[DavidKok]

1. Overview
I am feeling nervous while writing this post. I have read bridge tales of 'the Naturalists', claiming to play "Everything natural. Well, Stayman and Blackwood, of course, but everything else natural!". I've previously expressed being unhappy with people's (ab)use of Blackwood, and now I'm challenging Stayman too. Maybe I am just contrarian for the sake of it. You be the judge.

This topic will be quite lengthy - in part because I think a good introduction helps set the scene and explain what my gripes with Stayman are, what mini-Heeman helps to accomplish, and in part because I don't have the time to write a shorter topic. I did my best to split it into separate posts and label them so that you can skip ahead if you are just looking for the convention, not a short novel. The convention itself is quite simple, the challenging part lies in explaining just what makes this better than good old Stayman (or why there is a need for this in the first place).

The entire approach is based on Wim Heemskerk's "Heeman" convention (www.jackbridge.com/pdf/eheeman.pdf), who mentions it was developed with the help of ideas by Lindkvist, Nilsland, Wirgren ("Notrump Bidding - the Scanian Way") and Leandro Burgay. I recommend reading the introduction but not the rest of the document - this may be harsh, but I think most of the Heeman system is poor, and it is trying to do too many things at once. So instead I started cutting, simplifying and condensing Heeman to get a few simple rules for bidding over partner's 1NT. This is the result of my efforts - it uses the 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ bids as well as their followups, and nothing else. You can play whatever you like for 2♠ and up - all hands with at least one four-card major or longer are taken care of by mini-Heeman.

Table of contents:

• Overview
  
• Motivation and (dis)advantages
  
• The mini-Heeman system
  
• Example auctions

I have some write-ups on four bonus topics; superaccepting, optimising mini-Heeman, transfer extensions and good old college game tries. For brevity's sake I have omitted them for now, but if people are interested I could add these at some future point.

[DavidKok]

2. Motivation and (dis)advantages

Partner opens a strong notrump, let's say 14⁺-17^- (if you play 15-17 or 14-16 that will not impact the examples). You pick up an 11HCP hand with 2=4=3=4 distribution. If partner has 4 hearts you would like to go to 4♥, and otherwise you want to bid 3NT. The standard way of bidding this hand is 2♣ Stayman, asking for partner's 4-card major suit(s). If partner answers 2♥ all will be well - just raise to 4. Over 2♦ or 2♠ you are not as well-placed. Your jump to 3NT might well give away the lead, having needlessly informed the opponents of partner's spade holding. Flip our major suits and the situation is even worse - the common methods of exploring game first reveal opener's heart holding before investigating a possible 4-4 spade fit.

A few hands later partner again opens a strong notrump. You find yourself looking at ♠KTxx, ♥xx, ♦x, ♣KJ8xxx. In the presence of a spade fit 4♠ seems like a reasonable guess (if this seems scary, replace a king with an ace, or upgrade that 8 of clubs to the ten). Without a spade fit you would like to sign off in 3♣ or 3NT, depending on partner's holding in clubs. There is no way to show this hand in standard. So you make a guess - probably upgrade to a game force, and pray we land on our feet.

Last hand of the evening, and partner again opens a strong notrump. You pick up ♠x, ♥KQxx, ♦Axx, ♣AJTxx. It is unclear what the best contract is - probably 4♥ or 3NT, but it is also possible 5♣, 6♣ or 6♥ are the best spots. Even 6♦ is possible (but unlikely). Starting with Stayman carries significant risks regardless of partner's answer - over 2♦, what does 3♣ show? Over 2♥, can you show the spade shortage or the long side suit, near essential for slam investigation? And over 1NT-2♣; 2♠-3♣ you will probably be fine, but can you still explore 3NT versus 5♣ (versus slam)?

