[mikl_plkcc]

In the past I played 1NT opening to never include a 5-card major, but my new partner plays a style which may include these hands.

I have a sophisticated system in finding all possible 5-3 fits if the 1NT opener does not have a 5-card major, and for game forcing actions, system to describe all possible 4-4 majors, 5-4 and 5-5 suits by the responder such that all 8-card fits can always be found, but if a 1NT opener can have a 5-card major, it will not work. No one can stop a responder holding 4m4m32 or 5m332 from bidding 3NT direct over a 1NT opener, and if the short suits are not adequately stopped, the contract will be troublesome.

What I am most scared is that, if we can't find an 8-card fit, we may end up at bad 3NT where 4H is making at every other tables with a fit, ruining the whole night with such a loss; similarly for partscores, if we don't know about our 8-card or even 9-card fit, we won't be able to compete effectively or play in a better partscore than 1NT going down when responder has a 3-card major. With a major suit opening, once the opponent overcalls, the responder can immediately preempt to the number of trumps. With a 1NT opening, once the opponent overcalls and raises, the opener will be silenced from his suit.

The argument for opening 1NT with a 5-card major is because it is not possible to accurately rebid after a 1H opening with 16 HCPs, and the opener must lie with 2♣ or even 2♦ holding 3 only, which, when raised, may get us into a bad fit; or lie with the strength and miss 3NT games with 26 HCP when the responder has 10 HCP 4S333, and these kinds of hands are not rare.

So what is the prevalent practice now playing 5-card majors and strong NT? Which poison do you want to take?

[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-08, 19:22, said:

What I am most scared is that, if we can't find an 8-card fit, we may end up at bad 3NT where 4H is making at every other tables with a fit, ruining the whole night with such a loss

Alternatively, you could be in a good 3NT where 4♥ is going down at every other table.

Or you could all be in 3NT, but at your table the defense leads 4th best.. of your undisclosed 5 card major, so you're the only table that makes.

Or you could be in 3NT, while everyone else misses game because they didn't know what to rebid after opening the major. (Whatever you play, *always* plan your rebid before opening.)

If you open 1NT, it's true you miss a heart fit if partner is weak.. but 1NT is harder to compete over; if you had opened 1♥, you might have helped the opponents into their spade fit by allowing a 1♠ overcall. And 1NT might be making anyway, especially with cashing tricks in the major..

If you don't use 1N - 3♣ much, you can play that as Puppet if you want to ensure you never miss 5-3 games.

Opening 1NT with a 5 card major is so standard these days, I would be more concerned about getting a bottom board because you were the only partnership that *didn't*. But assuming your club is much more old-school, no matter what treatment you play, there will always be hands where it works well, and others where it doesn't - the aim is for the former to be more common than the latter. To me, the ones where not having a rebid will cost you far outweigh the ones where you have a fit and don't find it (especially when sometimes you'll even be better having not found it.)

[mw64ahw]

one of several discussions on the BW site.
https://bridgewinner...a-5-card-major/

[thepossum]

I stopped worrying years ago

[mikl_plkcc]

I have a use of 1NT - 3♣ as transfer to ♦

[P_Marlowe]

Do it, or dont do it, I can live with both, I usually dont do it.
The only style I dont understand: some times we open 1NT, sometimes we open 1M,
depending on Sun / Moon / Star and the alcohol level.

In Germany it is more common to open 1M, but it is changing.
The prevalence of opening 1M is influenced by the French school, which is heavily
against opening 1NT.

If you have a system over 1NT that forbids opening 1NT with a 5 card major, dont
do it. The argument, that you face rebid issues is also only half true, as it is
the 2C rebid by opener after a major suit opening bid is becoming more and more art.
You could basically play, that 2D always showes 4+, and 2C could be 2+.
This would work. Responder should always correct back to the major with 2 cards,
and pass 2C only with 4+.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-09, 03:13, said:

I have a use of 1NT - 3♣ as transfer to ♦

Why not play standard 4-way transfers where you have the super-accept available and 2♣ as the 5-card Major ask? This then frees up 3♣ for something like GF (41)44. You can add in 2♠ as range ask or ♣ if 2♣ promises at least one 4-card Major (mine doesn't).

