[the hog]

Before adopting Keri we played the following:

1NT 2S = range probe or the beginning of a Baron sequence
Now 2NT = min, 3C = max. After 2NT 3C = t/p 3D+ = Baron, slam try. (With another pd after 2NT or 3C, 3D = slam try in D, 3H = 5/5 Ms invit, 3S = 5/5 Ms GF, 3NT or 3C if available = slam try in C)

1NT 2NT =Puppet to 3C; to play with C or some 4441
Now after 3C - pass = t/p, 3D/H/S/NT = 4441 shapes with the suit below the singleton

[jallerton]

 PhantomSac, on 2014-October-15, 16:10, said:

This is what I have played for a long time, but even it is going to become outdated (or already has). Ever since MECKWELL switched to 2N puppet, a lot of the people I play with/talk to have done the same. Not that it's standard or anything, but it seems clearly superior and I am going to switch soon also. There are two main gains to making 2N puppet and 3C diamonds, the first is they don't get to make a lead directing X of puppet which is nice, and the second is you can now combine (31)(54) into 2N freeing up your 3H and 3S bids.

Over 2N puppet, partner bids 3C with no 5cM. Then you bid 3D with (31)(54), or 3M with 4oM. Over 3D your partner can ask for your shortness (but a lot of the times he can just bid 3N, and now the opponents don't know dummys stiff, and RHO has not had a chance to X partners stiff, so the lead is much more difficult -- less information leakage).

You can use the 3H and 3S bids to solve other holes, the main problem with the structure outlined is that (4441) is not showable, so I'm guessing using 3H as 4144 and 3S as 1444 makes sense. 44(14) can still not be shown but it is less of a problem, if you stayman you will often catch a fit, if you don't 3N is probably ok (but not always lol).

You give up being able to invite in diamonds to play this, but again that seems like it should be the least prioritized as it is not frequent at all and you will guess right half the time when you hold it anyways. (Side note, you said that over 2N opener bids their better minor, IMO that is a mistake and you should just play 3D accepts an inv in diamonds and 3C rejects, the 5-5 minors hand is even less frequent than inv in diamonds I would guess, and most of the time if partner doesn't like diamonds you should play 3C, and if they like diamonds playing diamonds will be ok even though clubs might be a better fit, so you are not losing much to cater to the diamond hands. It also helps for slam hands if you have shown whether you like diamodns yet or not).

Without making any assessment of the quantitative effect, I should point out that it's not just invitational hands with ♦ this method loses on. Whenever, Responder is game forcing or stronger, he no longer has the information about Opener's diamond enthusiasm at a low level.
Playing 1NT-2♠ as a clubs or a raise to 2NT means that Responder doesn't know about Opener's club enthusuiasm at a low level, but then at least Responder finds out some different potentially useful information (min or max) in return.

[jallerton]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-15, 05:50, said:

It seems to be expert standard (including wannabe experts) to play, after partner's 1NT opening:
2♣ followed by 2NT: Denies four spades if opener bid 2♥
2♣ followed by 2♠ (if opener bids 2♥): four spades, invitational
2NT: Diamonds

Some invert 2♠ and 2NT after the 2♥ rebid, and some play something similar to GIBerish with 2NT->clubs, but in any case "everybody" bids 2♣ when holding 8-9 points balanced without a four-card major.

It strikes me as extremely inefficient. I understand that opener doesn't care about responder's four-card major when the rebid is 2♦, and doesn't care about responder's four hearts when the rebid is 2♠. So superficially it has some appeal. But even if you insist in using the direct 2NT bid for something artificial, wouldn't it be much better, when holding a balanced hand with 8-9 points and no 4-card major, just to pass with 8 and blast with 9?

Pass-and-blast would be marginally less accurate because opener is in a better position to decide opposite 8-9 than responder is opposite 15-17. But:
- You play 1NT instead of 2NT with 15+8 points.
- You don't leak information about opener's major suit holding when you don't care about it.
- You don't tell opps whether you are in a tight game or not, and you don't tell them about opener's HCPs.
- They can't double 2♣ (or make some lead-directing bid).
- The 2♠ bid can be used for something else. If nothing else fits in your structure, you can always define it as a weak hand with four spades and longer diamonds (including 4144, allowing opener to suggest 3♣ just in case).

Any thoughts?

Someone invents a reasonable system, which many people learn. I think that playing 2♠/NT as minor suit transfers is theoretically worse than something like the structure described in post #11, but the net loss is relatively small. It might seem lazy, but it's often more practical to agree to play a system both partners are familiar with and to save the limited time available for discussion for competitive sequences.