The three hands above are challenging for similar reasons - the balanced hand principle. Opposite a balanced hand it is often best to show our shape and values, leaving opener in a great position to determine the degree of fit and combined trick-taking potential. By contrast, Stayman asks for more information about the balanced hand, while it is typically best to conceal it. This costs valuable bidding space. Heeman, and now also mini-Heeman, focuses on giving responder ways to show the shape and values of all hand types that want opener's input, while letting us blast to games(/partscores) with the others. As mentioned before mini-Heeman only uses the 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ bids and their followups, leaving it compatible with the structures people are already currently playing. However, there are a few downsides. Better get those out of the way first:

• Mini-Heeman is incompatible with Garbage and Crawling Stayman. With a weak hand with 5-4 (or longer) in the majors your only option is to transfer to the longer major, and hope you land on your feet. With a three-suited hand with short clubs you can choose for a transfer to any of the three(!) suits at the 2-level, but you cannot ask for opener's longer suit(s).
  
• When responder has exactly 4-4 in the majors and opener has neither or exactly spades, in standard responder will find out there no need to reveal the major(s) after 1NT-2♣; 2♦/2♠. In mini-Heeman opener's hand is concealed, but responder shows their holding in the major suits.
  
• Combining multiple hand types in 2♣ leaves it somewhat more vulnerable to interference. Arguably this is already an issue with regular Stayman, and since a mini-Heeman 2♣ (almost) always has invitational strength it is likely you can recover, but it is worth mentioning.
  
• Heeman seems to have been originally written for a weak (12-14) notrump, then adjusted for a strong (15-17) notrump. Personally I suspect the method works best with a strong notrump, but it might adjust back reasonably well to a weak notrump setting.

By contrast, the advantages are:

• The strong hand stays concealed, other than revealing whether or not there is a major suit fit (which will always need to be revealed to place the final contract).
  
• Unbalanced hand types with a 4-card major suit can pattern out and offer choice of game or slam try decisions (but can also choose to simply blast game).
  
• When a major suit fit is found this is announced to both partners, so that we may immediately begin with game/slam tries.
  
• We get a free transfer to 2♦.

[DavidKok]

3. The mini-Heeman system

Many partnerships play superaccepts of their Jacoby transfers, where they complete the transfer only with 3 or fewer in the specific major, and make a higher bid with 4 (usually split by strength, or sometimes even by shape as well as strength). This has a funny unintended consequence: opener can use a transfer bid to ask for a specific 4-card suit in that major. This forms the core of the mini-Heeman approach:

The 2♦ and 2♥ transfers show exactly a 4-card suit.

If opener accepts the transfer both sides will know there is no fit in that major suit, and responder continues with describing the hand economically. If opener rejects (i.e. superaccepts) the transfer a major suit fit has been found, and you can play your regular structure for game/slam tries after having found a major suit fit.¹ Meanwhile, with at least a 5-card major, we now need a different approach. To this end we use a 2♣ relay(/marionette? puppet?), forcing opener to respond 2♦. Over this responder can force with another relay bid of 2♥, or continue describing the hand:

2♣-2♦ (forced) shows at least 5 hearts.
2♣-2♦ (forced); 2♥-2♠ (forced) negates the above and shows at least 5 spades.

Note that, having reserved the 2♥ response over 2♣-2♦, we are effectively at the 2♥ level having shown 5(+) hearts, and the 2♠ level if we choose to relay again. This coincides with the standard Jacoby transfers with 5(+)! Simply use your old methods over these relay bids - for example, in mini-Heeman, 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ shows the same as a standard 1NT-2♦ (Jacoby); 2♥-2♠, i.e. 4♠5♥ invitational.

As an aside, since the 2♣ relay forces 2♦, and the 2♦ and 2♥ transfers are only superaccepted with 4(+) support, we can include weak single-suited hands into these without cost (well, with Law protection). So we retain the old Jacoby transfers with a weak hand, but we gain a transfer to diamonds at the 2-level.

¹It is wise to reserve the bid directly under 3 of the major as a forcing retransfer, in case responder was weak or was looking for exactly game and does not wish to leak information.

