[olien]

I have recently finished developing a structure for responding to partner's 1NT opening. Our range is 14-16 HCP in most seats (15-17 otherwise). I am wondering what everyone's general thoughts are. I will break this down into several posts within the same thread.

Notes: M=Major, m=minor, oM=other Major, om=other minor, SPL=splinter, BAL=balanced, Quant=Quantitative, S/I=Slam Interest

Some differences with this structure include:
1) Most ♦ transfers go through Stayman
2) GF 6+♣ 0-1♦ goes through Stayman
3) 4 Responses to Stayman
4) Transfer re-bids by responder after Stayman and Jacoby Transfers

Initial Responses:

2♣ - Stayman, includes: a) most ♦ transfers (see 3♦); b) 6+♣ 0-1♦ GF
2♦/♥ - Jacoby Transfers
2♠ - Size Ask, includes most ♣ transfers (except 6+♣ 0-1♦ GF)
2NT - GF Puppet Stayman, includes: a) (31)(54); b) 4=1=4=4; c) 4=4=4=1
3♣ - GF, 4=4=1=4 or 1=4=4=4
3♦ - GF, 6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠
3♥/♠ - GF Splinter, 5+♣ 5+♦
3NT - To Play
4♣/♦ - 6+♥/♠, respectively
4♥/♠ - To Play
4NT - Serious Quantitative

[olien]

Stayman Sequences

Note: Respond 2♣ with 3♠ and 4♥ but 2NT with 4♠ and 3♥

Special Sequence 1:
In auctions that proceed either:
a) 1NT-2♣ // 2M-2NT // 3♣-3♦ (showing 5+♣ 4oM 0-1♦, GF), or
b) 1NT-2♣ // 2M - 3♦ (showing 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF

The continuations over 3♦ are as follows:
3♥ - 5 cards in major (regardless of suit)
---> 3♠ - artificial, strong raise of M with slam interest
---> 4M - To Play
---> Else - Natural without fit for Major
3♠ - artificial, last train for responder's minor

Special Sequence #2:
In auctions that proceed:
a) 1NT-2♣ // 2M-2NT // 3♣
b) 1NT-2♣ // 2♥-3♣ // 3♦

responder cannot have shortness in the other major because they would either have a fit for opener or would not have responded Stayman. Therefore, responder's continuations, beginning with 3♥ are as follows:
3♥ - shortness in opener's M --> 3♠ - Last train for responder's m
3♠ - no shortness, mild+ S/I, if strong S/I then m isn't great
3NT - no shortness, xx in other minor, choice of games
4♣+ - no shortness, strong S/I, strong m (4m+1 = RKC for m)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuations after 1NT-2♣:
2♦ - no 4-card Major
2M - 4-5M, denies 4oM
2NT - 4♠ and 4♥

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1NT - 2♣ // 2♦:
2♥ - Majors, Weak
2♠ - INV with 5♠, may or may not have 4♥
2NT - 5+♣, any strength, forces 3♣
---> 3♣ (forced)
--------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦, GF
--------> 3M - 5+♣ 4oM 0-1M, GF
--------> 3NT - (42)=2=5, mild S/I
--------> 4♣ - (42)=2=5, strong S/I
--------> 4♦ - RKC for ♣
3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦
---> 3♦ (forced)
--------> 3♥ - 5+♦ 0-1♥, GF (either 6+♦ or 5♦-4♠) --> 3♠ - Last Train for ♦
--------> 3♠ - 5+♦ 4♥ 0-1♠, GF
--------> 3NT - 5+♦, no SPL, mild S/I
--------> 4♣ - 5+♦, no SPL, cue-bid, strong S/I
--------> 4♦ - 5+♦, no SPL, no ♣ cue, strong S/I
--------> 4♥ - RKC for ♦
3♦ - 5+♥ 4♠ GF
3♥ - 5+♠ 4♥ GF
3♠ - 5+♦ 0-1♣ GF
3NT - To Play
4♣ - 6+♥ 4♠, game only or strong S/I
4♦ - 6+♠ 4♥, game only or strong S/I
4M - To Play
4NT - Quant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1NT - 2♣ // 2♥:
2♠ - INV with 5♠ <4♥
2NT - 5+♣, any strength, forces 3♣
---> 3♣ (forced)
--------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦, GF --> Special Sequence #1
--------> 3♥+ - Special Sequence #2
3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦
---> 3♦ (forced)
--------> Special Sequence #2
3♦ - 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF --> Special Sequence #1
3♥ - INV Raise
3♠ - unspecified SPL raise --> 3NT asks --> LMH shortness
4m - BAL with 4♥, cue, S/I

