[akwoo]

1) In North America, I would suggest you play transfers with the 12-14 NT. Not because it is inherently superior (I don't know whether it is or not), but because the main disadvantage of transfers here is that opponents get an extra half round of bidding to intervene, and people not playing transfers is so rare in North America that almost no pairs have ever discussed how to use that extra half round.

2) This is a solved problem. Practically very website on mini-NT (i.e. 10-12) gives a solution. The Kaplan-Sheinwold system (also on the web) gives a similar solution (though they don't use 2-way Stayman, leaving 2♦ as a weak takeout). For that matter, Goren gave a solution (also without 2-way Stayman) back in the days before transfers were invented. The forums are good for judgement questions, and the forums are good for questions involving innovations in bidding. They are not so good for questions for which half an hour with Google will give you far more information than any thread can provide.

[the hog]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-11, 18:45, said:

I ask these questions because I don't know the answer. I did not know that almost every top pair in the world plays stayman & transfers , regardless of range, I do not know how people play weak no trump, it is uncommon where I play. The methods I picked up from local players here were the ones outlined in the OP

Vampyr's response is at a minimum, unhelpful and unfriendly. If you look at her posts they are often sarcastic, snippy responses to straight forward questions. I don't recall her ever actually asking a question.

I'm done with the sarcastic, unfriendly and sometimes abusive responses that are tolerated on here. There are a few posters here who have helped me immensley and thank you, but I no longer want to put up with the crap that has become the norm on here.

Jilly, I have always enjoyed your posts and your zest for learning. Please do not give up posting here. Seriously, that would be a loss for these fora.

[blackshoe]

Jilly, try this book. Here's a sample.

[the hog]

Jilly, ask which top pairs play 2 way Stayman? None that I can think of. Now there must be a reason for this.
Here are two schemes that I have played. They are very different and I like both.
1NT
2D t/f to H. Super accept allowed if you have 4 card support and no soft values
After 2H 2S = GF both Ms
2N = invit
3m = gf
3H = invit with 6+
3S/4C/D = autosplinters

Similar after 1NT 2H

2S = range ask Opener bids 2NT min,
2NT = 4441 or t/f to C. Opener bids 3C now bid suit below s/t
3m = invit
3H/S = gf

Or you could try this version of Gladiator

1NT 2C stay
2H/S - INVIT 5 card suits. Pass with min. Bid 3M with max and 4333 with 4 in M, 3m = weak xx
2D = puppet to 2H. Now Pass or 2S = weak with that suit, 2NT = baron, 3m = gf with that m, 3M = GF with that M
3m = invit
3M = fragment

This is quite fun, especially when you alert 2D.

[Zelandakh]

 PhilKing, on 2015-January-11, 18:00, said:

The fact is, almost every top pair in the world plays Stayman and transfers, regardless of range.

You are being a little harsh on Fluffy, who was playing a non-transfer method with his weak NT partner in Lille. Not to mention Brink-Drijver and plenty of other international players. While I do play transfers, the idea that one has to play them with a weak NT is just wrong. There are plenty of other solutions around, some of which are quite popular in places. Of the alternatives, 2-way Stayman is probably the one most often seen, even if it is (arguably) not the best.

The truth is that there are not a huge number of top pairs playing a weak NT throughout these days. Of those that do I guess around 20% are playing something other than Stayman + transfers. Aside from Fantunes, I am not sure how many of these pairs would qualify as "world class" by Ron's standards!

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-January-11, 20:03, said:

You are being a little harsh on Fluffy, who was playing a non-transfer method with his weak NT partner in Lille. Not to mention Brink-Drijver and plenty of other international players. While I do play transfers, the idea that one has to play them with a weak NT is just wrong. There are plenty of other solutions around, some of which are quite popular in places. Of the alternatives, 2-way Stayman is probably the one most often seen, even if it is (arguably) not the best.

The truth is that there are not a huge number of top pairs playing a weak NT throughout these days. Of those that do I guess around 20% are playing something other than Stayman + transfers. Aside from Fantunes, I am not sure how many of these pairs would qualify as "world class" by Ron's standards!

Brink Drijver play 9-12 and 15-17. That is a little different, Zel.

[TylerE]

 trevahound, on 2015-January-11, 13:12, said:

In my experience, playing transfers and a weak nt is a case of two great things that go horribly together. The weak NT puts pressure on the opps that transfers largely remove.

I've never found it to be a problem, and I've played transfer opposite pretty much every weak NT range... 10-12, 11-14, 12-14, 12-15, you name it. Modern transfer-based sequences are so good at getting to the right game that giving them up without a system providing equivalent systemic richness (e.g. Scanian) is just massively -EV versus the field.

