[olien]

So, I'm trying to develop a relay type stayman where the non-2♣ responses are like a standard NT structure, and here's what I've developed so far.

1NT-2♣
2♦ = no 4♥ or 5♠
2♥ = 4/5♥, may have 4♠
2♠ = 5♠

1NT-2♣// 2♦:
2♥ = GF relay
.............2♠ = a 5m (3♣=5♣, 3♦=22(54), 3♥+=5♦)
.............2NT = no 4M or 5m (3♦=33(43), 3♥=2344, 3♠/NT=3244 min/max)
.............3♣ = 4♠ and 4/5♣
.............3♦ = 4♠333
.............3♥ = 4243
.............3♠ = 4342
.............3NT = 4252
2♠ = INV+ 4♠ (2NT=min no fit, 3♣=max no fit, 3♦=min fit, 3♠=max fit, not 4333, 3NT=max fit, 4333)
2NT = INV w/ 4♥
3m = 5+m 4♥ GF
3♥ = 5♥ 4♠ GF (now 3♠ = ♠ fit)
3♠ = 5♠ 4♥ GF

1NT-2♣// 2♥:
2♠ = GF relay
..............2NT = 5(332) or 4♥ 4♠ (3♦=44(32), 3♥+=5♥)
..............3♣ = 4♥ 4/5♣
..............3♦ = 4♥333
..............3♥ = 2443
..............3♠ = 3442
..............3NT = 2452
2NT = INV w/ 4♠
3m = GF 4♠ 5+m
3♥ = INV


1NT-2♣// 2♠:
2NT = INV w/ 4♥
3♣ = 4♥ 5+m GF
3♦ = GF relay


Is it as bad as my partner makes it out to be that we don't have garbage stayman playing an 11-14 NT (except when R is willing to pass whatever O re-bids)? Or is this structure good? I have seen other structures but they require that you not open 1NT with certain (usually) hands, and that you sometimes transfer to a 4-card ♥ suit (so that 1N-2♣// 2♠-2NT is the relay).

[Cascade]

 olien, on 2010-November-04, 09:29, said:

So, I'm trying to develop a relay type stayman where the non-2♣ responses are like a standard NT structure, and here's what I've developed so far.

1NT-2♣
2♦ = no 4♥ or 5♠
2♥ = 4/5♥, may have 4♠
2♠ = 5♠

1NT-2♣// 2♦:
2♥ = GF relay
.............2♠ = a 5m (3♣=5♣, 3♦=22(54), 3♥+=5♦)
.............2NT = no 4M or 5m (3♦=33(43), 3♥=2344, 3♠/NT=3244 min/max)
.............3♣ = 4♠ and 4/5♣
.............3♦ = 4♠333
.............3♥ = 4243
.............3♠ = 4342
.............3NT = 4252
2♠ = INV+ 4♠ (2NT=min no fit, 3♣=max no fit, 3♦=min fit, 3♠=max fit, not 4333, 3NT=max fit, 4333)
2NT = INV w/ 4♥
3m = 5+m 4♥ GF
3♥ = 5♥ 4♠ GF (now 3♠ = ♠ fit)
3♠ = 5♠ 4♥ GF

1NT-2♣// 2♥:
2♠ = GF relay
..............2NT = 5(332) or 4♥ 4♠ (3♦=44(32), 3♥+=5♥)
..............3♣ = 4♥ 4/5♣
..............3♦ = 4♥333
..............3♥ = 2443
..............3♠ = 3442
..............3NT = 2452
2NT = INV w/ 4♠
3m = GF 4♠ 5+m
3♥ = INV


1NT-2♣// 2♠:
2NT = INV w/ 4♥
3♣ = 4♥ 5+m GF
3♦ = GF relay


Is it as bad as my partner makes it out to be that we don't have garbage stayman playing an 11-14 NT (except when R is willing to pass whatever O re-bids)? Or is this structure good? I have seen other structures but they require that you not open 1NT with certain (usually) hands, and that you sometimes transfer to a 4-card ♥ suit (so that 1N-2♣// 2♠-2NT is the relay).

I wouldn't want to give up garbage Stayman playing a weak 1NT.

But you can't fit all of those shapes in without some compromise.

[straube]

I think garbage stayman is too important. Aside from that, it's not great use of space to relay for opener's shape. You want to use your structure to show responder's shape.

