[benlessard]

Playing a weak NT facing a passed hand a GF hands is no longer possible so its pointless and costly to play xfer.

3C to play
2NT inv with 4-4 in both minors.
2M to play
2D INV with a long M or 5C (can be 5S+5H)
2C transfer to 2D, to play, INV with 4M or INV with 5D.

if your 3343,3334 and arent strong enough to open you should pass 1NT anyway.



1NT–2D
??

2H i refuse a 5 long H inv
2S I accept a long H INV but refuse a 5+ long S inv
2NT I accept INV in both majors but im minimum and not too fond of clubs
3C = I accept both majors INV im minimum and got at least 3C

rest is maximum
3NT= at least 3-3 in both M
3D = short (2) in one major
3M = 5M there.

This is superior to transfers scheme its not even close.

pros

1- D transfer lead to signoff at 2D
2- Inv and stop in 2M with a long M rather than 2NT.
3- Inv with 4-4 or better in both minors
4- Inv and stop in 2M even if you have a 4-4 or 4-3 M fit (if the hand with 3 trumps got ruffing values).
5- you can play game in a 4-3 fit quite easily
6- your 2M signoff are direct.
7- opener can have 5M and still open 1nt
8- you can bid a thin game because you know wich 5m responder got.
9- if you play 3NT, opener 4M will often be undisclosed.
10- you can Inv and endup in a 53 or 54 fit in a minor
11- deal well with light inv 5-5 in both M.

Cons

a bit memory intensive.
Lose garbage stayman (wich is worth less than the D signoff)

[mgoetze]

I think having something between "refuse" and "super accept" might be useful.

[benlessard]

In reality its an acceptance not a super acceptance.

The super accept would be

P-P-1NT-P
2H-P-3H

2H is to play not invitationnal 3H should be my hand is really a strong NT now.

AQx
xxxxx
Ax
Axx

[glen]

excellent structure!

[awm]

It seems like you are missing a good way to invite with 4-4 or 5-4 in the majors, which are fairly common hand types. In my experience, playing in 4-3 major fits on declined invites is pretty overrated; I would be happy to sacrifice this for better coverage on the both majors invites. And the combination of both majors weak with (34)51 type patterns weak is probably more than the diamond signoff. Overall playing 2♣ as stayman just seems a little better; I like the 2♦ response though.

[benlessard]

Quote

In my experience, playing in 4-3 major fits on declined invites is pretty overrated

Dont confuse this with Keri (Ok at best IMO) where they often play in random 7 card fits. Here you need 3 trumps and ruffing values to pass.

1NT-2C-2D-2H

??

With 4333 il bid 2S
With 33(43) ill bid 2NT

With a AQ doubleton i will also bid 2NT. Note that in close case you may choose knowing who is going to declare.

I agree that the cases where 2M make and 2NT go down is not that big a deal but its still a plus.

The problem with stayman is that you will play 3M not 2M and this is a big deal especially if your 3rd seat 1NT is 11-14. With 23-25 pts You lose more imps playing 3M instead of 2M than by not bidding a 60% game.

[Jinksy]

It looks like a reasonable structure, but why play a weak NT opposite a passed hand at all? I love the weak NT, but even I find it gets in the way in third (and perhaps even more in fourth) seat.

[benlessard]

Im a huge believer in weak NT everytime its safe.

Playing weak NT in 3rd seat vul is the only time I think weak NT is probably inferior to strong NT or to 14-16 all other systemic things being equal.

I think weak NT best positions is 4th any vul & 1st not vul. I much prefer to open weak NT in 4th than in 2nd VUL or not or that in 1st seat vul.

Ive never understood those who play weak NT only in first or 2nd. The argument that in 4th seat you are as likely to be 15-17 than 12-14 is nothing compared to stopping 1M overcalls. Also the stronger I am the more im willing to open 1m and deal with their overcall.

[Jinksy]

Hm, I hadn't heard that argument. Have you tested it much?

My sense of playing weak NT in 4th (which I've done a lot perforce), is that it's a loser whenever you have good spades or a minimum. In the former case, you can get outcompeted by opps when it's your part score, in the latter partner too often raises you to 2N (which I don't think your scheme really helps with, since invites still take us to the 3 level).

If I have a maximum with poor spades, maybe it's advantageous (and max is presumably more likely than min given that strong NT is more likely than weak) to open - but then we're trading a valuable strong NT opening for gains from a single corner of weak-NT-space. Even then though, my sense is that they'll often be able to bid spades, and that possibly we've done even worse if we now can't find our 8-9 card fit in a lower ranking suit.

