[helene_t]

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?

[mgoetze]

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

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?

I think it's even better to play 2♠ as range ask or clubs. I also thought that was part of forum expert standard.

[NickRW]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-15, 06:23, said:

I think it's even better to play 2♠ as range ask or clubs. I also thought that was part of forum expert standard.

I think Helene was referring to the 1N-2C-2H-2S sequence. But yeah, haven't got the foggiest about forum standard, but I like 2♠ range ask, could have some other hand type.

And I agree with Helene that, though non promissory works ok on some hands it leaks info on others.

Pass or blast has got things going for it too.

[mgoetze]

In forum standard, 1NT-2♣; 2♥-2♠ is invitational with 5 spades, because 1NT-2♥; 2♠-2NT is GF with Spades and Clubs.

[Cthulhu D]

2S as a range ask or clubs is genius - I am guessing you bid 2NT with a min and 3C with a Max?

Are you also proposing transfer rebids by responder? What do you do with the extra room? Show shortness?

On the topic of pass or blast, we do this a lot playing 14-16 to avoid information leakage via non promissory stayman but responders ok 9 counts are a huge problem as the room will be in 1 or 3. Inviting is bad but not inviting is also bad.

Does anyone have a writeup o

[Jinksy]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-15, 06:23, said:

I think it's even better to play 2♠ as range ask or clubs. I also thought that was part of forum expert standard.

We play 2♠ as a range ask, and so for a long time played promissory Stayman. I've come to think the range ask is a mixed blessing though - and we've recently started playing both this and non-promissory - because of the dangers of a lead-directing X.

This may be less relevant for a strong NT than for our weak one, given that most people probably play an X of a Stayman response to 1N as ♣s, but against us, most players would X it to show values. But even where they play X for ♣s, I think the difference between being able to X♣s and X♠s is significant. Given responder's lack of a 4-card major, it's very likely that the opps' best lead will be in one of the majors. So while they'd occasionally gain when ♣s turns out to be their suit, I think they'll gain far more frequently from either a) an X of 2♠ or b) the negative inference from lack of such X.

I suspect this is actually worth more to the defence on average than learning about opener's 4cMs, so if my ♠s are weak, I'll often prefer to go via Stayman. Against pairs good enough to draw a negative inference from the absence of an X I might almost always prefer it, unless I've got points in both majors.

Another slight benefit from non-promissory (when responder has ♥s) might be the auction 1N 2♣ / 2♠ 2N / ... Now you've changed their likely lead from a choice of 2 to a choice of 3 suits, which seems like a bigger proportional gain than on the converse hands (where you don't have ♥s, and other tables will have started with 2♠ presumably not receiving an X).

[NickRW]

I'm sure there have been studies on the web somewhere, but don't recall where now. Anyway inviting (by whatever route you've agreed) works (compared to pass/blast)
1) when you find a making 3NT that you wouldn't have found (in the context of a 15-17NT, presumably responder has a reasonable 8 to a poor 9).
2) It also works when the blasters blasted (presumably with a reasonable 9), but the inviters ended in 2NT making.

Pass/blast works better when
1) You found a 3NT by inviting that you didn't think good enough to blast with and it is off anyway.
2) You ended in 2NT by inviting and due to a poor lie of the cards it is off whereas the blasters passed 1NT out.
3) Inviting leaked at least a little info and you're off whereas you wouldn't have been off without the leakage.

Nick

[gszes]

The use of 4 way transfers ended up with 2c being used as a way to invite
to 3n with or without a 4 card major. The theory of invite is almost always
used after normal opening bids (which sometimes have a slightly larger <range>
of power) and there seems to be little reason other than semantics for eliminating
the practice over a 1n opening bid (any 3hcp range anyway).

The use of 2s to show (after 1n 2c 2h) a 4 card major and 2n to deny loses out when
responder has an invitational hand with 9 cards in the majors but many feel that
compromise is well worth the ability to use 4 way transfers for a variety of reasons.

If 4 way transfers are not in use there is no reason for the 2s bid to be used this way and
it can be used for other purposes. My preference it to be able to show 9 cards in the majors
(45 or 54) and invitational since this allows for opener to much better gauge how their hand
meshes with responder but other ideas abound if you wish to look for them.

[PhilKing]

 mgoetze, on 2014-October-15, 06:23, said:

I think it's even better to play 2♠ as range ask or clubs. I also thought that was part of forum expert standard.

FWIW this is standard at my mother's local bridge club.

[akwoo]

The answer is that most players don't play often enough against people who can take advantage of the information leakage to worry about it. I would say the majority of players at a sectional tournament just routinely put down top of a sequence if they have one and otherwise fourth best from longest and strongest against 3N, no matter what the bidding is.

My preference is for 3♣ to be my transfer to diamonds, and 2N as natural invitational.

[mgoetze]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-October-15, 07:04, said:

2S as a range ask or clubs is genius - I am guessing you bid 2NT with a min and 3C with a Max?

Are you also proposing transfer rebids by responder?

