[giorgis_di]

Recently, I learned about the 2♦ as a game forcing stayman to 1NT opening bid. My question is how one could combine 2♦ game forcing stayman with jacoby transfers.

For instance, let's say that your partner opens 1NT (15-17hcp) and you hold:

A) xx xxxxxxx xx Ax

B) AKxx AKxxxxx xx xx

How would you respond with these two hands?

[DavidKok]

Normally when people use 2♦ as a game force, they play a structure similar to the following:

• 2♣: Invitational. Bids like Stayman, but only contains exactly invitational or some garbage/scrambling hands.
  
• 2♦: Any game force that is not sure about the strain or level yet. Includes all choice-of-games and slam hands.
  
• 2M: Weak, to play.
  
• 2NT: Invitational NF, denies a 4cM.
  
• 3♣+: To play. Game bids can be strong or weak.

Your first example hand would bid 3♥ (or 2♥ if you are feeling conservative), your second hand would bid 2♦ to investigate slam, intending to follow up with 3♥ to show 5(+)♥, and the 4♥ (if necessary) to show 6(+). Some people prefer to use 2♦ as a relay, and have opener show exact shape below 3NT.

Personally I think these methods are not very good, but they are very popular over Kamikaze NT in particular.

[P_Marlowe]

The followup responses to 2D reveal openers shape, using 2D as relay as daveKok mentioneds,
and you can arrange the responses that you have a xfer effect.

So in short, if you play 2D as gameforcing stayman, you dont play xfer.

[giorgis_di]

DavidKok, on 2024-June-25, 04:08, said:

Normally when people use 2♦ as a game force, they play a structure similar to the following:

• 2♣: Invitational. Bids like Stayman, but only contains exactly invitational or some garbage/scrambling hands.
  
• 2♦: Any game force that is not sure about the strain or level yet. Includes all choice-of-games and slam hands.
  
• 2M: Weak, to play.
  
• 2NT: Invitational NF, denies a 4cM.
  
• 3♣+: To play. Game bids can be strong or weak.

Your first example hand would bid 3♥ (or 2♥ if you are feeling conservative), your second hand would bid 2♦ to investigate slam, intending to follow up with 3♥ to show 5(+)♥, and the 4♥ (if necessary) to show 6(+). Some people prefer to use 2♦ as a relay, and have opener show exact shape below 3NT.

Personally I think these methods are not very good, but they are very popular over Kamikaze NT in particular.

Thanks for your detailed response. I though something similar, but I wondered if there is a way to combine transfers and 2D game forcing stayman. I also do not like this approach.

[mycroft]

Note: this is one of the reasons why 2-way Stayman is more popular by weak NT players.

Your transfer auction of 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT or -3♥ becomes 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥ (invitational, or I would have bid 2 directly); your initial (non-2m/NT) responses are natural and often make you declarer; the "partner has a 4 (5) card major" information you get from the initial response, assuming competition, doesn't apply. All things that go against "protect the strong hand and make it declarer".

But an invitation opposite a weak NT is almost the same strength; a game-force is the same strength (or frequently (significantly) greater). So "protecting the strong hand" isn't as big a deal. And "putting the known hand (to within 1HCP (of say 13), general shape to within 1 card (of 4432)) on the table, hiding the more unknown hand" is a benefit as well, especially against players who actually count.

There are other benefits of "no transfers" as well, that again play better with a weaker NT range. 1NT-p-2♥ - you're fourth hand, and you know that if you pass, your next decision will be what to lead. And with 12ish, you could have game, if declarer is 4-5 high to go with the 5-6 hearts. 1NT-p-2♦ (hearts) - now you know you're going to get two chances to call. And so does your defence to transfer bidding.

Now, the other reason people play transfers (even with a weak NT) is that even a well designed 2-way system has fewer paths available to show hands; and the 2♣ "any invitational hand" and 2♦ "any game force that doesn't want to/can't set the contract" bids are more fragile in competition. So there's that.

Following snark is ACBL-specific.

