[Siegmund]

Yes, I know this is almost a "natural" question, but I am interested in possibly-complicated-or-artificial continuations, whatever you believe is best.

Suppose it starts 1NT(your favorite non-mini range) - 2D (transfer) - 2H, and you do not need 2S now to show a both-majors hand.

If 2S at responder's rebid were available as a usually-unbalanced game try in hearts, what should happen on the 3rd round?

Should 2NT ask for shortness, or be an offer to play? What meanings would you give to each of 2N, 3C, 3D, 3H by opener?

For that matter, in a plain old natural invitational 1NT-2Red-2Maj-2NT (usually balanced inv) auction, I don't think I've ever seen opener bid 3m, and don't know if it ought to be just a suit, or a HSGT, or showing a small doubleton, or meaning "I would accept a SSGT by responder in clubs" or "I would reject a SSGT in clubs."

[awm]

Here's what Sam and I play; our methods are a bit different though in that 2D..2S is the only five heart invite (transfer followed by 2nt shows a heart+club GF).

2nt = min two hearts
3C = max two hearts (actually NF)
3D = min but 3-4H and a ruffing value
3H = flat 3-4H, or Qx or something
4H = max 3-4H

Basically 2nt/3C let responder pick a partial (or game in the latter case) knowing there is no fit. 3D is a counter try of sorts.

[whereagles]

A good way to gauge the degree of hand meshing is anti-splinter

1NT 2♦
2♥ 2♠

and now

2NT = min hand, misfit
3m = min hand, weakish m suit ("anti-splinter"), Jxx(x) or worse - i.e. good if responder has doubleton/singleton there
3♥ = min hand, scattered values (eventually weakish spades)
3NT = max hand, misfit

[Zelandakh]

I do something similar to Adam but 2♠ also has to cover the club hands since 2NT is required for an invitational 5♥4♠ hand. I am also including slammy 1-suited hands here making 2♠ a 3-way call. The presence of this last hand type makes his extended response scheme awkward so to keep things low the variation <2NT = 2 + min, 3♣ = 2 + max; 3♦ = 3 + max; 3♥ = 3 + min> is used. That means that the big one-suited hand can always initiate cue bids. If I also had 2NT available then taking the club hands out of 2♠ would be great.

Another option is for 2♠ to encompass all of the invitational hands with Paradox advances. I think this is what Justin plays by choice.

I would suggest that any of these schemes is better than using both 2♠ and 2NT as different types of game try. What is actually best probably depends on the rest of the structure as well as what you and your partner find logical (and therefore easy to remember).

[Siegmund]

How useful are the anti-splinters if you can only make them in 2 of the 3 side suits? I like the idea of something more specific than just min/max.

Quote

I would suggest that any of these schemes is better than using both 2♠ and 2NT as different types of game try.

In my case, I am experimenting with Martens-style 2nd round transfers after Stayman, and this forces balanced invitations with four hearts into 2D-then-2NT.

[phoenix214]

I have a question for you. How do you play the sequence 1NT-2♣, 2♦-2♥?
And if the answer is Garbage Stayman, the I have a suggestion about trying to play Smolen at level 2:)(INV+)

[Zelandakh]

Siegmund, on 2014-July-28, 08:19, said:

In my case, I am experimenting with Martens-style 2nd round transfers after Stayman, and this forces balanced invitations with four hearts into 2D-then-2NT.

Could you explain those a little. It seems to me that it is possible to play transfers after Stayman without resorting to this but perhaps you have something specific in mind.

[Siegmund]

I am not doing it exactly the same way as Martens does it -- he uses 2S as a transfer to 3C, if I recall, but doesn't have any particular use for the in-between step -- so there are several variations on a theme. What I am currently trying is this:

1NT-2C-2D...
...2H = both majors, weak
...2S = balanced invitation
...2NT = transfer to clubs, weak (4M6+C) or strong (4M5+C); responder's 3rd bid shows a singleton in a strong hand)
...3C = transfer to diamonds, weak or strong
...3D = 54+ in the majors GF (opener bids 3-card major next)
...3H = 4144
...3S = 1444

1NT-2C-2H...
...2S = balanced inv
...2NT = transfer to clubs (but opener can choose spades instead)
...3C = transfer to diamonds (but opener can choose spades instead)
...3D = 4144 strong
...3H+ various heart raises

1NT-2C-2S...
...2NT = transfer to clubs (but hearts are usually off the table as a strain now)
...3C = transfer to diamonds
...3D = 1444 strong
...3H+ various spade raises.

