[shevek]

1. ♠KTxx ♥xx ♦AQx ♣xxxx

You bid 2♠ with this & 2NT instead on an invite with no major.
Perhaps you do this because 1NT - 2NT is not natural, maybe ♦s.

2. ♠KTxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AJxx

You decide this is not worth transfer then 3♣ GF & you don't fancy transfer then 2NT.

3. ♠QTxx ♥x ♦QJ9xx ♣xxx

You dreamed about hearing 2♠. Now you just want to survive.
You expect partner to pass with 3 or 4 ♠s. You hope he lets you play in 3♦ otherwise.

4. If it's forcing, does it show 4 or 5? Maybe

♠KTxx ♥x ♦AKQx ♣xxxx

Thx

[sasioc]

I like this as an invite with 4 spades because it allows us to play in the right partscore when partner is not accepting the invite (I play non-promissory stayman so 2NT would indeed show an invite without a 4 card major)

2) I don't really understand why I "don't fancy" transfer then 2NT on this - because I'm not balanced/semi balanced? Because of my small singleton diamond? I'd have thought balanced invites with a 5 card major sufficiently rare that I don't really want to take this bid up so that I can show them, particularly as I'm not really sure what the advantage of this is, except that I might play in 3NT instead of 4♠ sometimes when it's right. This feels like a smaller gain than being able to play in 2♠ with an invitational hand rather than 2NT when we have a reasonable spade fit.

3) I would not consider playing this as a weak run out because this feels like it is asking for trouble when p doesn't have useful spades - I'd just pass 1NT. On the hand that you have given as an example I'd feel pretty good about passing 1NT as we have the balance of the strength and I have a source of tricks.

4) With a hand that wanted to show 5 spades and force I'd start with a transfer and to show 4 spades and a force I would bid 2♣ and then my 5 card minor over partner's non-2♠ response or 3NT/4NT/6NT (all natural) if I didn't have a minor I could bid. With a 4144 hand I would have started with 3♥ (splinter) but if I was not playing that I would now treat my hand as balanced with 4♠.

[Hanoi5]

minor suit stayman

[han]

Invite with 5, not necessarily unbalanced.

[JLOGIC]

sasioc, on 2011-November-17, 04:22, said:

2) I don't really understand why I "don't fancy" transfer then 2NT on this - because I'm not balanced/semi balanced? Because of my small singleton diamond? I'd have thought balanced invites with a 5 card major sufficiently rare that I don't really want to take this bid up so that I can show them, particularly as I'm not really sure what the advantage of this is, except that I might play in 3NT instead of 4♠ sometimes when it's right. This feels like a smaller gain than being able to play in 2♠ with an invitational hand rather than 2NT when we have a reasonable spade fit.

I am a fan of this treatment... the example hand may be too strong. Something like KTxxx x KJxxx xx, or KT9xx x xxx KQxx probably illustrates it better, basically it's a hand that might well make 4S if partner has 3 spades and a max, but does not rate to make game when partner has 2 spades and a max. It is trying to get to 4S and not 3N, and if that is not possible, to play 2S (rather than possibly 2N). I think this is a good hand type to cater to since it helps you find light games, and we all know how awesome bidding game is!

You mention that playing the right partscore when partner is rejecting is a reason that you like to play 2S as showing 4 and an invite, but it will be much more common when you have 5 and an invite that this is true, rarely is 2N going to be better than 2S with even a 5-2 fit.

[sasioc]

Repeat post

[sasioc]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-17, 06:24, said:

I am a fan of this treatment... the example hand may be too strong. Something like KTxxx x KJxxx xx, or KT9xx x xxx KQxx probably illustrates it better, basically it's a hand that might well make 4S if partner has 3 spades and a max, but does not rate to make game when partner has 2 spades and a max. It is trying to get to 4S and not 3N, and if that is not possible, to play 2S (rather than possibly 2N). I think this is a good hand type to cater to since it helps you find light games, and we all know how awesome bidding game is!

You mention that playing the right partscore when partner is rejecting is a reason that you like to play 2S as showing 4 and an invite, but it will be much more common when you have 5 and an invite that this is true, rarely is 2N going to be better than 2S with even a 5-2 fit.

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. But why are we splitting our 5 card spade invites into balanced and unbalanced? I assumed the point of distinguishing between bal and unbal here could only be to play in NT with two flat hands but I've clearly missed something! What you've said sounds like an argument to play 2S here as a 5 card invite but it seemed like the OP was saying they'd bid 2NT here with a different 5 card spade invite (a flatter one) , which is what I really don't get. Am I being particularly dense?

[Zelandakh]

The suggestion is to use 1NT - 2H; 2S - 2NT as an invite interested in 3NT or 4S (power invite) and 1NT - 2C; 2H - 2S as an invite interested only in 4S (shape invite).

[JLOGIC]

sasioc, on 2011-November-17, 06:51, said:

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. But why are we splitting our 5 card spade invites into balanced and unbalanced? I assumed the point of distinguishing between bal and unbal here could only be to play in NT with two flat hands but I've clearly missed something! What you've said sounds like an argument to play 2S here as a 5 card invite but it seemed like the OP was saying they'd bid 2NT here with a different 5 card spade invite (a flatter one) , which is what I really don't get. Am I being particularly dense?

A hand that is based on an 8 count and a 5 card suit could easily make 3N. A hand that is based on less HCP but more shape could easily make 4S but not 3N. So, if you transfer and bid 2N you show the former, if you bid 2C then 2S you show the latter. I think this is a useful distinction to be able to make.

The 8 count, especially if balanced, is also more likely to make 2N when you play there. Sure, you'd rather play 2S whenever partner is rejecting your invite, but at least it is not a disaster to be in 2N and you will make it fairly often. The times you go down in 2N can be compensated for by the times you get to 3N and make it.

