[ArtK78]

Mike:

You may have seen the discussion in another thread concering the possibility of using the 2♣ response (playing two-way Stayman) to include some types of game forcing hands. Do you have any opinion on that idea?

I had stated that I play two-way Stayman opposite a mini-NT (10-12) and that the 2♣ response unconditional guarantees less than game forcing values. A couple of posters stated that it made sense to use the 2♣ response (which, of course, cannot be passed) followed by certain jumps rebids (notably 3NT) to show game forcing hand types which could then be excluded from the hands on which one would bid 2♦ as a first response.

[rhm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-16, 08:26, said:

and 13 opposite 5 isn't a big differential ? I was talking about the auction 1N-2M end.

and 14 opposite zero is even bigger.
But responder could also be stronger than opener.
And opener could hold 3 aces, where it will hardly matter.
And not so rarely it is of great advantage when little is know about the concealed hand with regard to distribution and strength.

This all holds true for strong notrump as well, but the statistical advantage of making the balanced hand the concealed one diminishes quickly when you reduce its strength.
That's all what I implied.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

 rhm, on 2014-July-16, 10:02, said:

and 14 opposite zero is even bigger.
But responder could also be stronger than opener.
And opener could hold 3 aces, where it will hardly matter.
And not so rarely it is of great advantage when little is know about the concealed hand with regard to distribution and strength.

This all holds true for strong notrump as well, but the statistical advantage of making the balanced hand the concealed one diminishes quickly when you reduce its strength.
That's all what I implied.

Rainer Herrmann

And if responder is stronger than opener you won't be using a weak takeout which I said was where the wrongsiding loss occurred. It's usually IMO much more important to rightside 5 opposite 12-14 than 19 opposite 12-14.

Very often where responder had the strong hand, you've either already wrongsided 4N/6N with the first bid, or you break the transfer and responder may well get to bid the fit suit anyway. I'm not sure over the GF 1N-2♦ what the responses are and whether opener bids suits they have or don't have, so don't know if you rightside more contracts. We actually play 1N-3♥ as big single suited with hearts alongside our transfers so rightside those anyway.

Do people who play this sort of thing play something different over a 3rd seat 1N where a GF is vanishingly unlikely (or not play a weak NT) ?

[PhilKing]

I must be being a bit thick about two-way Stayman. I always assumed you used 2♣ when all you wanted to know was whether partner had a major (then pass, invite or bid game).

Bidding 2♦ (over which opener gives very precise responses in most schemes) just because you have game values is clearly crackers unless you enjoy the challenge of playing against double dummy defence. 2♦ should only be adopted when you need to conduct a thorough exploration.

[gwnn]

How do you substitute bread-and-butter transfer sequences (let's stick to hearts and no superaccept) as:

1NT-2♦
2♥-3NT=usually 5332 COG

1NT-2♦
2♥-3m=5-4, GF, opener can still show stops and a fit (with transfer extensions responder can also pattern out to show a singleton as well)

What is more, with transfer extensions, you can have the valuable sequence

1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠=invite with 5+ hearts, over which:
2NT=minimum, no fit, over which 3m=shapely invite (looking for a better partscore than 2NT, but maybe even a thin 5m if opener has a very suitable hand)

So with hands like
x AJxxx Axxxx xx (add/subtract a jack if you like) opposite a weak NT, I can bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠* with the plan of:

a. 3♥-4♥ (I'm happy to play game opposite a minimum weak NT once I know of a fit)
b. 2NT-3♦

With 2-way Stayman we are stuck with
1NT-2♣
2♦-2NT
pass,
whether or not opener has 3 hearts. That's a bit sad. It's not just that we will play 2NT instead of 3♥, we will also play 2NT instead of 3♦ or 4♥ when those contracts are excellent.

Even with just standard methods, there are hands where responder is happy to bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
3♥-4♥.

So I'm not sure that accidental rightsiding is the only way transfers yield gains on the hands at the game level. But I freely admit that I don't know all the different 2-way Stayman schemes so maybe there are solutions to some or all these problems but it just seems like they would be less elegant to just showing your 5-card major and go from there.