[nigel_k]

Since you have so many shapes to show, you really have to give up garbage Stayman to make it work. Plus with your structure you have already lost the ability to invite with 2NT and still locate a 4-4 spade fit. You are getting to the point where you may as well just play 2♣ game forcing. Once you do that there is no point is having natural responses so you should aim for a structure that makes responder declarer (i.e. opener doesn't bid their major naturally) and is as symmetric as possible to assist with memory.

[olien]

Actually, you are able to invite and locate a 4-4 spade fit.

1N-2♣// 2♦-2♠ = INV+ 4♠

Then Opener can: 2N=min w/o 4♠, 3♣=max w/o 4♠, 3♦=min w/ 4♠, 3♠/NT=max w/ 4♠ and 3NT says 4333

[olien]

 straube, on 2010-November-04, 13:25, said:

I think garbage stayman is too important. Aside from that, it's not great use of space to relay for opener's shape. You want to use your structure to show responder's shape.

Ok, what structure do you think is best for showing responder's shape?

[Cascade]

 straube, on 2010-November-04, 13:25, said:

I think garbage stayman is too important. Aside from that, it's not great use of space to relay for opener's shape. You want to use your structure to show responder's shape.

Indeed responder showing shape and allowing opener to judge how well the hands fit is much better.

Relays with distributional hands are often hopeless when you don't know soon enough whether opener has AKQ or xxx opposite your shortage.

[straube]

 olien, on 2010-November-04, 14:24, said:

Ok, what structure do you think is best for showing responder's shape?

Start with stayman and transfers. One has to keep in mind that these things offer a bigger bang opposite a strong NT.

Anyhow, I play...

2C-stayman, promising at least 4 cards in a major
.....2D-no major
..........2H-garbage stayman
..........2S-GI with 5 spades and not necessarily any hearts
.....2H-hearts
..........2S-GI spades
2D-transfer
.....2H-acceptance
..........2S-artificial, GI hearts
..........2N-GF hearts
..........3C-GF, four spades
..........3D-5 clubs
..........3H-5 diamonds
2H-transfer
.....2S-acceptance
..........2N-GF spades
..........3C-GF, four hearts
..........3D-GI+, five hearts
..........3H-5 clubs
..........3S-5 diamonds
2S-size ask
.....2N-weak
..........3C-club bust
.....3C-strong
.....3D-club splinter
2N-puppet stayman (denies both majors)
.....3C-all else
..........3D-four hearts
..........3H-four spades
.....3D-any 4333
..........3M-has the OM
.....3M-5M
3C-transfer to diamonds
3D-splinter
3H-splinter
3S-splinter

I posted the entire structure somewhere.

[olien]

Well, I was planning on using stayman and transfers (not just have to relay with every GF hand). Sorry I didn't make this clear in my original post. My plan was to use this structure for slam going, normally balanced, hands, and to bid normally for unbalanced hands.

[straube]

 olien, on 2010-November-04, 16:13, said:

Well, I was planning on using stayman and transfers (not just have to relay with every GF hand). Sorry I didn't make this clear in my original post. My plan was to use this structure for slam going, normally balanced, hands, and to bid normally for unbalanced hands.

awm posted his method not long ago. After 1N-2C, 2L he uses 3C as a checkback. He's looking (I think) for the other major or whether opener's major is a 5-cd major or whether opener has one or both minors. It's not like a relay where you'll get opener's full pattern, but it can help you find fits before 3N has been passed.

[Zelandakh]

If you want to do this properly then use the traditional structure of 2D as GF Stayman and 2C as non-forcing Stayman or alternatively as puppet. Unlike the others I do not see the loss of Crawling Stayman over a weak NT as such a big deal. If you have suitable runouts then you can show both majors enough ways already. Since you are playing a weak NT the loss of transfers is much less than over a strong NT. An example

1NT - 2D

2H = 4 spades
...2S
......2N = 44(32)
......3C = 4 diamonds
......3D = 4333
......3H = 4234
......3S = 4324
2S = 4 hearts, 2-3 spades
...2NT
......3C = 4 diamonds
......3D = 3433
......3H = 2434
......3S = 3424
2N = 5C332
3C = 5D332
3D = (23)44
3H = 3334
3S = 3343

You could of course use any relay structure you liked here. I also note that your original suggestion includes 4M5m22 hands. There is also sufficient space for these after 2D if you rearrange things slightly.

[Free]

We already had a discussion of the merit of playing relays like this, and the biggest disadvantage seems that you get very high before you know if opener is min or max. You also don't know anything about honor location by the time you have to make a decision. Borderline slam hands don't get solved by playing relays.

