[JLilly]

Hi all,

I recall reading probably in a BBO forum about the disadvantages to the standard treatment for inviting to 3NT in response to a strong 1NT opening using Stayman (1NT-2♣-2(anything)-2NT) -- namely that it gives opps opportunities for lead-directing doubles and a better picture of your hands. What treatments do you all recommend or like or favor for minor-seeking bids by the responder to 1NT if 2NT is taken as a natural invitation? The two obvious choices seem to be to use 2♠ as minor Stayman and 3♣ as something like puppet or a two-suited pass-or-correct, or to use 2♠ as a transfer to clubs and 3♣ as a transfer to diamonds.

Thanks

[wank]

I play 2nt as 5 card stayman (allows you to find 44 major fits without revealing opener's majors and allows responder to show (31)(54) shapes.)

2spades as invitational balanced, invitational with diamonds, gf with clubs or weak with clubs.

3 clubs as weak or gf with diamonds

Vis a vis 4 xfers all you lose is the semi invitational club transfer, I. E. Opener's option to break it.

[RMB1]

You can recover most of the four-suit transfer structure:
2S = clubs
(2NT = nat invitational)
3C = diamonds: weak or strong
3D = diamonds: invitational

[jwccsllc]

JLilly, on 2017-May-03, 01:07, said:

Hi all,

I recall reading probably in a BBO forum about the disadvantages to the standard treatment for inviting to 3NT in response to a strong 1NT opening using Stayman (1NT-2♣-2(anything)-2NT) -- namely that it gives opps opportunities for lead-directing doubles and a better picture of your hands. What treatments do you all recommend or like or favor for minor-seeking bids by the responder to 1NT if 2NT is taken as a natural invitation? The two obvious choices seem to be to use 2♠ as minor Stayman and 3♣ as something like puppet or a two-suited pass-or-correct, or to use 2♠ as a transfer to clubs and 3♣ as a transfer to diamonds.

Thanks

I like overloading the 2♠ as a range ask/transfer to 3♣ as described here. Opener responds 2NT if he wouldn't accept an invitation or 3♣ if he would. You lose the intermediate 2NT Super Accept of normal 4-suit transfers, but that occurs far less frequently than the invitational ask when Responder isn't interested in a major fit. I think it's more useful than using 2♠ as Minor Suit Stayman as well as it's much more likely to want to invite than to look for minor suit fits. It also has the minimizes the need for 4NT Quantitative.

2♠ Range Ask/Transfer to 3♣
2NT Transfer to 3♦. Opener may Super Accept with 3♣
3♣ Puppet Stayman
3♦ 5-5 minors game force
3♥ 3=1-5-4 game force
3♠ 1=3-5-4 game force

The advantages of this use of 2♠ instead of 2♣ ... 2NT are:

• Opener doesn't disclose information to opponents.
• Allows Responder to more fully describe hand with game/slam interest and strong clubs.
• Can stop at 3NT with some Quantitative slam tries.
• Occurs more frequently than Responder's weak hand with long clubs.
• Responder's 2♣ Stayman guarantees at least 1 4-card major. The only time Responder would bid 2♣ without a 4-card major would be when playing South African Texas, and the 4♣ bid is a transfer to 4♥, not Gerber.

The disadvantages are:

• You lose the 2♠ 2NT Super Accept in clubs.
• You lose the ability to have Opener play 3♣ when Responder is weak and Opener responds 2NT to 2♠. This doesn't bother me much as I frequently play weak (12-14) or baby (10-12) opening 1NT using the same responses.

[fromageGB]

I play a simple 4 suit (compulsory) transfers.
2♠ = asking for 4 card minor; may be weak both minors, GF both minors, or slammish needing 4 card support for just one minor
2NT => ♣; may be weak, GF, or slammish
3♣ => ♦; may be weak, GF or slammish

but I avoid unnecessary disclosure by having just a 2-point range 15/16 1NT and therefore no invitations needed. Stayman then 2NT is to play, which also has the advantage of being able to use stayman when weaker than normal.

[Zelandakh]

A slightly offbeat but completely sound method:
==
2♣ = 5 card major Stayman
... - 2♦ = no 5 card major
... - ... - 2♥ = asks about spades and range, no interest in hearts
... - ... - 2♠ = 4 hearts, no interest in spades
... - ... - 2NT = 4♥4♠, INV
... - ... - 3♣ = 4+♥4+♠, GF
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+♦, 4 card major, SI
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+♣4♦, SI
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+♦4♣, SI
... - 2M = 5 card major
2♦ = 5+ hearts
2♥ = 5+ spades
2♠ = range ask
... - 2NT = min
... - ... - 3♣ = weak with long clubs
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+♣4♥, GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+♣4♠, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+♣5+♦, GF
... - 3♣ = max
... - ... - P = weak with long clubs
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+♣4♥, GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+♣4♠, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+♣5+♦, GF
2NT = 5♠4♥, INV
3m = nat, SI
3M = GF 3-suiters

The invites with a long, broken minor are given up for both suits to accomodate this.