[DavidKok]

4. Example auctions

Below I have included some example auctions and what they show in mini-Heeman, feel free to skip these if the block of text seems daunting:

1NT-

• 2♣; 2♦-2♠: the same as your 2♦; 2♥-2♠. Standard 4♠5♥, exactly inv NF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2NT: the same as your 2♦; 2♥-NT. Standard 5♥, 3-♠, exactly inv NF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-3m: the same as your 2♦; 2♥-3m. Standard 5♥, 4(+)m, GF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-3♥: the same as your 2♦; 2♥-3♥. Standard 6(+)♥, exactly inv NF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-3NT: the same as your 2♦; 2♥-3NT. Standard 5♥, pass or correct.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-2NT: the same as your 2♥; 2♠-2NT. Standard 5♠, exactly inv NF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3m: the same as your 2♥; 2♠-3m. Standard 5♠, 4(+)m, GF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3♥: almost the same as your 2♥; 2♠-3♥. There are different ways to play this in standard, but I will stick my neck out and say that 5♠, 5♥, GF makes as much sense as anything. In standard people play Smolen, which is not compatible with mini-Heeman. Therefore we have to use this sequence for all hands with 5♠, 4(+)♥, GF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3♠: the same as your 2♥; 2♠-3♠. Standard 6(+)♠, exactly inv NF.
  
• 2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3NT: the same as your 2♥; 2♠-3NT. Standard 5♠, pass or correct.
  
• 2♦; 2♥-2♠: exactly 4=4 in the majors, invitational or stronger (forcing). Note that opener's 2♥ denies a heart fit, so opener now raises spades or bids 2/3NT.
  
• 2♦; 2♥-2NT: the same as your 2♣; 2♦/2♠-2NT (but without revealing opener's spade holding). Standard this shows an invitational hand with 4♥, 3-♠, NF.
  
• 2♦; 2♥-3m: does not exist standard. In (mini-)Heeman this shows 4♥, 6(+)m, exactly invitational. Note that we never have an 8-card heart fit on the auction so there is no confusion about strain if opener bids on.
  
• 2♦; 2♥-3NT: the same as your 2♣; 2♦/2♠-3NT (but without revealing opener's spade holding). Standard this shows a game forcing hand with 4♥, 3-♠. To play.
  
• 2♥; 2♠-2NT: the same as your 2♣; 2♦/2♥-2NT (but without revealing opener's heart holding). Standard this shows an invitational hand with 4♠, 3-♥, NF.
  
• 2♥; 2♠-3m: does not exist standard. In (mini-)Heeman this shows 4♠, 6(+)m, exactly invitational. Note that we never have an 8-card heart fit on the auction so there is no confusion about strain if opener bids on.
  
• 2♥; 2♠-3NT: the same as your 2♣; 2♦/2♥-3NT (but without revealing opener's heart holding). Standard this shows a game forcing hand with 4♠, 3-♥. To play.

There are many ways to improve on the scheme above - many sequences are left unused, and some obviously suboptimal treatments have deliberately been left in. I wanted to show that mini-Heeman can show (almost) all hands that you can show in standard, by comparing the auctions to standard auctions and copying the second-round standard bidding scheme. Having explained the meaning of the 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ bids there is a wealth of improvement possible for the followups, but let us keep it simple for now. Oh, and the three example hands from the second section?

• 1NT-2♦, intending to jump to 3NT over 2♥, or retransfer/bid 4♥ over a superaccept.
  
• 1NT-2♥, intending to bid 3♣ over 2♠, or retransfer/bid 4♥ over a superaccept.
  
• 1NT-2♦, intending to make an artificial bid on the next round if partner accepts, or begin a slam try if partner superaccepts. But that's for a future post.

I welcome any thoughts, suggestions, comments and feedback.

[mw64ahw]

The Lakebeach NT which is also Heeman inspired.
http://snortingmarad...kebeach_nt.html
I will have to spend some time comparing and contrasting

[DavidKok]

The Lakebeach mixes the 5-card majors and 4-card major responses a bit more, and overloads certain sequences to optimise the system (some of which is, in my opinion, making it worse). It also has a different structure for hearts and spades, which I am not a fan of. It might be stronger, but I think it is sufficiently complex that I do not want to use it as a basis for a response system to 1NT.

