What is Garbage Stayman?

[paulg]

Many moons ago, when I started playing, I was taught Stayman. There were only three responses with 2♦ denying a major. If I bid 2♥ over 2♦, then this showed a weak hand.

 

This is what I call Stayman.

 

I see a lot of people now play a convention called Garbage Stayman but I have yet to spot any difference between their methods and mine. Presumably there is?

 

If there is no difference, then presumably the standard version of Stayman is different from mine and I wondered what it was?

 

Or is Garbage Stayman a derogatory term created by the Puppet Stayman crowd :)

 

Seeking enlightenment,

 

Paul

[Walddk]

Garbage Stayman is used by a very weak responder with spades, hearts and diamonds, with the intention of passing any response opener delivers. The ideal hand is something like

 

xxxx

Jxxx

Jxxxx

-

 

Trying to improve the contract. No guarantee of a fit even with the hand above.

 

Roland

[paulg]

Garbage Stayman is used by a very weak responder with spades, hearts and diamonds, with the intention of passing any response opener delivers.

And how is that different from Stayman?

 

Or does normal Stayman imply some values that may be useful in a competitive auction?

 

p

[Walddk]

Garbage Stayman is used by a very weak responder with spades, hearts and diamonds, with the intention of passing any response opener delivers.

And how is that different from Stayman?

 

Or does normal Stayman imply some values that may be useful in a competitive auction?

 

p

As I learned (and play) Stayman, it promises at least invitational values. I guess most play the same; hence the term "Garbage Stayman" when you have nothing and intend to pass the response you get.

 

Roland

[kenberg]

I have a partner who says we play garbage stayman. As I understand it, in addition to the usual business of possibly passing any response to 2C, including diamonds, there is also the possiblity of 1N-2C-2C-2H on 4-4 in the majors and a diamond holding not suitable for passing. Thus, over the 2H bid you pass holding three hearts, an convert to spades if you hold two hearts and three spades.

 

When I say partner says we play this I mean that I understand what is expected of me when she bids this way. The other day I had, opposite her nt, a 4-4-2-3 hand with one jack. I passed. I once learned you don't rescue partners who haven't been doubled, and that has always seemed like good advice.

[Finch]

Stayman has developed slightly differently in some parts of the world.

 

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima. This makes some sense, because the 2C Stayman bid is played as promising at least invitational values. In England this form of Stayman is effectively unknown (and the 2C response to 1NT is alertable).

 

The version of Stayman where responder may have a 0-count & is trying to improve the contract is thus to 'garbage Stayman' to distinguish it from 'inv+ values Stayman'.

 

There are also two versions of 'Garbage' Stayman, relating to the meaning of the auction 1NT - 2C - 2D - 2H. Once method, again more popular in the US, is that 2H is often 4-4 in the majors, and opener is expected to convert to 2S with 3-2. (Under this method, 1NT - 2C - 2D - 2S can mean various possible things). The other approach, the one I was brought up with in England, is that 1NT - 2C - 2D - 2_either_major is simply to play in that major, likely to be 4-5 in the majors, but also possibly something like 3=5=4=1 gambling out that a 4-3 (or maybe even 5-3) spade fit is better than a 5-2 or 5-3 heart fit.

[helene_t]

According to Bergen's "Points Schomints", Roland's example is Garbage Stayman while Kenberg's example is Crawling Stayman. Not sure how standard that terminolohy is.

 

Anyway, I think most people learn to play garbage stayman. Even if it's not mentioned in the textbook that stayman can be used with weak hands, you can still use it as long as the response of 2NT (whatever that is supposed to mean) exists. So there's no difference between stayman and garbage stayman, unless stayman is taken from some old textbook.

 

Crawling Stayman, on the other hand, is based on a special agreement.

[Walddk]

1N - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥

 

as 4-4 in the majors, weak (pass or correct with 3-2) is part of Benito Garozzo's NT system. I have never heard the term "Crawling Stayman". It's probably an americanised translation of something Garozzo never said :)

 

Roland

[paulg]

Despite my years of playing on-line bridge with the world, I'd never appreciated that a large number had been showing invitational values with their initial Stayman 2♣ bid. Perhaps I should have been more judicious with my overcalls!

 

My upbringing was the same as Frances', albeit a few years earlier, and I expect that UK methods were influenced by the weak 1NT. As you are more likely to have the minority of points opposite a weak notrump than a strong one, the methods were more focused on getting out of trouble than being constructive. Hence (Garbage) Stayman was the only staymanic method in common use.