If I have to invite to 2NT through Stayman, I'm slightly more inclined to pass or bid 3NT on marginal hands, but if I have a down the middle invitation, I still think it's better to go via 2C rather than not invite at all.

[agumperz]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-15, 05:50, said:

It seems to be expert standard (including wannabe experts) to play, after partner's 1NT opening:
2[lc] followed by 2NT: Denies four spades if opener bid 2♥
2[lc] followed by 2♠ (if opener bids 2♥): four spades, invitational
2NT: Diamonds

Some invert 2♠ and 2NT after the 2♥ rebid, and some play something similar to GIBerish with 2NT->clubs, but in any case "everybody" bids 2♣ when holding 8-9 points balanced without a four-card major.

It strikes me as extremely inefficient. I understand that opener doesn't care about responder's four-card major when the rebid is 2♦, and doesn't care about responder's four hearts when the rebid is 2♠. So superficially it has some appeal. But even if you insist in using the direct 2NT bid for something artificial, wouldn't it be much better, when holding a balanced hand with 8-9 points and no 4-card major, just to pass with 8 and blast with 9?

Pass-and-blast would be marginally less accurate because opener is in a better position to decide opposite 8-9 than responder is opposite 15-17. But:
- You play 1NT instead of 2NT with 15+8 points.
- You don't leak information about opener's major suit holding when you don't care about it.
- You don't tell opps whether you are in a tight game or not, and you don't tell them about opener's HCPs.
- They can't double 2♣ (or make some lead-directing bid).
- The 2♠ bid can be used for something else. If nothing else fits in your structure, you can always define it as a weak hand with four spades and longer diamonds (including 4144, allowing opener to suggest 3♣ just in case).

Any thoughts?

Yes. One of the worst sequences in bridge is:
1NT -- 2♣
2♦ -- 2NT (invitational with no 4M)
...

You have just drawn a road map for a major suit lead. Pass or blast serves you much better than this sequence. If my partner insists on playing this method, I just pass-or-blast without telling them, boycotting this invitational sequence.

Here is a simple structure that does not add too much complexity which is better.

Stayman is bid with one of these hand types:
* weak, three suited, short in clubs (will pass any response)
* weak, both majors (will convert 2♦ to 2♥)
* one + 4M and inv+ values
* exactly 5-spades, unbalanced and exactly inv values.

Sequences
1NT -- 2♣
2♦ -- ?
2♥ = both majors weak
2♠ = 5 spades, unbalanced and invitational
2NT = invitational with one or 2 4M

1NT -- 2♣
2♥ -- ?
2♠ = 5 spades, unbalanced and invitational
2NT = natural and invitational, 4-spades

1NT -- 2♥
2♠ -- ?
2NT = balanced and invitational
3X = normal

1NT -- 2♦
2♥ -- ?
2♠ = 5 hearts, unbalanced invitational
2NT = 5 hearts, balanced and invitational

1NT -- 2♠ = artificial size ask
2NT = min
3♣ = max

2!S is bid either with a balanced invitation, or with clubs (any strength)

1NT -- 2♠
2NT -- ?
P = balanced invite
3♣ = weak with clubs
3X = 6+ clubs, shortness in bid suit and GF
3NT = 6+ clubs, GF, no shortness, mild slam invite.

In this structure, you get better invites with hands like: ♠KT9xx, ♥x, ♦Axxx, ♣JTx

You can show 5 spades and invitational values in an unbalanced hand. You lose the silly Stayman sequence where you both force partner to show his major shortness and reveal your own while inviting to 3NT on a flat hand.

More Complex Alternatives
1. Adopt Puppet Stayman responses to 1NT.
2. Adopt Second round transfers after Jacoby.

Both of these are good methods, but require more work.

[gordontd]

 agumperz, on 2014-October-16, 01:50, said:

Yes. One of the worst sequences in bridge is:
1NT -- 2!C
2!D -- 2NT (invitational with no 4M)

Does anyone play that? I know they play
1NT -- 2♣
2♥ -- 2NT (invitational without 4♠)

and

1NT -- 2♣
2♦ -- 2NT (invitational without necessarily 4M)

but I can't think of anything that would lead them to different rebids after partner denies 4M, to show or deny 4M themselves.

[yunling]

My simulation shows that "pass or blast" works quite well(probably a winner)even if you have a 3.25 count range for 1NT opening. But in reality many people are not very good at evaluation and just concentrate on HCP counts thus they probably have a 4 count or wider range for their 1NT, which is why a 2NT invitation is needed.
I prefer to just play forum standard without a range ask.

