[cherdano]

Two problems opposite a 1NT, showing 14-16.
The format is matchpoints. If you think it matters, the field is playing a 15-17 NT range.
You are playing a standard NA response structure, as far as it matters.

1. ♠9653 ♥KT76 ♦KJ2 ♣65
All vulnerable, LHO passes, partner 1 Notrumps, pass to you?
Do you pass, or do you garbage stayman?

2. ♠K ♥Jxxx ♦xx ♣AT98xx.
I don't remember the vulnerability and seat, but let me pretend it was all white and partner dealt and opened 1NT.

[mike777]

1) Garbage stayman, planning on bidding 2h over 2d
2) tfr to clubs planning on then passing.

[effervesce]

Hand 1: Garbage stayman

Hand 2: Pass

[Double !]

AREND:

I don't know the answers, and I don't care. You and Han just came in 30th overall in the LM pairs: I think that's awesome. It is the most grueling 3 days I can imagine.

I will say that the first hand is one reason why I prefer to play 1NT - 2C- 2Y (not your major) - 3m as a weak 4-6 but, as usual, I'm in the minority. On the second hand, you might risk 2C followed by 2H (pass or correct), or you might be disciplined and pass 1NT. Can't criticize either action.

Again, pal, well done you guys!

DHL

[keylime]

1. Garbage Stayman with me.

2. Tough hand. It's MPs tho so there is a lot of consideration for pass here, but I wimp out and bid my xfer to 3C here (do you use five card majors in the 1NT?).

[kenrexford]

Hand #2 brings up an interesting treatment that I played for a couple of years.

One partner of mine and I realized that super-acceptances offered an interesting twist potential. We played that a transfer to a major had one wrinkle -- it could be based on a weak minor-major canape, something like this actual hand.

If partner super-accepted, we'd sign off at three of the major (or an occasional game bid). If partner did not super-accept, we'd bid three of a minor, which was a weak, drop-dead bid.

This required some additional shuffling of other bids, of course, but it made for a lot of fun. The alert and explanation itself was worth playing this, for a while.

My favorite instance of this convention was when partner super-accepted my "potential canape" transfer to hearts by bidding 3♦, showing a big super-acceptance with a fifth heart, and I signed off at 3♥. Talk about a lousy hand. No one got to hearts except us.

[655321]

1) Pass for me.

2) I like Stayman followed by 3♣NF after a non-2♥ response. If that is not available, I don't feel at all strongly about this hand - I can live with Pass, signoff to 3♣, or even Stayman then GF 3♣.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert I found hand one close, not easy. I can understand pass and I can understand 2c and then 2h. Partner may have 3 card major or 5 card major.

[cnszsun]

I don't know whether it's a good idea to garbage stayman with only 3♦s, especially when you have a decent hand. Partner could be 3325.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jul 22 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

The forum majority really stayman with hand 1?

It might be a bit early to call. Half of the electorate have only just woken up.

I'm not sure if the idea is to pass a 2♦ response, or to bid bid 2♥ over it, expecting partner to convert with 3=2 in the majors. The first of these is silly with so much strength; the second might be reasonable with better suits - eg KJ10x K109x xxx xx - but not with the actual hand.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Pass.
Why should 2M play better than 1NT?
We have at least 21HCP between us, I expect to
make +1 more oftn than -1.

#2 Pass
You are probably better of than the field,
you know, the power for game is not there, and
to beat 1NT+1 you need to make 3C+1.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

The second hand shows why it's useful to be able to show an invitational 4M-5m. If I can't do that, I'll sign off in clubs.

(If anyone saw my unedited response, that was before I'd noticed that the range was 14-16.)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-July-22, 03:17

[effervesce]

Jlall, on Jul 22 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

The forum majority really stayman with hand 1? I didn't find that one to be close, I think hand 2 is very interesting though.

I do think that something people don't think about with hands like hand 1 is that the opps will balance with some frequency, especially at MP, and that is good because if they get to a minor we can make a takeout double and still find a major suit fit and possibly penalize them, and if they find a major that rates to be good for us too on defense.

I assume you're passing? The probability that partner has a four card major is 52% - just enough to tip the favor for garbage stayman for me.

It's for hands like these at MPs garbage stayman was invented in the first place.

[gnasher]

effervesce, on Jul 22 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

The probability that partner has a four card major is 52% - just enough to tip the favor for garbage stayman for me.

That appears to assume that the average gain from finding a 4-4 major-suit fit is at least as great as the average loss from bidding Stayman and not finding a fit. Is it?

[Edmunte1]

1. Pass, not close for me.

2. Close between transfer in clubs and Stayman+2NT (considering Stayman+3♣ NF unavailable)

[FrancesHinden]

I wouldn't dream of doing anything but pass on the first hand.

But this is at least partly a reflection on ones opening 1NT policy. I hate opening 1NT with a 5-card major unless it's a really NTy hand. However, I like opening 1NT with a 6-card minor and a 6322 - so, for me, AQxxx Kxx Kxx Kx is a 1S opening (and my methods can cope with this by playing artificiality in the subsequent auction), but Kx Kxx AQxxxx Kx is a 1NT opening. I also only open 1NT with 5422s if I am going to have a rebid problem, and as my reverses are slightly lighter than the US style, that means only with a minimum 2=4=(52).

So when I see these calculations/simulations saying that the chance of finding a decent major suit fit after garbage stayman is 52%, I know they don't apply to me, because my 1NT openings are more minor-suit biased.

I dislike garbage stayman sufficiently that I don't actually play it with anyone.

[Apollo81]

1. Pass
2. 2♣, planning on either raising to 3♥ or rebidding 2NT

Second one is kind of a gamble, but I think the chance of finding a lucky heart or NT contract makes this action have a higher expected value than transferring to clubs and passing.

[ArtK78]

Pass on both hands.

The first one is easy. I have no idea why anyone would want to bid garbage stayman on that hand (assuming that we played it, and I do not). Notrump is fine, and it is matchpoints.

The second one is also matchpoint oriented. These types of hands often make a lot of tricks in notrump. It could be wrong to pass, but the potential gain for playing in notrump is significant.

[mikeh]

On the 1st one, I think the argument in favour of stayman is that we are playing a non-std range of 1N, and 14 counts are more frequent than 15-16, so we are at significant risk of missing a 4-4 fit easily found by those opening 1minor and getting a 1♥ response.

However, bidding garbage stayman because of (in whole or in part) this fear is fundamentally wrong. We chose 14-16 knowing that it was anti-field, and hoping that it (and the other adjustments flowing from it) would give us an edge in some auctions, and we presumably accepted that other auctions might become more problematic. Live with it or go back to 15-17: don't start second-guessing your methods every time a hand comes up that might be bad for your methods.

Moreover, who is to say that missing the major is bad, even if we have one?

And gnasher's point about the consequences of garbage stayman when there is no major is valid: my guess is that missing the major, when it costs, will cost about half a board while playing 2♦ on a 3-3 or 4-3 (or running to a bad 3-4 major) will cost more than that.

The second one is far more interesting. The hand is such that I don't think there is any way of intelligently solving the problem. I'd like to be playing 4 way transfers, because I'd risk 3N if he liked my suit. However, if he doesn't like my suit, I can easily see where +110 (assuming we make) is a bad result, when 120 is available to 1N. At mps, I pass, but I don't have to like it. At imps, I either blast game (I think that is a good shot... because I don't think that describing my hand will help much and it may give away too much info) or I involve partner via transfer.. playing 3♣ instead of 1N is no crime at imps.