[jillybean]

1NT:2♣
2♦:3♠* showing game forcing, 5hearts, 4spades is used to ensure the strong hand is declarer.

If you play weak or mini NT, do you use Smolen, is 3♠ natural 5S/4H GF, or do you have another meaning for these bids?

Is Smolen "Expert Standard" for strong nt players?

Thanks.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-May-07, 17:35, said:

1NT:2♣
2♦:3♠* showing game forcing, 5hearts, 4spades is used to ensure the strong hand is declarer.

If you play weak or mini NT, do you use Smolen, is 3♠ natural 5S/4H GF, or do you have another meaning for these bids?

Is Smolen "Expert Standard" for strong nt players?

Thanks.

I believe Smolen was adopted as the bridge world standard in 2001.

I use the sequence to show specifically 1345 with 1N-2♦-2♥-3N GF showing 45xx and 1N-2♣-2♦-4♥ GF showing 54xx playing a non-promissory 5cM ask? This over a strong NT, but I play in a similar way over a Weak NT.

[helene_t]

I would still play it opposite a weak NT.

Strong or weak hand isn't much of an issue. Pavlicek's research showed as much and I think that makes sense.

Obviously, if we play a 0-2 1NT, the 1NT opener is unlikely to have any honours to protect against the opening lead. But even with a 10-12 1NT opening, it's an advantage to have opener declare when they lead trumps or if they lead responder's singleton. If they lead responder's doubleton or tripleton minor, or the other major, either could work better, but that is true opposite a strong NT also. And responder's hand is slightly better described with five possible patterns vs opener's 7 possible patterns (nine if you allow 6m322 but that might not be the case with a weak NT).

The again, opener's hand is more tightly defined in terms of strength, and it's better to have the hand with a void declare in case we have a ruffing finesse on the opening lead. And there's a small chance of a lead-directing double on the Smolen bid. So per saldo I don't think Smolen is a big winner, regardless of NT range. It's more like one of those conventions I play because everybody plays it. But I am willing to believe that it's a small positive EV, regardless of NT range.

Also, mini NT (and sometimes also weak NT) are often part of a variable-NT system, and I would prefer to play the same structure regardless of seat and vulnerability. Or at least as similar as possible.

[P_Marlowe]

If you play weak NT, you could play 2-way stayman, which quite often allow responder to ask opener,
what is your shape, hiding responders shape, and most structures will make sure, that besides NT,
all contracts are played by responder.

One downside is, that you loose some flexibility with regards to the NT opening, if you think 6322 is
bal., the 2-way structure may not handle it well, similar (maybe even more relevant) 5422 shapes.

Depending on the amount you play, if you agree to play diff. NT strengths, I would advice against using
different response structures.

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-May-08, 02:00, said:

If you play weak NT, you could play 2-way stayman, which quite often allow responder to ask opener,
what is your shape, hiding responders shape, and most structures will make sure, that besides NT,
all contracts are played by responder.

This is a good point. Since a GF hand that wants to know about 3- or 4-card support by opener can use GF stayman,
1NT-2♣
2♦-3M
is not needed as Smolen.

Maybe an invitational 6-4 hand would bid this way. Or any invitational hand with a 6-card major (then a direct 3M would be preemptive).

[jillybean]

Thanks

[TMorris]

I play a weak nt & I play smolen in one partnership but don't in all others. I don't think, in the UK, weak nt people play it in general but it is seeping in from the strong nt people who also play a weak nt.

The sequence you give is undefined in my non-smolen partnerships.

[mikeh]

I’ve played a lot of 10-12 and currently, in my main partnership, play 10-13 nv.

I’ve never played transfers, including smolen, but would if I wasn’t (far) more happy with our structure, based on two way stayman but more accurately a relay method where 2D is an artificial game force, and the relays allow (if responder thinks it’s advisable) for responder to find out opener’s exact shape and place the contract (often, since the method is designed to maximize this) without giving away any information beyond ‘opener has such and such and I think this is the best contract opposite that’.

Transfers are, in principle, one of the most powerful bidding tools ever invented. Oswald Jacoby little knew what he was unleashing when he invented the simple Jacoby Transfer. I use transfers in a great many situations, but opposite a very weak 1N I think there are better methods (even though it seems that most of the bridge community, including experts, disagrees, lol). I’d play smolen in a weak notrump structure if my partner (in a casual partnership) didn’t want to play relay.