You could try this, 

2NT is 11-12 balanced, just as if you were not playing transfers, (No memory problem for newer players)

 2S is a transfer to 2NT, promising something ONLY in the minors..

. Responses are

3C weak in Clubs,no 4 card major,

3 Diamonds, weak in Diamonds, no 4 card major,

3 Hearts game force in Clubs ,

3 Spades game force in Diamonds,

3NT game force with at least 5-5 in the minors.

This gives 2 extra things whichi are important, Besides the memory problem of 2NT.

1. The responder with the weak minor always plays the hand, unlike the teaching methods where clubs are played by opener, diamonds by responder. Duh?

2. This leaves a direct bid of 3 of a minor to be invitational.

3. So this covers all situations, weak, invitational, and strong.

4. Just go through Stayman if also holding a  4 card major. No alert required.

Cheers Stanley

Thanks Stanley,

 That's an interesting system you have over 1NT.  However, I do like our system and hope I don't have to change it just because I don't understand the alerting requirements.

Kathryn

Well Kathryn, this is the system you want to play. You open 1NT with both majors. Partner bids 2C. You bid 2H, the lowest of your 2 majors. Partner bids 2NT. Surely you would bid 3 Spades even with a minimum? Looks like a problem, playing Stayman without a major.

Good luck.

I think perhaps you misunderstand the system.

If we open 1NT with 44 in the Majors;

1NT - 2C*
2H - 2NT denies both 4 hears and 4 spades. With 4 spades responder would bid 2S, not 2NT

Knowing partner has a balanced invite, why would opener now bid 3 spades?

To answer the queation about alerting:
Sorry I can't

This is from D58 of the current manual

  the following bids are in such common use that they are deemed to be self-alerting:

2♣ game force opening bids (and 2♦ negative responses); alert other uses; 

 Simple Stayman 2♣ responses to 1NT opening bids and the 2♦ response denying a 4-card major (alert all other uses including a natural 2♣ and responses). Stayman after an opponent’s double should be alerted.

 These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted.

So it  says "alert other uses" immediately followed by "don't alert"

Go figure

Sorry Kathryn, I must have misunderstood your original question when you wrote the second bid of the responder was 2NT, and had an * , which showed (may or may not have a 4 card major. )

You now saying that you would bid 2 Spades, and that is invitational. What would an original response of 2 Spades show?

And if that is a transfer to a minor, what would an original response of  2NT show?

I am really interested in your system, as it seems quite different from what I am used to.

Cheers Stanley.

Nick, thank you.  Until told otherwise,  I think I will go with what the ACBL require, and that is an alert of the 2NT response - "May or may not have a 4cM" Not the 2C bid which, as long as it *asks* for a major, is the "default" meaning for the call. 

Stanley, there is plenty written about 4 way transfers but the bridgebum article is a good one. This should answer any questions you have but if not, fire me another message.

https://www.bridgebum.com/four_suit_transfers.php

HI , I just saw this...in my view, whenever the 2C Stayman "may not contain" a 4 C major, the 2C must be alerted. Even the 2C (to play) taught as a weak response to the 1NT opening in the beginners' lessons, is actually "alertable"....go figure !

Manual p. D58, 29.2.4

CHeers

Helene Labreche

Helene is quite right. Of course the 2C shouldd be alerted; itis not simple Stayman, and may not be interested in majors.

Robin Young

Why anyone would play Stayman without a 4 card major is beyond me. It just makes everything more complicated. If you look at the system I wrote above, it covers all situations without memory problems, and leaves 1NT 2NT the same as before. And as I wrote, the last thing a weak hand with a long minor wants, is the defenders to see how weak it is, when they already know the strength of the opener.

Haaah!!

At last we have a definition of "Simple Stayman"
I don't know if this one has any official status
but if it doesn't it jolly well should have

Over a year later and half a hemisphere distance, I'm no wiser.  

Some say 2C must be alerted if the hand may not contain a 4cM, others say if the response to 2C "stayman" is anything other than 2D no 4cM, 2H H, 2S S - it must be alerted, others wonder why anyone would play "stayman" without a 4cM.   Personally, I prefer the 2C response showing at best, an inviational sequence, I think we can add a natural 3C and 3D to the non alertable responses to 2C; other than that I can't comment.

I think it's perhaps most appropriate for the subsequent bid by the 2C bidder to be alerted. 

1NT 2C 2S 2NT* may or may not contain 4 hearts.

2 Clubs Stayman which may not contain a 4 card Major is alertable, but the 2NT bid is not alertable.

I agree with Barry. Simple Stayman promises at least 1 four card major. It is therefore not correct to plan to disclose the 2C response to the 1NT opening was not simple Stayman later in the bidding as the opponent's bidding may have already been influenced by the previous failure to alert.

