spades and 4 hearts).

Drawbacks to Consider
Memory Load: Both partners must remember that the bid is artificial and inverted.Forcing Nature: It is a game-forcing convention at the 3-level, meaning you cannot use it with weak or minor invitational hand types without prior agreement.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 08:32, said:

I’ve never played Smolen. To me, it always seemed like a lot of memory strain for very little practical benefit, not to mention forgets.
<snip>

Even if you forget it, ..., you may end up in a playable contract.
In a League Match, partner forgot it, I played in a 4-3 ... the normal contract was 3NT, but due to layout
both contracts went down, so no big loss.
The next board Smolen showed up again, on my side of the screen I told my opp., great that we clarified it
not too long ago, that we played it.

[mw64ahw]

No Smolen for me.

There are other ways to achieve the same result without using these specific bids. For example:

1N-2♦
2♥-2/3N 45xx GI/GF
with right-siding benefits.

[barmar]

Another benefit of Smolen is that it allows you to refine the meaning of other sequences. If all game-forcing 5-4 hands use Smolen, then you can give another meaning to the sequence 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♥. It could be invitational 5-4, or game-forcing 5-5.

[mikeh]

I play smolen. Over our 2N we play a form of muppet, which allows us to, in essence, use puppet stayman and smolen. That is somewhat memory intensive. But regular smolen is only memory intensive if you think it is. Iow, it’s less memory work than a coherent xyz treatment. If your brain can handle xyz, you should have no problem with smolen once you stop telling yourself that it’s too hard.


Does it arise often? No.

But you could play a full session of bridge and not have a jacoby transfer auction. On another day you won’t have a weak two. On yet another, you won’t have a drury auction. There are far more conventions in play than there are hands in a session.

Frequency of use is definitely a factor to consider when weighing the adoption of a new convention (new to your partnership). Ease of memory is another but is one that many advancing players over think. Familiarity makes earlier fears of forgets seem overblown in hindsight. Btw, I’ve probably played more artificial agreements than anybody here, partly because I’ve played duplicate for more than 50 years but mostly because I an very much a fan of complex methods and I have a good memory. But…and I think this is important to appreciate…I have had an enormous number of forgets….roughly one for every artificial agreement I’ve ever played. Nothing makes me remember a gadget better than forgetting it…that may sound paradoxical but I suspect I’m not alone when I say I remember my mistakes better than I remember anything good that I manage to do.

As for why I play smolen: it’s not that much about right-siding. In my main partnership we do consider right siding more than most, and that principle underlies a lot of our relay sequences, where we try to maximize having the undescribed hand as declarer. But even though we spend a lot of time developing such methods, in reality right siding is a low frequency issue. But smolen makes trivial an otherwise difficult problem…how to show 5=4 majors with gf values after either 1N or 2N. Stayman doesn’t really work well for the 5=3 fit. And often 3N is inferior…responder is often 5431 and opener needn’t have his stiff suit well stopped. Plus when opener is 3=2 majors, with a 5=3 fit, he may be able to take a ruff in his hand. Finally, smolen helps on the infrequent slam bidding.

In summary…I think the memory demands are more imaginary than real (compared to other methods people play),and while the frequency is low, that’s true of many conventions that are popular, and there are virtually no theoretical downsides. Put another way: when I play with someone who doesn’t know muppet, I’ll ask them to play smolen over 2N rather than puppet, since I think smolen is more useful.

[paulg]

I play Smolen over 1NT and 2NT, including with my wife who plays few conventions, and she's had no problems remembering it.

[P_Marlowe]

I also think, that the complexity of Smolen is low, the idea to bid the other major
showes up in certain Multi response structures as well.

[jillybean]

Thanks. "Memory strain" was the wrong description — it's not a complex method. Rather, why bother? I didn't see the benefit of adding the artificial sequence.

The question was asked in the context of an average club player, and I'm still not convinced an average club player benefits from Smolen.

mikeh, on 2026-August-20, 14:33, said:

But smolen makes trivial an otherwise difficult problem…how to show 5=4 majors with gf values after either 1N or 2N. Stayman doesn’t really work well for the 5=3 fit. And often 3N is inferior…responder is often 5431 and opener needn’t have his stiff suit well stopped. Plus when opener is 3=2 majors, with a 5=3 fit, he may be able to take a ruff in his hand. Finally, smolen helps on the infrequent slam bidding.

I'm obviously not understanding this, what is wrong with 1N 2C 2D 3S showing 5S-4H?
If we don't have a major fit, opener is going to play in 3nt opposite 5431 regardless of methods.

[mycroft]

I am not sure the average club player needs Smolen. I strongly encourage players to play it.

I believe if you are playing any form of Puppet Stayman, over 1 or 2NT, that the concept of "at the 3 level, when you're forcing, you bid the suit you 'don't have' to get partner to play the fit if you do have one" is just a continuation of the *uppet logic, which is my way to minimize the memory load.

I think you want to discuss (because my partner, and my knowledgeable opponent, had a different opinion to me) whether 4-6 is Smolenable (or, in fact, should be Smolened). Because I didn't, we played the slam in the unmakable 6-2 fit, rather than the "makes on a 3-2 trump break" 4-4 fit. But it does mean some auctions are - weird.