[rmnka447]

One consideration about using transfer or not over the weak NT is what the opponent's are doing.

For example, here in the US with probably 80-90% of the players playing strong NTs and 5 card majors, playing transfers opposite sides contracts vs. the majority of the field. That's because the hands that you are opening a weak NT on, the rest of the field is opening in one of a minor. Responder then responds in the 5+ card major and becomes declarer.

Personally, with my favorite partner, we haven't used transfers in nearly 40 years of playing weak NTs (Kaplan-Sheinwold). During all that time, we've never seen any compelling reason to use them. Part of that may be our preference to use a 2 ♦ bid to initiate a normally two suited runout of 1 NT (August 2 ♦ bid).

[ArtK78]

I will respond to the points that you raise inside your post:

 gwnn, on 2014-July-16, 11:30, said:

How do you substitute bread-and-butter transfer sequences (let's stick to hearts and no superaccept) as:

1NT-2♦
2♥-3NT=usually 5332 COG

THE BIDDING WOULD START 1NT - 2♦ (game force)-[rebid showing major and/or minor suit length]-3♥ natural if needed. Depending on the exact methods, there may be relays or asking bids available to responder to request more info over opener's rebid. If responder bids 3♥ natural, opener would bid 3NT without a heart fit.

1NT-2♦
2♥-3m=5-4, GF, opener can still show stops and a fit (with transfer extensions responder can also pattern out to show a singleton as well)

THE BIDDING WOULD START 1NT- 2♦ (game force) - [rebid showing major and/or minor suit length] - 3♥ naural if needed. Again, depending on the exact methods, there may be relays or aksing bids available to responder to request more info over opener's rebid. If responder bids 3♥ natural, opener would bid 3NT without a heart fit.

What is more, with transfer extensions, you can have the valuable sequence

1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠=invite with 5+ hearts, over which:
2NT=minimum, no fit, over which 3m=shapely invite (looking for a better partscore than 2NT, but maybe even a thin 5m if opener has a very suitable hand)

So with hands like
x AJxxx Axxxx xx (add/subtract a jack if you like) opposite a weak NT, I can bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠* with the plan of:

a. 3♥-4♥ (I'm happy to play game opposite a minimum weak NT once I know of a fit)
b. 2NT-3♦

With 2-way Stayman we are stuck with
1NT-2♣
2♦-2NT
pass,
whether or not opener has 3 hearts. That's a bit sad. It's not just that we will play 2NT instead of 3♥, we will also play 2NT instead of 3♦ or 4♥ when those contracts are excellent.

NOT REALLY. FIRST OF ALL, GAME IS NOT LIKELY UNLESS OPENER HAS 4 HEARTS (OR PERHAPS 4 DIAMONDS) AND A SUITABLE HAND. YOU WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT THE 4 CARD HEART HOLDING WHEN OPENER RESPONDS TO 2♣. WHETHER YOU CAN GET ANY OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION IS PROBLEMATIC, BUT AT LEAST YOU COULD INVITE OR BID GAME. IF OPENER'S RESPONSE TO 2♣ IS 2♦, THEN 2♦ IS LIKELY TO BE YOUR BEST SPOT. BIDDING UP TO THE THREE LEVEL ON ESSENTIALLY Axxxx Axxxx IN THE REDS OPPOSITE A WEAK NT IS GREAT IF YOU FIND A FIT, BUT OTHERWISE YOU ARE BOOKING A MINUS. IF I WERE PLAYING TRANSFERS OPPOSITE A WEAK NT OPENING AND I HELD THE 5-5 HAND WITH HEARTS AND DIAMONDS, I WOULD TRANSFER TO HEARTS AND PASS UNLESS OPENER PREACCEPTED (IF PREACCEPTS ARE AVAILABLE).

Even with just standard methods, there are hands where responder is happy to bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
3♥-4♥.