Imagine your opponent is sitting in 4th position non-vulnerable vs vulnerable with the following hand with North the dealer opening a weak 1NT (12 - 14 HCP):

S AQxxxxxx

H xx

D xx

C x

The bidding goes:

N      E     S    W

1NT  -    2C   ?

If the 2C response is unalerted and so should by the definition of simple Stayman contain a 4 card major then there is '0%' chance South has 4 spades if the 1NT opening is balanced by partnership agreement and so, therefore,  South must have 4H.  This 'knowledge' may influence West's decision to pass, bid 2S, 3S, 4S or even consider bidding 2H as a psyche bid.

However, if the 2C response is alerted that it may not contain a 4 card major if it is balanced and invitational West may bid differently if there is more uncertainty about the heart position.

By not alerting the 2C response you and your partner would unfairly share information that your opponent's don't have and which may disadvantage them if they were to act on the 'knowledge' the 2C bidder has a 4 card major.

Similarly, with the above hand say West jumped to 4S and they won the contract either doubled or undoubled. Declarer could now take a line based on the 'knowledge' that South has 4H which could disadvantage them if this proved untrue whereas South's partner might choose a successful defensive line with the knowledge their partner may not have a 4 card major.

The above is an extreme example to illustrate a point and given a balanced invitational hand without a 4 card major is only one of a number of potential options any advantage would normally be very minor, if at all. However, there is a principle of open disclosure here no matter how slight or unlikely any advantage or disadvantage might prove to be.

There is a possible solution if you wanted to retain 2C as simple Stayman so it may remain unalerted as there is a variation of 4 way transfers that you could consider adopting which would be for your 2S bid to be a range finder or transfer to 3C for your invitational balanced hands without a 4 card major. So if the opener has 12-13 HCP they bid 2NT (which is passed if responder has the invitational option  or otherwise bids 3C if weak and other bids as per normal) and with 14 HCP they bid 3C (which is raised to 3NT if partner has the invitational option or passed if weak or otherwise bids rest as per normal). Your 1NT- 2C - 2D/2H/2S - 2NT invitational sequence would then promise a 4 card major and not require to be alerted. As your 2S response already requires to be alerted this wouldn't pose any additional burden to remember to alert. With this version you could maybe play the 2NT response as 5+5+ minors or 6+ diamond if weak and opener bids better minor. 

It's important to remember that the ABF and NZCB bidding rules are similar but different in some areas. 

The ABF rules allow any 2C Stayman response to be self-alerted whilst the NZCB rules only allow 2C simple Staymen to be self-alerted. The ABF rules then allow for any differences from simple Stayman to be declared in the pre-alerts.

So if you used your system in Australia you would be correct that the 2C response to 1NT would not require to be alerted and instead your pre-alerts would inform your opponents that your 2C response may not have a 4 card major.

However, playing your system in New Zealand the requirement to alert any 2C response after an uncontested 1NT opening other than simple Stayman requires the 2C response to 1NT to be alerted as it may not have a 4 card major (i.e can't use pre-alerts to supercede this alerting requirement).

Personally, I think that the ABF bidding rules are superior in this area so maybe this might be something that NZ Bridge might consider bringing into alignment with Australia in due course. However, in the interim, a 2C Stayman response to an uncontested  1NT opening that might not contain a 4 card major requires an alert. 

I agree with Babs here...that how I learned it too.  If you have to use "2C" stayman to show something else ( like 3C weak over 1NT) for example, you must alert the "2C" Stayman ...and say "May not have a 4c Major"

Cheers

Helene

How should one rule in this situation?

North-South are straight out of the lessons (which they have learnt very well)

The bidding goes (neither vulnerable)

North:  1NT                East:  Pass

South:  2C (not alerted)       all pass

The contract goes down 3 for EW +150

EW claim damage because 2C wasn’t alerted (it was a (very) weak takeout (as in the lessons)

West had a 4432 13 count (and would have doubled if knew 2C wasn’t Stayman)

East had a 2434 11 count including clubs  KQxx (and would have passed if West had doubled (for EW +500) and was aware 2C was probably a weak takeout, but saw no reason to bid here.

Other EW results were all either:
+170 for a heart part-score making 4
+200 for 1NT down 4
+420 for 4H making 4

If you adjust what do you say to the beginners if they ask what they did wrong?