[DavidKok]

In my comment below I'm assuming a strong (15-17) notrump opening. If instead you play something else the details of the analysis will change completely, but the general discussion points and topics will be the same. Please keep that in mind while reading my suggestions below.

There are several questions here that are all getting bundled up into one discussion. Instead, I think each deserves its own highlight.
Something I've noticed over the years is that it is quite common, when a change in style is discussed, to look into gadgets to retain the benefits of the old style. This is happening here (Puppet Stayman to find a 5-3 major fit after opening 1NT with 5M332), and it came up in the form of Spiral after 3-card raises on 1X-1M as well. By frequency, this seems backwards to me. If you put 5M332 in your 1NT openings, you still won't have a 5cM most of the time. And partner won't want to use Puppet Stayman most of the time. To me the advantages and disadvantages of putting 5M332 in 1NT are only very loosely related to access to Puppet Stayman. Instead I would look at some other discussion points:

• 5M332 hands and competitive auctions - which opening leads to the best contracts after interference?
  
• 1M-1NT and 1M-1♠, what are your rebids with 15-17 5M332, and what does this gain/cost? Do you play e.g. Gazzilli, a forcing notrump, a semiforcing notrump, a non-forcing notrump or something else?
  
• 2/1 auctions with 5M332 - what 2/1 style do you play (not GF, GF but one of several styles, artificial), and where do the balanced hand rebids fit in?
  
• How often do we miss a major suit fit after 1NT with 5M332, and in which situations does this cost and in which does this gain?

Smerriman pointed out several (but not all) of the nuances of point number 4. I think points 1 through 3 are more important by frequency and impact on your average score.

Without spending more time on this than I think is warranted, I'll briefly say that I personally am a fan of opening 1NT with 5M332 in range regardless of suit quality and distribution of honours. I think it describes the hand better on competitive auctions, and sometimes I even get to bid 2M on a future round to show my distribution and strength near-perfectly. If, instead, I open 1M I struggle to show the strength - a takeout double without side suits comes with costs, and I don't have a second suit to bid. Some WNT systems even go so far as to reserve 1X-then-later-double to show the strong notrump, though I'm not a fan of that treatment either. Regarding point 2: I personally am just stuck. On 1♥-1♠; ? you could play a wider ranging 1NT (and 2NT?) rebid, but on 1M-1NT you are in a blast-or-pass situation. I play a semiforcing NT with Gazzilli, but I've also played a F1NT and a non-forcing NT. That last one does reasonably well here - if 1NT shows 6-9 you can pass comfortably with 15 and arguably even with 16 without support for your suit. In a 2/1 GF system these hands really struggle, and even the F1NT method of demaning a 2m rebid on a fragment fails to show either shape or strength. On the third point: you can use any balanced rebid on a 2/1 GF auction, and it'll only cost if partner has around 15-16 HCP and plays you for 12-14 and signs off instead of probing for slam. This is not that frequent. If your 2/1 is not forcing to game you may have to jump to 3NT on the next round, which is very awkward if partner has any extras in the form of shape or strength.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-09, 03:13, said:

I have a use of 1NT - 3♣ as transfer to ♦

You could play 2-under xfer, i.e. 2S xfer to clubs, 2NT xfer to diamonds.
This gives you a cheap super accept for both minors, i.e. makes the structure
symmetric, and frees up 3C.
You loose the natural 2NT, but you can but those hands into Stayman, i.e. you
are forced to use Stayman without 4 card major, which may lead to information
leak. And it will have some impact on xfer seq., you need to write it out.

Having the option to ask for a 5 card major is relevant mainly for slam
investigation hands.

[mikl_plkcc]

I will never play any conventions which loses the natural 1NT - 2NT. This natural bid is extremely frequent and I can't afford to lose it under any circumstances. Telling the opponents the NT opener how many majors have help them a lot when the final contract is in NT anyway.

In addition, if Stayman is non-promissory, all bets are off in finding all possible 4-4 fits to play in major under any circumstances after a 1NT opening.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-09, 15:07, said:

I will never play any conventions which loses the natural 1NT - 2NT. This natural bid is extremely frequent and I can't afford to lose it under any circumstances. Telling the opponents the NT opener how many majors have help them a lot when the final contract is in NT anyway.

