[The_Badger]

Given that a 1NT opener bid can incorporate so many hand types now, from 6 card minors to others with singleton honours, how confident do you feel using Stayman as responder with 4333 and 4432 hand types?

I recognise that a 4-4 major suit fit will generate an extra 1.5 tricks thereabouts generally, so that's why its important, but on the flip side it imparts information to the opponents during the course of bidding, and may allow lead-directing Xs.

There's also the psychological aspect of bidding 1NT-3NT direct, giving the opponents no direct information whatsoever, and possibly making them change their mind over a lead, trying to find partner's (major) suit, given that Stayman was not used.

I was always brought up that it was bad to use Stayman with 4333 hands and to bid 3NT direct whatever, but there are many 4432 (one minor + one major 4 card suit) where bidding 3NT direct looks right too.

Has anyone evaluated Stayman given the changes to the 1NT opening bid, and does the point range of 1NT (12-14 or 15-17) have any impact on how players bid?

[helene_t]

I was brought up with the idea that hands just short of a slam invite are likely to make 11 tricks anyway so should not use stayman.

Probably it is more attractive to blast 3nt playing weak nt than playing strong as nt is easier to play when both hands have a reasonable number of entries.

against gib I am not so worried about missing the fit as they tend to make passive leads.

[Zelandakh]

Surely a wider variety of shapes for a 1NT opener makes Stayman more viable rather than less. Take the classic (43)33 situation. Traditionally this was unlikely every to generate more than 1 trick in a 4-4 major fit over NT and will often generate the same number. If shapes such as 4441 are also opened 1NT then the chances of a 4-4 major fit generating 2 or more extra tricks increase greatly. So it would surprise me if Stayman was more redundant now than previously and thus the premise of the thread seems to me to be flawed. Rather it is the other way round, as to whether the traditional approach of blasting rather than investigating is still correct as often as it was in the past.

[rhm]

There has been a lof of research on this and similar questions.
But little common wisdom.
Hand pattern is only one variable on this issue.

For example all else being equal 4M333 opposite 5M332 with a combined 25 HCP has better success chances in 3NT than in the 5-4 Major suit fit.

So what are the variables:

1) hand pattern
2) trump quality
3) Is my honor structure more suited for a suit contract or notrump. If the hand is rich in aces a suit contract is more attractive than when you have a preponderance of secondary honors.
4) Are we playing IMPs or matchpoints? At IMPs you will show a profit only if you make 2 tricks more in a major suit game than at notrumps.

Notrump contracts have a higher variance in trick outcome than suit contracts, but once you get close to 30 combined HCP 3NT tends to be a safe contract.
4-4 fits are special in the sense that ruffs in either hand has the potential of generating extra tricks. Nevertheless few 4-4 fits play better when trumps do not break 3-2.
If you have a 6-2 fit 3NT will very often be a better contract than the major suit game at matchpoints, but sometimes you loose such bets.

Yesterday my partner South played 3NT at matchpoints

---

Opponents took the first 5 club tricks and we got a score of 9%
Some will claim serves us right, but I am sure in the long run it is the right matchpoint tactic and while most will always end up in 4♠, I would find it difficult to reach this contract even at IMPs.

You can't win them all

Rainer Herrmann

.

[spotlight7]

Using or not using Stayman changes with your HCP total.


Edgar Kaplan examined hands and found that 12 opposite 12 produced game more

often than not. As the hands change from holding equal HCP, you tend to need

more HCP to make game since there are less entries to the weaker hand.


Opposite a 15-17 1N your best option is to pass flat 8 counts when non vul.


At 28-30HCP, 3N tends to make on raw power and you can avoid bad trump splits that doom a 4-4 major fit.


At 31+ HCP if you have a method to find out that the two hands do not

have a number of jacks, slam in a 4-4 major or minor fit is reasonable.


When you have surplus HCP for slam, 6N often becomes the better contract.

Meckwell uses 6 of a suit directly under the agreed suit to offer a choice of 6 suit or 6NT.


