[mike777]

GEEZ Folks, if we cannot even agree on how to respond to stayman and responder has a wide range of possible rebids, many of which are subject to varying interpretations how can we agree to play any system with a pick up partner without detailed discussion.. We all know stayman is the last thing we would ever discuss

The Bridge Encyclopedia has almost a full page of tiny print on all the possible, generally accepted ways to bid basic stayman.

[Mr. Dodgy]

Elianna, on Oct 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden said:

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger.

One of the conventions espoused was 'Extended Stayman', with the following response scheme by opener after 1N-2♣:

2♦ - Minimum, both Majors
2♥ - Minimum, ♥s only
2♠ - Minimum, ♠s only
2N - Minimum, neither Major
3♣ - Maximum, neither Major
3♦ - Maximum, both Majors
3♥ - Maximum, ♥s only
3♠ - Maximum, ♠s only

I realise that this is NOT a common method, indeed it seems almost unknown outside of Australia (but not uncommon here - the ABF CC even has a checkbox for it). I like it.

There's a variant which swaps the meanings of 3♣ and 3♦


Regards,


Justin

[Elianna]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 5 2006, 10:05 AM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden said:

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger.

You're right, I should have said, any AMERICAN bridge book.

I had originally typed in "bridge textbook", and I was in the mindset of beginner bridge books that my beginner bridge players show me. I was thinking about the Audrey Grant suit-series, and books of that nature.

[Walddk]

Beginners have enough problems with having three options to one question.

Q: Do you have a 4-card major?

A1: No.
A2: Yes, and maybe also ....
A3: Yes, but not ....

Then add that in the old days people reversed the 2♥ and 2♠ responses ... well, we reversed the responses rather. As I'm sure most of you recall, it used to be:

A2: Yes, but not ....
A3: Yes, and maybe also ...

If you introduced Klinger's method, you would surely make all beginners (and intermediates too for that matter) give up.

Roland

[barmar]

Elianna, on Oct 5 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away.

I don't know if it's written up anywhere, but if I open 1NT with a maximum and a 5-card major, I'll jump to 3 of the major in response to a Stayman inquiry. If partner has a weak hand with 4-4 majors (i.e. he was planning on using crawling Stayman, or passing 2♦ if he also had 4-5 ♦) then we'll be in a 9-card fit and it shouldn't be too bad. If he has the more usual invitational or better hand he'll know where to go.

This isn't something I've ever discussed in advance with any partners, but bridge logic usually suffices for them to figure out what I'm doing. The same is not necessarily true for the crawling Stayman auction. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of 1NT-2♣-2♦-2Maj is that responder is 5-4 and was using Stayman to find a fit in the 4-card suit, and now he's showing his longer suit. And with some of my regular partners I play this as an invitation version of Smolen.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 5 2006, 09:19 PM, said:

Beginners have enough problems with having three options to one question.

Q: Do you have a 4-card major?

A1: No.
A2: Yes, and maybe also ....
A3: Yes, but not ....

Then add that in the old days people reversed the 2♥ and 2♠ responses ... well, we reversed the responses rather. As I'm sure most of you recall, it used to be:

A2: Yes, but not ....
A3: Yes, and maybe also ...

If you introduced Klinger's method, you would surely make all beginners (and intermediates too for that matter) give up.

Roland

If so, its probably better for them and the game both...

Extended Stayman is extremely simple. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea, but its really not that complex.

If folks can't handle this then the game probably isn't for them.

[P_Marlowe]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 5 2006, 01:05 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden said:

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger.

One of the conventions espoused was 'Extended Stayman', with the following response scheme by opener after 1N-2♣:

2♦ - Minimum, both Majors
2♥ - Minimum, ♥s only
2♠ - Minimum, ♠s only
2N - Minimum, neither Major
3♣ - Maximum, neither Major
3♦ - Maximum, both Majors
3♥ - Maximum, ♥s only
3♠ - Maximum, ♠s only

I realise that this is NOT a common method, indeed it seems almost unknown outside of Australia (but not uncommon here - the ABF CC even has a checkbox for it). I like it.

There's a variant which swaps the meanings of 3♣ and 3♦


Regards,


Justin

Looking at the meaning of 2NT, this assumes,
that 2C promises inv. values.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joshs]

Garbabge Stayman = Stayman with one or two additional agreements:
1. 1N-2C-2D-2H=Weak with both majors. If playing 2 below, hearts are at least as long as spades.
Note in the original stayman convention 1N-2C-2D-2H was INV with 5 hearts. This has become less useful since the invention of transfers.
2. 1N-2C-2D-2S might also be weak with 5S, 4H. Many people still play this sequence as INV and unbalanced with 5S, so x-fer to 2S than 2N can be balanced.

Further note:
If you play 1N-2C-2D-2S as INV then the sequence
1N-2C-2H-2S has to be the 5S, INV hand, since what else can you do with it if partner wasn't nice enough to bid 2D.

Further further note:
Its most common these days lacking a natural 1N-2N bid (or a 1N-2S size ask) to play the sequence:
1N-2C-2H-2S as 4 cards, INV. Consequently, it can't be bid on 5's INV (at least not if you actually want to get to game when you have a 5-3 fit). Consequentially, 1N-2C-2D-2S has to be weak.