As a sneak peek, I think mini-Heeman with transfer extensions can do all that Lakebeach can, but in a more compact and easier way, plus with a few free weak bids thrown in.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-22, 10:02, said:

3. The mini-Heeman system

Many partnerships play superaccepts of their Jacoby transfers, where they complete the transfer only with 3 or fewer in the specific major, and make a higher bid with 4 (usually split by strength, or sometimes even by shape as well as strength). This has a funny unintended consequence: opener can use a transfer bid to ask for a specific 4-card suit in that major. This forms the core of the mini-Heeman approach:

The 2♦ and 2♥ transfers show exactly a 4-card suit.

If opener accepts the transfer both sides will know there is no fit in that major suit, and responder continues with describing the hand economically. If opener rejects (i.e. superaccepts) the transfer a major suit fit has been found, and you can play your regular structure for game/slam tries after having found a major suit fit.¹ Meanwhile, with at least a 5-card major, we now need a different approach. To this end we use a 2♣ relay(/marionette? puppet?), forcing opener to respond 2♦. Over this responder can force with another relay bid of 2♥, or continue describing the hand:

2♣-2♦ (forced) shows at least 5 hearts.
2♣-2♦ (forced); 2♥-2♠ (forced) negates the above and shows at least 5 spades.

Note that, having reserved the 2♥ response over 2♣-2♦, we are effectively at the 2♥ level having shown 5(+) hearts, and the 2♠ level if we choose to relay again. This coincides with the standard Jacoby transfers with 5(+)! Simply use your old methods over these relay bids - for example, in mini-Heeman, 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ shows the same as a standard 1NT-2♦ (Jacoby); 2♥-2♠, i.e. 4♠5♥ invitational.

As an aside, since the 2♣ relay forces 2♦, and the 2♦ and 2♥ transfers are only superaccepted with 4(+) support, we can include weak single-suited hands into these without cost (well, with Law protection). So we retain the old Jacoby transfers with a weak hand, but we gain a transfer to diamonds at the 2-level.

¹It is wise to reserve the bid directly under 3 of the major as a forcing retransfer, in case responder was weak or was looking for exactly game and does not wish to leak information.

I may be reading before my morning coffee kicks in, but I’m mystified by how one signs off in 2H as responder with 5 hearts.

You can’t bid 2D…it shows precisely 4H

You can’t go through 2C because that ‘forces’ 2D and now responder’s 2H shows spades!

One of us has missed something.

Indeed, you write that the ‘forced’ 2D shows 5 hearts, which makes no sense. It’s opener who was forced to bid 2D and I very much doubt that one can usefully play a method in which the 1N bid promises 5 hearts😀

[DavidKok]

With a weak hand with 5(+) hearts, bid 2♦ and pass (or re-transfer if necessary if opener superaccepts). The weak hands are included at the end of the post, overloading the transfers with extra hand types.¹
With an invitational or stronger hand with 5(+) hearts, start with 2♣, and over 2♦ bypass 2♥ to describe the hand further (taking the same rebid you would have taken on the standard 1NT-2♦*; 2♥-auction). This route shows 5(+) hearts by responder - opener does not describe their hand, other than a possible superaccept to confirm a fit.

¹In fact, I think it is a good idea to add even more hands to the transfer, rather than just 5(+) weak and exactly 4 inv(+), but for now I think that would be an unnecessary complication.

[mycroft]

Seems interesting. I'm not going to switch from Keri, though :-)

To be clear, though:
1NT-2♣ promises a 5-card major, and more than "drop you" strength? And unless the 2♣ bidder rebids 2♥, they have hearts? Could you pass 2♦?

As a Keri player (whose 2♣ call is a fair bit vaguer), you will 100% need clarity when 2♣ is doubled (is 2♦ still forced? If not, and if partner can try to bail in diamonds, how do they do it after 1NT-2♣-(X); p/XX?), or when they bid over it; similarly when 2♦ is doubled, or overcalled (especially if the overcall is 2♥ here). Also (of course), when 1NT is overcalled - is system on if they bid 2♣? If they bid 2♣ and show clubs? or not show clubs?