I looked at a large number of hands and I found that 4333 types should use Stayman

with slam range hands. Game type hands should either have a method to find out

if the hands are 4333 mirror shape or you can take your chances using Stayman.


Gardner Churchill in his book "Churchill Natural" suggested that 6322 shapes

were NT types. For minors I agree, with a major suit the jury is still out.


It is legal to open 1N with 4441 or 5431 shapes, however, I do not open them 1N.

I do open most 2=4=5=2 15-17 hands 1N and 6322 minors with poor suits I also open 1N.


For close decisions, I follow the Blue Team Club approach. Aces and

kings point towards a suit contract. Queens and jacks suggest NT.

[The_Badger]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-August-30, 04:27, said:

Surely a wider variety of shapes for a 1NT opener makes Stayman more viable rather than less. Take the classic (43)33 situation. Traditionally this was unlikely every to generate more than 1 trick in a 4-4 major fit over NT and will often generate the same number. If shapes such as 4441 are also opened 1NT then the chances of a 4-4 major fit generating 2 or more extra tricks increase greatly. So it would surprise me if Stayman was more redundant now than previously and thus the premise of the thread seems to me to be flawed. Rather it is the other way round, as to whether the traditional approach of blasting rather than investigating is still correct as often as it was in the past.

Totally agree with you Zelandakh,

So what you are suggesting - and I trust that I have read this right - that Stayman should be a key bid if you hold 4M234, or even perhaps 4M333, as responder as there now so many different variables of 1NT opening available, that trying to establish the major suit fit is preferential to blasting to 3NT.

I was curious when Fantoni and Nunes introduced their version of the weak NT (11-14, could be 4-4-4-1) in Fantunes, thinking this looks wrong in principle (with a singleton) but somehow it works in practice.

And the more hands that can be included in the umbrella of a semi-pre-emptive 1NT (12-14) opening, the more chance you have of stopping the opponents bidding.

It'll be interesting to see further comments.

[jogs]

 The_Badger, on 2016-August-30, 00:29, said:

I recognise that a 4-4 major suit fit will generate an extra 1.5 tricks thereabouts generally, so that's why its important, but on the flip side it imparts information to the opponents during the course of bidding, and may allow lead-directing Xs.

That's not what I've seen. The 4-4 fit is worth less than 1 trick. When the short suit totals is 5, the 4-4 fit is worth only 0.5 tricks.
Do not Stayman with 4333. It is only clear that the 4-4 fit is worth 1 trick or more when responder has a singleton.

[spotlight7]

Fantunes open 1NT with odd shapes 'because' their other opening bids forced them to open 1N with 4441 and 5431 shapes.


The 4-4 major fit sometimes is better than 3N because that "fit" will often give you control of the

play of the hand. You sometimes have an additional stopper or two in the form of your trump suit.



If information leakage is a concern. You might want to look at the NT structure of Sabine Auken.

Responder tells about major holdings and opener only shows a major 'if a fit already exists.'


Since playing on BBO I strongly prefer IMPs so my replies tend to indicate IMP bidding thinking.

[Vampyr]

i think Meckwell play some version of Stayman that avoids some of the information leakage. Also I am not sure if 4-card transfers help with that as well.

Does anyone know why a mini iPad would type out strings of random text when the delete button is pressed?

[Stefan_O]

Interesting thread...

Many years ago, my then pd (very smart bidding-theorist) analyzed lots of deals with NT-openings,
and concluded you have significantly better chances in an NT-contract,
if opener has at least Qx or xxx in all suits.
While balanced hands with xx in the weakest suit were more prone to do better in a suit-contract.

Therefore, we actually had different openings for 1NT hands.
We opened 1NT only with the former type, while the latter was included in an artifical 1D
(we first played a forcing-pass system, then (when it got practically banned) restructured it into a strong-1C system).

To reduce "information leakage" after 1NT, we also played a variation of Stayman.
Dont remember the exact structure now, but the basic idea was that responder with only one 4-card major
would only ask if opener had support for that major.
So when opener did not have support and we ended up in NT-contract, defenders would not know if opener held the other major or not.

