[ArcLight]

Basic Stayman (2C to ask for a major) is quite useful.

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

[han]

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

Roughly 73.390, using a liberal definition of the term expert.

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

Maybe 11.703, give or take a few.

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

There are many good notrump structures around, not all using transfers, so it depends on what you compare it with. A good notrump structure will have lots of different auctions defined, so that there are (perhaps more than one) options available for all hand-types.

Compared to stayman+ all natural, Jacoby transfers are a big improvement. 4-way transfers are another improvement over stayman+Jacoby transfers+all natural. You will have many more possible auctions, and if you take care in defining all of these then you can have a good structure.


How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand

This can be damaging. Not only do you give away extra information, the opponents may also be able to make a lead directing double or enter the bidding to show a good suit.

Is this a big problem?

I don't think so. You should avoid having this balanced invite anyway.

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

I strongly prefer transfer to a specific minor, i.e. 2S -> clubs, 2NT -> diamonds. This allows you much better slam bidding with minor suited hands (where you transfer to the minor and then show shortness or a fragment, depending on your taste).

But to answer your question, I don't think that having to go through Stayman to invite is a big problem (because I almost never use it), so I don't think that this cuts down on the benefits of 1NT-2NT.

[paulg]

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

Paul

[foo]

I have no idea where Hannie is getting his accurate-to-5-decimals statistics. I'd suggest taking them as being firmly tongue-in-cheek unless verified...

Playing Strong NT's, the goal is to be able to describe as many of the important shapely responding hands of differing strengths below game as possible since the expectation is that Responder will have invitational values opposite a 1N opening.

The big issue here is not accurate game bidding but rather accurate slam bidding, so the potential effect on your score is significant even if the hands where it matters come up rarely.

IMHO invitational hands exist so we should have invitations. I also firmly agree with Grant Baze and others who say that using Stayman w/o a 4cM as an invite makes things far easier for the Defense.

IME, I have found minor suit stayman to be more useful than minor suit xfers since for
a= very weak hands with 6+m I prefer to just blast 1N-3m
(let Them try and find Their fit at the three level.)
b= weak hands with 6+m I can do as above or just pass 1N
c= invitational hands with 6+m I just bid 2N
d= GF hands with 6+m and slam interest I use the sequence 1N-2C;any-3m

There are many 1N structures out there and lot's of debate as to what is optimal. Don't worry about it. Make sure you and partner are playing something reasonably standard and comfortable for the two of you.

Unless you want to put a =lot= of work and ATT memory effort in. Anything close to "optimal" is going to have to be complicated and have (un)reasonably high memory overhead.

[rbforster]

I recently learned "Polish MSS" from a friend who was watching some of the Polish experts. It puts all the minor hands into 2♠ pretty effectively, leaving 2NT as a natural invite without revealing opener's hand unnecessarily via Stayman. This is the structure:

After 1NT-2♠, opener shows his minor suit preference:
2NT - opener has ♦>♣ (or better ♦ if equal)
3♣ - opener has ♣>♦ (or better ♣ if equal)

If responder now bids 3♣ or 3♦ it is to play, either with a weak hand long in that minor, or a weak hand with both minors. I don't know what the experts play as followups, but other bids are various slam tries (3M probably shows shortness, etc). The tradeoff here is that there is still some ambiguity in which minor(s) responder has and also in opener length his preferred minor (3 vs 4+), but these can probably be managed (i.e. maybe Walsh relays for single minor suit slam tries and MSS for both minor slam tries).

Certainly the stayman invite with no 4 card major and the various weak minors hands come up a lot more than the various minor slam tries after a strong NT opener, so I think this is likely a good treatment on a probability basis.

[mike777]

Rob F, on May 18 2006, 09:57 PM, said:

I recently learned "Polish MSS" from a friend who was watching some of the Polish experts.  It puts all the minor hands into 2♠ pretty effectively, leaving 2NT as a natural invite without revealing opener's hand unnecessarily via Stayman.  This is the structure:

After 1NT-2♠, opener shows his minor suit preference:
2NT - opener has ♦>♣ (or better ♦ if equal)
3♣ - opener has ♣>♦ (or better ♣ if equal)

If responder now bids 3♣ or 3♦ it is to play, either with a weak hand long in that minor, or a weak hand with both minors.  I don't know what the experts play as followups, but other bids are various slam tries (3M probably shows shortness, etc).  The tradeoff here is that there is still some ambiguity in which minor(s) responder has and also in opener length his preferred minor (3 vs 4+), but these can probably be managed (i.e. maybe Walsh relays for single minor suit slam tries and MSS for both minor slam tries). 