In addition, if Stayman is non-promissory, all bets are off in finding all possible 4-4 fits to play in major under any circumstances after a 1NT opening.

1N - 2S popular in some circles as
a) 6+♣
b) Range ask?
c) GF xx55
d) GF xx46
Opener replies 2N min. or 3♣ max. and can be useful for judging the potential of a minor suit slam. 2N is naturally passable.

1N-2N can now be used as
a) 6+♦
b) xx55 weak.
This way you start to optimise bidding.
Not sure why you can't find all 4-4 or even 5-3 fits Major suit fits if 2♣ is non-promissory?

[mikl_plkcc]

With normal Stayman, bidding 2NT over 2♥ implies 4 ♠, so if the opener has 4-4 in the majors, the ♠ fit can be found, while bidding 2♠ over 2♦ means 5 ♠ and 4 ♥, so opener can choose the fit with just an invitational hand.

How can it be done with non-promissory Stayman, where a 2♠ rebid by responder after 2♦ merely promise 4 ♠ and nothing about ♥? If responder has 5 ♠ and 4 ♥, and opener has 3 ♥ and 3 ♠, how can the ♠ fit be found?

[smerriman]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ has exactly the same meaning for both definitions of Stayman. Non-promissory simply means they *might* not have a major; if responder bids one, they clearly do, so you have the same knowledge that you did before.

The only difference between the two is that in non-promissory Stayman, after 1N - 2♣ - 2♥ you bid 2♠ instead of 2NT if you're inviting with 4 spades, while that sequence often doesn't even exist for most players playing "standard". This also means opener can pass and play in 2♠ with a 4-4 fit but not enough for game, whereas with standard you have to go a level higher, signing off in 3♠ over 2NT.

So you never miss out on fits; the disadvantage is that you just give away more information to the opponents, which can be too big a help to them. Playing 2♠ as a range ask or clubs feels like the best approach all round, and seems to be considered "expert standard", while allowing 2N to be a transfer to diamonds.

[DavidKok]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-08, 19:22, said:

I have a sophisticated system in finding all possible 5-3 fits if the 1NT opener does not have a 5-card major, and for game forcing actions, system to describe all possible 4-4 majors, 5-4 and 5-5 suits by the responder such that all 8-card fits can always be found.

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-09, 15:07, said:

I will never play any conventions which loses the natural 1NT - 2NT. This natural bid is extremely frequent and I can't afford to lose it under any circumstances. Telling the opponents the NT opener how many majors have help them a lot when the final contract is in NT anyway.

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-09, 18:08, said:

How can it be done with non-promissory Stayman, where a 2♠ rebid by responder after 2♦ merely promise 4 ♠ and nothing about ♥? If responder has 5 ♠ and 4 ♥, and opener has 3 ♥ and 3 ♠, how can the ♠ fit be found?

You seem to hold strong opinions on your 1NT system. In my previous comment I tried to imply that your 1NT system hardly matters for the 5M332 opening decision. Either you have access to different statistics than I do or I failed to stress the point enough.

Over a 1NT opening it is currently somewhat common to play something like 2♣-then-2♠ as invitational in spades (with or without hearts), along with transfer extensions over Jacoby transfers and a Crawling Stayman. You can then slap on any combination of the following:

• 2♠ clubs-or-range, 2NT diamonds, 3♣ (low information) Puppet Stayman.
  
• 2♠ clubs, 2NT natural invitational, 3♣ diamonds weak-or-strong, 3♦ diamonds invitational.
  
• 2♠ clubs-or-range, 2NT Puppet Stayman, 3♣ diamonds weak-or-strong, 3♦ diamonds invitational.

Of course, there are plenty of other options too. These systems all achieve very similar things, and have marginal tradeoffs on particular hand types. I don't think any of them pulls ahead of the others enough to say it is clearly better, in contrast with your adamant statement that 2NT natural invitational cannot be lost. It is not too difficult to find zealots supporting any of these system choices over the others, if you wish.
Personally I prefer an entirely different approach, and I think a lot more can be gained over a 1NT opening than what the systems above manage to do. But this is non-mainstream, and instead it is much safer to simply play one of the sets listed above.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-February-09, 18:25, said:

Playing 2♠ as a range ask or clubs feels like the best approach all round, and seems to be considered "expert standard", while allowing 2N to be a transfer to diamonds.

