[mycroft]

So, one of my partners has decided she's willing to learn Keri (from the old book - trust me, that will be enough for both of us for now). My question, from those who play(ed) it:

In an environment (standard ACBL) where nobody's ever heard of Keri Hilson, never mind Keri over NT, what's the best way to explain 1NT-2C!?

"forces 2♦" is clearly insufficient, never mind the fact that it explains what I'm going to do, not what the system means (vide 2NT Lebensohl "forces 3♣").

"transfer to diamonds, or various inv or better hands" seems handwavey (and it doesn't make clear that most hands-that-would-Stayman are in here), but as close as I can get I think without taking forever.

Any suggestions?

[hrothgar]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-03, 13:42, said:

So, one of my partners has decided she's willing to learn Keri (from the old book - trust me, that will be enough for both of us for now). My question, from those who play(ed) it:

In an environment (standard ACBL) where nobody's ever heard of Keri Hilson, never mind Keri over NT, what's the best way to explain 1NT-2C!?

"forces 2♦" is clearly insufficient, never mind the fact that it explains what I'm going to do, not what the system means (vide 2NT Lebensohl "forces 3♣").

"transfer to diamonds, or various inv or better hands" seems handwavey (and it doesn't make clear that most hands-that-would-Stayman are in here), but as close as I can get I think without taking forever.

Any suggestions?

I'd simply say

"Puppet to 2♦. Partner could have anything from a drop dead in Diamonds to a hand that wants to investigate slam"

There are too many hand types to enumerate and a list of all possible hand types doesn't provide them with actionable information.

[campboy]

It's been a while since I read the book (wait, there are two different books?) so apologies if this is inaccurate. I would say something like "could be weak with diamonds, invitational with a major, or game-going" since IIRC the second of those is the key part of Keri.

[DJNeill]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-03, 13:42, said:

So, one of my partners has decided she's willing to learn Keri (from the old book - trust me, that will be enough for both of us for now). My question, from those who play(ed) it:

In an environment (standard ACBL) where nobody's ever heard of Keri Hilson, never mind Keri over NT, what's the best way to explain 1NT-2C!?

"forces 2♦" is clearly insufficient, never mind the fact that it explains what I'm going to do, not what the system means (vide 2NT Lebensohl "forces 3♣").

"transfer to diamonds, or various inv or better hands" seems handwavey (and it doesn't make clear that most hands-that-would-Stayman are in here), but as close as I can get I think without taking forever.

Any suggestions?

Yep I just say "signoff in diamonds, or various invite or better hands". 100% no problem so far.

[aguahombre]

I would think that saying "signoff in diamonds" first off might unfairly focus the opponents on diamonds when you continue with "various other...." and don't mention it might just be a hand which would bid Stayman.

"Signoff in diamonds, or Stayman shape, or some other strong hand types."

[jjbrr]

Yay!!

[blackshoe]

Keri Klinger, not Keri Hilson.

[aguahombre]

Thank you, Ed. However, I think the poster knew that.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Keri_Hilson

[the hog]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-03, 13:42, said:

So, one of my partners has decided she's willing to learn Keri (from the old book - trust me, that will be enough for both of us for now). My question, from those who play(ed) it:

In an environment (standard ACBL) where nobody's ever heard of Keri Hilson, never mind Keri over NT, what's the best way to explain 1NT-2C!?

"forces 2♦" is clearly insufficient, never mind the fact that it explains what I'm going to do, not what the system means (vide 2NT Lebensohl "forces 3♣").

"transfer to diamonds, or various inv or better hands" seems handwavey (and it doesn't make clear that most hands-that-would-Stayman are in here), but as close as I can get I think without taking forever.

Any suggestions?

2C is not a transfer to 2D, but a puppet to 2D.
I played Keri for long time and explained it as follows:
2C is a puppet to 2D. Responder can pass 2D or bid 2M to show an invit hand with 4/5 of that Major, or take bid something else to describe varios strong options.