I think you have a similar starting point that we have with Keri, because 2♣ is "to play 2♦, or various INV+ hands" (in better shape because you promise a 5cM if you're not doing the drop). But (apart from all the Alerts, and all the tedious explanations - oh, make sure your explanations are *tight*, because your opponents won't have anything to base it on, so you don't get "close enough" privileges; and make sure they are *accurate*, because again, you don't get "close enough" privileges. You don't get to, for instance, do what you did here and say "1NT-2♦ shows exactly 4 hearts", and then, when partner passes 2♥, go "well, if she's weak, she'll have 5". That'll eventually get you a ticket on the Director Express) it looks like something workable.

Edit to add: and it seems that your explanation has already confused MikeH on first reading. Which should give you a pretty good idea how likely you are to confuse your non-MikeH opponents without *a lot of care* being taken on improving the explanations.

A well tuned Stayman system will work as well as anything else; it's just that "nobody" plays a well tuned Stayman system. Play this, and you will do better - simply because it's more fragile, and therefore you *need to understand* it better than "everybody" understands Stayman.

As you mention, the big thing you lose is Garbage Stayman. Playing a weak NT (and Keri is really designed for weak NT), that is a big loss, especially in a world where you're the only ones opening 1NT. Playing a strong NT, especially in a strong NT world, somewhat less so. But it's not an ignorable loss.

[DavidKok]

Thank you! To clarify:

• Yes, the 2♣ is weak with diamonds or inv+ with a 5(+)cM, although it is not known at that point which one. You can pass 2♦, and unless responder rebids 2♥ they have 5(+) hearts and at least invitational strength (and if they do rebid 2♥, they have 5(+) spades with at least invitational strength).
  
• The large text in post number 3 is not the alert call or even explanation of the bids, but a basic introduction to the approach. To be exact: those are the invitational and game forcing hand types. Weak hands and a few special hand types can be slotted in by overloading some calls, but I mistakenly thought it would be easiest to follow if I started with invitational+ hands.
  
• One of the issues I had when reading Heeman was that it started with the correct alerts ("This call shows one of several hand types: list") which saves you from director calls but is awful for learning. I focused on the opposite here - explain the structure first, and give the full explanation and table alerts after.
  
• I mostly wrote this as a response to Spademan, which also lacks the bidding space for Garbage/Crawling Stayman. From that perspective I think this is a pure gain. But as mentioned, I do think Heeman and mini-Heeman work best over a strong notrump, plus you get the runout to diamonds.

My interest in this topic was also recently reignited from readying John Montgomery's Revision Club System notes, where he claims that Garbage Stayman, as opposed to a transfer to a 5-card suit and stay put, is on balance not a gain.

[Cyberyeti]

I've only ever not played stayman in one system of responses which was to a wide range no trump. We split the range into 3 in most places, 2 in one.

We used 2♣ as the "bucket bid" with many hand types including all the weak ones, 2red as GF vs at least the maximum of the 3 ranges 4+ card transfers, and step responses to the transfers showing the 3 ranges without 4 card support then with it.

This worked surprisingly well and shows there are other methods, friends play Keri also.

[helene_t]

I like Heeman in a strong NT context. In a weak NT context I prefer Stayman as there are more weak options, and also I don't like transfers at all with weak hands in a weak NT system.

You play transfer followed by 3m as invitational, what do you do with stronger hands? I think that invitational is a narrow target, so it's more important to be able to show the weak and the GF hands. After 2♦ (hearts) you can play 2♠ as a relay so that
1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠
2NT/3♣- 3♦
is to play, while
1NT-2♦
2♥-3♣
is invitational+ with diamonds (in addition to the four promised hearts), but with clubs and/or spades something has to give.

[DavidKok]

Original Heeman uses 1NT-2♦*; 2♥-3♥* as exactly 4♥5(+)♣ GF, offering at least COG but we might initiate slam tries. Keep in mind that accepting the transfer denies a heart fit so clubs are unambiguously trumps. It is up to partnership agreement how you build your slam tries from there - personally I recommend being able to stop in 3NT and 4NT in certain sequences, and start cuebidding otherwise. The sequences 1NT-2♦; 2♥-3♠ (4♥5(+)♦, GF) and 1NT-2♥; 2♠-3♥/♠ (same but spades instead of hearts) are similar.

