[gnasher]

mikeh, on Dec 20 2008, 01:16 AM, said:

I posted my structure in the first post I made in this thread. I referred to it in a passage that you then quoted... including the reference to 'my' structure. You began your first post with a sweeping generalization about 'those' who favour 2-way stayman.. I assumed, from the foregoing, that you had read the posts whose contents you were criticizing. That assumption appears to have been in error.

I am sure that your posts are valued very highly by many of the readers of this forum, but it would be unwise to assume that every subsequent contribution is a response to your opinions. When I wrote that "The arguments in favour of two-way Stayman and weak takeouts have always seemed nonsensical to me", I was commenting on arguments in favour of two-way Stayman and weak takeouts.

I confess that I hadn't, in fact, read your earlier post. I was responding to a post where Chip Martel was quoted as saying, "I think that playing a sophisticated transfer system is vastly superior to two-way Stayman."

Quote

Quote

If I were investigating slam, I would most certainly tell my partner about Qxxx.  How else is he supposed to know that KJx is a better holding than Kxx?

Wow... let me see if I understand this.

You would, on a slam-interest hand, transfer and then show a Qxxx 4 card minor, because partner won't otherwise know that Kxx is an inferior holding to Kxx? So that he will co-operate with KJx but not with Kxx?

If I show my suit, my partner will think more of KJx than of Kxx, and that will be one of many things that he considers in evaluating his hand. On some proportion of hands, the difference between KJx and Kxx will be sufficient to change his decision as to what to bid. Does that really merit a "wow", a couple of non sequiturs, and the suggestion that I am as careless as you are in selecting my examples?

[Gerben42]

My ideas about this:

It is sensible to play different methods facing a strong NT and facing a weak NT. For one thing, after a strong NT slam-interest is more likely relative to being invitational to game compared to a weak NT (expectancy vs strong NT: 16 +8 = 24 HCP, expectancy vs weak NT = 9 + 13 = 22 HCP).

Having said that, if you play a variable NT range, 2 systems is usually not worth the trouble.

But back to the original point. A transfer system works fine most of the time, but it's terrible in finding out if you have a fit. After 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠, responder must unilaterally decide if he bids on, without much information about opener's hand. This is a bigger problem for the weak NT, where hands between "don't bid game" and "bid game" are quite common.

From this point of view, playing a weak NT your system should focus more on keeping invitational hands on the 2-level if they don't have a fit, and this means not playing transfers (or 2-way Stayman, by the way).

So without disagreeing with Chip Martel, I think playing 2M as natural in combination with some way of showing 5-card invites on the 2-level is a great idea.

I know for example that Dirk Schröder (Sastro) plays 1NT - 2M as natural and invitational. Although this might not be the most economical way to treat the problem, it shows how important these hands are.

The way I play it, 1NT - 2M is a signoff and 1NT - 2♦ is reserved for all hands that might want to play 4M opposite three-card support. 1NT - 2M can be raised with a superaccept (maximum + 4-card support), so rarely we see 1NT - 2M - 3M - 4M.

[benlessard]

Quote

The way I play it, 1NT - 2M is a signoff and 1NT - 2D is reserved for all hands that might want to play 4M opposite three-card support.

I play something similar but IMO the overall value of the hand is more important than the 3rd trumps especially if responder may have a 6 card suit or if you play a wide ranging Nt.

AKQxxx
xx
Jxx
xx

Here you dont really care if partner has 2 or 3S but knowing he is maximum is more important.

With agressive invite having a 3rd trumps isnt enough, partner may have a dead minimum 3343 giving no ruffs and a hopeless 4M contract.

The reason why 2 way stayman is playable is that you can invite and stop low not because you can rightside the contract or relay the opener hand.


Classic 2 way stayman is dreadful, small modifications make it playable.

1Nt----2C
2M (should show a minimum) allowing you to play 2M when opener is minimum.

1M-----2D
here to play that 2M show 4 is unplayable since youll bid 2Nt and higher way too often, partner got the unbalanced hand so hes the 1 needing space to describe his hands, showing your 4333 shapes without showing where the values are is a bit pointless.

Quote

Having said that, if you play a variable NT range, 2 systems is usually not worth the trouble.

Most top pair that play variable NT range play different method of their Nt.