[Hanoi5]

1♣-1NT
16+-balanced 8-13

Now 2♣ is transfer stayman which you can use to find out partner's 4-card suits and sometimes his whole distribution as well as placing the range in a 3-point count. You can also show your 5-card+ suit and expect partner to show support with 3 or deny it by returning to NT at which point you can bid your second (at least a 4-card) suit. Questions:

1. Is there a best approach for a 5-4 hand, with a singleton, rich in controls? I suppose a 5-5 or more is better handled by showing the higher ranking suit first, what would you do with:
♠AK9xx
♥KQxx
♦A
♣AKx

2. Say you choose to do transfer stayman, how do you tell partner 'we're playing in this suit' after knowing his distribution? Are bids after knowing partner's distribution askings or natural bids? What's better?

3. How do you play 4NT by opener after responder has settled his range in 3-points and given his whole distribution? Does it depend on the answer to the previous question?

[the_clown]

Assuming you know his whole distribution and point range by 3nt you can play the following.

4♣-RKCB ♣, 4♦-relay to 4♥-either Exit in 4M- opener passes or bids 4♠, or Slam Interest in♥- next bid 4NT-RKCB ♥.
4♥-RKCB ♦
4♠-RKCB ♠
4NT-invitational to 6NT

If you dont play relais to 3NT and just check if p has a 4card major, I would suggest all your bids are natural. With the hand above you will just bid ♠s at the lowest level, p will know that you dont have a 6card suit since if you had one, you would set ♠ as trumps right away

[Zelandakh]

Or you can play one of the other the popular stop signal plus 4-way KCB schemes. Or (my choice)

4C = puppet to 4D
... then 4H = RKCB for diamonds
... - ... 4S = RKCB for hearts
... - ... 4N = RKCB for spades
4D = RKCB for clubs
4M, 5m = to play
4N = natural and invitational

The same works if the last bid was 3S or 3NT too (assuming you want 4C now as a relay) but then you need to bid 4D when signing off in 4H. The weakness of this, as well as the stop signal method, is giving the opps a free lead-director on EVERY hand. If they are doubling for the lead when we are in a slam auction then it is not so serious because it comes up less and, when it does, we have more use for the extra space they have just given us. But, in general, I think the OP was looking more for methods of exploring the best strain rather than how to approach things at the end of shape resolution...

[dake50]

Started wrong.
Now you see the problems with 1NT:8-13 bal response to 1C force.
1) I suggest 1S-> bal 8-13 OR Clubs transfer.
That lets 1C opener use typical NT scheme with his 1NT rebid.
Intend strong 1C to declare and let responder show.
2) Where does 1D fit in your NT ladder? Below 1NT opener only?
Below OR above by rebid? Eg. 18 in 1D to rebid 2NT,
11-13 rebids 1NT; 1NT opener 14-16.
Use 1D to clarify 1C and rebid in your NT ladder.
3) I much prefer asks. I know what I want to know usually.
Even when my ask helps little, I have certain knowledge.

[Hanoi5]

1- The idea of a two-type-hand bid by responder sounds great but we're not ready to get at it. I'm planning to add 1♣-1♥ for spades, 1♣-1♠ for hearts. In any case the problem remains the same: with the hand shown, is it better to ask for responder's shape (which could lead to not knowing if there's a spade fit) or to show spades (which leads to partner's 2NT to show only 2 spades after which hearts can be shown or partner showing 3-4 cards fit and Nº of controls). Of course I'm leading the witness, but showing your hand can get you to ask about the cards you need (Club Queen, Heart Ace) while the other road can get you too high too fast (1♣-1NT-2♣-3NT shows a 5-card minor and 11-13 HCP's).

2- The idea of Specific KC sounds great, too. However it does eliminate the possibility of using askings (doesn't it), which could be important. Natural bids also could help in order to choose a trump suit and keep the bidding forcing, but I guess you can't have it all.

3- My partner wants to have 4NT available as KeyCard/Aces ask, is this fine? Isn't quantitative better?