[mikeh]

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

Put it another way: if we had a decent team playing transfers against a comparable team playing 2 way, and both played sophisticated versions, I doubt that either could claim that their methods gave them any real edge at all.

When a good poster asks for assistance with a method she is experimenting with, telling her that one's one methods are so superior that she should stop playing what she wants to try aNd play one's methods instead is incredibly arrogant, even by my standards.

[Vampyr]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-11, 22:42, said:

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

It would be really interesting if you could outline a good 2-way Stayman method and point out the advantages.

I know of one advantage in even a simple system -- that you get to play in 2♦. Is that valuable? Or is playing a puppet here a bad idea anyway?

[mikeh]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-11, 23:51, said:

It would be really interesting if you could outline a good 2-way Stayman method and point out the advantages.

I know of one advantage in even a simple system -- that you get to play in 2♦. Is that valuable?

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

The methods permit setting trump, when responder fits a suit held by opener, even a 4 card minor, below game, thus maximizing slam exploration. That isn't the only feature

[Vampyr]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-11, 23:55, said:

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

Oh, OK.

[the hog]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-11, 22:42, said:

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

Put it another way: if we had a decent team playing transfers against a comparable team playing 2 way, and both played sophisticated versions, I doubt that either could claim that their methods gave them any real edge at all.

When a good poster asks for assistance with a method she is experimenting with, telling her that one's one methods are so superior that she should stop playing what she wants to try aNd play one's methods instead is incredibly arrogant, even by my standards.

That is a bit arrogant itself. A number of people have played sophisticated methods using 2 way Stayman.

[Mbodell]

I think if 12-14 is new to you and uncommon where you are, the best first step of switching to it is to just play your normal strong nt methods and get used to it from there.

Obviously, what counts as an invite strength or game forcing strength over 1nt will change, but still the same thing (as in transfer and 2nt is invitiational, but now it shows 11+-12- points instead of ~9 points).

The biggest shifts to playing a weak nt are competitive auctions. In particular, how you know your partner has a better hand when they open 1m playing weak nt than they might have playing strong nt (they either need extra shape or extra strength or both).

You also have to deal with opponents bidding too frequently over your 1nt (especially if they aren't used to your 1nt) and I suggest you get comfortable defending doubled partscores - even knowing they'll make some of the time (if they don't you aren't doubling enough).

And by far, IMO, the most important part of system difference with a weak nt compared to a strong nt is what you do if you get X for penalty. That isn't too important opposite a strong nt, but opposite a weak nt it becomes a bit more important. If your opponents aren't that familiar with weak nt, you might find they play systems on over the X and feel near compelled to bid themselves (or even play systems like DONT with no penalty X available). But likely you'll want to have some way to escape (and my personal advice is to make sure you can play 1ntX and that you aren't forced to play 1ntXX or some 2 level contract).

[rmnka447]

ArtK78 and mike777 provide pretty workable schemes for inviting over a 2 ♣ invitational Stayman.

In the sequence --

1 NT-----2 ♣
2 ♦/2 ♠-- ?

I like bidding 2 NT as an invite with opener bidding 3 ♥ to show 3 on the way to 3 NT instead of bidding 3 ♥ as responder to invite. The 3 ♥ invite may end up getting one level too high when playing a 5-2 ♥ fit opposite a minimum opener.

Of course, any sequence where you start with invitational Stayman and bid 2 NT doesn't necessarily guarantee a 4 card major because you use a direct 2 NT for the minors. Our KO teammates, who play a similar structure to yours, prefer using a 2 NT rebid with opener showing 3 with 3 ♥ as a way of inviting.

[helene_t]

 chasetb, on 2015-January-11, 00:33, said:

Jill, I have an old book for Beginners that is still in print - 5 Card Major Bridge Teacher's Manual. In it, it uses 1NT - 2♣; 2x - 2M as INV with a 5-card suit. In the rare case of 1NT - 2♣; 2♠, 2NT shows 4 OR 5 ♥, INV. 1NT - 2♣; 2x - 3M (where x DOES NOT = M) is GF with a 6+ card Major, looking for cuebids.

GF 5-card Majors go through 2♦. I might also suggest that you ditch 3♣ as Puppet and slightly adjust your 2♦ bid so that: 2M = 4 cards, may have the other Major / 2NT = No 4-card Major / 3M = 5 cards, and use whatever you want for 3m.

I think this is very sensible but I wonder what to do with an invitational hand with six hearts. Maybe a direct 3h shows this but that means that you can't stop in 2h. Playing 2c followed by hearts as invitational at least gives you the chance to stop in 2h but maybe it is too much of a disadvantage not to distinguish between 5 and 6 card invites. And a direct 3h must mean something In Wei precision it is preemptive iirc.