[benlessard]

Weak NT biggest loss is when its

1NT-ap -1

vs 1m-1M-2M making.

Strong NT got an edge because if you bury your 4-4 M its better to be strong than 12-14 because 1Nt is still likely to make anyway (imps).


The 2nd main drawback is 1NT-X.

Since those 2 drawback are greatly reduced after 3 Pass im simply really happy to open 1NT in 4th seat.


In general the main advantage to open 1NT is that its stop a takeout X or a 1M overcall. In 4th seat this advantage is amplified.

1m--(X)

vs

(P)--P--(P)--1m
(X)

The light delayed takeout show about 9-11 and a delayed 1M overcall is also 5M 9-11. This range is right on target for the average of pts that hes going to have so delayed take out X or delayed overcall are quite frequent.

The other difference about being a passed hand and playing a weak NT is that opps are not worried about game.

(P)--P--(P)--1Nt
(X) or any other bid can be destructive.

but the same could be said about

(P)--P--(P)--1m
(1M)

I believe that the opps being worried about game is more significant over 1NT direct than over 1m direct so 1Nt in 4th seal lose this advantage. So its a small loss for 1NT in 4th seat.

But since the 2 main drawbacks are reduced and the main advantage is amplified I dont see why any believer in weak nt in 1st should have doubt in 4th seat.

[WesleyC]

I've played a lot of Weak and Mini 1NT, and have come to the opposite conclusion about weak NT in 3rd seat. My preference is that a strong 1NT (occasionally psyched) is definitely the way to go. My only opinion about 4th seat is that it probably doesn't matter that much.

The main reason isn't the risk of getting penalized by opening a weak 1NT (although that is a minor downside) but the difficulty of expressing the value of a (14)15-17 balanced hand after a 1M opening, when I will also open 1S on a hand like [KQJx x Qxxx xxxx] or [AQJxx xx Qxx xxx].

[glen]

 Jinksy, on 2015-May-29, 11:09, said:

(which I don't think your scheme really helps with, since invites still take us to the 3 level)

one thing I like about his scheme is that 1NT-2♣-2♦-2M invites with 4 in M (often staying at two level), and 1NT-2♦-2M will often stop at the two level on a 5 major invite

[benlessard]

We do play a very similar scheme after our 2C precision (5C+4M possible).

Except that 2C-2M direct is 4-5M INV (opener need 3 to pass).
2D is GF with 5M+ or INV 6M, INV 5M+5M (opener bid 2H = refuse a H inv, 2S accept H refuse S etc)

This allow us to inv and stop in 2M wich allow for slightly more agressive inv.

The invites without 4M or 5M are a bit rare but at least its important to show your minors shapes so that you reevaluate or signgoff in 3m isntead of playing 2NT.

Usually a passed hand invite without 4M is based on a 5m or 6clubs, knowing wich minor is 5th is kind of important rather than just inviting with 2NT.

[Zelandakh]

Adam already pointed out the main issue I think. This is a common theme for schemes of this type. There are basically 5 ways of bidding 2NT - direct; after 2♣, 2♦ or 2♥; and on the third round after 2♣. The more terminal sequences in 2M you have, the harder it becomes to handle all of the invites generally. Now you can condense some invites - for example using a 2M response as a natural invite is not a problem because you no longer need one of the 2NT routes - but here I think we have 2 too many terminal sequences and the loss on those 5-4 major hands are going to be a problem, especially since finding fits on these hands often leads to a good game. Summary: some promise here but I think it still needs some tweaks.

[straube]

How about...

With 4S/5H invite...

1N-2D, 2H-2N
1N-2D, 2S-4H

With 5S/4H invite...

1N-2D, 2H-2S
1N-2D, 2S-2N

With 4H/4S invite...

1N-2C, 2D-2H, 2S=min 4S.2-3H
1N-2C, 2D-2H, 3S=max 4S, 2-3H

[benlessard]

5M+4M vs 3M+not4M where you make game in the 5/3 is not that frequent and its a drop of water compared to stopping in 2M rather than 2Nt or 3M.

Note that if opener is max you can find the 2nd fit later.

1NT-2C-2D-2H (can be 54 or 45)
??

2S min with 4S.
2NT min without 4S. In both these cases you may miss a 5H+3H fit but since opener is min you shouldnt miss a good game.

rest show max without 4H. We usually use 3C as Romex (or doubleton clubs) over all our balanced hand that rebid 2NT or in case like this. So it asking for 5H/5S or 4S.

A direct 3D & 3H show max 3 card support and doubleton (D and S) with 3 trumps. 3S show 5S maximum. There is 2 hands that fall throught the crack when opener got 3H maximum but no doubleton nad when its 24?? vs 53(32) and 4H would be better than 3NT. Maybe we could use Romex even with 33(43) shapes with pts concentration in the M.