Certainly the stayman invite with no 4 card major and the various weak minors hands come up a lot more than the various minor slam tries after a strong NT opener, so I think this is likely a good treatment on a probability basis.

ya not impressed with this method. Prefer
1nt=2s=
Minor suit stayman either weak with long diamonds, weak with both minors(5-5) or slam try with both minors (at least 4-4 prob more).
2nt=no 4 card minor
3c=4+ clubs
3d=4+ d

stayman still does not promise 4 card major but you will have one often.

[mike777]

cardsharp, on May 16 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

Paul

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

[lowerline]

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

Basic Stayman (2C to ask for a major) is quite useful.

How many experts use 4 suit transfers?

How many experts use Minor Suit Stayman?

Are these of minor benefit, and experts use them to fight for a small advantage, but for those of us (me!) who are not experts they would be of less value?

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Does this tend to cut down on the benefits of 1NT - 2NT (transfer to a minor)

In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible. There are a lot of variants around. Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

[whereagles]

lowerline, on May 19 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

1.
In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible.

2.
Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

1. You know, this stikes me as a funny thing, seeing that the 1NT opener is already a pretty well-defined bid

2. You mean people are starting to play keri? You must be an aussie

[glen]

mike777, on May 19 2006, 07:16 AM, said:

cardsharp, on May 16 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

Paul

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

There's not much more to this. Without a four card major, with most 8 counts one passes 1NT, and with 9+ (or a long minor) one bids 3NT.

If a pick-up expert partnership, would not be surprised to see these methods:

2♣: Stayman, can be garbage, promises a 4 card major, or a 5♠s invite. After 2♥, 2♠ is invite with 5♠s and 2NT is invite with 4♠s.

2♦/♥: Transfers, but ♠ invites go thru 2♣. These means 1NT-2Red;2M-cheapest bid is forcing.

2♠: Transfer to ♣s.

2NT: Transfer to ♦s, can be weak both minors. Opener bids 3♣ if does not like ♦s.

3♣: Puppet Stayman

3♦: Something

3♥/♠: 5-4-3-1 with 5-4 either way minors.


With my wife we use this easy-to-play structure:

2♣: Stayman, can be garbage, promises a 4 card major.

2♦/♥: Transfers.

2♠: Transfer to ♣s or with game invite in ♦s (shown by 3♦ rebid).

2NT: Natural.

3♣: ♦s, signoff or game going.

3♦: Asks for five card major

3♥/♠: Natural slam try.

On the opposite side of this spectrum, here are the latest ETM methods:

http://www.bridgemat...com/etmnt06.pdf

The objectives list what I consider important in a notrump structure.

[foo]

mike777, on May 19 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

cardsharp, on May 16 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

This is really interesting, wow, a huge gold nugget of info stuck in the middle of nowhere....more please.

The following pretty much sums up world class expert opinion on the subject.

Grant Baze: "I agree with Bobby Goldman that any convention that negates the raise of 1N to 2N as natural is terrible. If responder is forced to go through Stayman to raise 1N to 2N, the defenders have too much information, and will defend much more accurately than after 1N-2N;3N (or pass of 2N). Furthermore these natural NT raises are much more frequent than any hand types that use 1N-2N as artificial. Finally, the natural raises that end in 3N are the bread and butter of winning bridge, while any advantage from using the raise to 2N as any kind of transfer is minimal and extremely infrequent."

[david_c]

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

The following pretty much sums up worlds class expert opinion on the subject.

No it doesn't - how can you say that when Fred has been quoted in this thread as saying something completely different?

[foo]

david_c, on May 19 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

The following pretty much sums up worlds class expert opinion on the subject.

No it doesn't - how can you say that when Fred has been quoted in this thread as saying something completely different?

???

"How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1N - 2N - p/3N) with the sequence:
1N - 2C
2X - 2N
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?"

"Have to invite" means Responder must use this sequence to invite whether they have 4cM or not.

"Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1N or blast to game (bid 3N) with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed."

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

...and They are doing it this way because they find inviting w/ Stayman w/o a 4cM to be too helpful to the defense.

...This is what Grant's quote says about inviting w/o a 4cM...

[david_c]

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 1NT:2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

[foo]

david_c, on May 19 2006, 08:41 AM, said:

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

It's not a different approach.

The point here is that Fred considers inviting using Stayman w/o a 4cM to be so bad (because of the information passed to the defense) that he would rather gamble on the result than invite if a natural 2N is not available!

