[laughter]

Let start with a quote of Michael Rosenberg:

'What is the purpose of bidding? To arrive at the best contract, yes. But what is the best contract? The one that will produce the best result on average - in practice.

When the bidding is over, you should then be sorry about every piece of accurate information you have provided - only the opponents can benefit now...

Even a convention such as Stayman, which most players view as essential, seems to me to be of doubtful value on balanced hands. Most of the time you will not uncover a fit (especially when you only have one major), and when you do your result may not be superior. When you don't (you give away information of the concealed hand)(and allows the opponent to come in)'

It teaches me that you can't just evaluate a convention based on its performance in handling the problem hands.

With added efficiency to the convention, there are added costs like unnecessary information provided to opponents (since you get to explore), memory burden, damaged structures (as you have to use the originally available sequences for artificial purpose).

An antedote that is very funny (yet revealing):
'The expert relayed for many rounds, discovering the exact distribution and high card content of partner's hand, and discovered the best spot: 3NT. Alas, he can't bid it as the bidding is now at 4S.'

Therefore, when we are discussing 'what is the best convention', maybe it is fair to state your own evaluation criteria. If you value highly concealment and bidding economy, maybe the best to you is different from Meckwell.

[luis]

I'm not sure about what was the intention of the poster but I can only say
that I can't answer without being charged of being rude.

[laughter]

I was browsing through those 'what the best conventions' and 'what the best NT defences'.
Many posters just posted their favorite methods and made some obvious comments like this bid can describe such and such.
Obviously a good way of boosting.
Hardly illuminating though.
While one may have great success playing his favorite, perhaps some more analysis of the methods' advantages over others and these methods' costs can be added to enrich our understanding of bidding.
Sorry for just posting a message without clarifying my intent.
I want to ask how you guys evaluate your conventions and come out with the conclusion that this is the best.

[paulhar]

At the risk of posting yet one more unpopular opinion , I agree with everything you said in the original post.

[Rebound]

As do I. Of course, the cost-benefit ratio of a given convention to a particular partnership depends as much on how well it fits with exisiting methods and treatments being used by the partnership, as it does on what it actually does and how well. A trap many find themselves in is to adopt a particular convention because it answers a particular need without giving thought to its impact on the rest of their bidding structure.

That having been said, I see nothing wrong with favoring a particular method and espousing it in public, hopefully for the benefit of others. It's no different than posting on board elsewhere about the great movie you saw. No two film buffs will have the same "top 10 of all time list." But most knowledgeable movie addicts will agree on general quality.

[EricK]

Certainly Terence Reese was against bidding stayman on balanced hands.

What happens a lot in practice is this:

1NT 3NT. Field is in 3NT, everyone makes the same number of tricks partner doesn't comment.

1NT 3NT. Field is in 3NT, you make an overtrick because of your bidding, partner doesn't comment

1NT 3NT. Field is in 4M and get a better score, partner moans at you for not using Stayman.

So next time

1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3NT

Eric

[BridgeBuff]

Don't knock Stayman! LOL. Stayman is quite useful. Hands with 4=4 major fits generally play better in the suit-fit. Generally. There will always be exceptions, but over the long term, a partnership who looks for those fits will do better than one that doesn't. If your partner complains about some specific result, he's a dunce.

As a rule with modest to good partnership assets, play in your 4=4 fits. But when the combined holdings are very strong, maybe 28+, then it is better to play in NT because now a bad trump split can hurt the suit contract, whereas the NT contract has enough tricks on power.

With 5=3 fits it is reversed. Play your skinny 23-25 point 5=3 fits in 3NT because 9 tricks are easier than 10. More than that, usually the suit-fit produces a slightly better result.

There are matchpoint/IMP implications as well.

[EricK]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 31 2004, 05:00 AM, said:

Don't knock Stayman! LOL. Stayman is quite useful. Hands with 4=4 major fits generally play better in the suit-fit. Generally. There will always be exceptions, but over the long term, a partnership who looks for those fits will do better than one that doesn't. If your partner complains about some specific result, he's a dunce.

As a rule with modest to good partnership assets, play in your 4=4 fits. But when the combined holdings are very strong, maybe 28+, then it is better to play in NT because now a bad trump split can hurt the suit contract, whereas the NT contract has enough tricks on power.

With 5=3 fits it is reversed. Play your skinny 23-25 point 5=3 fits in 3NT because 9 tricks are easier than 10. More than that, usually the suit-fit produces a slightly better result.

There are matchpoint/IMP implications as well.

But the point is not what works in principle, but what works in practice.

Even ignoring the hands with a 4-4 fit where 3NT makes and 4M doesn't, there is still the issue of misdefense due to your not having revealed your or opener's hands to the opps. This could happen on the hands where you do have a fit, but also on the hands where you don't.