[rhm]

 PhantomSac, on 2014-October-15, 16:10, said:

I also played pass or blast for quite a while, I think because I read on here that Fred and Brad played that way for a while, and I hated the information leak of bidding 2C first. IMO this style sucked, inviting is pretty important. I am fine with passing random 8s and do that even when I have a way to invite, but bidding game with a random 9 or passing with a good 8 sucks. Especially as you noted if you upgrade a lot which my partnerships have always done, but even if you don't upgrade that much I think bidding game with a random 9 is a loser. If partner is going to reject an invite 3N is not going to be good very often, and then you are going to sometimes go down an extra because you need to try to make it and it all compounds. In general I think we would all prefer to not be in horrible games, if our system forces them to play them in an uncontested auction it's time to change our system.
So yeah I think bidding stayman with no major invite sucks, and I think pass or blast sucks,

I do not quite understand this critic.
How often are you in 1NT and make easily 9 or more tricks, but are nowhere near 25 HCP?
It happens all the time.
On the other side there are those 26, 27 or 28 HCP 3NT contracts, which are hopeless.
Yet we are all in 3NT, because trying to find out about them would hurt us in many other ways.
Of course it is a matter of probabilities. The more HCP we have the less likely the scenario is.
So blasting with 9 is done, because on average your chances making 3NT are better than 50%.
If opener is minimum slightly less than 50%.

The point against inviting is

That information leakage is severe. Even if you do not go through Stayman. One of the tougher decisions for the defense is whether to go aggressive or passive.
As a rule inviting tells them to go passiv. Declarer has nothing in reserve and is known in very narrow limits. So do not give him his ninth trick on opening lead.
Also the biggest objection to inviting is that notrump contracts have a higher variation of tricks than suit contracts. 2NT is not really safe when opener rejects.
Just live with it. There is nothing you can do. Believing that Pass or blast sucks is not really true. It is not unfortunate, when you go down in 2NT, nor when you make overtricks in spite being minimum. It is the nature of notrump contracts itself, which sucks.
If upgrading is the issue, then I suggest improve your hand evaluation. I see all the time people upgrading hands they shouldn't and miss upgrading when they should.

A recent example from Bobby Wolff:

---

Wolff's answer:

"The choice is close between rebidding one no-trump or repeating the clubs. In favor of the latter action are the good club spots and the basic hand pattern (one which tends to play better in suits than in no-trump). Against rebidding one no-trump with a five-card suit is that you do have a partial diamond stop and you get the hand range off your chest accurately at one go."

I beg to differ. The hand does not fall into the 12-14 HCP range. I would have opened 1NT. (And if partner blasts with a nine count i expect to have reasonable chances in spite of only "23" HCP)

Rainer Herrmann

[Cthulhu D]

Has anyone sketched out forum standard?

[m1cha]

With one partner I've played 1NT - 2♣ / 2♥ - 2♠ to show a 3-card ♥ suit (while 2NT would deny it). The environment is:
1NT can include 5-card majors (otherwise this would not make sense),
2♣ always has at least one 4-card major, and
the 2♥ rebid does not exclude 4 ♠s.
The rationale behind this is that after the 2♥ rebid opener is much more likely to have a 5-card ♥ suit than a 4-card ♠ suit, so why not check for a 5-3 fit in ♥ while going for the 4-4 fit in ♠?

Has anyone else tried this? What is your experience? If you don't like the idea, why not? Or to put the last question in a more aggressive way: If you choose to open 1NT with 5-card majors, why don't you check for a 5-3 fit in those suits?

[aguahombre]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-October-16, 06:00, said:

Has anyone sketched out forum standard?

I hope one does not emerge. IMO, it would be counter to the whole idea of these fora. However, we could have some fun with a spoof thread about "Forum Standard".

[bbochev]

Just as one another of methods (we play it with (relative) success in our system), in which opener 1♣ rebid of 1♠ shows 12-14 balanced and 1NT - 15-17 bal. Any 5332 is OK.

2♣ from responder is used ONLY for invitational purpose (23-25 pts in combined hands).
- 2♦ (artificial) accepts as well as jump to 3 in M (5332) or 3NT without major oriented hand. Continuation is Baron, any twice bid suit is 5th.
- 2♥♠NT - nearest(or no) major with 4-5 cards, doesnt accept invit. NF, may play 4-3 or get to 2NT.
2♦♥ are trsfrs, 2♠ is automat to 2NT (balanced hand to be declarer) following with 3♣ Puppet.
etc.

[jwccsllc]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-15, 05:50, said:

It seems to be expert standard (including wannabe experts) to play, after partner's 1NT opening:
2♣ followed by 2NT: Denies four spades if opener bid 2♥
2♣ followed by 2♠ (if opener bids 2♥): four spades, invitational
2NT: Diamonds

...

