[jmcw]

MickyB, on 2012-August-28, 07:55, said:

Defence is much easier after 1N:2C, 2H:2N, 3N than it is after 1N:3N or 1N:2N, 3N.

Okay I see your point, but I'm not convinced yet.
As responder I may or may not have a 4 card M when I invite.

So when I do have a 4cM, then, presumably the auction would be the same, regardless of which method we play 1NT>>2♣ etc.

The only time when the auction will diverge should be when responder does not have a 4cM. But in these instances it is not be immediately known whether responder has a 4cM or not.

1NT>>2♣>>2D>>2N in this scenerio we reveal that opener has no 4cM, but responders hand remains unknown
1NT>>2NT in this scenerio we know that reponder has no 4cM and openers hand remain unknown.
I don't see why case 1, neccessarily makes the defence much easier.

I think I would lead "normally" against both auctions, but I do agree that after seeing dummy I would likely be better placed knowing opener has no 4cM.

Similarly,
1NT>>2C>>2M>>2NT
1NT>>2NT
The defence learns about openers 4cM but once again responers holding may still be unknown.

Anytime responder has GF values the auction should be the same regardless, so 1NT:3NT would be repeated in both scenerios.

[mycroft]

Any time that responder shows something, that helps the opening lead.
Any time that declarer shows something, that helps throughout the hand.

There's a difference - especially at the N/B/I level.

When you *have to* give away information about the closed hand to the defence to invite, the situation where the contract is most likely to be touch-and-go (whether partner takes the invite or not!), you're hurting yourself. When you can choose to give away information about the closed hand, because it benefits you in other ways (choice of games, for instance); you're still hurting yourself, but there's a compensatory benefit.

Leaving the realm of the theoretical, for N/B, I recommend learning how to play whatever the people you look up to, and would like to play with occasionally, play. For one thing, you're more likely to be invited to play with them - or the group between you and them, who are also probably learning from these people - which can't hurt; for another, if you're playing something your mentors play, it's more likely they will have assistance for you when you ask about a hand.

Having said that, a variation on fromageGB's system seems to be a minimal-cost improvement (except in "oops, forgot" and "nobody plays it here, so unless I'm playing with <favourite pard>, I'm swapping back and forth." Note that that increases the "oops, forgot" quotient significantly!) - spoilered because it really isn't N/B:

Spoiler

2♠ - balanced invitation
2NT - forced club transfer (weak or strong)
3♣ - forced diamond transfer (weak or strong).

This allows other things to be piled into the invite, like being able to accept the invite with a 5-card major, or as Keri does, throwing all the "single-suit slam tries" into the invite (opener accepts with 3♣).

The cost is that they can double for a spade lead into NT instead of into a likely trump contract; in exchange, they're less likely to be able to find their 3♠ contract over your 3♣ bailout.

[Zelandakh]

Bluecalm's idea would be my first suggestion within the parameters of the OP too. A second idea is to hide diamonds in Stayman. For example

2♠ = weak/invitational with clubs; or clubs and another suit, slammy
2NT = natural invite
3♣ = clubs only, slammy
3♦ = diamonds only, slammy

2♣ - 2M - 3♣ = forces 3♦; weak with diamonds; or diamonds and a major
2♣ - 2M - 3♦ = invitational with diamonds
2♣ - 2♦ - P = weak with diamonds or normal Exit Stayman
2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ = diamonds and another suit, slammy
2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ = invitational with diamonds

This allows you to get out in 2♦ with the weak takeout hand sometimes (also has some disadvantages). Probably bluecalm's approach is more suitable for you and your partner though.

[Fluffy]

I've always played 2NT natural with 3♣ transfer to diamonds, it has worked very well for me.

[Cthulhu D]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-05, 08:40, said:

I've always played 2NT natural with 3♣ transfer to diamonds, it has worked very well for me.

This is fine,I suspect the gains from 2S-> clubs, 2NT-> diamonds enabling super accepts are marginal or non existent.

[fromageGB]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-September-06, 20:52, said:

This is fine,I suspect the gains from 2S-> clubs, 2NT-> diamonds enabling super accepts are marginal or non existent.

We are drifting away from N/B here, but I disagree with this. Super-accepts can gain when you are borderline slamming, but it doesn't happen often, of course. However, the problem comes when you want a weak takeout to a minor, and partner does not bid it, forcing you to play the hand. This happens OFTEN. (Comparatively!) So wrong-siding is the big downside of this method.