Yeah. I learned all this stuff on the forums but failed to put the relevant threads on my systems index. Shame on me.

2♣ Stayman, after which 2♠ shows invite with 5 spades
2♦ Hearts, rebids include 2♠ invite with 5, 3♦ invite or slam try with 6, 3♥ invite with 5-5, 3♠ GF with 5 demanding 4♥ with a fit and 3NT GF with 5 asking opener to use judgement.
2♥ Spades, rebids include 3♦ GF 5-5
2♠ Range ask or Clubs, opener bids 2NT with minimum
2NT Both minors weak or Diamonds, opener bids better minor
3♣ Asks for 5-card majors, also used with GF and exactly one 4-card major
3♦ Both minors strong
3♥ 31(45)
3♠ 13(45)

The main advantage of the transfers is that opener can show a fit at a lower level, e.g. 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♣ shows a club fit without bypassing 3NT.

[johnu]

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

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?

One problem with blasting on 9 is that everybody seems to be constantly upgrading these days. So is may not be a worst case 15-9, it could be 14-9. Of course, some people never upgrade , some never downgrade, others almost always upgrade, etc. Whatever the case, these tendencies have a huge effect on how effective blasting is going to be.

[beatrix45]

Damn Sam! After 80 years it is hard to even find a new variation on the original 2♣ asking for majors Stayman Convention that is even playable. The subject is not dead. More subtle approaches from real players like Meckwell and Fantunes make sense in the context of their systems.

[helene_t]

 johnu, on 2014-October-15, 12:06, said:

One problem with blasting on 9 is that everybody seems to be constantly upgrading these days.

True. If 1NT is really a three-point range (say 14.50-17.49) it works better than if it is more like 14.2-17.6.

[PhantomSac]

Helene I don't think what you described has been expert standard in a long time (if ever). It is flawed for all the reasons you mentioned, information leakage on the 1N 2N bids and inefficient use of 1N 2C 2H 2S.

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). The normal use of 1N 2C 2red 2S is 5 spades invitational that has interest in playing 4S but not 3N. For instance, AJxxx xx x Qxxxx would be a good example, you really are interested in 4S opposite a suitable (fitting) hand but don't want to play NT. If you don't have a way to bid this you have to do something ridiculous, transfer and pass, transfer and bid 2N(!), transfer and bid 3C GF(!) or transfer and bid 3S showing 6 spades(!!). So this solves a real problem.

Even when I did not play 1N 2S range ask, I just played 1N 2C 2H 2N as ambiguous about spades, the only time there is a problem is if opener is 4-4 in the majors with a minimum and responder has the wrong hand. I preferred risking this to gain being able to bid 2C then 2S with 5 spades shapely invite.

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 guess that's why expert standard has become 2S range ask lol. Losing the invite in clubs is much less bad since it is way less common.

Quote

Yeah. I learned all this stuff on the forums but failed to put the relevant threads on my systems index. Shame on me.

2♣ Stayman, after which 2♠ shows invite with 5 spades
2♦ Hearts, rebids include 2♠ invite with 5, 3♦ invite or slam try with 6, 3♥ invite with 5-5, 3♠ GF with 5 demanding 4♥ with a fit and 3NT GF with 5 asking opener to use judgement.
2♥ Spades, rebids include 3♦ GF 5-5
2♠ Range ask or Clubs, opener bids 2NT with minimum
2NT Both minors weak or Diamonds, opener bids better minor
3♣ Asks for 5-card majors, also used with GF and exactly one 4-card major
3♦ Both minors strong
3♥ 31(45)
3♠ 13(45)

The main advantage of the transfers is that opener can show a fit at a lower level, e.g. 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♣ shows a club fit without bypassing 3NT.

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).

[MickyB]

 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

You give up being able to invite in diamonds to play this

One option is to play 1N:3D as NAT INV and 1N:3M as 5-5 minors.

Playing 1N:3C as your diamond transfer has an unexpected gain - now 1N:3C, 3D:3N can't be just "to play". I like 3H/3S/3N to show shortage.

[Vampyr]

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

Expert standard in US now (and apparently England) is 1N 2S range ask.

I don't know whether this is expert standard over here, but I believe that it is the most popular method by far among English bridge players as a whole.

[MickyB]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-15, 17:35, said:

I don't know whether this is expert standard over here, but I believe that it is the most popular method by far among English bridge players as a whole.

Indeed - I suspect Phil's reference to "my mother's bridge club" actually referred to similar if rather inferior method.

Simple version -

1N:2S = 11 points [i.e. bad invite opposite 12-14]
1N:2N = 12 points

"Club expert" version -

1N:2S = 11 points or weak with one minor
1N:2N = 12 points

[Vampyr]

 MickyB, on 2014-October-15, 17:45, said:

Indeed - I suspect Phil's reference to "my mother's bridge club" actually referred to similar if rather inferior method.

Yes, but many do play the method discussed here.

[PhantomSac]

My bad misinterpreted PK's post I guess