SURE, IT HAPPENS. SO YOU HAVE ARRIVED AT 4♥ ON WHAT RATES TO BE A 5-3 FIT. OPENER COULD HAVE BID 4♥. BUT HE DID NOT - HE JUST TOOK A PREFERENCE AND YOU DECIDED TO BID GAME. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GAME IS GOING TO MAKE, OR EVEN THAT IT IS A GOOD CONTRACT. IS THAT AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF TRANSFER METHODS? SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER TO PLAY IN 4♥ AND SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER TO PLAY IN 2NT.

So I'm not sure that accidental rightsiding is the only way transfers yield gains on the hands at the game level. But I freely admit that I don't know all the different 2-way Stayman schemes so maybe there are solutions to some or all these problems but it just seems like they would be less elegant to just showing your 5-card major and go from there.

What is elegant may be in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there are a lot of hands that are easy to bid with transfer methods. But there are many that are awkward. It is my experience that playing 2-way Stayman avoids many of the problem auctions while dealing with the easy ones in ways that are at least as good as with transfers. I know of at least one well known player who has advocated the use of 2-way Stayman playing a strong NT, but that is an extreme position.

[mikeh]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-16, 11:11, said:

I must be being a bit thick about two-way Stayman. I always assumed you used 2♣ when all you wanted to know was whether partner had a major (then pass, invite or bid game).

Bidding 2♦ (over which opener gives very precise responses in most schemes) just because you have game values is clearly crackers unless you enjoy the challenge of playing against double dummy defence. 2♦ should only be adopted when you need to conduct a thorough exploration.

who suggested that one go through 2♦ when you are just bidding game? One can play various versions of texas (in one partnership we bid 4♣/♦ to show hearts and spades, to allow opener to play it, and/or to force a bid and then responder can move, and use 4M by responder, over 1N, to play.

And of course if one wants to play 3N, one doesn't use 2♦ 1st.

So I don't know what your post was about (which didn't stop me from answering it )

[mikeh]

 gwnn, on 2014-July-16, 11:30, said:

How do you substitute bread-and-butter transfer sequences (let's stick to hearts and no superaccept) as:

1NT-2♦
2♥-3NT=usually 5332 COG

1NT-2♦
2♥-3m=5-4, GF, opener can still show stops and a fit (with transfer extensions responder can also pattern out to show a singleton as well)

What is more, with transfer extensions, you can have the valuable sequence

1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠=invite with 5+ hearts, over which:
2NT=minimum, no fit, over which 3m=shapely invite (looking for a better partscore than 2NT, but maybe even a thin 5m if opener has a very suitable hand)

So with hands like
x AJxxx Axxxx xx (add/subtract a jack if you like) opposite a weak NT, I can bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2♠* with the plan of:

a. 3♥-4♥ (I'm happy to play game opposite a minimum weak NT once I know of a fit)
b. 2NT-3♦

With 2-way Stayman we are stuck with
1NT-2♣
2♦-2NT
pass,
whether or not opener has 3 hearts. That's a bit sad. It's not just that we will play 2NT instead of 3♥, we will also play 2NT instead of 3♦ or 4♥ when those contracts are excellent.

Even with just standard methods, there are hands where responder is happy to bid
1NT-2♦
2♥-2NT
3♥-4♥.

So I'm not sure that accidental rightsiding is the only way transfers yield gains on the hands at the game level. But I freely admit that I don't know all the different 2-way Stayman schemes so maybe there are solutions to some or all these problems but it just seems like they would be less elegant to just showing your 5-card major and go from there.

I think the short answer to your questions lies within the last paragraph.

I think that a simplistic 2 way stayman method, with natural responses to 2♦, is inferior to a decent transfer structure. However, a complex 2 way structure is at least as powerful as a good transfer structure, on the game going hands, at least on balance.

My take on having played a lot of both is that the methods each have areas of relative strength and relative weakness and that it is unlikely that one could prove that either was significantly better or worse than the other overall.