This is why I like NT->♣ and ♣->♦, to get the weak takeouts always played correctly, and ♠ as minor suit stayman. You can use this with a borderline slam 5 card minor to see if a fit exists, and if partner bids ♣ when you have the diamonds, you can always find out if he has diamonds as well. This seems to me to get the benefits of super-accepts without the drawbacks.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2012-September-07, 03:09, said:

This seems to me to get the benefits of super-accepts without the drawbacks.

Except that you have now lost the invites with a broken minor one-suiter. If you are willing to give up these then there are better methods around. One of the points of playing 2♠ as clubs and 2NT as diamonds is freeing up the 3m bids for some purpose. This is obviously not available if 3♣ shows diamonds. As I pointed out before, one way around this is to play 2♠ as clubs and pass diamond hands through Stayman. There are lots of potnetial solutions here though and so long as the methods fit together logically there is usually at least one advantage for any given method over another.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-07, 04:05, said:

Except that you have now lost the invites with a broken minor one-suiter.

I take your point that your earlier idea has merits, particularly in my view with game invitational minors, but it is more complex than some prefer, and may conflict with other established system ideas. As you say, it is the integrated system fitting together that counts more than any particular method.

My approach is to have the slam invitational possibly broken minor one-suiter start with minor suit stayman 2♠ to ascertain the degree of fit. I have less need for the game invitation as I use a 2 point NT range, but agree that you lose this possibility with my simple approach. Other simple approaches may give you one or both game invitational minors but at the expense of wrong-siding when you play in a minor. This makes it possibly preferable to dispense with showing the minor, and just bidding 2NT as a natural invitation in ♠->♣ and ♣->♦ framework. Right-siding is important when one hand has a long minor and hence short in the majors.

[Cthulhu D]

My Statement should only be taken as this:

For a beginner: 2S -> Clubs, 3C -> Diamonds, 2NT natural invite vs 2S: Clubs, 2NT: Diamonds, invites via stayman is a wash.

[daveharty]

Here's a playable system for beginners:

After 1NT:
2C = Stayman (with a non-invitational club hand, rebid 3C next; any other new suit rebid shows a big hand)
2D = to play
2H = to play
2S = to play
2NT = natural, invitational
3C = natural, invitational
3D = natural, invitational
3H = natural, invitational
3S = natural, invitational
3NT = to play

I'm actually not being flip. Obviously this system is not optimal; but what is lost? Yes, you will "wrongside" most suit contracts; but in beginner games where system "forgets" are a serious issue, wrongsiding really isn't what you should be worrying about. Rightsiding contracts isn't the primary goal of transfer sequences, anyway; that's just an ancillary benefit. The real benefit comes because transfers open up a host of new sequences to describe various hand types. But beginners shouldn't be worrying about that; they should be worrying about knowing their basic system well enough that they don't have silly avoidable results based on partnership misunderstandings. Get to reasonable contracts, work on your defense and declarer play, and the more complicated system stuff will start to take care of itself, because as you gain experience, you will start to encounter situations where you will say to yourself, "Self, it would be really cool if our system had a better way to bid this type of hand." That's when you should start adding conventions, organically.

Of course, if you're a beginner but you already know that you're a system wonk, throw all this out the window.

[Quantumcat]

daveharty, on 2012-September-11, 07:06, said:

Here's a playable system for beginners:

This is a good idea, I have seen lots of supervised players/experienced beginners not know how to handle NT transfer auctions, they might rebid 3M with a gameforce hand with five major (thinking they are giving partner the choice of 3NT or 4 major), or rebid 2NT with a bad five card major and a weak hand (they were told they must transfer with a five card major, but didn't like the suit so tried to get out of it afterwards) etc.

Your comments about system forgets is sort of like in chess between beginners, where the person that wins has just made less silly mistakes along the lines of putting a queen on a square diagonally in front of a pawn because they forgot a pawn captures diagonally. In bridge between beginners the side that wins probably ended up in fewer stupid contracts than the other side due to forgetting system :-)

[mycroft]

two issues about Natural:
- most people can't remember how to play this (or never learned!), limiting your partners.
- Invitational has to be defined. It probably should be different for minors (as it's likely INV to 3NT, not the suit) than for the majors.

Of course all of that "extra discussion" should be done to play transfers as well...

[JLOGIC]

The great thing about bridge is you can play different things based on your comfort level. It sounds like you like natural 2N a lot and are uncomfortable not having it, which is fine, it's a matter of personal preference especially when you're first starting.

I would also recommend the bluecalm approach if natural 2N is important to you. 2S transfer to clubs, 3C transfer to diamonds, 2N natural. It's certainly a reasonable way to play.