I used to play relays after 1NT since my partner insisted on them. After 2♦ and 2♥ responses we used 2♠ as a relay (keeping 1NT-2♣-2[2♥, after 2♠ we used 3♣ as the relay. Also, our 5♠332 hands were bid with 2NT (min) and 3♣ (max). We could bid all 4333,4432,5332,22(54),4H-5m-2-2, and also show a 6 card m (but not the 3 card fragment).

Anyway, my main concerns in your structure:
- the 2♦ response is 2-way which doesn't allow for fast arrival and gives away many cuebids when you're just looking for a 4 card ♠.
- you lose garbage stayman, which is imo way more useful than a full relay structure.
- you can't show 4441 or 6m322 hands
- the alternative possibilities if not using relays (example 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ as INV with 5♠) are much more frequent and valuable

I'd advise you not to play relays, use 1NT-2♠ as some min/max ask, and have some way to start balanced slam investigation after that (for example use 1NT-2♠-...-3♦). This is also much more flexible for opener, and responder will have a good idea about the limit of the hand before going past 3NT and committing himself to slam investigation.

[straube]

 Free, on 2010-November-05, 03:43, said:

We already had a discussion of the merit of playing relays like this, and the biggest disadvantage seems that you get very high before you know if opener is min or max. You also don't know anything about honor location by the time you have to make a decision. Borderline slam hands don't get solved by playing relays.

I used to play relays after 1NT since my partner insisted on them. After 2♦ and 2♥ responses we used 2♠ as a relay (keeping 1NT-2♣-2[2♥, after 2♠ we used 3♣ as the relay. Also, our 5♠332 hands were bid with 2NT (min) and 3♣ (max). We could bid all 4333,4432,5332,22(54),4H-5m-2-2, and also show a 6 card m (but not the 3 card fragment).

Anyway, my main concerns in your structure:
- the 2♦ response is 2-way which doesn't allow for fast arrival and gives away many cuebids when you're just looking for a 4 card ♠.
- you lose garbage stayman, which is imo way more useful than a full relay structure.
- you can't show 4441 or 6m322 hands
- the alternative possibilities if not using relays (example 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ as INV with 5♠) are much more frequent and valuable

I'd advise you not to play relays, use 1NT-2♠ as some min/max ask, and have some way to start balanced slam investigation after that (for example use 1NT-2♠-...-3♦). This is also much more flexible for opener, and responder will have a good idea about the limit of the hand before going past 3NT and committing himself to slam investigation.

I agree. Zelandakh has written a nice relay structure which properly lets responder declare many of the contracts, but when NT is the final contract then you've given the defense way too much information about opener's hand. Most days of the week you just want to tell opener that you have 4H and/or 4S (better than asking opener if he has 4H or 4S) and get to the most common games. And when you really are slamming you need the partner with the balanced hand to judge how the hands are meshing. Also, garbage stayman is very important and its use is very frequent.

[andy_h]

 olien, on 2010-November-04, 16:13, said:

Well, I was planning on using stayman and transfers (not just have to relay with every GF hand). Sorry I didn't make this clear in my original post. My plan was to use this structure for slam going, normally balanced, hands, and to bid normally for unbalanced hands.

Alex swears by the relay stayman for those slam going balanced hands netting imps in each time especially when, after a few relays with a keycard response, there was still room to start locating certain honour cards - so I guess the relay stayman has its merits.

[Crunch3nt]

I've been playing relay over a weak NT for years, and I agree it has many drawbacks/limitations as others have said, but you know what - it is still better than not playing it. Easy finding of fits, honour cards and 1NT opener's doubleton makes for good bidding.

[shevek]

When in America, we play 1NT as 12-14 balanced, 5cM ok. 1♣ = 15+ any. Full relay allowed over both these.
We to give up on Garbage Stayman

1NT - 2♣^R

2♦ = no major
2♥ = 4 or 5♥s
2♠ = 4 spades
2N = 5♠s, min so passable
3♣ = 5♥s, max, then 2-5-3-3 / 3-5-2-3 / 3-5-3-2
3♦+ = 5♠s, max resolving so 3♦ = 5-2-3-3, 3♥ = 5-3-2-3, 3♠/NT = 5-3-3-2

2♦ - 2♥^R
2♠ = 5♦s, then 2-3-5-3 / 3-2-5-3 / 3-3-5-2 / 2-2-5-4
2N = 5♣s, then 2-3-3-5 / 3-2-3-5 / 3-3-2-5 / 2-2-4-5
3♣ = 2-3-4-4
3♦ = 3-2-4-4
3♥ = 3-3-4-3
3♠ = 3-3-3-4