Any thoughts?

I usually play 4-suit transfers which use 2♠ as transfer to clubs and 2NT transfer to diamonds allowing Opener to SuperAccept with the intervening bid when holding 3 or more in the minor with at least one of the top honors. Frequently this results in minor suit slams that others miss.

I play South African Texas transfers when playing 10-12 or 11-14 1NT openings where the 4♣ and 4♦ bids are transfers to 4♥ or 4♠ respectively and 4♥ or 4♠ are to play. Using this, if responder want to use Gerber, it require 1NT 2♣ 2? 4♣.

In either case, I usually reserve the 1NT 2♣ 2? 2NT sequence to invitational hands where I have a reasonable source of tricks. I tend to pass 1NT with balanced invitational hands when playing baby and weak 1NT ranges as it gives opponents a good chance to get into trouble in the balancing seat.

[Jinksy]

 PhantomSac, on 2014-October-15, 16:10, said:

Expert standard in US now (and apparently England) is 1N 2S range ask. You lose inviting in clubs but gain 1N 2N bids without information leakage (though they still might get a lead directing X in).

What's your impression of how bad that risk of a lead-directing X of 2♠ is?

As I say, we've found it a serious enough flaw that we specifically made Stayman non-promissory while keeping the rangefinder, just so we can manouvre around having to bid 2♠ with such as (opposite a weak NT) x KQx QT8xx AT9x.

(I also think if you swap the majors on that hand, 2♣ might be better, since the a) the dreaded 2♠ is unlikely and b) absence of an X might lead them to find the dreaded ♥ lead.)

[aguahombre]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-16, 11:41, said:

What's your impression of how bad that risk of a lead-directing X of 2♠ is?

As I say, we've found it a serious enough flaw that we specifically made Stayman non-promissory while keeping the rangefinder, just so we can manouvre around having to bid 2♠ with such as (opposite a weak NT) x KQx QT8xx AT9x.

(I also think if you swap the majors on that hand, 2♣ might be better, since the a) the dreaded 2♠ is unlikely and b) absence of an X might lead them to find the dreaded ♥ lead.)

This is a good point. When we are quanting, a double of 2S is more likely to be harmful to us than a Double of 2C..but I am sure all the experts who are moving/have moved to the 2S quant already considered that wrinkle.

[Vampyr]

 jwccsllc, on 2014-October-16, 11:11, said:

I usually play 4-suit transfers which use 2♠ as transfer to clubs and 2NT transfer to diamonds allowing Opener to SuperAccept with the intervening bid when holding 3 or more in the minor with at least one of the top honors.

This is the wrong way round, as it doesn't get you to the presumed better spot with a weak 5-5 in the minors.

[jallerton]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-16, 11:55, said:

This is a good point. When we are quanting, a double of 2S is more likely to be harmful to us than a Double of 2C..but I am sure all the experts who are moving/have moved to the 2S quant already considered that wrinkle.

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Responder has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs.

It's certainly not silly to play 1NT-2NT as natural (particularly if you are not going to make decent use of a conventional 2NT). I understand that some Norwegian internationals favour this approach.

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2014-October-17, 01:28

[jwccsllc]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-16, 12:01, said:

This is the wrong way round, as it doesn't get you to the presumed better spot with a weak 5-5 in the minors.

I didn't put our 3-bid structure:

3♣ 5-5 minors weak
3♦ 5-5 minors Game Force
3♥ GF splinter in hearts
3♠ GF splinter in spades.

This along with transfer to a major then bid a 2nd suit allows Responder to show all 2-suited hands at the 2 or 3 level.

[aguahombre]

 jallerton, on 2014-October-16, 14:08, said:

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Opener has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs.

I was thinking the double of 2♠ is higher frequency when responder has no 4-card Spade suit AND that the more traditional uses for 2♠ like MSS often have spade shortness anyway --reducing the value of the double to the badguys (and increasing its value to our side) when they do have a double...a parlay which might be significant.

[Cthulhu D]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-16, 07:37, said:

I hope one does not emerge. IMO, it would be counter to the whole idea of these fora. However, we could have some fun with a spoof thread about "Forum Standard".

It seems clear to me that it would be a living document, updated as you found better ideas.

[Vampyr]

 jwccsllc, on 2014-October-16, 15:25, said:

I didn't put our 3-bid structure:

3♣ 5-5 minors weak
3♦ 5-5 minors Game Force
3♥ GF splinter in hearts
3♠ GF splinter in spades.

This along with transfer to a major then bid a 2nd suit allows Responder to show all 2-suited hands at the 2 or 3 level.

OK. Switching your responses to minor-suit transfers would free up your 3♣ bid for something else.