[SchTsch]

I play 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ as weak with 4♥4♠ so I don't see a problem with bidding 2♣.

[Free]

I know what garbage stayman is, how it works,... I just don't think this hand qualifies. You have a nice 5-pointer with a decent 4 card suit, and probably a ♠ stopper. 1NT will probably make, so why risk playing 2M on a misfit hand? Garbage stayman is imo better used for hands where 1NT seems impossible to make, trying to find a better strain. Take away the ♥KQ and it's perfect imo, now you have some well positioned values, so no reason to run.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I know what garbage stayman is, how it works,... I just don't think this hand qualifies. You have a nice 5-pointer with a decent 4 card suit, and probably a ♠ stopper. 1NT will probably make, so why risk playing 2M on a misfit hand? Garbage stayman is imo better used for hands where 1NT seems impossible to make, trying to find a better strain. Take away the ♥KQ and it's perfect imo, now you have some well positioned values, so no reason to run.

Ditto.

Peter

[SchTsch]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

so no reason to run.

Who is running?
Just looking for a better spot to play.
Don't know the odds but there is a significant chance that partner will rebid a major. Let's say around 50%, someone can correct me with real numbers.
In the other 50% there is a possibility that 2M in 4-3 fit will play better than 1NT.
So I vote for 2♣ because I think the odds are with me.

[Free]

SchTsch, on Sep 3 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

so no reason to run.

Who is running?
Just looking for a better spot to play.
Don't know the odds but there is a significant chance that partner will rebid a major. Let's say around 50%, someone can correct me with real numbers.
In the other 50% there is a possibility that 2M in 4-3 fit will play better than 1NT.
So I vote for 2♣ because I think the odds are with me.

This is imps, so you don't have to play the best part score. Finding a playable one is good enough, and guess what: we just found one

[SchTsch]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

This is imps, so you don't have to play the best part score. Finding a playable one is good enough, and guess what: we just found one

I know it's imps.
And I still bid 2♣
Don't like the idea of going down in 1NT when we have a 4-4 major fit and I'm willing to risk 2M one off in 4-3 fit against 1NT +1 on a bad day to prevent it.
I think that risk is not big and gain could be significant.
But, that's my perception, I guess it is a close call.

[Free]

Just popped in my head: doesn't your partner ever open 1NT on 2-2-4-5, 2-2-5-4, 2-2-6-3 or 2-2-3-6 hands?

[SchTsch]

sure, but then it is his problem

[SoTired]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

Just popped in my head: doesn't your partner ever open 1NT on 2-2-4-5, 2-2-5-4, 2-2-6-3 or 2-2-3-6 hands?

My partner would never open 1N with 2-2 in the majors for this (and other) reasons.

[jdonn]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

Just popped in my head: doesn't your partner ever open 1NT on 2-2-4-5, 2-2-5-4, 2-2-6-3 or 2-2-3-6 hands?

Does yours ever open 1NT with a 5 card major?

[kenrexford]

Here's one issue for me.

1NT-P-2♣-2♦-
2♥-3♦-???

When there is a possible start that suggests game, how can I pass this thing? Is that not a secondary reason to play Garbage Stayman?

In a heart contract, my dummy is worth 8 points or so. Partner can have five hearts, and he can have nothing wasted in diamonds. Wouldn't ♠Ax ♥AJxxx ♦xxx ♣AKx be nice?

How about a spade contract, even? ♠AKxxx ♥Ax ♦xxx ♣Axx?

How about 1NT-P-2♣-3♦-3M?

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 3 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

I just don't understand how people can feel strongly about this one. "clear pass" or "clear stayman", list some shapes where pard is 2-2, list some hands where pard has 5 spades and xxx diamonds, whatever.

Obviously when you hit a 4 card major with pard (or more) you will be in a much better contract. When you don't the 4-3 will usually be inferior, but not always, and the 4-2 will be a disaster.

The only point I would make is that you have added equity in passing from the times they balance. Overall I would expect the bids to come out very close in long term expectation.

I posted this because one of my regulars passed this. I struggled in 1N and didn't have a chance. Its curious that the votes are currently 15-15, but I'll bet you a few of the pass votes don't understand garbage stayman. If your experience says passing is best, I'll respect your opinion, although it doesn't change mine.

I really don't think this is close with a 4 by 1. At IMPs, we are trying to get to a plus position. The only time passing is best is when we make seven tricks in NT and we don't make 8 tricks in a major. This seems like a very narrow target to me. OTOH, its very easy to see how 1N is hopeless and we are making beaucoup tricks in a major.

[han]

I agree that it is close. If I had 4-4-2-3 shape then I would certainly pass. With 4-4-1-4 I'd expect that the odds slightly favor bidding but one would really need to do a simulation to get a better idea.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 3 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 3 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 3 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

I just don't understand how people can feel strongly about this one. "clear pass" or "clear stayman", list some shapes where pard is 2-2, list some hands where pard has 5 spades and xxx diamonds, whatever.

Obviously when you hit a 4 card major with pard (or more) you will be in a much better contract. When you don't the 4-3 will usually be inferior, but not always, and the 4-2 will be a disaster.

The only point I would make is that you have added equity in passing from the times they balance. Overall I would expect the bids to come out very close in long term expectation.

I posted this because one of my regulars passed this. I struggled in 1N and didn't have a chance.

Yes, I know I was kibitzing and told aaron it was fine to pass remember? lol.

I dont understand how going down in 2 of a major when you make at least 1N is a more narrow target than going down in 1N when you make at least 2 of a major. It is the same, you just have to figure out which is more likely.

No I don't remember, since I clubbed a certain handle with a name eerily similar to mine, since it was distracting me.

Quote

I dont understand how going down in 2 of a major when you make at least 1N is a more narrow target than going down in 1N when you make at least 2 of a major. It is the same, you just have to figure out which is more likely.

If you would have reiterated your thought about the propensity of the opponents to balance over 2 maj, I'd have more respect for a pass, since thats where many of your gains will come from. I just can't see how you can say that the frequency of 1N v 2 major being superior is on par with to 2 maj vs 1N. I just don't think its close.

[cherdano]

This would be a good hand for a simulation with GIB-playout (not double dummy analysis).

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Sep 3 2007, 11:43 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 3 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

In a heart contract, my dummy is worth 8 points or so.  Partner can have five hearts, and he can have nothing wasted in diamonds.  Wouldn't ♠Ax ♥AJxxx ♦xxx ♣AKx be nice?

wow, this is a perfect empathetic splinter over the 3H bid!

Not exactly enough. Close though. The E.P. promises five of seven critical cards, and Opener only has four.

[han]

cherdano, on Sep 3 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

This would be a good hand for a simulation with GIB-playout (not double dummy analysis).

I think we need a regular forum poster to become an expert in such analyses. I vote for A. Bayer.

edit: I think that a double dummy analysis would already be interesting.