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1NT - 2♣ // 2♠:
2NT - 5+♣ any strength, forces 3♣
---> 3♣ (forced)
--------> 3♦ - 5+♣ 0-1♦ GF --> Special Sequence #1
--------> 3♥+ - Special Sequence #2
3♣ - 5+♦, any strength, forces 3♦
---> 3♦ (forced)
--------> 3♥ - 6+♦ 0-1♥, GF --> 3♠ = 5-card ♠ --> (4♥=strong Raise, 4♠=to play, else=Nat w/o fit)
--------> 3♠ - 5+♦ 4♥ 0-1♠, GF
--------> 3NT - 5+♦, no SPL, mild S/I
--------> 4♣+ - 5+♦, no SPL, strong S/I
3♦ - 5+♦ 0-1♣, GF --> Special Sequence #1
3♥ - a) checkback for 5♠; b) BAL slam-going ♠ raise; c) 4♥-4m, Quant+
---> 3♠ - 5-card ♠
--------> 3NT - ♠ fit, serious S/I
--------> 4x - ♠ fit, non-serious S/I
--------> 4NT - Quant, no ♠ fit
---> 3NT - 4-card ♠
--------> 4♣ - BAL slam going ♠ raise
--------> 4♦ - 4♥-4♦, Quant+ --> 4♥ - RKC for ♦
--------> 4♥ - 4♥-4♣, Quant+ --> 4♠ - RKC for ♣
4x - Splinters with ♠ support

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1NT - 2♣ // 2NT:
3♣ - 6+♦, any strength, forces 3♦
---> 3♦ (forced)
--------> 3♥ - 6+♦ 0-1♥, GF --> 3♠ = Last Train for ♦
--------> 3♠ - 6+♦ 0-1♣, GF (6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠ would have responded 3♦ immediately)
--------> 3NT - 6+♦, no SPL, mild S/I
--------> 4♣+ - 6+♦, no SPL, Strong S/I
3♦/♥ - Transfers to 3M
---> 3M (forced)
--------> NLMH SPL slam tries, 4M=to play
3♠ - 6+♣ 0-1♦, mild+ S/I, if strong S/I then ♣ aren't great
3NT - 6+♣ 0-1♦, choice of games
4♣+ - 6+♣ 0-1♦, strong S/I, strong ♣
4M - To Play

[olien]

1NT - 2♠ Size Ask, includes most ♣ transfers (except GF 6+♣ 0-1♦)

Subsequent Auctions:

1NT - 2♠:
2NT - minimum
3♣ - maximum
---> 3♦ - 6+♣ <4♥ 0-1♠, GF (6+♣ 0-1♦ GF would have responded Stayman)
--------> 3♥ - 5-card ♥ --> 3♠=ART strong ♥ Raise; 4♥=to play; else=Nat w/o ♥ Fit
--------> 3♠ - Last train for ♣
---> 3♥ - 6+♣ <4♠ 0-1♥, GF
---> 3♠ - 6+♣, no SPL, mild+ S/I
---> 3NT - To Play
---> 4m - 2=2=45m, Quant+

[olien]

1NT - 2NT GF Puppet Stayman - includes: a) (31)(54); b) 4=4=4=1; c) 4=1=4=4

Note: Respond 2NT with 4♠-3♥ GF, but respond 2♣ with 3♠-4♥

Opener's re-bids:
3♣ - no 5-card major
3♦ - 5-card ♠
3♥ - 5-card ♥

1NT-2NT // 3♣:
3♦ - 4♠ BAL or 4=4=4=1, opener responds like stayman for ♠
---> 3♥ - denies 4♠, asks hand type
--------> 3♠ - 4=4=4=1, GF --> 4♣=Stronger 4♥ bid; 4♦=Nat; 4♥=Nat, weaker
--------> 3NT+ - 4♠ BAL, natural
---> 3♠ - shows 4♠, asks hand type
--------> 3NT - 4=4=4=1, mild+ S/I --> 4♣=Serious
--------> 4x - 4♠ BAL, cues, S/I
--------> 4♠ - To Play, hand type ambiguous
3♥ - 3=1=(5/4) or 4=1=4=4
---> 3♠ - 4-card ♠
--------> 4♥ - S/I with 4=1=4=4
--------> 4♠ - To play with 4=1=4=4
--------> Else - Natural with 3=1=(5/4) (4m=5-card minor, slam interest
---> Else - Natural
3♠ - 1=3=(5/4)
4m - 5m(332), rarely (32)(62), Quant+