I also play in some partnerships what han discussed and what you seem to be implying, that 2C then 2S should be ALL invites with 5. Over this, bidding 2N shows a max with a doubleton (minimum would pass, max with fit can raise). Now, if partner has a 5-5 hand type he can bid 3m and you play a reasonable spot. If partner has a 5332 8 count they can bid 3N. If partner has something in between like 5431 or KJTxx xx QJTx xx, they have to guess what to do. This is the downside of that system, that hand type would probably pass 2N and be in an inferior spot as opposed to 2S. On the other hand, you have now free'd up 1N 2H 2S 2N as artificial, which is definitely worth it imo.

This post has been edited by JLOGIC: 2011-November-17, 08:13

[Phil]

han, on 2011-November-17, 05:42, said:

Invite with 5, not necessarily unbalanced.

True, but you also play 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 2N as something other than flat 8?

[Siegmund]

My current treatment is to play 2S in this auction as a 6-8ish hand with 4 spades and 5+ of a minor - a hand insistent on playing in one of its two suits, though not overly interested in game unless partner has an omgwowmax.

If I changed my methods here it would be to Martens's Transfer-after-Stayman rebid package.

Big believer here in avoiding invitational 2NT bids whenever possible.

jlogic's 5-spades treatment is one I haven't ever given much thought to. May have potential. (Depending where he is putting the hands it displaces of course.)

[shevek]

1 (small?) loss in in playing this 2♠ as an invite with 5 is the loss of one of the garbage hands.

Presumably

♠Jxxxx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣xx

has to transfer and pass, since 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ presumably shows the invite for people like Han.
Thus you will occasionally play 5-2 ♠s instead of 4-4 ♥s via Garbage.

[JLOGIC]

Is that really such a big loss? Sometimes you will hold that hand, and sometimes partner will have 3-3 in the majors, so sometimes you will play 2H instead of 2S if you bid 2C then 2H. On hands that have really good spades, you can transfer and pass. Obv depends if it's MP or imps but it is really unlikely to matter much at imps. Personally I'd much rather dedicate 2C then 2S to helping me find light games (while not getting me to a stupid contract when I don't have game), or to help my slam bidding (using 2C then 2S as all invites, to free up 2H 2S 2N as artificial, to help your game/slam bidding, makes a lot of sense). Using it to help me play 2S instead of 2H when partner is 3-3 in the majors just doesn't seem as important as that.

[Free]

shevek, on 2011-November-17, 18:14, said:

1 (small?) loss in in playing this 2♠ as an invite with 5 is the loss of one of the garbage hands.

Presumably

♠Jxxxx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣xx

has to transfer and pass, since 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ presumably shows the invite for people like Han.
Thus you will occasionally play 5-2 ♠s instead of 4-4 ♥s via Garbage.

I have the agreement that garbage stayman shows equal or longer ♠s, so opener can always correct with a 3 card ♠. With longer ♥ we just transfer. Yes, occasionally you'll play 2♥ when there's a ♠ fit available, but it's not as frequent as a ♠ invite.

Note that playing 1NT-2♣-2red-2♠ as INV with 5♠ has other advantages. For example, it enables you to free up 1NT-2♥-2♠-2NT. This extra step can improve your NT structure dramatically. And being able to play 2♠ opposite a minimum opener with ♠Hx is also quite nice. The cost of not always playing the best contract when responder has a weak hand with 4♠ and 5+♥ is negligable imo.

[TheoKole]

I play full garbage stayman with my regular partners, (this includes short ♣, short ♦ and short ♥. So this sequence would be weak stayman with short ♥. This treatment is not standard though and trying it with a weak hand without an agreement is asking for trouble. With a pickup partner or someone that I have no specific agreement I would treat it as an invite with 5 spades and 4 hearts.

Theo

[phil_20686]

I think that there is good value in playing 2c-2n and 2c-3c as showing both four card majors min/max. There is a sliht loss when partner has garbage stayman with 5-4, but then you ahve an 8 and 9 card fit so there is probably a decent chance 3M is the spot anyway.

This improves your slam bidding by insuring that you always have both splinters and cue bids, so now

1n-2c-2h-2s = slam try with 4 hearts and no shortage. 1n-2c-2h-jump = splinter.

[Zelandakh]

I don't understand this, Phil. Playing onld 2DHS responses to Stayman you still have enough bids available for both cues and splinters. You can get even more out of your system if you use 3D for this (over 2H) giving you 2S for something else. For example:-

1NT - 2C; 2H
============
2S = range ask, possible Baron hand
2N = clubs
3C = diamonds
3D = good heart raise
3H = invitational
3S, 4m = splinters

If you wanted to also include Justin's method you could achieve it by running the hands with primary clubs and a 4 card major through your club transfer and having a response for a 2NT invite without a 4 card major. Both of these could be contained within a 2S response without having to make serious concessions elsewhere in the system.

[Flameous]

Seems like advertising time again.
http://toohighagain....yman-twist.html

Seems others have come up with the same approach since this was the first time I heard someone else suggesting this 2♠ bid to be weak.
I like it, it gives me way to scramble with 4144, 40(54), 41(53), 41(62), 40(63) shapes I otherwise should mostly pass. Of course this is much more important for me as I tend to play weak or mini NT.

My other choice would be 5 card invite (any) since getting retransfers after transfers makes your slam bidding accuracy skyrocket. That's just not much of a goal with weak NT.

I wouldn't play a structure where I have to go through stayman without majors, 2S and 2NT should easily take care of both balanced invites and minor hands.

[Flameous]

Oops, double post

This post has been edited by Flameous: 2011-November-22, 05:29