For example, playing transfers, when we have a 4-4 major suit fit and a strong hand, we start with 2♣ and then have to make an artificial bid to raise opener's major. Thus it is common to use a jump to 3♠ to agree hearts and to begin our slam enquiry.

In my version of 2 way stayman, no matter what opener's hand may be, we will always be able to set trump and initiate slam bidding with a 3♥ bid. This is a modest gain, but undeniably a gain.

In transfer auctions, finding a 5-3 minor fit, with opener holding the minor, is virtually impossible.

You pick up AKxxx KQx KQx xx opposite opener's xx Axx AJxxx Axx

You'd like, I assume, to be in 6♦, but how does one reach that spot after 1N 2♥ 2♠?

I suppose one could jump to 4N as responder and have opener bid 5♦ but if you swap opener's minors, you may be too high no matter what happens. I took only about 30 secs to come up with this layout, and I am sure a little more work would create similar but even more problematic, for transfers, holdings.

Playing my version of 2♦, opener would show the 5 card diamond suit via 3♣ over 2♦.

Now, responder would probably choose to bid 3♠ forcing and natural, since opener could easily hold 3 spades, but over 3N, responder will surely push towards the diamond slam by bidding a natural and forcing 4♦.

Consider the same opening hand with responder being 4=4=3=2, same honours. How do we find the diamond suit after stayman, without creating potentially horrible problems when opener has the 'wrong' minor?

IOW, it is wrong to look only at how well 2 way stayman methods handle 5+ major responding hands. One also needs to see how well 2 way stayman handles other common hand types compared to regular stayman/transfer methods.

Having played both, my view is that they operate on fundamentally polarized approaches. In transfers, responder describes and opener evaluates. In 2 way stayman, opener describes and responder evaluates (in both methods there is some give and take and I am not suggesting that in transfers opener never describes nor does responder evaluate, and so on).

[awm]

If you roughly classify hands as below, it's easy to see that two-way stayman will roughly break even with transfers:

1. Partscore hands, where the goal is to find the best partial.
2. Invitational hands, where you look for an eight-card major fit, then play either game or partial in your eight-card major fit, or in notrump if no major fit materializes.
3. Game hands where you want to play game in an eight card major fit if one exists, or 3NT otherwise.
4. Slam hands where you have around 30+ hcp and want to select the best slam to play (or stay out of slam if there's no fit and you're minimum).

Assuming a very simple transfer structure, you will gain on a few patterns (for example playing 2♠ on 2 sometimes when transfers get you to 2NT/3♠) and lose on a few patterns (for example playing 2NT on 2 sometimes when opener has 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, whereas transfers get you to 3♥).

However, this misses a very important hand type which modern transfer-based structures deal with well, and two-way stayman deals with badly. These are hands where you want to be in game, have no eight-card major fit, but yet 3NT is a poor contract. For example:

Responder: AKxxx Qxx KQxx x
Opener: Qx KJxx AJxx Qxx

Here 5♦ is quite good and 4M has play too (might be better at MP?) but 3NT is just terrible. If responder can isolate his singleton in clubs, we can easily avoid the 3NT trap. Relaying opener's shape won't really tell you that opener has this hand and not (for example): Opener: xx KJxx Jxxx AQJ.

These are also marginal slam hands; for example: Opener: Qx AKxx AJxx xxx and 6♦ is really good.. but it seems strange to relay out opener's entire shape and honors on this hand where only a true "perfecto" can make slam (especially since you risk getting past 3NT, which may be the last making spot).

Note that there aren't really any corresponding hands where opener's shape helps you select the right game; opener won't have a singleton and while you would like to avoid 3NT with two small opposite two small (for example), you can't typically tell whether opener has two small or ace-queen doubleton in time to decide whether to play 3NT.

[mikeh]

 awm, on 2014-July-16, 18:17, said:

If you roughly classify hands as below, it's easy to see that two-way stayman will roughly break even with transfers:

1. Partscore hands, where the goal is to find the best partial.
2. Invitational hands, where you look for an eight-card major fit, then play either game or partial in your eight-card major fit, or in notrump if no major fit materializes.
3. Game hands where you want to play game in an eight card major fit if one exists, or 3NT otherwise.
4. Slam hands where you have around 30+ hcp and want to select the best slam to play (or stay out of slam if there's no fit and you're minimum).

