Help
Fluffy, on Jan 6 2010, 11:46 AM, said:
I disagree mike, 2♣ will be a fantastic improvement when we are very weak, we will get the entries to use those tenaces and won't have to play the suits from the strong hand.
On the other hand saying that finding a 4-4 major fit for partscore is an improvement over a 5-3 fit in clubs sounds foolish, when you don't find the major fit you are in heavy trouble, but when you end up palying 2♣ you are much better placed on a 5-2 fit.
The fact that 2♣ ain't stayman doesn't mean we cannot use 2♠ as stayman to find the proper game of course.
On the other hand saying that finding a 4-4 major fit for partscore is an improvement over a 5-3 fit in clubs sounds foolish, when you don't find the major fit you are in heavy trouble, but when you end up palying 2♣ you are much better placed on a 5-2 fit.
The fact that 2♣ ain't stayman doesn't mean we cannot use 2♠ as stayman to find the proper game of course.
I did not say and would not assert that there is no upside to 2♣ natural, anymore than I argued that one would look for a 4-4 major suit fit on hands on which 'if you don't find one, you are in heavy trouble'. We would, I expect, use stayman with weak hands only when intending to pass 2♦.
All systemic choices involve tradeoffs, and while the majority is not always right (if it were, no innovations would ever prosper since they start as minority choices), the fact that historically 2♣ was natural and the stayman usage supplanted that approach argues, strongly, that the totality of experience by tens of thousands of competent to expert players, over several decades, suggests that the stayman usage is better than the weak natural approach.
I don't think this is a good field for simulations, without a huge amount of effort, since the bidding decisions will be very subjective...when do we pull to 2♣ if natural, rather than play 1N? When do we bid 1N rather than double, etc?
