[rbforster]

Playing a 12-14 NT, I had a hand similar to this one:

1N(12-14) 2♣ (inv)
2♠-2N
3N

---

Judging this to be invitational (adjust accordingly if not), I bid 2♣ invitational stayman, planning on rebidding 2♥ over 2♦ to show an invitational 5 card suit. Partner failed to cooperate however, and bid 2♠. I was endplayed into bidding 2N and he raised to 3N while suppressing his 3 card heart fit.

Is this just a system loss, or are there methods people commonly use to address this type of problem?

On a related note, I suppose 2♣-2♥-2♠ is now invitational with 4-5 spades, which wasn't immediately obvious to me at first glance. (2♣-2♦-2♠ would be 5, but it's ambiguous over a 2♥ stayman answer).

[helene_t]

What would a direct 2NT response show? If Stayman followed by 2♠ is invitational with 4-5 spades then Stayman followed by 2NT is presumably invitational without a 4-card major. So you could use a direct 2NT to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts.

[rbforster]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 05:08 AM, said:

What would a direct 2NT response show? If Stayman followed by 2♠ is invitational with 4-5 spades then Stayman followed by 2NT is presumably invitational without a 4-card major. So you could use a direct 2NT to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts.

Good suggestion. Right now a direct 2N is primarily preemptive with both minors 5/5+ (or strong minors), but both are pretty rare meanings.

[Free]

You can also just play transfers...

[the hog]

I don't understand any of the first responses apart from Free's. Why not play transfers?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the simplest solution is, that opener bids 3H after 2NT, if he accepts the invite.
His 2S repsonse already denied 4 hearts, so he cant have more than 3.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I assume you play 2C as nonforcing Stayman, 2D as forcing Stayman
and 2H, 2S as sign off bids.
You could of course play a agreement set, which would allow opener to show
his shape.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Mar 26 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

I don't understand any of the first responses apart from Free's. Why not play transfers?

Seems like they're playing some variant of Klinger's 5-card major stayman, where 2♣ + 2M = 4 or 5 card M, NF invite.

Anyway, RobF how about suggesting pard stick to time-tested methods, like i.e. supporting with support?

[hanp]

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

[helene_t]

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

[jjbrr]

Missing major suits fits with unbalanced hands sucks, imo. I played weak NTs with no transfers for a long time, and it's a headache without ways to untangle something so simple.

Plus you lose the ability to pass partner's stayman response. This seems bad.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

[rbforster]

hanp, on Mar 26 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

Well, 2-way stayman is one of the "standard" things to play over a weak NT. I suppose you could ask the same thing about how most strong NTers play a 5S/4H invite (where stayman followed by 2M is weak) - no good bid since most people play GF (not invitational) Smolen.

Vampyr, on Mar 26 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

Well, normally I'm playing a weaker NT, more like 10-12 or something, so it's important to have 1N-2M (and to a lesser extent 1N-3m) as non-forcing in order to pressure the opponents. Transfers are fine when it's your hand, since it costs little to offer them a direct and delayed double by 4th hand. Over the weaker NTs, this is much more costly since it lets them figure out if they've missed game or not.

[hanp]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 09:02 AM, said:

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

If you think so, fine, but at least play something you know and that makes sense.

[JanM]

Vampyr, on Mar 26 2010, 07:18 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it?

Ditto .

But I do know that some people strongly disagree - Joey Silver & I debate the merits of transfers in response to weak NTs all the time. In support of Stefanie & me, note that a pair playing transfers in response to a weak NT just finished second in the Vanderbilt - I don't think playing other methods over their weak NT would have helped them win.

[jjbrr]

Rob F, on Mar 26 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

hanp, on Mar 26 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

I agree with Free and the Hog. It seems very foolish to play something non-standard if you don't even know how to bid a very common hand type such as this one. Either play transfers or know what you are doing.

Well, 2-way stayman is one of the "standard" things to play over a weak NT. I suppose you could ask the same thing about how most strong NTers play a 5S/4H invite (where stayman followed by 2M is weak) - no good bid since most people play GF (not invitational) Smolen.

Many people are playing now that 1NT 2♣ 2♦

-2♥ is weak and ambiguous as to which major is longer. With Opener playing in the major in his longest 3-card M and correcting to 2♠ with 3-3 (so yes, sometimes you play a 4-3 instead of a 5-3. oh well)

-2♠ is invitational 5♠ (could have 4♥)

So that solves your problem, with the downside being slightly less accuracy with less than invitational hands.

[Free]

Over a mini NT I think transfers are a poor choice. But opposite weak NT I'd play transfers all the time! Chances opposite a 12-14 NT is still big you have an invitational hand, so it's definitely important to be able to invite properly.

Ok, you can play different methods to show your invite another way (like 2♦ asking opener to bid his doubleton M for example), no problem with that. But not being able to invite with 5♥ whenever opener has 4♠ is just a poor structure.

[campboy]

Rob F, on Mar 26 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

Well, normally I'm playing a weaker NT, more like 10-12 or something, so it's important to have 1N-2M (and to a lesser extent 1N-3m) as non-forcing in order to pressure the opponents. Transfers are fine when it's your hand, since it costs little to offer them a direct and delayed double by 4th hand. Over the weaker NTs, this is much more costly since it lets them figure out if they've missed game or not.

That's a different kettle of fish, of course. I've seen more people playing mini NT without transfers than I've seen playing weak NT without transfers, despite the fact that I encounter at least ten times as many weak-NT pairs as mini-NT pairs.

[helene_t]

hanp, on Mar 26 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 26 2010, 09:02 AM, said:

Disagree with Free, Hog and Han. Transfers in response to a weak NT suck.

If you think so, fine, but at least play something you know and that makes sense.

Well if Rob already knew his follow-ups he wouldn't need to start this thread.

If someone says:
"I play Stayman and transfers, and Stayman followed by 4NT is quanti while Stayman followed by 2M-4♣ would be a splinter, I wonder if it's possible to invite slam and ask keycards for opener's 4-card major?"

then I could have answered:
"If you don't know how to handle such a simple thing then you shouldn't play transfers but just use 2♦ as a GF relay"

but that wouldn't be very helpful either.

[ArtK78]

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 or 5 hearts, then opener MUST bid 3♥ if he is accepting the invite and has 3 card support.

That would seem to solve the problem.

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational hand with 4 hearts exactly, then the 2NT bid is wrong.

What would 2♣ followed by 3♥ show? If 2♣ was invitational Stayman, then 3♥ would show this hand.

[rbforster]

I have been playing two-way stayman for a long time, but only recently switched between having the 2C-2D-2M sequences show 5 card invites instead of 5 card signoffs. I've been convinced by some of the regulars here that this is a winning approach, esp over a very weak NT, but hadn't fully appreciated all the implications.

ArtK78, on Mar 26 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

If the 2NT bid showed an invitational balanced or semi-balanced hand with 4 or 5 hearts, then opener MUST bid 3♥ if he is accepting the invite and has 3 card support.

That would seem to solve the problem.

Indeed. Having not thought of this problem hand before, I (and my partner) didn't realize we might need to do this. Likewise, one might rebid 3S over a 2N invite if accepting with 5S (assuming 5cM is possible).

ArtK78, on Mar 26 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

What would 2♣ followed by 3♥ show?  If 2♣ was invitational Stayman, then 3♥ would show this hand.

Originally I played that these bids showed 5+ majors, where ideally you'd have 6 but might have only 5 with an invite. This was noteably one of the poor sequences in my weak NT structure, which was why I was happy to think that I might reserve this for purely 6cM invites, barring this issue with certain troublesome 5cM invites.