DIP: Responding to 1NT [II]

Since writing part [I] of this section, the signifcant other developer has been in touch about it.  I’m going to get sick of writing that term (significant other developer) after a while, so let’s refer to him here on as SD (which is preferable to the obvious alternative).

SD had some good ideas and thoughtful opinions as always.  I’m going to order them in this blog to suit my subsequent purposes, rather than how he sent them to me.  This is because they are somewhat intertwined (though not for reasons that are immediately apparent).  A summary of his ideas, opinions and thoughts is

• Why not switch the proposed treatment for 4H4S INV hands (currently 1NT 2D 2H 2S) with that for 5H INV hands (currently 1NT 2C 2D 2NT)?  SD’s main rationale was so that after 1NT 2D 2H 2S 2NT, responder could then bid 3m with 5m (or concentrated 4m maybe).
• If STAY(man) is to be used over 1NT (and more importantly, 2H to be available as R over 2D showing no M) why not allow 5m4m22 hands into 1NT?  There is sufficient space to do so (but not over 1NT 2S R as I had planned to use some time ago, but discarded).
• Given that if opener has a major he’s 4333, there is minimal concealment advantage when opener is declarer (which SD understands was behind the Scanian rationale for transferring with 4M’s).  So why not reverse the STAY responses, so 2H shows 4=3=3=3 and 2S shows 3=4=3=3?
• Should opener always super-accept a transfer with 4333 shape?  SD thinks maybe not.

SD also had some other comments (puppet-based alternatives, really) which are not directly relevant to what will appear below and won’t appear in this blog.

OK, let me re-state (and mildly re-order) the invitational hand types that we would like to find a home for below their “safety level”.

1. BAL, no M
2. 4S not 4H
3. 4H not 4S
4. 4S & 4H
5. 5S
6. 5H
7. 5S & 4H
8. 4S & 5H
9. 5S & 5H
10. 5H, 4+m
11. 5S, 4+m
12. 5+D (possibly with 4M) or 6+D
13. 5+C (possibly with 4M) or 6+D

This list is expanded from the original, with items 1-8 being the ones under primary consideration.

To repeat, SD’s first idea above was to play 1NT 2D 2H 2S as 5H, INV (swapping the 4S4H hands to 1NT 2C 2D 2NT).  I wasn’t initially a fan – it broke the “2D = 4 or 6 H if INV” rule, for one thing.  So I ruled it out, but then thought about it some more.  The fact that the 1NT can have one major, but not both, gives some interesting properties to STAY-like sequences in DIP.  Doing what SD suggested to achieve the primary desired effect (expression of INV 5H/5m hands) had a powerful side-effect:  all of cases (1) to (4) above could be brought safely into STAY, not just case (4).  On further thought, so could case (7), 5S & 4H.  The reason these 5 cases can be handled by STAY is because all potential 4-4 M fits are cleared up on the first response to STAY.  The only thing left to resolve from cases 1,2,3,4,5 & 7 is whether there is a 5-3+ S fit (and even that is already clear after a 2H 3=4=3=3 or 2S 4=3=3=3 response). I (very much) hope my logic above is sound, otherwise the whole house of cards below will fall apart.  Let’s cross fingers and assume it is.

So, by adopting SD’s suggested change, we have freed up at least four sequences that are safety-level relevant (1NT 2D 2H 2S, 1NT 2D 2H 2NT and 1NT 2H 2S 2NT and 1NT 2S) and only have two cases from the original 2C response that need alternative handling:  (6) 5H, for which we have already allocated a home, and (8) 5H & 4S, which we’ll give to the 1NT 2D 2H 2NT sequence.

So, the sequences 1NT 2H 2S 2NT and 1NT 2S are now freed up.  So what to do with them?  Let’s move to SD’s second suggestion (desire?):  allowing 5m4m22 hands into the 1NT opening.  Always a nice aspiration, my traditional fear has been the damage done to the safety-level of case (9) hands, those with 5S & 5H.  But now, we have an elegant way to deal with them:  1NT 2H 2S 2NT (NF).  I quite like the feel of this, as it is sort of analagous with 1NT 2D 2H 2NT showing H/S hand as described earlier.  So

• DIP can now officially allow 5m4m22 hands into the 1NT opening (with a decision still to be made as to whether to prohibit them from the 1S and 2C openings, with my inclination being “yes”), and
• 1NT 2S can be put to a more specific use.  This is likely to be both minors, of all strength ranges, a variant of what had been planned for it anyway.
• We’ve catered explicitly for cases (1) to (9) above, and cases (10) & (11) can be implicitly handled by responders 3rd round bidding of 3m after one of the three possible 1NT 2X 2Y 2S 2NT auctions

Assuming no logical flaw, we’re looking pretty good.  Case (12) and (13) can and should also be handled via STAY and simply rebidding 3m over the relevant response.  This gets a chance to find the 4-4 M fit on the way through, if relevant.  Finally, over a 2M response to STAY, 3M is INV, 3OM is R.  Note that in 1NT 2C 2S 3S, responder might have 4 or 5 S (if he chooses not to revalue the latter upwards).

So, the overall response structure to 1NT (though not complete) now looks like

• 2C:  STAY (ART FG R or BAL no M INV or 4S &/or 4H INV or 5S maybe with 4H INV or 5+m maybe with 4M INV)
• 2D:  TRF to H (WK H or 5H maybe with 4S INV or 5H with 4+m INV or some other strong hands as yet not spelled out)
• 2H:  TRF to S (WK S or 5S & 5H INV or some other strong hands as yet not spelled out)
• 2S:  both minors, any strength

SD’s third suggestion was to possibly reverse the M responses to STAY.  The short answer is that I don’t think you can and still play the above structure.  There are too many handling issues (basically, not enough bids over 2S=H and too many over 2H=S).  You COULD make it work by also switching the 5S cases with 5H ones wherever they occur, but playing 1NT 2D 2H 2S as showing 5S and not promising H is a bit too rich for me!

The final thought from SD was the merit of forcing a “super-accept” with a 4M333 when there is a 4 card fit to suit shown by TRF.  There is certainly now no compelling requirement to do so (with all the 4M invites moved into STAY) but it still feels right to me.

The above structure now feels right and sits comfortably within the system.  The downside would appear to be a fair bit of work on the 1NT 2C sequence which might be difficult to unscramble if 4th hand competes.  Nevertheless, the fact all WK sequences have been removed gives some latitude in this respect.  There is an argument for playing pass as forcing over some interference to 1NT 2C sequences (maybe at the two and four level)?  This blog is already long enough, so we’ll leave that for another time.

Regards, DipBridge