So we gain the ability to show a bunch of 5431 patterns exactly, and the ability to get out in either of our suits when we have a 4M6m weak hand. (Obviously we can't right-side clubs with the transfer; we are just gaining the ability to show both weak and strong club hands.) The one thing we lose is that a balanced invitation is stuck for a bid after 1NT-2C-2S.

Martens recommends 1NT-2D-2H-2S with 4 hearts and 1NT-2D-2H-2N with 5, but it seemed to be that the extra step was more useful with 5.

[antonylee]

I play something very simple: 1N-2♦-2♥-2♠ forces 2N, then 3m=5♥5m inv, 3M=55Ms inv/GF, 3N=as 1N-2♦-2♥-3N but strongly suggests playing there even with a fit. (For unbalanced spade invites, which are also getting mentioned here, start with Stayman then bid 2♠ (NF) over 2red; opener can ask with 2N).
I guess in both cases this could be made trivially better by having opener's 2N as to play and 3m as paradox pre-accepts. Or one could squeeze in the 5♥4♠ invite, as suggested by Zel, in 1N-1♦-2♥-2N (but then we can't play in 2N anymore after 1N-2♦-2♥-2♠-2N).

[Zelandakh]

Ok, this is very similar to what I came up with 20 years ago and still use as a basis. The simple answer is to remove the 5♣4♥ hand from Stayman so that you no longer need the club transfer after a 2♠ response. You can do this by including these hands in an immediate 2♠ or 2NT response or through specialised sequences. The alternative, as you note, is to do the same for the invitational hands with 4 hearts. Maybe it sounds crazy to you but what are you doing with an immediate 2NT response? If you simply made this an invite with 4 hearts and <4 spades it would all become easy. Then the normal invite without a major goes through the 2♠ response and you could bundle some strong minor-oriented hands here too.

It is also worth noting that you can include Baron in the 2♠ rebids to cover, for example, very strong 4441 hands. If you do this then there is still a place for those 4441 calls but now they are primarily looking for the right game and you also have the choice to replace them with something else if desired. As a replacement for Baron after a 2♠ response I used a 3♦ rebid as minor suit Baron, with a subsequent 3♥ showing clubs and 3♠ showing diamonds.

The other thing I was doing (and still do for that matter) was using the sequences 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 3♦ and 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3♥ as modified SID, which can check for mirror 4333 shapes but more often acts as a strong raise with slam interest. You are probably already doing that for spades but the same structure works for hearts too. You can get rid of that 4144 cog hand through an immediate 3♥ response, noting that the stronger form can be covered with the 2♠ rebid over a red suit response.

OK, I best stop here. Hopefully you could follow all this. Although it is based on memories of my old method this is all customised for what you have so it is possible I missed something. If so, let me know and we can iron it out. I am fairly confident of being able to remove the 4 card heart invite from 2♦ by rearranging things. Using 1NT - 2NT as "the invite that does not fit anywhere else" is an easy fix when it is not needed as a transfer. By throwing your awkward hands here you can grab something more homogenious (such as a GOSH) and stick that into the transfer instead. Then rearrange to taste for the perfect recipe.

[rhm]

deleted

[rhm]

Siegmund, on 2014-July-27, 23:33, said:

If 2S at responder's rebid were available as a usually-unbalanced game try in hearts, what should happen on the 3rd round?

I am not a great fan of game tries, particularly not, where the eventual declarer describes his hand or tells what he needs.
On average the additional information communicated helps a thoughtful defense at least as much as your side.
On that basis I would discard most schemes suggested here.
If dummy describes his holding that is at least is not as damaging.
In your scheme opener should simply bid what he thinks he can make.

Cutting the cake ever finer does mean the cake will taste better.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Siegmund, on 2014-July-28, 08:19, said:

How useful are the anti-splinters if you can only make them in 2 of the 3 side suits? I like the idea of something more specific than just min/max.

They are useful when they come up This situation isn't ideal for them, but many other exist. For instance:

1M 2M
suit = anti-splinter trial. Responder accepts with shortage across (x, xx) and some cards.
2NT = trial with scattered values

[Free]

Depends a lot on how strong 2♠ can be.

If it's only invitational, I don't see much merit in describing opener's hand too much. A simple 2/3NT or 3/4♥ should suffice.

But if 2♠ is unlimited in strength, then I prefer to stay low and make use of 3m calls with the following scheme:
2NT = min no fit
...3m = 5-5 NF
3♣ = max no fit (NF)
...3♦ = 5-5 NF
3♦ = max with fit
3♥ = min with fit