 

Paul

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

One should always ask, what one understands under

the name Stayman, For me:

 

Stayman: ask for 4 card mayor, promising inv.+ values,

creating a forcing pass seq. in case they compete

over 2C

2 NT as an answer by opener to show both mayor

is now an option

Garbage Stayman: ask for 4 card mayor, but responder

does not promise any values, he intends to pass

any responds by opener, responder will usually be

4-4-4-1 or 4-4-5-0, any new bid by responder

e.g. 2H over 2D shows inv. values

=> If one plays weak NT without transfer and without

2-way stayman, than the seq.

1 NT - 2C

2 D - 2H

shows inv. values with 5 hearts

Crawling Stayman: ask for 4 card mayor, but responder

does not promise any values, responder intends

to bid 2H over 2D to show a weak hand with 4-4

in the mayor, to ask for openers 3 card mayor,

2S shows a weak hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts

 

Playing Garbage / Crawling Stayman makes it a little bit harder

to create a forcing seq. below 3NT, in case responder is looking

for a small slam in one of the mayors, but one reaches the better

partial, in case responder is broke.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

Crawling Stayman? Sounds like a disease or maybe a weed.

 

What I actually like playing is this:

 

2C promises either at least invitational values or else at least four cards in each major. That way, if partner has opened 1N on a five card major and a non-minimum he can rebid 3M. If I only have one major, and it isn't his, then I will have invitational values and can bid 3NT over his 3M. If I am short of points then I will have both majors so we will have some LOTT protection for our three level contract.

 

I like 1N-2C-2D-2H to be five hearts, four spades, weak and I like 1N-2C-2D-2S to be five spades, four hearts and invitational.

 

The reason for the difference is this: If I, as responder, hold five hearts and four spades invitational then I can transfer to hearts and rebid 2S. If I hold five spades and four hearts invitational the corresponding transfer sequence doesn't work, at least not very well. So holding that hand I start with 2C and over 2D I rebid 2S.

 

It's true that playing this way you just give up on hearts and transfer to spades when you are 5-4 weak (long spades) but I accept that.

 

Crawling Stayman (now that I have learned the name) has its advocates and I suppose it has merit. It's just my general view that bridge is easier if you actually have something when you bid.

 

 

Btw: I accept that Crawling is the correct modifier for what I describe, but in my experience it's what folks mean when they say Garbage Stayman. As said in the

original post, bidding 2C intending to pass any response including diamonds is not new and needs no special name. You can find it in Goren.

[MickyB]

I like 1N-2C-2D-2H to be five hearts, four spades, weak and I like 1N-2C-2D-2S to be five spades, four hearts and invitational.

 

The reason for the difference is this: If I, as responder, hold five hearts and four spades invitational then I can transfer to hearts and rebid 2S. If I hold five spades and four hearts invitational the corresponding transfer sequence doesn't work, at least not very well. So holding that hand I start with 2C and over 2D I rebid 2S.

Why not make all invites with 5♠ bid Stayman then 2♠? It's not like 1N:2♣, 2♥:2♠ is particularly useful for anything else, and it's nice to be able to stay at the 2 level. This also frees up 1N:2♥, 2♠:2N for transfer extensions or something else of your choice.

[Walddk]

Why not make all invites with 5♠ bid Stayman then 2♠? It's not like 1N:2♣, 2♥:2♠ is particularly useful for anything else

Many will disagree with you. Two camps:

 

1N - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

Forcing with 4 spades.

 

.....

 

1N - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

Invitational *without* 4 spades.

 

I prefer the latter and let 2NT be invitational *with* 4 spades. This way opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

[MickyB]

IMO, it is terrible to put an invite with no 4cM through Stayman when playing a 3 point range 1NT opening; If I don't have a way of inviting without giving a huge amount of information to the opponents, I'd much rather just choose between passing 1NT and bidding 3NT.

 

Having said that, I'm sure there are still other uses for that sequence, e.g. using 2♠ as 4♠5+m invitational (typically quite light on HCP) and 2N as a balanced invite with 4♠; However, I still don't think this is as useful as having 2♠ as a 5 card invite.

[Walddk]

IMO, it is terrible to put an invite with no 4cM through Stayman when playing a 3 point range 1NT opening.

Tell that to all those who play 4-way transfers. They won't agree with you (I am one of those).

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

IMO, it is terrible to put an invite with no 4cM through Stayman when playing a 3 point range 1NT opening.

Tell that to all those who play 4-way transfers. They won't agree with you (I am one of those).

 

Roland

The 2 points aren't necessarily related:

 

Playing 4 suited transfer does not require putting invitational hands without a 4 card major into the Stayman sequence. There are plenty of folks who prefer to eschew quantitative invites altogether and either bid 3NT or pass 1NT.

[Walddk]

There are plenty of folks who prefer to eschew invitational sequences altogether and either bid 3NT or pass 1NT.

True, but I can't see how responder is in a position to judge whether we should play 1NT or 3NT when he holds an 8 or 9 count. I am not a subscriber to the theory that we should discard invitational sequences.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

IMO, it is terrible to put an invite with no 4cM through Stayman when playing a 3 point range 1NT opening.

Tell that to all those who play 4-way transfers. They won't agree with you (I am one of those).

 

Roland

I play 4-suit transfers, and agree with Mike. Just pass or bid game with no 4-card major.

 

Btw, in a standard system, I think inverting 2S and 2N after 1N-2C-2H is a clear sign of over-eager right-siding anxiety. If you bid 2S with 4 of them, you have the advantage of playing in 2S instead of 3S when opener has 4 spades but a bad hand.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

There are plenty of folks who prefer to eschew invitational sequences altogether and either bid 3NT or pass 1NT.

True, but I can't see how responder is in a position to judge whether we should play 1NT or 3NT when he holds an 8 or 9 count. I am not a subscriber to the theory that we should discard invitational sequences.

 

Roland

I'm perfetly willing to accept that providing opener with quantitative information is better than nothing.

 

However, I think that there are much better ways to use the available real estate than a quantitative invite.

 

If we specifically look at auctions like

 

1N - 2C

2M - 2N

 

I'd rather use this as a transfer to clubs

[Elianna]

Why not make all invites with 5♠ bid Stayman then 2♠? It's not like 1N:2♣, 2♥:2♠ is particularly useful for anything else

Many will disagree with you. Two camps:

 

1N - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

Forcing with 4 spades.

 

.....

 

1N - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

Invitational *without* 4 spades.

 

I prefer the latter and let 2NT be invitational *with* 4 spades. This way opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

A third camp:

 

1NT - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

Is INVITATIONAL with 4 spades (as opposed to forcing). That's what Adam and I play, and what I've seen many experts in the LA area play.

 

As for how conventions that are the same get different names, or how different conventions get the same name, that's not too surprising. This happens all the time in English.

 

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

 

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

[mike777]

GEEZ Folks, if we cannot even agree on how to respond to stayman and responder has a wide range of possible rebids, many of which are subject to varying interpretations how can we agree to play any system with a pick up partner without detailed discussion.. We all know stayman is the last thing we would ever discuss :P

 

The Bridge Encyclopedia has almost a full page of tiny print on all the possible, generally accepted ways to bid basic stayman. :(

[Mr. Dodgy]

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

 

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger.

 

One of the conventions espoused was 'Extended Stayman', with the following response scheme by opener after 1N-2♣:

 

2♦ - Minimum, both Majors

2♥ - Minimum, ♥s only

2♠ - Minimum, ♠s only

2N - Minimum, neither Major

3♣ - Maximum, neither Major

3♦ - Maximum, both Majors

3♥ - Maximum, ♥s only

3♠ - Maximum, ♠s only

 

I realise that this is NOT a common method, indeed it seems almost unknown outside of Australia (but not uncommon here - the ABF CC even has a checkbox for it). I like it.

 

There's a variant which swaps the meanings of 3♣ and 3♦

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Justin

[Elianna]

In some places (bits of the US, for example, I think) there are more than 3 possible responses to the 2C Stayman response: opener is allowed to bid 2NT or higher with various maxima.

 

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger.

You're right, I should have said, any AMERICAN bridge book. :P

 

I had originally typed in "bridge textbook", and I was in the mindset of beginner bridge books that my beginner bridge players show me. I was thinking about the Audrey Grant suit-series, and books of that nature.

[Walddk]

Beginners have enough problems with having three options to one question.

 

Q: Do you have a 4-card major?

 

A1: No.

A2: Yes, and maybe also ....

A3: Yes, but not ....

 

Then add that in the old days people reversed the 2♥ and 2♠ responses ... well, we reversed the responses rather. As I'm sure most of you recall, it used to be:

 

A2: Yes, but not ....

A3: Yes, and maybe also ...

 

If you introduced Klinger's method, you would surely make all beginners (and intermediates too for that matter) give up.

 

Roland

[barmar]

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away.

I don't know if it's written up anywhere, but if I open 1NT with a maximum and a 5-card major, I'll jump to 3 of the major in response to a Stayman inquiry. If partner has a weak hand with 4-4 majors (i.e. he was planning on using crawling Stayman, or passing 2♦ if he also had 4-5 ♦) then we'll be in a 9-card fit and it shouldn't be too bad. If he has the more usual invitational or better hand he'll know where to go.

 

This isn't something I've ever discussed in advance with any partners, but bridge logic usually suffices for them to figure out what I'm doing. The same is not necessarily true for the crawling Stayman auction. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of 1NT-2♣-2♦-2Maj is that responder is 5-4 and was using Stayman to find a fit in the 4-card suit, and now he's showing his longer suit. And with some of my regular partners I play this as an invitation version of Smolen.