Well Kathryn, as I wrote before, I cannot see why you would play a very complicated system, which has gaps in it, when all you need is 1nt  2nt  shows 11-12 with no 4 card major. I know that is not your question, but how long will it take you to describe your system if someone asks. We only get 7 minutes to play a hand.Cheers Stanley 

Try bidding this hand. Jxxx  Jxxx Qxxx x

Hey Stanley, I'm not sure which post your are responding to here, Nick asked a question about a ruling.

But to answer your question directed at me, this is not a complicated system. 2C (alert!) Yes, what's that? 
"Partner has at maximum an invitational hand, may or may not contain a 4 card major".   10 seconds

Do you not play 4 way transfers over 1nt?

Your 2nd Q

I assume partner opens 1nt and I hold Jxxx Jxxx Qxxx x ?  This looks like a classic garbage stayman hand but without that gadget, I pass,

Nick,  I am discussing this with Directors here in Canada and seek some clarification.

Was the Director called at the end of the hand?  If so, firstly we are polling to see what their peers would have done 

Do the lessons really not teach 2C stayman and don't make it clear that this is unusual to the point of needing to do something?

Hi Kathryn

I would be interested in what Canadian directors might have to say
but their regulations might be different in a way there would not be a problem with this situation

And yes official NZB teaching system is 2C is a weak takeout with clubs
which I think is a gross anomaly (and I made up this example to draw attention to this)

That beginners are taught any bids which require an alert beggars belief IMO

I know of one teacher in a nearby club who teaches Stayman and Transfers at the beginners level
Until this year, when I was relieved of my teaching duties, I taught Stayman but not transfers
The new teacher has reverted to 2C is not Stayman

Your question is very timely as we are  discussiong MI, failure to alert and in my view,  the NOS are often the ones whom, given the correct information state they would have taken a different action, have this action scrutinized and if it doesn't stand up to a poll it is disollowed. I beleive this gives the OS a clear advanatge.

Below is the response from a very experienced Director, it is his personal opinoion, not ACBL advise.

1. Let's assume that 2♣ weak takeout is Alertable absent a double. Then they were in fact misinformed.
- but we have the same problem as before. "Of course you would have doubled" if you knew that it was a 3 count. If it turned out to be KQxxxx and a card and E-W's best score is -50 or -100 in 2♥, then "of course" they would have doubled. And "of course" East would pass the double rather than bid the major fit, because West won't have a 4450 11 count and South Jxxxxx. Or even because it goes down 1 for 100 into 2♥=.
- if the director was called after the result, I'm definitely asking people who don't know the correct answer. If the director was called at the end of the auction, fine.
- I wonder how many would double 1NT-p-2♥ "to play" for takeout with a 4243 13-count. I'm betting, at least here, that many don't have a takeout double; and many that do won't.
2. I'm still not sure that I agree with this, but if East does what my tutors tell me I had to, back in the "weak jump shift is Alertable" days, and call the Director because "either we have a failure to Alert, or they've passed a forcing bid. Doesn't matter if I don't care which one it is", then we get to wrap it back to West who can put his red card where his mouth is. Or his 2♠ "balance", of course. You had your opportunity when you thought that North passed a forcing bid, so that must be good for you; now that it's not, is that my problem?
3. The lessons really don't teach Stayman? And don't make it *very clear* that this is unusual to the point of needing to do things? I bet not, but the novices forgot that clubs is the suit they can't bail out into. In which case, it's a misbid. It's a *bad* misbid, and definitely one we want to educate them on how big a problem it is; but a misbid nonetheless. Score stands.
- of course, if they are in fact teaching 4-suit takeouts and no Stayman, then I'll adjust the score (however much of the double I give them), explain to them that the opponents are entitled to their agreement, and their teacher has taught them an agreement that is so unusual you have to tell them about it. And then go after the teacher, who has to fix this. I don't care if it's "too confusing", it's worse when "what we were taught" is now "illegal" somehow.

I am concerned that I don't have enough of the story. When did they call the TD? Why did East let the pass sit without asking? Did E-W know they were playing dead novices? Are they the type who play for edges, even against newer players? Would 2♣ go -3 against players who aren't clear novices? What was said at the end of the auction, before the lead? If they found out that 2♣ was weak with clubs (and noticed that South didn't flinch), where was the director?

I agree 2C "not Stayman" does a gross diservice to your new players, when was the NZB teaching system last updated?

As far as I am aware NZB has never taught Stayman at beginners level. (Someone might like to confirm or refute that)

As for Giles last sentence I agree some beginners might think Stayman is offputtingly complicated but any alternative is worse.

To say “this bid we teach is not normal and therefore requires an alert” would have them wondering “why not teach us what IS normal?”

To say nothing can lead to a situation like I posted here for which I don’t think there is any satisfactory solution (except to change the teaching methods and/or alerting procedure so it can’t happen)