But if it is in fact a memory load at all, there are *much more common* auctions to fix, and *much more reward* spending the time learning a new defensive or declarer trick. And "average club players" don't have the system they already play down and/or are prone to conventionitis leading to malformed system and system forgets - so, you know, "don't add to it"?

[blackshoe]

Some people, I think, tend to forget things with which they don't agree (for whatever reason) more often than other things. So that may be part of it. "I don't want to play that" so I forget that I agreed to do so. Oops. :-)

To me Smolen is just a transfer at the three level. Now, I'm not one to hear "transfer" and think "must.. bid.. suit.. below". One who does think that way is I suppose more likely to get it wrong.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2026-August-21, 10:25, said:

I think you want to discuss (because my partner, and my knowledgeable opponent, had a different opinion to me) whether 4-6 is Smolenable (or, in fact, should be Smolened). Because I didn't, we played the slam in the unmakable 6-2 fit, rather than the "makes on a 3-2 trump break" 4-4 fit. But it does mean some auctions are - weird.

The usual way to handle 4-6 is with "delayed Texas". Start with Stayman, and if opener bids 2♦ transfer to the 6-card suit at the 4 level. So either
1NT-2♣-2♦-4♦ (4♠ + 6♥)
or
1NT-2♣-2♦-4♥ (4♥ + 6♠)

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-August-21, 08:22, said:

Thanks. "Memory strain" was the wrong description — it's not a complex method. Rather, why bother? I didn't see the benefit of adding the artificial sequence.

The question was asked in the context of an average club player, and I'm still not convinced an average club player benefits from Smolen.


I'm obviously not understanding this, what is wrong with 1N 2C 2D 3S showing 5S-4H?
If we don't have a major fit, opener is going to play in 3nt opposite 5431 regardless of methods.

Smolen hides the lesser defined hand.
Basically the NT opener plays the major suit, ..., getting to play the contract by the NT opener
is one the first reason that gets mentioned, if someone asks, why one should play xfer,
even it is not the main reason, but a valid reason nevertheless.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-August-25, 13:09, said:

The usual way to handle 4-6 is with "delayed Texas". Start with Stayman, and if opener bids 2♦ transfer to the 6-card suit at the 4 level. So either
1NT-2♣-2♦-4♦ (4♠ + 6♥)
or
1NT-2♣-2♦-4♥ (4♥ + 6♠)

Seems quite rational although "usual" may be an overbid

FWIW 6-4 (or a 6-5 that looks more like 6-4 than 5-5) is the *only* major two-suiter I put through transfer rather than my "Stayman", whatever the strength.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-August-20, 08:32, said:

I’ve never played Smolen. To me, it always seemed like a lot of memory strain for very little practical benefit, not to mention forgets.
I would much rather use my memory cells for conventions like XYZ, Multi

It makes me wonder: for your average club player, why bother? Is it really that much of a benefit to keep the 15-17 NT hand concealed?
For more serious partnerships, is it a standard tool. How often does it actually swing a board compared to just playing a simpler, standard alternative?

I understand the hesitation about adding another artificial bid, but I've always found Smolen simple to remember because it's such an unusual sounding bid. Makes you stop and go what the heck?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-August-21, 08:22, said:

Thanks. "Memory strain" was the wrong description — it's not a complex method. Rather, why bother? I didn't see the benefit of adding the artificial sequence.

The question was asked in the context of an average club player, and I'm still not convinced an average club player benefits from Smolen.


I'm obviously not understanding this, what is wrong with 1N 2C 2D 3S showing 5S-4H?
If we don't have a major fit, opener is going to play in 3nt opposite 5431 regardless of methods.

Consider 1N 2C 2D 3S, showing gf values and 5=4 in the majors. Say opener decides to play in spades. Responder is unlimited…anywhere from a bare game force to strong slam interest or more.

Now, you could play that 4m by opener agrees spades and is a cuebid, but that information may help the opps more than partner when partner has a minimum. Plus now you have to trust partner to work it out…if you’ve actually agreed to play this, then I don’t understand why you can remember this but not stayman. And what if opener’s LHO doubles the cuebid? That will sometimes lead to the opps finding the right defence. If you simply play that opener has to bid spades when he wants to play in spades, responder can’t make any slam try below game and that means it’s dangerous unless responder has a very strong hand. You will miss some slams (or get too high hunting for one)

Consider 1N 2C 2D 3H smolen. Opener bids 3S responder can raise to game when as is by far the most common situation, he has no slam interest. Now the opening leads has less information. Plus, while right siding can be overstated, the idea that it’s best to have the significantly stronger hand declare has real merit.

Now 1N 2C 2D 3S gets us back to opener having to cuebid with a great hand for hearts, so it’s not quite as good as when our long major is spades, but we still protect the stronger hand.

[jillybean]

Ok, I’ve never added it, and that I remember, not missed it.
I’ve not had it explained this well, so now I do see benefit in playing it with some partners.