How do you factor this into the calculations of which method is better?

Eric

[luke warm]

i agree, i've seen a lot of really good players bid a direct 3nt with 3334 hands, or even 4234, with a 4 pc major without going thru stayman... never with both majors tho... i have to assume that in their judgment it is better to hide distributional clues and risk missing 4M on these hands

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 31 2004, 01:07 PM, said:

i agree, i've seen a lot of really good players bid a direct 3nt with 3334 hands, or even 4234, with a 4 pc major without going thru stayman... never with both majors tho... i have to assume that in their judgment it is better to hide distributional clues and risk missing 4M on these hands

Quick comment

The number of tricks that a 4-4 fit provides in a trump contract versus a NT contract is a function of the strength on the hands. Holding 24-26 HCP, its best to look for the major suit fit. Holding ~28-29 HCP, its often best to just bid 3NT.

[pbleighton]

1) With a 4333 shape, I never use Stayman.
2) As a couple of posters have mentioned, 3NT can be the best place with 28+ points, so with a 4 (but not a decent 5) card major and extra values I frequently go direct to 3NT, especially at MPs. With a decent 5 card major I always wish to hear a super-accept from partner

Some pairs at my club frequently bypass Stayman at MPs, even with a shortage and without extra values, to try to get a top. They are generally pretty good players. What do you think of this strategy? It seems to me to be "first place or bust", not that this is necessarily bad, if that is what you want.

Peter

[whereagles]

Well, the Keri structure is handy to solve the problem of Stayman on 4333 hands. With, say,

Axx....xxx
AJxx...KQxx
Axx....Kxx
Kxx....QJx

Stayman:
1NT 2C
2H ...4H. After all, pard could have Axx AJxx xx AKxx, no?

Keri:
1NT 2C
2D 2NT
3D 3NT

with 2C, 2D, 2NT relays, and 3D showing any 4333. No point in trying for 4H now.

With the above Axx AJxx xx AKxx, Keri would have bid

1NT 2C
2D 2NT
3C 3D
3H 4H

3C showed a 4432 or 5m332. 3D asks for 4-card major and the right game is reached.

[Free]

Bidding game is easy, but what do you do when weak? Or constructive opposite a minimum partner? Can NT opener have a 5 card M?

Stayman is nice, but you don't always have to use it...

[Gerben47]

I agree with Free (seems to happen a lot lately).

Stayman is important enough to give up the 2♣ bid as natural, but the decision whether or not to use it is yours.

Rebuttal on Stayman vs Keri:

Stayman:

1NT - 2♣
2♥- 2♠ (Relay)
3NT (3433) - Pass

With Axx AJxx xx AKxx we would bid:

1NT - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠ (Relay)
2NT (4-card ♣) - 4♥
Pass

WTP?
(2NT instead of 2♠ would've been invitation with 4♠, invitational hands without majors do NOT bid Stayman)

Gerben

[helene_t]

I think the issue of the "best" convention or system is very subjective. Sure, when I read a 50-year old book on Culbertson or Vienna, or conventions like Fishbein and limited negative doubles, I can see that bidding theory has improved. But since the 70's progress has been so marginal that nobody can tell which of the modern systems is better. Computer simulations may give an objectie clue but what is optimal for a computer may not be optimal for everybody.

Our preferences for systems and conventions may be shaped by the same factors that shape our preference for political or religious ideas, or for brandnames. I may like Precission because I like Chinese culture in general and I may dislike Multi because my first experience with that convention took place on a day when I was in a bad mood for some non-bridge reason.

[paulhar]

EricK, on Aug 30 2004, 11:12 PM, said:

1NT 3NT. Field is in 4M and get a better score, partner moans at you for not using Stayman.

Maybe you should choose your partners more wisely. (I'm being serious.) Playing with a results player is bad for your bridge.

[whereagles]

That's easier said than done. Finding a good partner is very hard. Most people are too conflictuous to play bridge as a partnership.

[EricK]

paulhar, on Aug 31 2004, 04:19 PM, said:

EricK, on Aug 30 2004, 11:12 PM, said:

1NT 3NT. Field is in 4M and get a better score, partner moans at you for not using Stayman.

Maybe you should choose your partners more wisely. (I'm being serious.) Playing with a results player is bad for your bridge.

I am not saying what happens in my partnerships, but the sort of thing that seems to happen a lot in other partnerships.

One bad result and they add a convention or drop a convention or change their style or whatever.

Eric

[luke warm]

i'll play with 'resulting' players a few times... but a resulting partner is a different animal... to me it's a bad habit and shows a lack of bridge understanding...