[Mbodell]

I play this with a number of partners in the ACBL. I describe it as:

Quote

puppet to 2♦, usually one of many different invitational or better hands, but can also be sign off to play in 2♦

I think in most circumstances that is pretty accurate since it is worth de-emphasizing sign off or diamonds compared to what people may expect if you use words like transfer or lead with the to play. It isn't the full explanation (which I'll give if someone asks for more) of all the various hand types it could be, but it is short enough for a quick explanation. However, over a mini-nt the to play in diamonds is actually pretty high frequency (maybe 1/3 or 40%?).

[mrdct]

A lot of people don't really understand the concept of a "puppet", so I usually say "requires me to bid 2♦ which he's either going to pass if he's weak with ♦ or he will then show a variety of invitational or GF hands".

[Free]

 mrdct, on 2011-November-04, 05:49, said:

A lot of people don't really understand the concept of a "puppet", so I usually say "requires me to bid 2♦ which he's either going to pass if he's weak with ♦ or he will then show a variety of invitational or GF hands".

True, if you say "puppet to 2♦" some think you play Puppet Stayman...

[fromageGB]

 Free, on 2011-November-04, 06:42, said:

True, if you say "puppet to 2♦" some think you play Puppet Stayman...

Can we rename that convention? After all, puppet stayman doesn't have a puppet bid, does it?

[Free]

 fromageGB, on 2011-November-04, 07:10, said:

Can we rename that convention? After all, puppet stayman doesn't have a puppet bid, does it?

It does have another name, but only Dutch people can pronounce it properly: "Niemeijer". Better is to wait until Muppet Stayman takes over.

[mycroft]

Ed: I wasn't 100% certain that Keri's last name was Klinger, so I didn't feel comfortable with "don't know Keri Hilson, never mind Keri Klinger" (which was my first expression). Having seen the magazine with the room dedication in another thread, I am more comfortable doing so now.

I still feel uncomfortable telling them what I'll be doing - but I'll think about it, because it is so much easier.

Yeah, at least half the people I explain this to won't understand the word "puppet". So...

And yes, 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦. But the hands involved are either "transferring" to diamonds, or showing an inv+ hand, which is why I phrased it that way. But I can see where *that* would be confusing as well.

I like the hog's explanation (save the "telling partner what I'm doing" bit). I might try "partner either wants to play 2♦, or wants to show an invitational 4- or 5- card major, or various stronger hands." (which ignores 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3m, but oh well).

[WrecksVee]

I think all the suggestions made to describe the hand were good. I would also suggest since it is unfamilar in the ACBL that it be pre-alerted. I have played Keri in ACBL events for 5+ years and haver always done that to be sure it was clear to the Opps.

[SteelWheel]

I know that Klinger tweaked his Keri system a bit after the book was published. Did he actually publish a revised edition? If not, can someone here point us towards a good, simple write-up of the changes he made? Everything I've been told about his tweaks is so sketchy and unreliable.

Oh, and btw, I've never been able to try out Keri (can't find a willing victim to play mad scientist with me), but I have played for many years another system of responses to 1NT where several two-level responses are either puppets to sign-offs or certain invitational or forcing hand types. I usually describe them as something like "this bid is a relay to 2X, but if partner bids again, the transfer message is canceled, and pard may have any of a wide variety of hands, which may or may not have anything to do with X". If they ask for more, I fill them in on all the possible continuations. People may look at us scowlfully, but nobody's ever called a TD or anything so I guess we're ok.

[PrecisionL]

I play Keri over weak NT with two partners (over 2 years now) and find it reasonable at MPs or IMPs. We tend not to open 1NT with extreme distribution, but do include weak 5-card majors.

Here is a reference to revised Keri:

http://www.bridgebas...3-revised-keri/

P.S. Hi Steel Wheel.

[Gerben42]

What are the weak variations in it? Just say weak with "X" or strong. You are catering for the fact that opps 99% don't care what your strong options are.

[mycroft]

Yeah, that's what I'm trying (as well as starting with "artificial, forcing, but NOT Stayman.") "a hand that wants to play 2♦, or various INV+ hands"