[EricK]

Following on from my post about transfers, I want to start a discussion about Stayman.

How useful, in practice, is Stayman on balanced hands? I am particualrly concerned with GF balanced hands where the choice is between 3NT or 4M.

The benefit of Stayman is that you might find a better major suit contract.

The disadvantages are:
1. You might find a worse major suit contract (especially if the major breaks badly)
2. You always give away information about opener's hand and your hand too.
3. You allow a lead directing double or cheap overcall.
4. The opening lead is harder when leader can't make any assumptions about responder's major suit lengths.
5. If Stayman promises an unbalanced hand you can undoubtedly make better use of the follow ups as certain hand types are eliminated.

So, does the sole advantage outweigh these disadvantages? It might do when the hands are only considered double dummy, but what about "at the table"?

[Flame]

intresting ideas, but i since balance hands come so freqently, its 90% based on the simple question whather its better to play 4M or 3NT with 2 balanced hands.

[hrothgar]

I recall seeing some double dummy studies that suggested that it was better to play 4M with 24-26 combined points. Holding 27-29 points, the hands normally made the same number of tricks in the major or in Notrump.

For better or worse, I've taken this to heart. Holding a minimum GF hand I'll often look for the major suit contract. With a bit extra I'll often just bash to 3NT.

As always, shape and fast versus slow tricks factor in to the equation...

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Jul 21 2006, 09:37 PM, said:

As always, shape and fast versus slow tricks factor in to the equation...

And do you have a way of asking opener if he has slow or fast tricks?

[david_c]

EricK, on Jul 21 2006, 09:44 PM, said:

So, does the sole advantage outweigh these disadvantages?

In a word -

Yes

Quote

It might do when the hands are only considered double dummy, but what about "at the table"?

Obviously, looking at a particular hand double dummy does not give you useful information about the best strategy. However, it is equally wrong to consider responder's balanced hands as a whole, expecting to be able to get a single answer.

Responder has to look at the hand he is dealt. He will bear in mind all of the disadavantages of using Stayman listed above (well, 1 to 4 anyway). And then, maybe he will decide that this hand is one where it is right to blast 3NT. Or maybe he will decide the hand is one where it is better on average to use Stayman.

The one thing I am certain of is that there are plenty of hands of each type.

[mikeh]

My own view, based in part on some thoughts expressed by Woolsey a number of years ago, and corroborated by years of experience, is that I always stayman with GF balanced hands containing a major unless:

1) I hold 13-15 hcp and 4=3=3=3, or
2) I hold 11-12 hcp and a suit of Jxxx or worse as my major, and 4333
3) I am stuck and need a swing...

Obviously, if we knew that partner held a 4333 hand, we would rarely stayman, but partner often has a ruffing value concealed in his hand, and, in any event, a 4=4 fit, when it breaks, often gives a skilled declarer a lot more chances to develop end positions than are available in notrump.

[Winstonm]

Think about it this way - with a doubleton in your hand and a doubleton in partner's hand in another suit, you both have ruffing values - suit orientation.
But if you are 4333, unless partner has the odd 5422, he is the only one with a ruffing value and you only have the chance for a 3/2 fit holding in one suit - so this makes it more likely NT is right.

I personally ignore ( for the most part but there are exceptions) the major suit hunt when 4333.

[EricK]

To those of you think looking for a 4-4 fit is a good idea, is 2♣ the best way to go about it?

If the final choice is going to be between 4M and 3NT then there is no reason to give the opponents so much room to compete or give them an artificial call to double. It is surely better to use something like:
1NT 3♠ as asking partner to choose between 3N and 4♠
1NT 3♥ as asking partner to choose between 4♥ and 3NT or bid 3♠ with four of them.

[Free]

Well yes, it's certainly better to play these 3M-bids, but why waste 2 bids on this handtype??

I'm not a big fan of Stayman. Ok, it's easy and works for most people, but I just don't like the standard methods over 1NT. I'm a big fan of rightsiding contracts (playing relay systems, it's quite important to make the unknown hand play), and after 1NT openings responder should show his hand, and not ask about opener's imo.