[david_c]

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

david_c, on May 19 2006, 08:41 AM, said:

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

So, w/ invitational hands Fred+Brad invite using Stayman =with= a 4cM, and either pass 1N or bid 3N =without= a 4cM.

Right. Whereas in your quote, Baze is saying that it is better to use 2NT to show a game invite without a 4-card major. That's a completely different approach to Fred's.

It's not a different approach.

The point here is that Fred considers inviting using Stayman w/o a 4cM to be so bad (because of the information passed to the defense) that he would rather gamble on the result than invite if a natural 2N is not available!

Well, sorry, but your quote from Grant Baze consisted of four sentences, of which only the second makes this point. The first and fourth sentences are things which many experts (including Fred it seems) would strongly disagree with. This is why I objected to you saying that the quote sums up expert opinion.

[foo]

Grant was specifically comparing the utility of
a= having both Stayman and 2N available as invites.
vs
b= having only Stayman available as an invite.

He was not comparing
c= being able to invite in general
vs
d= not being able to invite in general

He certainly =implied= that he feels being able to invite in general is valuable, but that was not the question he was asked nor the question he was answering.

For my part, I'll be explicit about invites in general. The only place I've seen sacrificing invites as worth it is when playing against weaker opponents. Particularly at matchpoints.
OTOH, there is an old saying "Matchpoints is not Bridge."
Particularly against weaker opponents.

Fred & Brad are compromising. They do not have a natural 2N invite, and they have discovered that putting those hands through Stayman is Bad, so...

[mikeh]

I have been playing the method attributed to Fred since 1998: with no 4 card major, responder either passes 1N or bids 3N... almost always the latter...to the point that I cannot recall passing with a hand with which I wanted to invite.

Not coincidentally, I began playing this method after we added Fred to our Rosenblum team in 98

The advantages include:

1) we often get a lead into opener's major: since responder did not stayman, LHO will choose to lead a major with a high frequency.. this often gives us a trick on the go and a tempo

2) the defenders have less information, during the play, concerning opener's shape and strength

3) in contrast, after a stayman, invitational sequence, the opps can defend far more accurately. You hold Q1073 Q1062 Kxx Jx: you are on lead after 1N 3N. Compare to being on lead after 1N 2♣ 2♠ 2N 3N. In the first case, you might well lead a ♠, but not in the 2nd case.

4) Declarer often has an advantage in play simply because he knows, with precision, the extent of the partnership assets, while the defenders have to deduce or infer what is going on.. and to do that they often have to communicate via signals, which, of course, can be interpreted by declarer as well. The more doubt there is, in the defenders' minds, about opener's shape and strength, the greater will be the declarer advantage.

BTW, this approach is NOT recommended for matchpoints. While you will steal some games, and pick up big chunks of imps when you do, you will overbid too many hands to make it a matchpoint approach... unless you like playing top-bottom bridge.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on May 19 2006, 09:13 AM, said:

For my part, I'll be explicit about invites in general.  The only place I've seen sacrificing invites as worth it is when playing against weaker opponents.  Particularly at matchpoints.
OTOH, there is an old saying "Matchpoints is not Bridge."
Particularly against weaker opponents.

Invites are for people who are afraid to take control of their own destiny.

Or paraphrased, Invites are for wimps.

(Of course....this only applies if both your partner and yourself are competent declarers).

In a 15-17 NT structure, I have long found that it is much more successful to bid 3N direct with any reasonable 8+ count, regardless of method of scoring, but it is much more effective at IMP's (instead of matchpoints) and especially against weaker opponents. The 24-25 hcp game rates to make more than 50% of the time, either outright or thru defensive error. These games should always be bid, imo.

Spot cards are also a factor. If the hand contains lots of 10,9,8,7's, the bid is clear cut. OTOH, 2,3,4's are a detriment. As a general rule, if the hand contains more than 1/2 of its cards higher than a 6 along with 8+ pts, 3N should be bid. Or if it contains a 5 card suit with working "spots", ie KQ108x, 3N should be bid.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on May 19 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

BTW, this approach is NOT recommended for matchpoints. While you will steal some games, and pick up big chunks of imps when you do, you will overbid too many hands to make it a matchpoint approach... unless you like playing top-bottom bridge.

You can win IMP's at MP play now? My oh my oh my!! The best of both worlds!!

I have found it is equally effective at both forms of scoring. The real keys are how good are you at evaluating your 8 counts, and how good your/partner's declarer play is. This, unfortunately, takes some serious evaluation of player skills, which as we know....aren't always the most accurate evaluations in the world.