Spoiler

Of course, the reason my weak NT system plays transfers (besides it being "we play The Book, the way The Book says") is to cut down on the stares we used to get from our opponents, waiting for us to "remember" to Announce our transfers. Which isn't a technical advantage, but it sure makes games more comfortable. Of course, if the transfers players weren't so good at "remembering" to Announce *their* transfers, they'd be more likely to take us at our (lack of) word. (I have actually heard from several people that "non-transfers should be Announced/Alerted" - and frankly, in this case as in 2-opener (esp. 2♦ opener) "failure to Alert" questions, I think they're right. How to phrase it so that it doesn't go out of band is a question.)

[nullve]

mycroft, on 2024-June-25, 10:18, said:

1NT-p-2♥ - you're fourth hand, and you know that if you pass, your next decision will be what to lead.

Your partner would never balance?

[mycroft]

You know what I meant.

But seriously, how often do they balance when they didn't find an overcall? Not zero, but in my experience, not very high.

But also, sometimes the 2♥ is bid to play with a good 10 with 5 hearts, but flat and the hearts aren't strong. I've definitely had people balance when I had that hand. Amusement tended to ensue.

But that goes back to my comment that "when they open a weak NT, sometimes you will have a guess, and you can't always guess right." And my comment that "when you open a weak NT, sometimes you're booked for a bad score. Sometimes they don't guess right. Sometimes they do." s/weak NT/preempt/g and it still makes sense. Because the weak NT is at least partially a preempt. And those who play 2-way and no transfers - especially the style DavidKok above mentions (which wasn't my style, 3M was "inv-with-6") - are leaning harder into its preemptive nature.

[giorgis_di]

mycroft, on 2024-June-25, 10:18, said:

Note: this is one of the reasons why 2-way Stayman is more popular by weak NT players.

Your transfer auction of 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT or -3♥ becomes 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥ (invitational, or I would have bid 2 directly); your initial (non-2m/NT) responses are natural and often make you declarer; the "partner has a 4 (5) card major" information you get from the initial response, assuming competition, doesn't apply. All things that go against "protect the strong hand and make it declarer".

But an invitation opposite a weak NT is almost the same strength; a game-force is the same strength (or frequently (significantly) greater). So "protecting the strong hand" isn't as big a deal. And "putting the known hand (to within 1HCP (of say 13), general shape to within 1 card (of 4432)) on the table, hiding the more unknown hand" is a benefit as well, especially against players who actually count.

There are other benefits of "no transfers" as well, that again play better with a weaker NT range. 1NT-p-2♥ - you're fourth hand, and you know that if you pass, your next decision will be what to lead. And with 12ish, you could have game, if declarer is 4-5 high to go with the 5-6 hearts. 1NT-p-2♦ (hearts) - now you know you're going to get two chances to call. And so does your defence to transfer bidding.

Now, the other reason people play transfers (even with a weak NT) is that even a well designed 2-way system has fewer paths available to show hands; and the 2♣ "any invitational hand" and 2♦ "any game force that doesn't want to/can't set the contract" bids are more fragile in competition. So there's that.

Following snark is ACBL-specific.

Spoiler

Of course, the reason my weak NT system plays transfers (besides it being "we play The Book, the way The Book says") is to cut down on the stares we used to get from our opponents, waiting for us to "remember" to Announce our transfers. Which isn't a technical advantage, but it sure makes games more comfortable. Of course, if the transfers players weren't so good at "remembering" to Announce *their* transfers, they'd be more likely to take us at our (lack of) word. (I have actually heard from several people that "non-transfers should be Announced/Alerted" - and frankly, in this case as in 2-opener (esp. 2♦ opener) "failure to Alert" questions, I think they're right. How to phrase it so that it doesn't go out of band is a question.)

For what I have seen, they dont use it like this... (again, I dont play this convention). Specifically, the sequence 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ shows a weak hand with at least 4-4 in majors. The opener chooses its best 3 card fit and it is sign-off. I don't know how they handle invitational hands. Probably by bidding 3 of a major or 2NT?

[DavidKok]

Several different versions exist, you can include Crawling/Garbage in 2♣, which means that you have to force to the 3-level when holding a five card major and an invitational hand.