1. Hard to find that out imo, except when one player shows his handtype as good as possible, the other one can make a good decision. But I think space is too limited most of the time.

2. One of the disadvantages that can be solved quite easily (in the right framework): 4-card M transfers. This way responder shows his hand, and opener doesn't have to say if he has a 4 card in the other Major or not.

3. So they make a lead directing double? This time you can easily show or deny stoppers, and stay out of 3NT if necessary. It's not always that bad...

4. The opening lead is even harder if you don't know what you're playing to. So if OPENER has to show his hand AND play, it's a lot easier to lead (tnx stayman). 4M-transfers solve this. What do you lead after 1NT-2♣-2♠-3NT? Definetly not a ♠! But what after 1NT-2♦!-2♥-3NT? You don't know about opener's ♠s.

5. You don't need stayman to show different handtypes. I suggest you take a look at HEEMAN (probably a Dutch writeup, but I think it's understandable) since this can show most handtypes as responder.

[EricK]

Free, on Jul 22 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Well yes, it's certainly better to play these 3M-bids, but why waste 2 bids on this handtype??

Why does Heeman waste those same bids on (13)(45) hands?

It seems more sensible to use the higher bids for hands where there is a simple choice of contract (4M/3NT) rather than on hands where there are 7 target contracts (3NT/4m/4M/5m). The extra room obtained by using a lower bid for these hands might be genuinely useful.

[david_c]

EricK, on Jul 22 2006, 06:24 AM, said:

To those of you think looking for a 4-4 fit is a good idea, is 2♣ the best way to go about it?

Almost certainly not. I think that using 3-level bids to show choice-of-game balanced hands is an excellent idea. However if you play some form of Stayman as well then there is some duplication involved. Having two ways to bid GF balanced hands means that you don't have so much room to investigate more complex hands. So I think the idea works best in a Keri / Heeman - like structure where a 2♣ response forces 2♦.

[cherdano]

I am more willing to miss 5-3 fits than 4-4 fits.

[Flame]

I believe using the 3 level bids for common hands but in a wasting space way will be the future, not long ago i suggested a similar idea here http://forums.bridge...topic=14579&hl=
I dont think ur way or my way is the right way but the idea is.

[Free]

EricK, on Jul 22 2006, 09:20 AM, said:

Why does Heeman waste those same bids on (13)(45) hands?

It seems more sensible to use the higher bids for hands where there is a simple choice of contract (4M/3NT) rather than on hands where there are 7 target contracts (3NT/4m/4M/5m). The extra room obtained by using a lower bid for these hands might be genuinely useful.

These bids actually are not a waste. If you want to play 3NT instead of 4M in a 4-3/5-3 fit with no stopper in the other Major, I won't stop you, but down you'll go...

[EricK]

I am not saying that bids to show those sort of hands are a waste. In fact I am saying the opposite. It is important to show those sort of hands but they are the type of hands you need extra space on to get to the right contract, so it is wrong to use a high level bid to show them.

[Echognome]

I think this is the wrong way to go about it. There's nothing wrong with trying to build a better mousetrap. If you feel that there are some good reasons to change (such as 3♥ and 3♠ show choice of games and conceal opener's hand nicely) then that's fine. But it's hard to judge just a piece of a system.

It's much nicer if you build an entire structure. Note that you will want to account for hands that are weak, invitational, and GF. You want to be able to handle one-suiters, two-suiters, three-suiters, and balanced hands. Of course, no structure can handle all of the shapes and ranges. You pick your tradeoffs. But it's a whole lot easier to judge a structure as a whole rather than just pick apart one piece of an existing structure (unless you are recommending a direct replacement). The nice thing about a NT structure, is that it can worked in with most systems. The needs may change slightly based on the strength of the 1NT opening, but most NT structures can be adopted for this with little problem.