When I played regular Stayman I used a 3 suit transfer method so this is one to consider for your case of 2NT vbeing natural. By this I mean that 2♠ shows clubs but that diamond-based hands go through 2♣. There is just enough space to allow for this if you jiggle things around appropriately and it makes for a relatively efficient structure (although thia use of 2NT suggests that efficiency is not exactly high on your priority list!).

[aawk]

All depends if you play for MP or IMP.

Playing for MP overtricks are golden and using 2nt as invite makes it harder to find a lead in a major.

Playing for IMP you just want to find the best game and have room to show as many slam invites as you can.

[rmnka447]

I just play a very simple structure with most strong NT partners.

2 ♣ (Stayman) followed by 3 of a minor (doesn't necessarily have a major) - forcing
2 ♠ transfer to 3 ♣ - weak - pass or correct.
2 NT - invitational
3 ♣, 3 ♦ - invitational

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-04, 08:15, said:

I just play a very simple structure with most strong NT partners.

2 ♣ (Stayman) followed by 3 of a minor (doesn't necessarily have a major) - forcing
2 ♠ transfer to 3 ♣ - weak - pass or correct.
2 NT - invitational
3 ♣, 3 ♦ - invitational

This looks to be the same structure as BBO Basic. It is ok for a pick-up pair but somewhat inefficient for a serious partnership.

[dave_beer]

If you are willing to use 2♠ as range ask then Barry Rigal plays something that is described in a few different posts on Bridge Winners. There aren't any more details than what is shown below.

2♠ = Range ask or invitational hand based on long minor *. Opener rebids:
... 2NT = minimum but may accept if responder bids minor
... 3♣ = maximum that doesn't accept if responder has ♣ invite but may accept if ♦ invite
... 3♦ = maximum that doesn't accept if responder has ♦ invite but does accept if ♣ invite
... 3M = maximum that accepts either minor and is concerned about the other major
... 3NT = I don't recall this being described but presumably maximum that accepts either minor and isn't concerned about either major
2NT = ♣ weak or strong. Responder passes if weak and rebids shortness or 3NT or higher if strong.
3♣ = ♦ weak or strong, but not strong and short in ♣. Responder passes if weak and rebids major suit shortness or 3NT or higher if strong.
3♦ = ♦ strong and short in ♣

The opponents can still make lead-directing double of 2♠ but there is no information leakage from 2♣..2NT when responder isn't interested in a major and there is no problem with accept/reject responder's minor for 3NT vs minor suit slam (which can be different hands).

* You can also include strong hands with both minors and responder rebids major suit on most continuations.

[miamijd]

A rather simple structure that's quite common:

2S: range finder OR clubs
Opener bids 2NT with a minimum; 3C with a maximum
OVER 2NT:
Responder passes 2NT with the balanced invite
Bids 3C with the weak club hand
Any other bid shows shortness with a gf hand with clubs

2NT: diamonds
Opener bids 3C to decline invite; 3D to accept (some reverse these)

3C: Puppet Stayman asking only for 5-card major (if you're interested in 4-cd, use 2C)
3D: no 5-card major
3H: 13 in the majors (H fragment)
3S: 31 in the majors (S fragment)
Better to bid the fragment to eliminate the lead-directing X of the stiff
3NT: to play
3H/3S: five cards in the major bid

3D: game forcing with both minors (generally 55)
3H: 55 major invite
3S: 55 major game force or better

Cheers,
mike

[m1cha]

JLilly, on 2017-May-03, 01:07, said:

What treatments do you all recommend or like or favor for minor-seeking bids by the responder to 1NT if 2NT is taken as a natural invitation?

Since you are restructuring your 1NT responses, how about also considering to omit 2NT as a natural invitation and playing pass or blast instead? This means with a bad 8-point hand you pass 1NT while with a good 9-point hand you blast 3NT, and with anything in between you improve your hand evaluation and decide for either. Obviously this is less precise than an invitation but the gain is when 2NT goes down while 1NT still makes. In this thread a while ago yunling mentions a simulation showing that pass or blast works well if the 1NT range is 3.25 or less (which corresponds to 15 - 17 with occasional upgrades from 14 points and some 18-point 4333 hands). If he is right, 2NT as natural invitation is useless, and we better use the bid for something else.