[aawk]

How, when and what to bid in bridge is depending if you play for MP or IMP.

Playing for IMPs reaching game or slam is the most importend, reaching the best paying partscore or game is secondairy.

Playing for MPs anything can be right or wrong depending on the field you play in, if the field is playing solid play loose and visa versa.

For how and when to use stayman (or any other convention) the most importend thing is that you agree with your partner so there are no suprises.

My tip with any conventions is keep track if they pay divident and if they dont dump them.

[mothersday]

With the variety of responses, it clearly shows there is no right or wrong answer. Playing with a regular partner it is straightforward to find a way that works for you, but pick up partners are more difficult to assess. Personally, I like 1NT – 3NT when responder’s hand is suitable (adequate point count with no likely slam). The opening bid is a clear limit although it no longer shows a balanced hand it is rare to end up 4441 opposite 4432 leaving you open to losing the first 5 or even 6 tricks with no ace and a king in the wrong place.
Stayman is useful in hands where there is a good prospect of trumping – eg 5421 to overcome the score differential between NT and a Major suit.
I always enjoy bidding NT with gib opposition and groan when opposition are bidding NT and my partner is gib. They defend NT so badly – SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE! But that’s a different subject.

[nekthen]

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-30, 10:43, said:

Does anyone know why a mini iPad would type out strings of random text when the delete button is pressed?

I have that issue with my iPad when it is plugged in. Sometimes it seems to affect the accuracy of the touchscreen. Unplug it and it works fine

[msjennifer]

Whether you use Stayman or not depends upon how conservative and technical your style is.In practice,one cannot find out if partner has 15/bad16 or 16good/17 HCP by using Stayman,one only knows whether opener possesses a major or not.Playing match point game I have found the bang bang system works well.When playing IMP or team of four IMP matches it is advisable to use Stayman if responders hand is any 4432,with one or both majors, and the doubleton does not have a honor.With any 4333 with a 4 card major one should use Stayman only if almost all the points are in the major suit,e.g.Qxx,AKJx,xxx,xxx.Playing Stayman modified,we use openers 2H bid to show both majors holding 15/bad16 HCP and 2S to show both majors with good 16/17 HCP.Holding or not holding only one major the opener bids 2Diamonds.The further bidding after 2D proceeds with responder biding his four card major with a nonforcing 8/9 bad 10 and using 3C Baron with 10+ HCP when he wishes to force a game.Almost all good Bridge players can easily work out the rest of the bidding for hands with only a game forcing or non game forcing hands.I have restrictions of space to describe the entire structure ,useful only for regular pairs,as it runs into more than 10 pages.We also do not open 1NT when Two suits are open.To give an example, holding xx,AKJX,AKxx,xxx, we deviate from the system and open it 1Heart.I opened the hand so and opponents played in 3S making comfortably.The international in my seat opened this hand 1NT and went minus 300 when opponents did not bid and cashed the first nine tricks.Partner held ,xx,Qxxx,Qxxx,xxx a mirror ,so to say.
In the diagrammed deal we would bid 1D-4S,unmindful of the results,since both opener as well as responders hands holding two suits open are not fit for bidding No Trumps.
Note:-We do not play Garbage Stayman .However, we do play four suits transfers.Lastly,our chief intentions are not preventing opponents from bidding but to bid the hands more descriptively.

[Zelandakh]

 msjennifer, on 2016-August-31, 09:09, said:

In the diagrammed deal we would bid 1D-4S,unmindful of the results

This auction seems to be particularly mindful of the result. There are quite a few calls between 1♦ and 4♠ and any number of hands that might be held where it is not the best spot.

[jogs]

 msjennifer, on 2016-August-31, 09:09, said:

.Playing Stayman modified,we use openers 2H bid to show both majors holding 15/bad16 HCP and 2S to show both majors with good 16/17 HCP.

That info sounds more useful to two defenders than one partner.