1NT-2D-2H-2NT should be INV with 5C. Being able to show wich m is 5th is just a lot more frequent than the case where missing a 5-3 fit with a 5M+4M cost.
note that 2H is a dead minumum or can be an average hand with only 2H so correcting to 3C is often right.

Also we do play

1NT-2C- 2H/2S as maximum with D super accept.
if responder had 5D we are ready to play 3D and if hes inv we are GF.

[Gerben42]

http://www.bridgeguy...hikerweaknt.pdf solves your problem as usual

Invite with 5♠ 4♥ is done by bidding Stayman and then 2♠.
Invite with 5♥ 4♠ is done by bidding 2♦ and on a 2♥ response (doubleton) bid 2♠.

[benlessard]

Yes but losing the INV with 4M at 2H/2S is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

For one 5S+4H you going to get 2 hands with 5 clubs and about 4 hands with 4M

5422,5431,5413

VS

4333
4342,4324,4351,4315
4234,4243,4252,4225
4144,4153,4135
+ some 4(126)

In short

1NT-2C-2D-??

2H
2S
2NT

These 3 bids should be used frequently rather than a specific 2 suiter.

Also what puzzled me is the number of players who think garb stayman is more useful than a 2 level D transfers. Using the style that its not 54+45 but one major is longer or equal to the other.

5521,5512
5431,5413,5422

vs

3352,3253,2353.
2254,4252,2452
3154,1354,4153,1453,4351,3451

and all the 6 carder where 2D will make and 3D fail.

Treating a 54?? to play as a 5??? is costly only facing a 24?? but vs any other shape it will do ok. Its unlikely that 2H is better than 2S when its 54?? vs 23?? and 54?? vs 34?? 2H is just a tiny bit better.

While a ??5? is not only 2-3 times more frequent but on the long run you will do better in 2D than in 1Nt with weakish values. However note that if you have sound values being in 2D rather than 1NT will leak too many -1 Imps deal.

[Zelandakh]

 benlessard, on 2015-June-04, 22:10, said:

For one 5S+4H you going to get 2 hands with 5 clubs and about 4 hands with 4M

The weakish hands with 5 clubs are not important - you can typically treat them as balanced without a problem. Every system can handle hands with a 4 card major, it is simply that some end up in 3M rather than 2M when the invite is declined. The question is on what proportion of those 4 hands it makes a difference compared to the 5-4 hands where it makes a difference. That is a more complicated question than merely looking at the number of hand types.

 benlessard, on 2015-June-04, 22:10, said:

Also what puzzled me is the number of players who think garb stayman is more useful than a 2 level D transfers. Using the style that its not 54+45 but one major is longer or equal to the other.

For your comparison here you are missing all of the Exit Stayman hands. That is potentially any hand with 3+♠, 3+♥ and 4+♦. As someone that plays 2♣ as Puppet, I understand where you are coming from in this argument. But you have to compare like for like and you give something up as well as gain something with this; pretending otherwise is wrong.

[awm]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-05, 04:06, said:

For your comparison here you are missing all of the Exit Stayman hands. That is potentially any hand with 3+♠, 3+♥ and 4+♦. As someone that plays 2♣ as Puppet, I understand where you are coming from in this argument. But you have to compare like for like and you give something up as well as gain something with this; pretending otherwise is wrong.

It's even more than this. There are also the weak 4+/4+ majors hands. And further, if opponents have a substantial major suit fit the auction is not that likely to go Pass-Pass-1NT-Pass. Most people have major suit weak twos available, might open lighter with a five-card major than they would on a random balanced hand, and have major-suit-oriented methods of intervening over 1NT. The point being, your hands where you want to sign off in diamonds, fairly often you won't get the chance anyway, whereas the hands where you have both majors at least somewhat, the opponents are more likely to let you buy the contract.

As for the 2M contracts, I've played this sort of method for a while with Keri and had a couple observations:

1. The 4-3 fit with three in the balanced hand is often a loser in real play, such that the "field" contract of 2NT is often better.
2. There are some hands where you actually want to be in game if a 4-4 major fit exists (i.e. Axxx xxx x AQxxx will often make game opposite a weak notrump with four card spade support) and you can no longer do this if the auction will go 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠-Pass when partner has KQxx Axx xxxx Kx (for example). Of course you can use the 3M bid in this auction as a "nice min with four-card support" but then you are only passing with a lousy minimum and four-card support and that's really quite rare (not to mention sometimes 3M makes then anyway).