JLilly, on 2017-May-03, 01:07, said:

The two obvious choices seem to be to use 2♠ as minor Stayman and 3♣ as something like puppet or a two-suited pass-or-correct, or to use 2♠ as a transfer to clubs and 3♣ as a transfer to diamonds.

With one partner I used to bid 2♠ Minor Stayman as 5-5 strictly, and it hardly ever came up. GIB plays Minor Stayman as 4-4 or longer and it comes up frequently BUT I almost inevitably end up in 3NT, so this one seems useless, too. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic here, it would be interesting to see if others share my view.

My preference is 2♠, 2NT as 4-way transfers; 3♣ as either Puppet Stayman or both minors 5-5 pass-or-correct; 3♦ is both majors 5-5. For both minors 5-5 strong I use a transfer to clubs and then bid 3♦.

[JLilly]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions!

[JLilly]

A number of expert and advanced players have recommended pass-or-blast. This makes sense from a statistical perspective.

NT contracts are higher-variance than suit contracts, because long suits can run unstoppably. You don't have the power of trumps to stabilize the play in favor of the declarer's side.

When variance is high, precision is less valuable. This is generally true in any field based on statistics, which bridge is. On average, sure, maybe you want to play 3NT with 25 points but not with 24 points, but tons of 24-pt contracts make and tons of 25-pt contracts miss.

This idea suggests that hands with 2NT+1 divided by hands with 2NT= is greater than hands with, say, 3H+1 divided by hands with 3H=.

[Vampyr]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-04, 08:15, said:

I just play a very simple structure with most strong NT partners.

2 ♣ (Stayman) followed by 3 of a minor (doesn't necessarily have a major) - forcing
2 ♠ transfer to 3 ♣ - weak - pass or correct.
2 NT - invitational
3 ♣, 3 ♦ - invitational

If it's a transfer to ♣ what would you correct to?

But you could use 2♠ to initially show a weak hand with one minor, but a slam try if you bid above 3♦. Opener's choice of 2NT or 3♣ could be assigned different meanings. This keeps things very simple.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-09, 07:08, said:

If it's a transfer to ♣ what would you correct to?

But you could use 2♠ to initially show a weak hand with one minor, but a slam try if you bid above 3♦. Opener's choice of 2NT or 3♣ could be assigned different meanings. This keeps things very simple.

You need to put your club hat on Stef! Obviously what is meant is 2♠ as a puppet to 3♣, showing a weak hand with a long minor. Your suggestions of including GF hands and allowing a break of the puppet are both good ones but as the whole point of playing this method is to avoid such complexities, probably not going to be implemented. Once these players are ready for 2-way calls they usually progress on to full transfers rather than tinkering with the basic system. If players do want to tinker, my suggestion for the GF hands would be both minors (at least 5-5) and bidding the short major to show this after Opener's 3♣ (or 2NT).

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-09, 08:29, said:

You need to put your club hat on Stef! Obviously what is meant is 2♠ as a puppet to 3♣, showing a weak hand with a long minor.

I know. I was just venting a little frustration.

But anyway I think that the OP is not averse to some complexity, he just wants decent methods that allow 2NT to be kept as natural and invitational.

[JLilly]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-09, 09:32, said:

I know. I was just venting a little frustration.

But anyway I think that the OP is not averse to some complexity, he just wants decent methods that allow 2NT to be kept as natural and invitational.

That's basically right. Overloading the 2♠ response works too, since it gives opps much less information than the opener's reply to Stayman-as-a-step-to-a-2NT-invitation, and the opportunity for a lead-directing double is reduced as well. Does my theorizing about the value of pass-or-blast make sense? Pinpoint-bidding is less a thing for low-medium-level NT contracts because of the greater variance in NT vs a suit contract. Thx

[rmnka447]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-09, 07:08, said:

If it's a transfer to ♣ what would you correct to?

But you could use 2♠ to initially show a weak hand with one minor, but a slam try if you bid above 3♦. Opener's choice of 2NT or 3♣ could be assigned different meanings. This keeps things very simple.

With weak 1 suited minor hands, responder makes the transfer and then corrects to 3 ♦, if that's the minor held.

[rmnka447]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-04, 09:06, said:

This looks to be the same structure as BBO Basic. It is ok for a pick-up pair but somewhat inefficient for a serious partnership.

Well, the issue always is the additional memory load that you incur from the increased complexity versus what you gain . That's especially true as you get older and are subject to more memory lapses. And unless you're National/International level players, it certainly comes into play when you sit down and your opponents are Meckwell or similarly capable players. So it's up to every partnership to choose what works best for them.