The Next Step

After a bid has been made, “the-next-step” (TNS) is considered the minimum bid available to bidder’s partner.  TNS has value as an artificial bid in many situations.
    The oldest example, and one we may fail to recognize, is Stayman.  The 2♣ response to the opening bid of 1NT is TNS.  The negative response to Stayman is 2♦, also TNS.  The negative or waiting response to the artificial 2♣ opener is 2♦, TNS.
    TNS is artificial for all strong club opening bids, and TNS is utilized in many relay sequences within that structure.
    TNS is utilized in the modern two-way NMF (or, xyNT) as a way to differentiate invitational hands from game forcing hands.
    TNS is employed after an RKC response as an asking bid for the Queen of trump.
    Another modern method utilizes transfer bids by responder after a 1♣ opening bid. In this approach TNS becomes a transfer to hearts.

    In all of these TNS examples, the suit bid is completely artificial.  In other TNS situations, the bidder may or may not have length in the suit bid.  The earliest example of this may be the Walsh 1♦ response to the 1♣ opener. Since the Walsh 1NT response to the 1♣ opener had an 8 to 10 point range, responder was stuck for a bid when 3334 and 6 to 7 points, so TNS here showed at least three diamonds, but not a suit, per se.
    Another “may or may not have” TNS bid was devised by Erik Kokish as a way to show either of two ranges for strong NT hands. After 2♣, 2♦ (TNS), 2♥* (TNS) became an artificial relay bid. Responder must complete the relay by bidding 2♠ (TNS). Opener would then clarify his holding by rebidding 2NT to say he really didn’t have hearts but a very strong NT hand (24 or 25 pts+) or he will rebid 3♥ to state that he does, in fact, actually have a strong hand with the heart suit.
    It almost seems right to call the Kokish usage of TNS over the 2♦ response as a form of “stepping stone.” It can show a NT hand, a heart hand, a club/heart two suiter, or a diamond/heart two suiter.  It is even possible for the opener to raise the relay bid of 2♠ to 3♠ as a relay to 3NT for some monstrous minor suit hand.

    Take the auction: 1S p 1NT* p, this is a form of TNS in action.  Responder is, essentially, saying:  “I don’t have another bid that fits with our agreements.  I will make this “temporizing” bid that will enable you to make your planned rebid and I will let you know what type of hand I have at my next opportunity to bid.” Responder is in no way suggesting, at this point in the auction, the possibility of a NT final contract. I think most would agree the 1NT response to a major opening is more artificial than natural these days. It may end up being the final contract, but that will be by default when neither partner has the values or the distribution to bid again.
   
   
    Two recent articles by Ken Rexford and Bob Heitzman at Bridgewinners.com have further developed TNS ideas. Bob has taken the Walsh (ambiguous) 1♦ response to the 1♣ opening bid and melded it with a Kokish-like “Stepping stone” to create a new and very dynamic TNS convention over the 1♣ opener he calls “The Utility One Diamond Response.” Ken has brought back the concept attributed to Edgar Kaplan called “The Kaplan Interchange” or “Kaplan Inversion.”  In Ken’s article the interchange takes place (not after 1♥ has been opened, as Edgar proposed it) after a minor suit is opened and responder bids 1♥.  By inverting the 1♠ and 1NT rebids by opener several good things can happen. I encourage the reader to look over both of these fine ideas!

    The purpose of this entry was to summarize the varied common usages for TNS agreements and/or conventions. Many TNS bids are totally artificial, and many “may-or-may-not-have” bids (like the Kosish 2♥) have been accepted into standard partnership agreements.
    Furthermore, when transfer bids are made and responder rebids the suit again most experienced players will recognize that the second time the suit is bid shows that suit.

        1NT – 2♦* - 2♥ - 3♦     shows hearts and diamonds

    I know all of this is pretty basic information but I wanted the reader, no matter his or her present skill level, to get a general understanding of the background of TNS bids because I am about to propose another TNS bid! But first I think a brief look into the Kaplan Interchange may be necessary to orient the reader.
    The Kaplan Interchange or Kaplan Inversion was designed to solve opener’s rebid problem when he was 4522 and heard his partner respond with a forcing NT to his heart opener.  (The Flannery convention solves all of opener’s rebid problems, but Edgar wanted a way to solve this problem without playing Flannery.)  Now, prevailing thought during this era was that opener should raise partner’s spade response with three card support to an honor.
     Unfortunately, when and if partner had responded 1♠ with xxxx, or Jxxx of spades the resulting seven card trump suit proved inadequate.  As a consequence, many responders would choose to bypass a weak four card suit in favor of a forcing NT, to be on the safe side. The problem now was that often the 4-4 spade fit was left undiscovered when opener was too weak to reverse.
    Edgar’s solution to this problem was to invert the NT and spade responses. The 1NT response would show five or more spades and was forcing, and the 1♠ response could be made with four spades or less.  If opener had four spades he would rebid 1NT over the 1♠ response, otherwise he would bid his three card minor. If responder did have four spades he would raise spades when his partner had rebid 1NT.
    I will post this and follow-up with a piece entitled “ The Next Next Step.”