[miamijd]

Rainer's post above is correct. There are several things responder might want to consider in deciding whether to use Stayman with a 4432 hand (one 4-card major; with two, you're better off using Stayman), as follows:

1. Hand Strength: If you have 28+ HCP, you may not need the ruffing trick; you might be able to make that trick on power instead

2. Holding in your Doubleton Suit: That's where the ruff will generally come from (not always, but most of the time). If you have the Queen, then the chances are greater you don't need the ruff. If you don't, the ruff might be useful.

3. Trump Intermediates: Sometimes, the trump suit will break badly. If it does, you will be more likely to survive it if you have cards like the J, T, and even 9 in the trump suit.

4. Side Source of Tricks: Is your side four-card minor strong? If so, that could provide a discard or two and make the ruff unnecessary.

5. Honor Structure: Qs and Js work better at NT. As and Ks are good at any contract.

6. Form of Scoring: This decision is more important at MPs, where you need to select the right strain. At IMPs, you just have to make your contract, so the suit has to be 2 tricks better than NT to be right. That is most likely to happen when the opponents can run five tricks vs you, so unless you have Jx or worse in your doubleton suit, NT is often right.

Cheers,
Mike

[msjennifer]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-August-31, 09:25, said:

This auction seems to be particularly mindful of the result. There are quite a few calls between 1♦ and 4♠ and any number of hands that might be held where it is not the best spot.

I did expect statement like this.And that is why I wrote "unmindful of result".We play the LTC once a suit fit is established.Here the spade suit is solid as per our contentions.In fact the 4 S bid shows exactly seven losers with no support needed.18-(7+7)=4. Remove the SQ and put it elsewhere in exchange for an x ,and then the bid is not 4S but 1S. With such a hand we find it beneficial to use the PFA.Opener can go ahead with a stronger hand and less losers.Of course some may say"but opener may be void .....etc".We don't bother about it! We assume normal hands ,more so if partner opens 1NT.We have hardly ever lost a hand using these conventions.And so be it.!

[msjennifer]

 jogs, on 2016-August-31, 10:13, said:

That info sounds more useful to two defenders than one partner.

I We do not mind giving info to our opponents.As I said, we adjust the bidding to give information to partner if, as and when needed.We do not mind sharing it with our opponents if the method helps us to reach par contracts and certainly all four at the table enjoy and appreciate it.Please see the bidding for the diagrammed deal by our methods.We enjoy playing many conventions and gadgets which have been used gainfully all over the world by the best of them.We discuss and modify crude Stayman and SST and LST etc.We like enjoying the game together with our opponents.We try to ensure that we leave the table with 'friendly' feelings.But then there do exist players who play with the intention of putting a hammer in opponents 'works'.

[Stefan_O]

 msjennifer, on 2016-September-01, 07:19, said:

We do not mind giving info to our opponents.As I said, we adjust the bidding to give information to partner if, as and when needed.We do not mind sharing it with our opponents if the method helps us to reach par contracts and certainly all four at the table enjoy and appreciate it.Please see the bidding for the diagrammed deal by our methods.We enjoy playing many conventions and gadgets which have been used gainfully all over the world by the best of them.We discuss and modify crude Stayman and SST and LST etc.We like enjoying the game together with our opponents.We try to ensure that we leave the table with 'friendly' feelings.But then there do exist players who play with the intention of putting a hammer in opponents 'works'.

I think a good bidding-system would have at least these goals:

1. Reaching the most profitable final contract on as many deals as possible.
2. Revealing as little unnecessary info as possible to defenders.
3. Right-siding the final contract (transfers, etc).
4. Making it harder for the opponents to reach their most profitable contract (preempts, etc).

In my view, they are all just as valid, if they can give you an advantage in the long run.

By "par contract"... are you saying that only the first (and presumably the third) one matters, while the second one is --- I dont know... "hammer in their works"... less "noble"? --- and will somehow generate "unfriendly feelings"?

Isn't the challenge in system-design to reach the optimum balance between these (partly conflicting) goals
and find the solution that on average will pay you the greatest profit/deal in the long run?