Assuming a very simple transfer structure, you will gain on a few patterns (for example playing 2♠ on 2 sometimes when transfers get you to 2NT/3♠) and lose on a few patterns (for example playing 2NT on 2 sometimes when opener has 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, whereas transfers get you to 3♥).

However, this misses a very important hand type which modern transfer-based structures deal with well, and two-way stayman deals with badly. These are hands where you want to be in game, have no eight-card major fit, but yet 3NT is a poor contract. For example:

Responder: AKxxx Qxx KQxx x
Opener: Qx KJxx AJxx Qxx

Here 5♦ is quite good and 4M has play too (might be better at MP?) but 3NT is just terrible. If responder can isolate his singleton in clubs, we can easily avoid the 3NT trap. Relaying opener's shape won't really tell you that opener has this hand and not (for example): Opener: xx KJxx Jxxx AQJ.

These are also marginal slam hands; for example: Opener: Qx AKxx AJxx xxx and 6♦ is really good.. but it seems strange to relay out opener's entire shape and honors on this hand where only a true "perfecto" can make slam (especially since you risk getting past 3NT, which may be the last making spot).

Note that there aren't really any corresponding hands where opener's shape helps you select the right game; opener won't have a singleton and while you would like to avoid 3NT with two small opposite two small (for example), you can't typically tell whether opener has two small or ace-queen doubleton in time to decide whether to play 3NT.

I think you miss the fact that two way stayman has significant advantages when responder doesn't have a 5+ major, and would, in a transfer method, use stayman. As is often the case, when one dislikes a method, one tends to be unable to think of the advantages that such a method may allow. I happen to like both transfers and 2 way, so I am agnostic on which is better...I happen to think that, as I have said earlier on this thread, the methods have different strengths and different weaknesses. Basically, I'd like to be able to look at my hand and then choose my methods, but the rules don't let me do this

Btw, given the example you gave of responder being AKxxx Qxx KQxx, what call do you suggest for opener over the natural, forcing, 3♦ rebid by responder?

Of course, you might play a method on which responder shows diamonds by some transfer, but without you providing details, I can't be sure what you mean. I am intrigued by the idea that responder will be able to show the stiff club below 3N, since he can hardly drive beyond 3N when opener might be Jx xxx Axxx AKQx, a hand on which 5♦ is less than ideal.

[gwnn]

 ArtK78, on 2014-July-16, 12:15, said:

What is elegant may be in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there are a lot of hands that are easy to bid with transfer methods. But there are many that are awkward.

Like what? I gave a few examples on why I think transfers work better for choice-of-games and invitational purposes, could you show me some of these awkward ones (without caps will be helpful)?

[gwnn]

MikeH, I guess it is my fault for not quoting the exact part of your post that I was replying to. Here it is (bold face added):

Quote

(snip) for game bidding I don't think there is anything to choose between the methods. To the extent that anyone experiences different results in the game area, I would expect those to be random, and mainly influenced by which side is on play....and most of the time, on game hands opposite a weak notrump, responder's hand will be as strong as and often stronger than opener's. Thus, to the very small extent that this plays a role, and I think it to be extremely small, my preferred method rates to show a tiny edge.