What exactly is the 2S range ask?

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-February-10, 04:00, said:

What exactly is the 2S range ask?

2♠ range ask demands opener show their strength - 2NT minimum or 3♣ maximum. It replaces 2NT natural invitational.
2♠ clubs-or-range overloads this by including hands with long (6+) clubs. Over 2NT, a 3♣ rebid by responder is to play, while higher suit bids are game forcing with long clubs (and typically shortage in the new suit, though other schemes exist).

The main downside of the method is that evaluating a hand for trick-taking potential opposite long clubs is different from evaluating a hand for trick-taking potential opposite a no-major (semi)balanced hand. In particular, when playing pure four-way transfers it is a somewhat common method to superaccept the transfer holding at least Qxx in partner's suit, regardless of HCP (as this means responder's long suit will likely run) while failing to superaccept it shows a weaker holding. Conversely, the range ask option asks about playing strength (i.e. closely resembles a HCP ask). Because of this, the compression is less effective on both counts compared to using 2♠ = clubs, 2NT = natural invitational. In return, it frees up the direct 2NT response.
There is a case for using this 2♠ with quantitative slam tries as well, but this runs into the same issue. Evaluating a 1NT opening for slam potential is different from evaluating it for game potential (the former is more about controls, the latter more about HCP - though both of these are simplifications), and responder may not get the information they were hoping for.

All these slower artificial auctions also allow for some lead directing (non)doubles, though in my experience this impact is not as great.

[smerriman]

Opener bids 2nt with a minimum, 3♣ otherwise. So if you had a balanced 8-9, you can pass 2nt or bid 3nt over 3♣. If you had a weak hand with clubs, you bid 3♣ over 2nt to sign off or pass 3♣. Stronger hands with clubs continue as if it were a normal transfer.

A somewhat fun side effect is that if you had a quantitative 4nt, you can bid 2♠ and sign off in 3nt when opener is min rather than 4nt.

[mw64ahw]

I started using the Range Ask/Clubs with one of my partners, but found it was being used too frequently for balanced hands and we ended up missing a Major suit fit which often made the better score. This is made a touch worse by including 5M in opener's hand so we were missing the 5-3 fits too. So perhaps at best (43)33 if containing 4M, but this sort of flags lack of a Major. I still have a preference for a non-promissory 2♣ 5cM ask even if getting to 2N is a bit long-winded.

Any observations/experiences from others?

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-February-10, 04:00, said:

What exactly is the 2S range ask?

David mentioned this but perhaps not as explicitly as it might be said. He described it two ways. His first description makes it sound like a stand-alone replacement for a natural 2NT bid by responder. I'm not familiar with that.

In his second description, the "range ask" (aka "size ask") is a modification to 4-way transfers. That's what I'm familiar with, and the one that I think has become pretty standard (at least in the US) for anyone who would otherwise be adopting 4-way transfers.

With traditional 4-way transfers, we have to go through Stayman to show a balanced 8-9 HCP hand with no 4-card major, because the bid we would normally use (1NT-2NT) is now a transfer to diamonds. This leaks information about the opener's hand when we're not really looking for a 4-card major. The "clubs or size ask" approach avoids that problem.

See https://www.advinbri...ek-in-bridge/47 https://bridgewinner...with-range-ask/

[smerriman]

 mw64ahw, on 2025-February-10, 05:29, said:

I started using the Range Ask/Clubs with one of my partners, but found it was being used too frequently for balanced hands and we ended up missing a Major suit fit which often made the better score.

If you were missing major fits then you were playing something else; in the standard version it's not used with a 4 card major. Yes, this flags not having a 4 card major, but so does not using Stayman..

 jdiana, on 2025-February-10, 07:31, said:

His first description makes it sound like a stand-alone replacement for a natural 2NT bid by responder. I'm not familiar with that.

If you replace "a natural 2NT bid" with "a hand that would want to make a natural 2NT bid" then the two definitions are identical, aren't they?