Of course you can choose to systemically play:
1N-2C-2red-2S ad 5+ INV
and thus
1N-2C-2H-2N neither denies nor confirms 4S. Opener will show 4S if a max.

But if I was palying a random pickup and playing walsh, or 4 suit x-fers or one of many other NT engines that don't have a quant invite, I would assume 1N-2C-2H-2S was 4S, INV.

[awm]

Elianna and I actually play:

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ = five spades and four hearts, INV
1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ = four spades, INV (the five spade INV hand has 4♥ also)
1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ = five hearts + four spades INV

On the other hand:

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ = weak both majors

Personally, I've had a lot more luck using stayman on weak hands with (34)51 patterns than 4441. I have no great fear of a 4-3 major fit with ruffs in the short/weak hand, but I don't particularly like playing in a 4-3 diamond fit with ruffs in the long/strong hand.

[awm]

A sort of random point about extended stayman.

Among expert players there is a trend of making more and more speculative doubles. The idea is that people are bidding lighter and lighter games. It's increasingly common to see games going down two or three tricks when suits are breaking really badly. In order to punish the light game bidders, it becomes necessary to double when you're getting the 2-3 trick set.

Of course, when you hear an auction like 1NT-3NT, opponents could be pushing or they could hold 30 high card points. Doubling such a thing is dangerous! So the usual tactic is to listen for an invitational auction, and then double if suits are poorly breaking/positioned.

One neat feature of extended stayman is that the defending side can't tell whether an invitational auction has occurred! Opener shows max/min, and when responder bids game over a max it's not clear if his "invite" has been accepted, or if he was always bidding game. This potentially makes it a lot harder to speculatively double.

I'm curious just how much of an advantage this is, and whether people have considered structuring other agreements along the same lines.

[joshs]

awm, on Oct 5 2006, 05:35 PM, said:

Elianna and I actually play:

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ = five spades and four hearts, INV
1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ = four spades, INV (the five spade INV hand has 4♥ also)
1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ = five hearts + four spades INV

On the other hand:

1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ = weak both majors

Personally, I've had a lot more luck using stayman on weak hands with (34)51 patterns than 4441. I have no great fear of a 4-3 major fit with ruffs in the short/weak hand, but I don't particularly like playing in a 4-3 diamond fit with ruffs in the long/strong hand.

That works. It also points out the flaw of my argument about what I should assume 1N-2C-2D-2S is without discussion. Its definitely 5S and 4H, but the exact strength isn't so clear....

The weak (34)51 hand is the classic garbage stayman bid before there was garbage since you can pass 2D confortably (with 4441 if you pass 2D you risk that partner was 3325 and the 4-2 fit is really bad).

[lowerline]

Elianna, on Oct 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 5 2006, 07:42 AM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 5 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

Why not make all invites with 5♠ bid Stayman then 2♠? It's not like 1N:2♣, 2♥:2♠ is particularly useful for anything else

Many will disagree with you. Two camps:

1N - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠

Forcing with 4 spades.

.....

1N - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠

Invitational *without* 4 spades.

I prefer the latter and let 2NT be invitational *with* 4 spades. This way opener will always be declarer.

Roland

A third camp:

1NT - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠

Is INVITATIONAL with 4 spades (as opposed to forcing). That's what Adam and I play, and what I've seen many experts in the LA area play.

As for how conventions that are the same get different names, or how different conventions get the same name, that's not too surprising. This happens all the time in English.

FrancesHinden said:

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

Standard Stayman in my part of the world (small European country) always shows at least one 4crd major and there are 3 possible answers. We can agree on the fact that if you can bid Stayman without a 4crd major it is not standard, can't we?

A fourth camp:

1NT - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠

Invitational or better with exactly 4crd ♥ and 5 or more ♠...

Playing Garbage Stayman (1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ is weak with both majors) and Smolen, all hands with 54 in the majors are bid through Stayman, except the invitational 5♥4♠ (1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠).
With only a 4crd ♠ you bid NT after 1NT-2♣-2♥. Without a 4crd major you bid NT immediately and don't use Stayman. Sounds pretty simple to me...
Combine that with 2♠ as a transfer to ♣, 3♣ as a weak/strong transfer to ♦ and 3♦ as natural invitational. You now have a simple (standard?) and effective 1NT response structure IMHO.

Steven

[Mr. Dodgy]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 5 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Looking at the meaning of 2NT, this assumes,
that 2C promises inv. values.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Of course; my post has nothing to do with 'Garbage'.

[paulg]

32 replies on a simple question that we'd never even discuss with a new partner.

"Stayman?" ... "of course!"

We all seem to cope as the differences are minor, but the real answer to my question is that the values promised by Stayman differ around the world.

Thanks for your help

paul

[1eyedjack]

Mr. Dodgy, on Oct 6 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 5 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Looking at the meaning of 2NT, this assumes,
that 2C promises inv. values.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Of course; my post has nothing to do with 'Garbage'.

It just possibly may be superior strategy to allow for higher rebids than 2S despite that 2C may have no game interest. You have to weigh up the frequency (and consequences) of overreaching on hands where responder has the weak hand type opposite a 2N+ rebid, against the frequency and consequences of gaining by reason of the increased precision when responder has at least a game try.