1NT-2NT // 3♦:
3♥ - transfer agreeing ♠
---> 3♠ (forced)
--------> 3NT - no SPL, S/I
--------> 4♣ - ♣ SPL, S/I
--------> 4♦/♥ - cues, ♥ SPL, S/I
--------> 4♠ - To Play
4m - 5+m, no ♠ fit, Quant+

1NT-2NT // 3♥:
3♠ - artificial, strong ♥ raise
4m - 5+m, no ♥ fit, Quant+
4♥ - To Play

[olien]

1NT - 3♣ - GF with 4=4=1=4 or 1=4=4=4

Opener responds like Stayman for hearts:

1NT - 3♣:

3♦ - denies 4♥, asks hand type
---> 3♥ - 4=4=4=1 --> Natural continuations
---> 3♠ - 1=4=4=4, mild+ S/I
---> 3NT - 1=4=4=4, choice of games
3♥ - shows 4+♥, asks hand type
---> 3♠ - 4=4=4=1, mild+ S/I --> 3N=♠ cue; 4♣=serious S/I
---> 3NT/4m - 1=4=4=4, serious 3NT, cues
---> 4♥ - To Play, shortness is ambiguous

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1NT - 3♦ - GF 6+♦ <4♥ 0-1♠

3♥ - 5-card ♥
---> 3♠ - Artificial, Strong ♥ Raise
---> 4♥ - To Play
---> Else - Natural w/o ♥ Fit
3♠ - Last Train for ♦

[Left2Right]

Owen: Like me, you may find that the highest hurdle of a new structure is getting partners on board and comfortable.

Try a BBO bidding table and this constraint file: 1NT_All_Cases
This recently updated constraint allows designers like us to turn specific cases on and off easily, including the NT range and whether to force the 1NT bidder to have a 5-card major.

Yes, one of the jillion interesting combination of hands is a 1NTer with a good 5-card major and a responder who has a minor suit transfer or relay in mind.

P.S. In fleshing out the whole thing, you might want to compare LeewaySequences based on Leeway -- not as my sales pitch, but as a mode for thinking the structure through all the way. Those follow-on rounds of bidding can be a real showstopper.

[nullve]

You respond 2N to Stayman with 4S4H just so you won't lose a 4-4 S fit because 3♠ over 1N-2♣; 2♥-3♣; 3♦-3♥ is Last Train for D, right?

[1eyedjack]

I went down the road of publishing a 1N structure in these forums about 12 years ago. It is a lonely road to travel, whatever the merits. There is a huge investment of time and effort just to understand it. There is no chance of your method becoming standard (again no reflection on its merits), which means that the thread is effectively directed only at regular (and serious) partnerships.

Most experienced players in regular partnerships are pretty comfortable with their existing structure and would take some persuading that a large-scale shift would be a valuable use of resources, which would in turn require an in-yer-face summary of the expected benefit of changing, up front.

When I went down this road in 2004 I tried to make the effort to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the method (at least as I perceived them), highlighting the problems that other methods fail to overcome. And incidentally I stress the importance of highlighting the weaknesses, including some consideration of the vulnerability to competitive bidding. There is a theoretical limit to the accuracy of any structure, and the choice of structure is largely about deciding on which hands you expect to gain v lose. If your choice conflicts with that of the target of your message, that would save them the effort of looking further. If you try to adopt the position that your method has no weaknesses then you simply surrender credibility and the interest of the serious reader.

One last point: There are two main methods of presenting a complex new method. One, the method chosen here, is a bottom-up tree presentation where each bid is defined in the order of the earliest point in the auction at which it can possibly arise. This is a sensible presentation for a reference manual, where you have a sequence in mind and wish to look up its meaning. It is also helpful to have a facility to collapse the tree, but wishful thinking in a forum post. But it is diametrically the opposite of the ideal presentation as a learning tool (or in this case persuasion tool) where more typically you have a hand type that you wish to bid or describe and want to work out the sequence to achieve it.