What do you do as a passed hand? Transfers and 2way stayman are both silly. You could lower the range to 11+ to 14- and then play weak takeouts in four suits. But if a third/fourth seat 1nt is mildly constructive, playing 2d as an invite in an unknown major is sensible.

3h by a passed hand could be an invite witg 55 majors.

Rmnka447 gives good advice btw.

[whereagles]

I've always played transfers, though mostly for memory's sake. So far, so good.


And yeah there's a reason the post count on these fora went down by 1/2...

[helene_t]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-11, 23:55, said:

I've written up my methods 3 or 4 times here already

For example:

http://www.bridgebas...k-nt-structure/

[campboy]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-11, 22:42, said:

As someone who has played many methods over almost every known range for 1N, my experience suggests that a good transfer method is superior to a good 2 way stayman method for strong no trumps, but is basically break-even with weak no trumps.

In my experience, those who criticize a 2 way method are speaking out of ignorance, in that they unfairly compare a sophisticated transfer method to a basic 2 way method. This isn't fair. Compare a complex 2 way method to a complex transfer method and the results would, in my view be very close.

I don't think this is a particularly unfair comparison. If OP wants to switch from strong to weak NT, it is not worth the extra effort of finding and learning a sophisticated 2-way Stayman method that is only going to break even with the transfer methods she already knows how to play.

[ArtK78]

I have always played 2-way Stayman when playing a weak NT except when my partner insisted on using transfers. I find that 2-way Stayman is superior to transfers when playing a weak NT - more so when playing a mini NT (10-13, used to be 10-12), as I do with my regular partner. Obviously, some have other opinions, including one poster who may often be wrong but is never in doubt.

The idea of rebidding 2NT holding 5 hearts on the auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ is interesting. We may incorporate it into our structure. Amazingly enough, in all of the years that I have played my current 2-way Stayman structure (about 20 years), this sequence has never come up.

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

On the other hand, playing a mini NT opposite a passed hand is downright silly. In those situations where my regular partner and I employ the mini-NT (1st & 2nd seats nonvul), we also open 1 of a suit on all 10 counts. So, if partner is a passed hand, he has less than 10 HCP. Opening a 10-13 1NT opposite a hand known to have less than 10 HCP seems silly to me. We play strong 1NT openings opposite passed hands.

[mikeh]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-12, 10:29, said:

I have always played 2-way Stayman when playing a weak NT except when my partner insisted on using transfers. I find that 2-way Stayman is superior to transfers when playing a weak NT - more so when playing a mini NT (10-13, used to be 10-12), as I do with my regular partner. Obviously, some have other opinions, including one poster who may often be wrong but is never in doubt.

The idea of rebidding 2NT holding 5 hearts on the auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ is interesting. We may incorporate it into our structure. Amazingly enough, in all of the years that I have played my current 2-way Stayman structure (about 20 years), this sequence has never come up.

By the way, one poster commented that one should not use the same structure as a passed hand. I am a firm believer that one should not use a weak NT opposite a passed hand, as you are voluntariy opening a balanced minimum hand 1NT opposite a hand that has less than an opening bid. This seems like an invitation to disaster. I note that I have seen a number of prominent players who do open a weak NT opposite a passed hand. I can only assume that their experience is that it is worthwhile to do so.

On the other hand, playing a mini NT opposite a passed hand is downright silly. In those situations where my regular partner and I employ the mini-NT (1st & 2nd seats nonvul), we also open 1 of a suit on all 10 counts. So, if partner is a passed hand, he has less than 10 HCP. Opening a 10-13 1NT opposite a hand known to have less than 10 HCP seems silly to me. We play strong 1NT openings opposite passed hands.

I have long played that 2N over opener's 2♠ response to 2♣,in a 2-way method, is invitational and may hold 5 hearts. This has to be superior to having to rebid 3♥ which risks confronting opener with no good option when he has a minimum and only 2 hearts. Playing 2N with a 5-3 heart fit, by comparison, is not a big deal. 2N often makes the same number of tricks, since it would be rare for opener to have significant ruffing values, and when, as is often the case, it doesn't, then the difference is most often only 1 trick.

It doesn't arise often

As for passed hand bidding, I do in one partnership play 12-14 and open that in 3rd seat if not vulnerable but otherwise only in 1st and 2nd. We ostensibly play the same methods as opposite 1st and 2nd, but that it simply because we don't want 3 response structures. The reality is that we lose any use for 2♦ as artificial so it becomes 'natural', but again this rarely arises.

When I played 10-12, we would play it only in 1st and 2nd, altho for a brief time in one partnership we tried it in 3rd at favourable, simply for the preemptive value.

Btw, while I like 2 way, especially the method I usually play, my own view is that a detailed transfer method is as good as 2-way, gaining on some layouts and losing on others.