[Shugart23]

We are playing a mini-NT (10-13) with double barreled Stayman in certain colors and seats. When we open regular NT (13-15), we use Stayman, transfers, and Smolen/

Today I opened up a mini-NT and partner had an invitational strength hand with 6 hearts and 2 spades (about 13 HCP). He bid 2C and I bid 2D and after the hand we realized we had a problem bidding his hand because we had been assuming Smollen applied regardless which NT we were using.

So my question is this : Is Smolen incompatible with mini-NT and DB Stayman ? Looking for suggestions. Thank you

[mike777]

You can give up smolen or rebid 2NT, if opener accepts they rebid 3H with three card heart support,responder rebids 4H or 3NT.

[DavidKok]

The two are compatible, and many different NT systems exist for both the kamikaze NT and other ranges. I'm going to try to stick to my promise of not getting suckered into NT system discussions this year though - only a month and a bit to go. Good luck!

[mike777]

I would add playing transfers not important with mini NT.
Responder often is the bigger hand.

[helene_t]

Smolen os about 1n-2c-2d-3M so it doesn't interfere with 2c as invitational stayman.

The issue is if
1n-2c-2d-2M should be weak or invitational, this issue is unrelated to smolen.

My preference is 2H weak and 2S invitational.

[mike777]

This

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-25, 08:43, said:

The two are compatible, and many different NT systems exist for both the kamikaze NT and other ranges. I'm going to try to stick to my promise of not getting suckered into NT system discussions this year though - only a month and a bit to go. Good luck!

Thanks David. So I think what you are trying to say is that over mini NT, Responder should just do an immediate jump to 3H or 3S to show invitation to 4M with a 6 card suit. That helps

[Shugart23]

helene_t, on 2024-November-25, 09:12, said:

Smolen os about 1n-2c-2d-3M so it doesn't interfere with 2c as invitational stayman.

The issue is if
1n-2c-2d-2M should be weak or invitational, this issue is unrelated to smolen.

My preference is 2H weak and 2S invitational.

Maybe what I do isn't Smolen...we are showing 5-4 distributions by bidding the longer suit, and showing strength via a 2-level bid or a 3-level bid

[Stephen Tu]

As someone who has been forced to play double barrelled stayman in my main partnership for ~7 years by my old curmudgeon of a partner, my recommendation is: play transfers!

It has nothing to do with siding the contracts. It's about the loss of possible sequences. You just lose too much by putting only signoffs into 2h/2s (and 3c/3d??), you overload way too many hands into 2d.

You get problems, depending on how you allocate your 3 level bids, and how you define sequences like 1nt-2c-2d-3M, showing hands like the following at a reasonable level, or in some cases being able to show at all:
- one suited slam tries, or being able to both show this and your shortness so the balanced hand can evaluate honor placement
- 5-5 majors, inv or GF
- 5-5 minors of various strengths.
- two-suited major/minor slam try.
- giving choice of games (3nt/4M) with 5cd M
- inviting with 5 cd major (esp. hearts)
- invite with 6 cd M
- weak with both majors (crawling stayman)

3 level jumps and what would be Smolen can cover a couple of the above but good luck handling all of them.

The only thing really saving you IMO is the rarity of some of the actions, esp. slam tries over the weaker hand, since you need a huge hand to bid slam over a mini.

It's so much easier, IMO just to play transfers. In Weak nt popular regions like UK almost all play transfers AFAIK, I don't see any great reason why mini-nt should suddenly cause one to not want to play transfers.

Now IMO transfers are better. But Smolen itself, opposite the weaker NTs, is totally optional, reverse Smolen (i.e. natural) is perfectly fine with forcing 5-4 M

[helene_t]

I have never gone into details of DB Stayman in any partnership so I am probably missing something. But it seems to me that there is a lot of redundancy, i.e. handtypes that could use either 2♣ or 2♦. The Smolen hands is one such example. What is the difference (in terms of possible responder handtypes) between
1NT-2♣
2♦-3♠(Smolen)
and
1NT-2♦
2NT-3♥?

I suppose one could play one as COG and the other as a slam try. But slam tries are not common opposite a mini NT, and when you have one you can still use Smolen. It seems to me that DB misses out on some weak or invitational sequences (you can't always distinguish between 4-card heart invites and 5-card heart invites since both bid 2♣ and then 2NT if opener responds 2♠). I think this is a bad trade-off.

I fully understand not wanting to play transfers opposite a mini-NT - a natural 2♠ response puts more pressure on opps than a transfer does. But then I would play:
2♣: Stayman, includes GF hands with both majors (5+/4+ either way use smolen), invite+ hands with one or two 4M, and various weak options
2♦: invite+ with one 5+ major but not both. Paradox responses like a Multi 2♦ opening.

That way you can't invite with both majors (but maybe you can play a direct 3♥ as 5-5 invitational) and it gets a bit cramped with the minor suit oriented hands, especially if you want the direct 2NT response to be natural. But most invitational or GF hands can use 2♣ or 2♦ quite smoothly, you can even stop in 2♥ when responder has an invite with 5+ hearts and opener rejects the invite. At the same time the very frequent 2M-signoff hands can just bid 2M to put max pressure on opps.

[DavidKok]

The pressure argument is, in my opinion, mistaken. A transfer gives fourth seat two opportunities to act, but a natural bid informs second seat that we are weak. Allowing the same side to act twice is not as bad as allowing both sides to act, in my experience.