[TimG]

SoTired, on Sep 16 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

Yes, this sort of study has been done; the information is useful to the defenders. It probably does not fully make up for the advantage of playing in the 44 fit. But, I think it is closer than most people think.

[Gerben42]

I can understand 1NT, it's not mainstream but not crazy.
I cannot understand not bidding Stayman. With this hand you should realize that the other tables go 1m : 1♥ so if partner has 4 as well, 3NT is completely way out there.

[Trumpace]

SoTired, on Sep 16 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get.

First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it.

Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you.

Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.

Maybe.

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

[MFA]

Trumpace, on Sep 17 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

SoTired, on Sep 16 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get.

First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it.

Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you.

Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.

Maybe.

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

The concept of deliberate swinging is so often misused badly, because players fail to realize how rarely the proper situations for it actually come up.

[NickRW]

Trumpace, on Sep 17 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

Maybe.

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

Well, what the OP actually said was "judged that things hadn't been going well so far". It kinda depends on what that really means. I used to go by feel and was often quite wrong. These days I actually note whether I think a board was good, bad or indifferent and keep a running count - much more accurate. Even so I can be plus or minus 3 or 4% at the end of an evening, sometimes more. On top of that swinging is generally losing bridge.

Soooooo, maybe I can forgive the lack of Stayman. But I wouldn't have done it.

Nick