Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 as a light invite in any suit with paradox responses is even better. When you get to 4 you get to conceal the diamond suit!
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you rather they bid their +420 over your pass or their +920 over your 5 bid?
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with Eric: Transfers over a weak NT are bad for opener's side *when 1NT was opened by the dealer*. When opener's RHO is strong but without a long suit, he's often stuck making a takeout double of a drop-dead 2M even if he doesn't have the right shape. That often works out well for you. On the other hand, if you play transfers, they can double the transfer to show cards, without having to promise a specific shape. If that's not what they mean when they double a transfer vs a weak NT as an unpassed hand, then they aren't very bright opponents.
Oct. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, but (a) he wasn't playing a (semi)forcing 1NT response, which is what makes it especially awkward to open 1 here and (b) he had to worry that his partner would bypass a weak four-card major if he opened in a red suit.

Opening a 4-card major in the context of what is fundamentally a 5-card major system is fundamentally different from opening in a 4-card major system.
Oct. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This general Stayman-follow-up structure in fact works better over a mini-NT than over a strong NT (and it can be played without transfers with only small modifications). The adjustments you would want to make: (1) have direct 2NT and 3 responses to Stayman to show the 5-card majors–that frees up responder's 3 as to play, which is important opposite a mini-NT, but not opposite a strong NT; (2) with no transfers available, you want 1NT-2♣; 2♠-2NT to be invitational with four hearts–that's OK since you have just enough space over a 3 re-ask to make everything work.

2 can then be anything you want it to be.
Oct. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted to bid 4 but I have to admit that playing opposite an enterprising partner who might well have only three-card support at these colors I might pass.
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction has enough chance of ending here when we make exactly 10 tricks in spades that anything but pass is inconceivable.
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Curious why this was posted. Pass seems so obvious I wonder what I'm missing.
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prefer 1 over 1 also. (Or 1NT if you are playing Flannery.)
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't want to expose your AQ's, rebid 2NT. How good will you feel about diamonds as trump opposite 10x?
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Considering that you were holding this hand, and the first six calls of this auction had already happened, you might not want to make any claims about what's very unlikely….
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are also systems where 2, 2, and 2 are all puppets, for signoff in the next suit, or further description (not necessarily holding the next suit). While being able to sign off in 2 may not seem like a big deal opposite a strong NT, it frees one of the need to have a way to signoff in 3 and it frees one of the need to have a special signoff for weak with both minors…
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, while relatively few people play forcing Stayman over 1NT openings, many play it over a 1NT rebid. They just call it by a different name!
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you dump Stayman entirely over a strong NT and go to a fully responder-describes system, you don't have to worry as much about opener's being offshape with a 5M422 or 6m322.

With traditional methods, holding a six-card minor is more of a liability at IMPs than at matchpoints, since slams matter more at IMPs.
Oct. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play opener describes (not two-way Stayman, but something similar) over a weak NT, but I am not very fond of it. Frequently what you need to know to find the right game or slam is the quality of high-cards in the balanced hand opposite the responder's singleton. Unfortunately, Stayman and transfers aren't the complete answer since Stayman is an opener-describes convention. There are non-Stayman treatments that are much more purely responder-describes, but I don't play often enough any more to bother with the memory load.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One can also use 2 (and 3 over 2) as artificial re-asks after ordinary Stayman to get opener's shape, which frees up 2 to be any other meaning you might want, whether that be to play, transfer, or a multi-meaning bid like an invite in any suit (5+ major or 6+ minor).
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, you can play it that way. It seems a lot more useful over a weak NT for 3 to be natural and to play, so they can't make a cards double of a 2NT puppet.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1NT-2NT is a natural invite, then 1NT-2-2-2NT shows four spades.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You lose a lot more matchpoints going down one in 3 of a major than in 3 of a minor.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry's obviously confused. Flannery is a 2 treatment, not a 2 convention. :)
Oct. 15, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top