For now I've just copied these, with the focus on keeping it simple (*cough* *cough*).

I do think there are better ways to handle these hand types, and I do have something prepared in the 'optimising mini-Heeman' bonus part. Also keep in mind that having set the minor suit as trumps puts you ahead of the field, since most Stayman sequences into 3m rebids are ambiguous. If you wish to save space with the stronger hand type you could well ditch the invitational hands and make the example auction 1NT-2♥; 2♠-3♣ GF - you will still be ahead of the field having an unambiguous trump suit, and you could for example play picture bids below 3NT, controls above 3NT.

I don't like the relay after transferring. The sequence 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ is sorely needed to show exactly 4-4 in the majors. You can move this somewhere else if you prefer, but I would like to show this below 2NT (so you can show this with invitational strength) and preserve the core idea of the system (with a 4-card major suit and at least invitational values, transfer into it).

That being said, there are other sequences where you can save quite a bit of space in not-crazy ways. If people are interested I'm happy to post some or all of the bonus parts later today.

[ali quarg]

Do you distinguish between 5m4M(31) and 5m4M(22)?
At the moment I go through 2♣ for the former and 2♠ for the latter, although perhaps it would be better to do it the other way round. There is this option in the Lakebeach NT as well.

[helene_t]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-23, 07:13, said:

I don't like the relay after transferring. The sequence 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ is sorely needed to show exactly 4-4 in the majors.

We played
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
as NF with 4-4 majors. This means that the 2♠ relay is usually invitational with just hearts, so it it vulnerable to lead-directing doubles, and it's a bit murky what responder wants to know. In first instance opener bids 2NT with a minimum and 3♣ with extras.

[DavidKok]

ali quarg, on 2022-November-23, 09:11, said:

Do you distinguish between 5m4M(31) and 5m4M(22)?
At the moment I go through 2♣ for the former and 2♠ for the latter, although perhaps it would be better to do it the other way round. There is this option in the Lakebeach NT as well.

Game forcing yes, for invitational hand types no. Although 5m4M(22) with values in the short suits is probably best treated as balanced anyway, and I might do the same with 5m4M(31) with a singleton honour. It is not clear to me that you prefer 3m to 2NT on those hands, which is the decisive criterion for showing the minor suit in a non-GF hand.

helene_t, on 2022-November-23, 09:21, said:

We played
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
as NF with 4-4 majors. This means that the 2♠ relay is usually invitational with just hearts, so it it vulnerable to lead-directing doubles, and it's a bit murky what responder wants to know. In first instance opener bids 2NT with a minimum and 3♣ with extras.

In mini-Heeman the 2♠ is inv+ and forcing. I assume you have a different way to show 4=4 GF? Like I said you could shuffle these around, for now I prefer to stick with as few exceptions as possible.

[ali quarg]

helene_t, on 2022-November-23, 09:21, said:

We played
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
as NF with 4-4 majors. This means that the 2♠ relay is usually invitational with just hearts, so it it vulnerable to lead-directing doubles, and it's a bit murky what responder wants to know. In first instance opener bids 2NT with a minimum and 3♣ with extras.

Same for me, but with a different sequence
1NT-2♣
2♦ No 5cM - 2NT 4♥♠ GI
The GF version goes via 3♣ which is either 44 GF or a potential SI in a minor, so
1NT-2♣
2♦ no 5cM - 3♣ 5cm? GF
3♦ no 5cm - 3NT 4♥♠ GF

Great to start thinking again about some of these sequences

[ali quarg]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-23, 09:36, said:

It is not clear to me that you prefer 3m to 2NT on those hands, which is the decisive criterion for showing the minor suit in a non-GF hand.

Is the benefit of this avoiding a non-makeable 3NT contract, although it may be that when the minor doesn't fit then 2NT is makeable and 3m not?

[DavidKok]

The benefit is lowering the bar on which hands can show their 4cM 'along the way' to 3m. Shapely hands with a 4cM and a long minor suit can be worth game if a major suit fit is found, but be of no help in a notrump contract. Part 2. Motivation and (dis)advantages contains an example. If you think 2NT is making you may choose to conceal the minor suit.