Zelandakh, on 2014-June-07, 10:35, said:
There are pros and cons Ken. You gain the non-forcing 2M responses but overall lose bidding space. As someone who has played a weak NT my whole life and who has looked into this a fair bit I dislike the 2-way Stayman approach for this reason. I have more sympathy for the 2-under 2m transfer method but that is quite a lot to learn for the average player.
Incidentally, it is not only America that uses 2-way Stayman. Around these parts it is the most common structure over a weak NT too.
I truly don't think that is correct, Zel. It is if one uses basic 2 way but the method I use enhances bidding space while often making the undescribed hand declarer in high level contracts. I have touched on it earlier, but the responses to 2
♦ are:
2
♥: denies hearts or a 5 card minor. 2
♠ now asks, over which:
2N denies spades, 3
♣ asks exact shape
3
♣ shows 4 diamonds and 4 spades
3
♦ shows clubs and spades
3
♥ shows 5
♠
3
♠ can either 'does not exist' or shows a max 4=3=3=3, whichever you like
3N shows either all 4=3=3=3 hands or, if you use 3
♠ as a max, it shows a minimum 4=3=3=3
2
♠: shows 4+ hearts, denies spades. 2n asks for minor (again, bid the other one) and you can use 3M/3N to show either 3=4=3=3 ranges or 5 hearts
2N: shows 5+ clubs
3
♣: shows 5+ diamonds
3
♦: shows 4=4 majors.
Note that responder can always set trump below game anytime he finds a fit and usually below 3N, and in doing so makes a slam try while usually becoming declarer without ever really saying much about his hand, other than cuebidding.
Responder can always break the relay and bid his own suit over opener's response.
I've shown this to several expert weak 1N bidders and everyone who has tried it, adopts it (so far).
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari