[bluenikki]

1. Is redouble business? If so, what kind of club suit? I'm sure I told somewhere in the forum of my dumb double of a 2♦ transfer bid (fifty years ago in a relatively important match); redoubled making 4.

2. What kind of diamond suit justifies 2♦ instead of pass?

[DavidKok]

People play all sorts of different methods here. There is no universal answer on what to play.
Compared to a double of a Jacoby transfer, a double of Stayman is more complicated too. No suit has been singled out, and if we may want to play 2♣X (or maybe redoubled) then all four strains are in play.

A simple option is to ignore the double and bid as normal. This is not best, but has the advantage of avoiding big understandings. If sixth seat chooses to raise the clubs though, you may have to improvise.
A more complicated option is to show stoppers - bids as normal, while pass denies a club stopper and redouble can be something special (such as an offer to play). Responder can, if still interested, ask again by redoubling if opener passes. This has a benefit of giving some siding advantages in the major suits, but can lead to confusion if responder chooses not to repeat the question but instead wants the lead up to them.
There are other popular schemes too, so unfortunately you'll have to pick one and stick with it.

[johnu]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-17, 14:31, said:

1. Is redouble business? If so, what kind of club suit?

I play redouble as clubs and suggests playing the redoubled contract. This occurred a few years ago. I had ♣AQ108 and redoubled. Partner had a doubleton club, and a 3NT invitational type hand. 2♣ redoubled making 3 for a top board. The 2♣ bidder went away muttering that he shouldn't have doubled.

[apollo1201]

I play that XX is business too. The rest of the « system »:
- 2D: decent 5 (or 6😁😁)-cd suit, no M, no C stopper
- 2M: that M and wants to play the hand (so a C stopper)
- 2NT: no M, C well stopped
- 3C: both M

Otherwise pass, then if resp XXes to re-ask, 2M = the other M to make resp declarer in a M contract and protect their potential C holding on the lead.

Similar for transfer being Xed except that resp can be broke so playing 2XX is risky so is no longer business:
- XX: 3-cd fit, no stopper (resp plays the hand)
- 2M: 3-cd fit and desire to have the lead
- 3M-1: 4-cd and not min, no stop
- 3M: 4-cd and not min, wants to play

Pass is 2-cd and resp can re transfer with XX if they do not want to play.

One could wonder what to do with Ax(x) in the Xed suit, pretending not to stop or declare.

[bluenikki]

 apollo1201, on 2026-January-18, 16:56, said:

Similar for transfer being Xed except that resp can be broke

Stayman responder can be broke also. That's why the auction after ... (Dbl) - P - (P) - ? needs discussion.

[apollo1201]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-19, 04:40, said:

Stayman responder can be broke also. That's why the auction after ... (Dbl) - P - (P) - ? needs discussion.

Yes, we have all done it with (34)51 and not much but it does not come so often. If you play garbage Stayman, it should probably be changed to cater very very NF calls by responder

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2026-January-22, 15:07, said:

If you play garbage Stayman, it should probably be changed to cater very very NF calls by responder

The term garbage Stayman continues to make my hair stand on end. Surely everyone "plays" it unless they have specifically agreed not to.

(Edit) To clarify. When partner is sharply limited, the only reason *not* to back your judgment by passing *at any time* is to cater to partner's irrational preference.

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2026-January-25, 05:28, said:

The term garbage Stayman continues to make my hair stand on end. Surely everyone "plays" it unless they have specifically agreed not to.

(Edit) To clarify. When partner is sharply limited, the only reason *not* to back your judgment by passing *at any time* is to cater to partner's irrational preference.

I have great news for you: some people (myself included) take 'Garbage Stayman' to mean the convention where, if partner opens 1NT, we can bid 2♣ and pull 2♦ to 2-of-a-major showing a weak hand with both majors but preference for the one we bid. This is in contrast to 'Crawling Stayman', where only pulling to 2♥ is weak and is ambiguous about the preferred major (whereas pulling to 2♠ shows something else), and also in contrast to 'bid Stayman with the intent to pass any response', which 'everybody' plays. However, the 'everybody' has to be in quotes, because there are also (for example) Stayman versions where opener is allowed to respond past 2♠ immediately, which doesn't combine well with desiring to run to a 2-of-a-suit contract.

Historically people have assigned any of these names to any of these threatments, so (as always) it's a naming mess. Just explain the actual (standard) treatment and the two possible conventions, and explain which you prefer.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-January-25, 06:01, said:

I have great news for you: some people (myself included) take 'Garbage Stayman' to mean the convention where, if partner opens 1NT, we can bid 2♣ and pull 2♦ to 2-of-a-major showing a weak hand with both majors but preference for the one we bid. This is in contrast to 'Crawling Stayman', where only pulling to 2♥ is weak and is ambiguous about the preferred major (whereas pulling to 2♠ shows something else), and also in contrast to 'bid Stayman with the intent to pass any response', which 'everybody' plays. However, the 'everybody' has to be in quotes, because there are also (for example) Stayman versions where opener is allowed to respond past 2♠ immediately, which doesn't combine well with desiring to run to a 2-of-a-suit contract.

Historically people have assigned any of these names to any of these threatments, so (as always) it's a naming mess. Just explain the actual (standard) treatment and the two possible conventions, and explain which you prefer.

I fear you are adding to the naming mess here

We could discuss whether Crawling Stayman uses both 2M bids (what you call Garbage Stayman) or 2H only, but as I see it they are both variants of Crawling Stayman, whichever of the two is considered the original. Whereas there is universal agreement (at least in every document I can find) that Garbage Stayman is simply bidding 2C with the intention to pass any reply.

The naming mess as I see it is that some people (and documents) erroneously use the name Garbage Stayman for what is actually Crawling Stayman.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2026-January-25, 07:06, said:

I fear you are adding to the naming mess here

We could discuss whether Crawling Stayman uses both 2M bids (what you call Garbage Stayman) or 2H only, but as I see it they are both variants of Crawling Stayman, whichever of the two is considered the original. Whereas there is universal agreement (at least in every document I can find) that Garbage Stayman is simply bidding 2C with the intention to pass any reply.

The naming mess as I see it is that some people (and documents) erroneously use the name Garbage Stayman for what is actually Crawling Stayman.

What conceivable purpose is giving a name to "garbage Stayman"?

[pescetom]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-25, 07:28, said:

What conceivable purpose is giving a name to "garbage Stayman"?

I agree it was inappropriate to consider it a convention, rather than just a useful consequence of a three reply Stayman convention, but that's the way it went and there is little point in trying to redefine the term now.

If we need a name for Crawling Stayman with both 2H and 2S bids possible, how about Two-way Crawling Stayman.