For comparison, my method is discussed here:

http://tinyurl.com/gsjfy2m

[awm]

You seem not to have any invitational sequences with 4M available. It's a bit odd since you probably need these more than straight balanced invites (which you have through 2s). You also don't have a long diamond invite.

Sending diamond signoff through stayman probably makes it a little easier for opponents to stick in a 2M bid, and also may create some issues in competitive auctions.

And there is of course a lot to remember.

[nullve]

I wonder:

Since

* 1N-3♠ = GF, 1-S5+D5+C
* 1N-3♦ = GF, 1-S3-H6+D4-C
* 1N-2N; 3♣-3♠ = GF, 13(54),

does this mean that

* 1N-2♣; 2♠-3♦ = GF, 1-S4H5+D

instead of just

1N-2♣; 2♠-3♦ = GF, 1-S4-H5+D?

If so, then it seems to me (right now) that you can play

1N-2♣; ?:

2♦ = no major
2♥ = hearts, denies 4 S
2♠ = spades, does NOT deny 4 H
2N+ = undefined

and still never lose a 4-4 major fit.

As a bonus you can sign off in C via 1N-2♣; 2x-2N.

[johnu]

You could use this sequence to describe additional hand types:

---

The cost would be whatever you currently show with the sequence, plus possible lead directing doubles.

Another possible sequence is

---

The major cost is not being able to make a NT invitation with 5 spades, but you can use Stayman and show 4 or 5 spades in your spade continuation.

[mike777]

I was going to respond but I forgot.....

[Zelandakh]

I started running diamond-based hands through Stayman about 25 years ago and still do so I am all in favour of your basic concept. A couple of initial thoughts:-

1. It becomes easier from the logic if your 2♠ rebid is always a size ask, not only on the initial response, so:
1NT - 2♠ = range ask including club hands
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = range ask + Baron
1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2♠ = range ask + Baron (or range ask + GF raise if you prefer)
1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 2♠ = range ask (ie natural 2NT rebid) or secondary clubs (can also add a slammy 1-suiter if you want)

2. Related to the above, you lack quite a lot of basic structure for Responder's rebid in 2♣ sequences. I am not sure why without going through in more detail but I am confident you can do much better here

3. Although I started this method using normal Stayman, it also lends itself extremely well to using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman. Since you are using 2NT for this, you might consider this alternative while keeping the fundamental basics of your idea. You can look for posts about my current 1NT structure for an example of this.

4. Allowing a 2NT response to Stayman with both majors is a significant negative and prevents the use of 2♣ on many run out hands where that would be advantageous. If you can rearrange things to avoid this, for example through a more efficient use of the 2NT response, you should do so.

5. You will never ever use your 4NT response. You can handle a "serious" slam invite by responding 2♠ and raising partner's 2NT to 4NT so it is completely pointless. Instead either use it for Baron or as a transfer to 5♣.

6. The system seems to force a 2NT response with (31)(54) but you really need a different sequence for a slammy hand of this shape, where finding a minor suit fit is at least as important as a 5-3 major fit. These hands are typically an efficiency gain for 2♣ Puppet Stayman and are an alternative use for a 3♣ response if you can find an alternative way of handling 4414 and 1444.

7. You have 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 2♠ as an invite with 5 spades and <4 hearts. What is 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 2NT? If you are playing that as natural then you have a loss of efficiency.

8. You have 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 4♣♦♥ as splinters but 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 4♣♦ as something else entirely and all splinters working through a condensed 3♠. This is not bad in itself but is an accident waiting to happen. In general, your system lacks a cohesive logic to it and is therefore much more complicated than it needs to be. My advice would be to work on a logic that can carry itself across multiple sequences, in a similar way to the usage of 2♠ described in #1. I suspect a little rearrangement of hand types in a few areas would help with that quite a lot.

My assessment is that what you have is a reasonable start but is very much a work in progress. There is a better arrangement in there if you play with it a little bit. Whether you can find enough efficiency gains to improve on Standard or a 2♣ Puppet scheme remains to be seen. You need to work on it some more first though imho. Once you have it perfected it will not only be more efficient but also for us to follow how it works and assess it. As it stands it would take me much more time than I am willing to put into it to do a decent analysis.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-07, 07:14, said:

What is 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 2NT?

A transfer to clubs, I think.

olien, on 2016-November-28, 15:56, said:

4) Transfer re-bids by responder after Stayman and Jacoby Transfers

(Can be read in two ways, I know.)