[Zelandakh]

If you do not like 2-way bids but still want the advantage of transfers then you might like my approach. For me, 1C - 1S shows any GF hand without a 4+ card major. Then 1NT is a relay followed by

1C - 1S - 1NT
=============
2C = 5+ diamonds, 0-4 clubs
2D = 6+ clubs, 0-3 diamonds
2H = balanced
... 2S = further relay
... - ... 2N = 5 clubs
... - ... 3C = 5 diamonds
... - ... 3D = 4 clubs, 4 diamonds
... - ... 3H = 3334
... - ... 3S = 3343
2S = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
2N = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds
3C = 6 clubs, 4 diamonds, 0-1 spades
3D = 2146
3H = 3046
3S = 1147

You won't miss any fits. The problem in a standard precision context is with extras. Therefore I only relay with extras (18+ where 1C shows 15+) but I have fewer weaker hands to worry about (only balanced or with clubs). If you follow a structure like this then I suggest you think carefully about which hands present issues and use relay breaks to handle them.

I do not have alot of experience with the asking bid approach since I have always found it dubious. I think the standard way would probably be to make a spade ask followed by a heart ask. If you have shape relays available starting at 2C then I am surprised you cannot find out whether Responder has 3 spades and/or 4 hearts before 3NT.

[steve2005]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-26, 01:48, said:

If you do not like 2-way bids but still want the advantage of transfers then you might like my approach. For me, 1C - 1S shows any GF hand without a 4+ card major. Then 1NT is a relay followed by

1C - 1S - 1NT
=============
2C = 5+ diamonds, 0-4 clubs
2D = 6+ clubs, 0-3 diamonds
2H = balanced
... 2S = further relay
... - ... 2N = 5 clubs
... - ... 3C = 5 diamonds
... - ... 3D = 4 clubs, 4 diamonds
... - ... 3H = 3334
... - ... 3S = 3343
2S = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
2N = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds
3C = 6 clubs, 4 diamonds, 0-1 spades
3D = 2146
3H = 3046
3S = 1147

You won't miss any fits. The problem in a standard precision context is with extras. Therefore I only relay with extras (18+ where 1C shows 15+) but I have fewer weaker hands to worry about (only balanced or with clubs). If you follow a structure like this then I suggest you think carefully about which hands present issues and use relay breaks to handle them.

I do not have alot of experience with the asking bid approach since I have always found it dubious. I think the standard way would probably be to make a spade ask followed by a heart ask. If you have shape relays available starting at 2C then I am surprised you cannot find out whether Responder has 3 spades and/or 4 hearts before 3NT.

i like this, it certainly will find fits. It uses up an extra bid though and still have to show Hearts(assuming 1H shows spades)balanced hands with 4 card major and hands with 4 card major and 5+ card minor. I've seen some people show 4 card majors directly with their major suit bids. How do you show these other hands?

[Zelandakh]

The full reply structure is:-

1D = negative
1H = 4+ spades, not balanced or 3-suited unless also 4-5 hearts, GF
1S = no 4-card major, GF
1N = hearts and clubs or hearts only, GF
2C = hearts and diamonds, GF
2D = 4-5 hearts and 0-3 spades, balanced or 3-suited, GF
2H = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, balanced, GF
2S = 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, 3-suited, GF
2N = solid suit, GF
3any = very weak, preemptive

The hands with hearts end up being divided between 1H, 1NT, 2C and 2D. The relative lengths of suits are irrelevant here too in classical sym-relay style. With 7 hearts and 4 spades you still reply 1H to show the 4 spades first. This also applies to the 4M-5+m hands - respond 1H if the major is spades, respond 1NT for 4H-5+C and 2C for 4H-5+D. The relative lengths get sorted out on the second or third round. For example, 1C - 1NT; 2C - 2H shows 4 hearts and 5+ clubs. All other rebids promise 5+ hearts.

As you can see, the structure means splitting by major rather than the more popular balanced/unbalanced style. Balanced hands are split between 1S, 2D and 2H while 3-suiters are split between 1H, 2D and 2S. I think it is much more important to get a major in play asap and designed things this way specifically; it also improves right-siding optimisation slightly as a by-product. Obvious disadvantages are that it is harder to remember and that it does not immediately show a 5th card in the major when there is one.

If you find this kind of structure interesting then I strongly advise you to look up symmetric relay and TOSR to get an idea of the basic form from which these ideas come from. This will also give you a feel for how you might design the follow-ups should you decide to go the relay route for which this was designed.