[Winstonm]

EricK, on Jul 22 2006, 03:20 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 22 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Well yes, it's certainly better to play these 3M-bids, but why waste 2 bids on this handtype??

Why does Heeman waste those same bids on (13)(45) hands?

It seems more sensible to use the higher bids for hands where there is a simple choice of contract (4M/3NT) rather than on hands where there are 7 target contracts (3NT/4m/4M/5m). The extra room obtained by using a lower bid for these hands might be genuinely useful.

This useful space principle in my opinion is correct, which is why my partner and I decided it was more valuable to use Smolen as invitational or better at the 2-level and just transfer into our long suit with weak hands. This gave us a free bid at the 3 level after 1N-2C-2D-3H/3S as 1444 or 4144 with shortness in the suit bid.

I think a more useful idea of the direct jump to 3H/3S is to avoid a hopeless 3N rather than to identify the 4/4 fit over 3N, therefore I use these jumps to indicate 3145(54) patterns, game forcing hands with weakness in the singleton. This allows us to bypass 3N with weak holdings in suits long enough that either opponent is likely to lead, either from 5 or 4, and allows a 5/3 major suit fit to be uncovered as well as minor suit games.

[neilkaz]

Winstonm wrote : "I think a more useful idea of the direct jump to 3H/3S is to avoid a hopeless 3N rather than to identify the 4/4 fit over 3N, therefore I use these jumps to indicate 3145(54) patterns, game forcing hands with weakness in the singleton. This allows us to bypass 3N with weak holdings in suits long enough that either opponent is likely to lead, either from 5 or 4, and allows a 5/3 major suit fit to be uncovered as well as minor suit games. "

I've played many uses for direct 3M jumps after 15-17 1NT openings and I think your method is the best. Once in a while opener has 3 small in the jumped M, and two in the other M, along with a max, and you find a really nice 6m slam, which indeed outscores those who are -1 when the opps lead their 9 card suit.

To round out your system, I need to ask you what you use the direct jumps to 3C and 3D to show ?

Thx.. neilkaz ..

[FrancesHinden]

As usual for BBO discussions, we've left the original topic (on judgement over 1NT) and moved onto pet systems over 1NT. So I shall give a reply in two parts.

Judgement

Just like my views on opening 1NT with 5 card majors, there is no definitive answer. Even the 'standard' answer to play in 3NT when you have lots of high cards doesn't always wash as sometimes it's the other way around. When you have lots of HCP you can often withstand a bad trump break in 4M but still have 3NT delicate with only a single stop; with marginal values 3NT is only 9 tricks and can sometimes be easier.

So the times I will look in to play in 3NT rather than 4M are
- when we lots of HCP and plenty of stops in every suit, particularly at matchpoints
- when we have marginal values and some of them are in the doubleton (holding a Qx suit and a 9-count opposite a strong NT, the argument is that if the Q isn't gelling well with partner's hand you won't make anything, and if it is you won't want a ruff)
- at IMPS, when I have most of my HCP outside trumps: when I am making 9 in NT and 10 in the 4-4 fit if trumps are 3-2, but might go off if trumps don't break

4M is the opposite: you look to play in the trump fit when you have the high cards concentrated in your long suits.

I've seen it said sometimes that hands with aces want to play suit contracts and minor honours are better in NT, and good pips are more useful at NT. There is something in that, but aces and good pips are good at any type of contract! This only really hits if you are missing all 4 aces, because then you are unlikely to make 4M with two balanced hands.

System
I'm not going to bore you with my pet system over 1NT, but we consider this important enough that we've included in our methods the ability to find a 4-4 major suit fit and for responder both to be able to invite, and to offer the choice of 3NT or 4M (which normal Stayman doesn't allow). To fit this in, we gave up some of the detailed definition we had included in looking for 4-4 minor suit slams.

[Winstonm]

Frances makes a good point. Judgement wise, I think this hand warrants a slam try - if one can be reasonably made. But no more than a "try." I guess this is why system comes in, as some systemic variances allow a "try" and some would have to blast. I do not think the hand warrants a "blast".