To repeat what I said (and awm expanded on much better):
-I can show 5M4m (even showing a singleton under 3NT with transfer extensions but not necessary), 5M332 game-forcing hands, 2-way staymaners need to either just bid the same way with all of those shapes or to relay for opener's exact distribution, allowing for double dummy defence if 3NT is the best contract (no matter how well-designed for rightsiding your method is, you are going to have to let opener play NT), plus not being able to evaluate properly as he has no access to information w.r.t. wastage opposite his shortage. This must be a win for transfers, do you dispute that?
-I can show a 5-card heart invitation, thereby allowing me to play in 4H opposite a minimum or perhaps opener can judge to jump to 4H when he is relatively weak but has a good hand for suit contracts. ArtK78 seems to think these hands are non-existent or responder will overuse this, but my point was: it gives you the extra option of 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♥-4♥, which still must be a theoretical win. With transfer extensions you also get the elegant sequences in which responder can show a 4-5 card minor over a rejected invitation or even an accepted one (if you play 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ as an invitation with 5 hearts, you can have opener rebid 3♣ with a maximum without a heart fit - responder can judge to pass this or bid 3♦ non-forcing). This is a bigger win for transfers than just "oh well, we will play 2NT instead of 3♥".

It really seems like for specifically game bidding, transfers are a big winner, and maybe

Quote

As is often the case, when one dislikes a method, one tends to be unable to think of the advantages that such a method may allow.

Unfortunately the hand you gave as a counterexample is a slam hand, and you posted nothing in reply for my points above, except to say that we should consider slam hands as well? But still, with standard-ish methods, I could try to bid

1NT-2♣
2♦-4NT
5♦-6♦ on the 4432 or
1NT-2♥
2♠-4NT
5♦-6♦ on the 5332

But of course I made these up on the spot, opener could have the minors reversed as you note. We can play some sort of relay though (like awm's structure but there are many others) and then:
1NT-2♣
2♦-3♣* and we are basically in the same spot. Anyway, I think the main point is this:

Quote

Having played both, my view is that they operate on fundamentally polarized approaches. In transfers, responder describes and opener evaluates. In 2 way stayman, opener describes and responder evaluates (in both methods there is some give and take and I am not suggesting that in transfers opener never describes nor does responder evaluate, and so on).

This is very true, but the problem is that the balanced hand can evaluate much better when he knows the distribution of his partner than the unbalanced hand can. The unbalanced hand can often bid out one or two lengths and possibly a shortness as well, and opener can judge how well his points operate. If I have let's say 1525, just knowing that opener has a 3-card fit in my 5-card minor, let's say, in a 4243, does not tell me that we need to play that minor suit game, since he could have a lot of points in spades and diamonds and he could also have Axxx/Jxxx which would be excellent for me. You just need to guess. It is true of course that opener can also have some interesting information to share, like a 5-card minor. But I think opener's interesting/unexpected lengths are much less common and likely than responder's, after all, opener has already opened 1NT. With a decent Stayman structure you can get in some shape relays if responder is balanced, thereby allowing opener to show his juicy minor length, but with a 2-way Stayman structure it is always the balanced hand that will need to describe itself. Don't you agree that this is a substantial negative?

I also see that you post that hands with 4-card majors as opposed to 5-card majors can be a big winner for 2-way stayman. I guess you mean bids like
1NT-2♦*
2M-2NT* where you can relay cheaply for more information from opener. That is true but I guess this is another slam consideration? If I have a strictly game-forcing hand in standard stayman, I can just bid game and be happy with it, or maybe bid 3oM and 3NT can be a COG from opener. Again, let's stick to your assertion that 2-way stayman is on par with 1-way stayman and transfers in game bidding (not slam bidding).

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2014-July-16, 19:41, said:

Btw, given the example you gave of responder being AKxxx Qxx KQxx, what call do you suggest for opener over the natural, forcing, 3♦ rebid by responder?

3♥ suggesting the need for some help in the club suit for 3N ? Partner may think we have 5, but if he bids 4♥ I'll bid 5♦.

[gnasher]

MikeH's methods seem to give away an awful lot of information in invitational sequences:
- When responder has an invitation with five spades, we have to tell the opponents whether opener has four hearts.
- When responder has an invitation with five hearts, we have to tell the opponents whether opener has four spades.
- When responder has an invitation with four hearts, we have to tell the opponents whether opener has two or three hearts.

These are, of course, the deals where information leakage is most likely to matter. When game is marginal you really want to avoid telling the opponents things they're not entitled to.