2♥ - 2♠^R
2N = 5♥s min, then 2-5-3-3 / 3-5-2-3 / 3-5-3-2
3♣ = ♥s & ♠s, then 4-4-2-3 4-4-3-2
3♦ = ♥s & ♦s, then 2-4-4-3 / 3-4-4-2
3♥ = 2-4-3-4
3♠ = 3-4-2-4
3N = 3-4-3-3

2♠ - 3♣^R (2NT is natural invite)
3♦ = ♠s & ♦s, then 4-2-4-3 / 4-3-4-2
3♥ = 4-2-3-4
3♠ = 4-3-2-4
3N = 4-3-3-3

After shape out, Step is SP(3-2-1) ask, starting at 7.
Step +1 for kontrols(2-1) starting at 3.
Then DCB

[olien]

 Free, on 2010-November-05, 03:43, said:

We already had a discussion of the merit of playing relays like this, and the biggest disadvantage seems that you get very high before you know if opener is min or max. You also don't know anything about honor location by the time you have to make a decision. Borderline slam hands don't get solved by playing relays.

I used to play relays after 1NT since my partner insisted on them. After 2♦ and 2♥ responses we used 2♠ as a relay (keeping 1NT-2♣-2[2♥, after 2♠ we used 3♣ as the relay. Also, our 5♠332 hands were bid with 2NT (min) and 3♣ (max). We could bid all 4333,4432,5332,22(54),4H-5m-2-2, and also show a 6 card m (but not the 3 card fragment).

Anyway, my main concerns in your structure:
- the 2♦ response is 2-way which doesn't allow for fast arrival and gives away many cuebids when you're just looking for a 4 card ♠.
- you lose garbage stayman, which is imo way more useful than a full relay structure.
- you can't show 4441 or 6m322 hands
- the alternative possibilities if not using relays (example 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ as INV with 5♠) are much more frequent and valuable

I'd advise you not to play relays, use 1NT-2♠ as some min/max ask, and have some way to start balanced slam investigation after that (for example use 1NT-2♠-...-3♦). This is also much more flexible for opener, and responder will have a good idea about the limit of the hand before going past 3NT and committing himself to slam investigation.

So, I guess I should type out the entire structure that I'm considering. One doesn't HAVE to relay just to find 4 spades as there is also a puppet stayman response (so you also don't have to relay to see if partner has 5H's after the 2H re-bid over 2C). The structure is basically like this:

2♣ = stayman, could be start of ®
2♦ = 5+♥
2♥ = 5+♠
2♠ = size or various m GF's
2NT = puppet stayman
3♣ = weak ♦ or GF with long ♣
3♦ = GF ♦, short M
3M = short oM, 5/5+ minors
3NT = to play

After 1N-2R// 2R+1, play transfer re-bids

After 1N-2♠// F:
Responder can show 6+♦ short ♣
Responder can show short ♦
Responder can show a balanced slam hand with ♦

After 1N-2NT:
3♣ = no 5M
......3♦ = short major (usually (31)54 type)
......3M = 4oM
3M = 5M

After a stayman response, and O's reply, responder can also choose to show shortness in opener's M or in ♣, or make a splinter raise. I can't really type out the entire structure since its not really mine to share, but responder can choose to show or ask while basically only giving up garbage stayman. Wonder if its worthwhile

[edit] if responder just wants to be in game and is interested in a 4-4 spade fit, go via 2NT puppet stayman, and over the expected 3C re-bid, responder bids 3H.

[Free]

This looks a lot like Meckwells structure. Why not just play their entire structure? I'm sure it's good

Also note that you can't use this version of puppet stayman with 4-4M.

[olien]

I know that about not using this version of puppet stayman with 4-4 majors, and I know the full RM structure xD.

Was thinking of a slight change to 1N-2N and play:
3♣ = no 5M
3♦ = 5♠
3♥ = 5♥

Over 3♦:
3♥ = strong ♠ raise
3♠ = natural, prefer to declare
4m = natural
4♥ = transfer
4♠ = to play

[straube]

Meckwll does well with distinguishing 2155 from 1255 and 3163 from 1363. Don't they have trouble after say 1N-2C, 2S from distinguishing GI raise from GF 1444, 1453, 2452, 3361,2263,1426, etc?