Page 1 of 1
Self-Stayman. Bidding theory.
#1
Posted 2008-April-09, 04:51
Hi all,
I've seen some of the godd Italians (And others) employ these two sequences:
1nt-3♥
1nt-3♠
simply as showing a four-card suit, in the suit bid, and asking partner to bid 3nt or 4 of the suit.
This obviously has the advantages of not disclosing much about delarers hand, like Puppet-Stayman, but without giving the opponent artificial bids to double. Facing a 12-14 nt, right-siding is considered to be of lesser importance.
Has anybody seen any articles, or the like, where these bids are incooperated into a nt-system?
Best Regards
Ole Berg
I've seen some of the godd Italians (And others) employ these two sequences:
1nt-3♥
1nt-3♠
simply as showing a four-card suit, in the suit bid, and asking partner to bid 3nt or 4 of the suit.
This obviously has the advantages of not disclosing much about delarers hand, like Puppet-Stayman, but without giving the opponent artificial bids to double. Facing a 12-14 nt, right-siding is considered to be of lesser importance.
Has anybody seen any articles, or the like, where these bids are incooperated into a nt-system?
Best Regards
Ole Berg
_____________________________________
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side. Or the ninth trumph.
Best Regards Ole Berg
_____________________________________
We should always assume 2/1 unless otherwise stated, because:
- If the original poster didn't bother to state his system, that means that he thinks it's obvious what he's playing. The only people who think this are 2/1 players.
Gnasher
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side. Or the ninth trumph.
Best Regards Ole Berg
_____________________________________
We should always assume 2/1 unless otherwise stated, because:
- If the original poster didn't bother to state his system, that means that he thinks it's obvious what he's playing. The only people who think this are 2/1 players.
Gnasher
#2
Posted 2008-April-09, 05:26
It does a better job of keeping the 1NT hand hidden, but that should be the only technical merit of it. Unless non-disclosure worries you, there's no need to adopt methods like these.
#3
Posted 2008-April-09, 09:40
We use these bids as GF with exactly 4, a splinter in the other major, and tolerance (3+) each minor. Seems to work well.
#4
Posted 2008-April-09, 09:42
I think it is nicer to play that this shows THREE cards in the bid major and shortness in the other major, suggesting a 4 - 3 fit or a minor suit game if the short major is unsufficiently stopped.
Going through Stayman and then jumping to 3M after 2♦ would show the 4-card major + splinter in the other major hand.
Going through Stayman and then jumping to 3M after 2♦ would show the 4-card major + splinter in the other major hand.
#5
Posted 2008-April-09, 10:48
Gerben42, on Apr 9 2008, 11:42 AM, said:
I think it is nicer to play that this shows THREE cards in the bid major and shortness in the other major, suggesting a 4 - 3 fit or a minor suit game if the short major is unsufficiently stopped.
Going through Stayman and then jumping to 3M after 2♦ would show the 4-card major + splinter in the other major hand.
Going through Stayman and then jumping to 3M after 2♦ would show the 4-card major + splinter in the other major hand.
So how do you show GF (45) majors?
The fragment method is good too, we have another way to show that hand, otherwise I agree 3M is better played that way.
#6
Posted 2008-April-09, 10:53
What do you lot do when you have a one-suited slam try and want to do some cue-bidding?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#7
Posted 2008-April-09, 10:56
Gerben42, on Apr 9 2008, 03:42 PM, said:
I think it is nicer to play that this shows THREE cards in the bid major and shortness in the other major, suggesting a 4 - 3 fit or a minor suit game if the short major is unsufficiently stopped.
Good for playing 4M or 5m when the rest of the field is making 3NT +1 on a bad, but obvious, lead
The issue has been studied long ago. It is only statistically favourable to play 4M or 5m if one of the hands has a singleton. With responder 3-2 in the majors and opener balanced, that's not the case.
#8
Posted 2008-April-09, 11:10
whereagles, on Apr 9 2008, 12:56 PM, said:
Gerben42, on Apr 9 2008, 03:42 PM, said:
I think it is nicer to play that this shows THREE cards in the bid major and shortness in the other major, suggesting a 4 - 3 fit or a minor suit game if the short major is unsufficiently stopped.
Good for playing 4M or 5m when the rest of the field is making 3NT +1 on a bad, but obvious, lead
The issue has been studied long ago. It is only statistically favourable to play 4M or 5m if one of the hands has a singleton. With responder 3-2 in the majors and opener balanced, that's not the case.
He said "shortness in the other major", by which he meant a singleton or void.
Page 1 of 1

Help
