Defence to intervention over Stayman

[1eyedjack]

The question is in 2 parts:

 

1) What do you think is standard (you are allowed to answer that there is no standard, but a choice of standards would be nice)?

2) What is your preferred method (by far the more important question, and definitely NOT restricted to a choice among standard methods)?

 

I am primarily interested in weak 1NT methods, if relevant. Stayman can usually include hands without a game try (ie pass any rebid or convert to major etc), and this undoubtedly complicates matters.

 

The situation is that you have opened 1NT. LHO passes. CHO bids 2C (Stayman), and RHO bids. What options are available to you (opener) and what do they mean? What, then, are the options open to responder and what do THEY mean?

 

Typical auction:

 

1N-(P)-2C-(2H)

??

 

At one extreme, it could be argued that opener should have available no option but to choose between pass and double. A penalty double of 2H is reasonably likely to be the right action. Looking at your own hand in isolation you may be penalty orientated and if double is for penalties then you have no problem. But if you are not penalty orientated then partner might yet be, and if you bid in front of him then that option is removed.

 

At the other extreme, you could take the view that a competent opponent who bid 2H is aware that it is a high risk occasion to intervene. You want your system to be robust against competent opponents. Against bad opponents you will still beat them (perhaps not by the maximum possible margin) by treating them as if they were good. You might reason that a competent opponent will not put his head in the noose too frequently without good reason and, if that is the case, a lucrative penalty double will be correspondingly rarer. To design your continuations in order to maximise the take against the low frequency of an imprudent overcall may not be an optimum use of available resources.

 

In all this it has to be acknowledged that the player who overcalls is likely to be making some assumptions about your defence to the overcall. His assumptions may be flawed, which complicates the issue. In an ideal world there would be complete disclosure of methods in good time to adjust your own methods to compensate for the likely continuations. If, for example, you anticipate that the opponents are ill prepared to penalise a bad overcall, you might make more bad overcalls despite being a good player. Something of a vicious circle, in system design, as in practice you will not know until after the hand what their defensive methods are, utopian ideals notwithstanding.

 

Once you concede that it may not be optimal practice to ensure that you take every penalty double available (which policy would dictate your either passing or doubling in direct seat), it opens up a world of possibilities. One of the reasons that I decided to promote this area for discussion is because in my experience, if the situation is undiscussed, opener will ALWAYS bid 2S in the above example auction if he has 4 of them. Actions may vary when he has fewer than 4 Spades, but my instinct is that always to bid 2S with 4 card suit may be less than ideal. The problem becomes even more acute if more bidding space is consumed by the opponents, say by a 2S overcall and you as opener have 4 Hearts. The finer points of the continuations are quite likely to vary according to the amount of space consumed by the overcall.

 

I have to say at this stage that I am not a fan of Stayman. In a regular partnership I would attempt to get out of playing it, but that is not always possible. When I do play Stayman I tend to include in that response any raise to 2N, which may not contain a 4 card major. That certainly complicates the continuations over intervention. If they overcall 2S and I hold 4 Hearts, then my options may be somewhat simpler if I know that partner holds a 4 card major. This (possibility of intervention) is in my view the strongest argument for enforcing a requirement that Stayman promises a 4 card major. Strongest, certainly, but strong enough? To date the fear of an overcall in the future has not featured enough to sway me, and the frequency of overcalls in the past has not dissuaded me from that view, so I am stuck with considering a method that copes with 2C potentially not holding a 4 card major. However, if the 2C bid contains less than a game invitation, then it will either be 3-suited short in Clubs or 2-suited in the majors. Unfortunately, if he is 3-suited short in Clubs he may yet only have 3 cards in the overcalled suit, so if you are hoping for compensating distribution where there is a lack of high cards, you may be disappointed.

 

On those hands where a penalty double is unlikely to be lucrative (or so it appears) then possibly the most important item of information that the opening partnership requires, in light of the overcall, is the adequacy of their combined guard in the enemy suit. Often it is the partner of the overcaller who will be on lead, which may be the primary reason for the overcall.

 

On those hands where a penalty double is likely to be lucrative it would be particularly helpful if you at least reach game, and have the mechanism to find the right game, if your methods do not allow you to double for penalties on the occasion in hand.

 

My own thoughts on this are rather immature at present. It is an area that perhaps does not receive the attention that it deserves.

 

My initial thoughts are:

 

1) Assume (initially) that responder has a game try. If you double for penalties on that assumption, then on those occasions where he has a weak hand you can assume that he has compensating trump length. That assumption will not always be justified (see above) but heck, you can't have everything.

 

2) Play Pass as forcing UNLESS responder has the weak hand type. That frees up a double as being for penalties.

 

3) So the problem is how to distinguish been Pass and Bid (other than double), and it seems sensible to distinguish on the basis of the adequacy of your guard in the enemy suit.

 

In the above example, I would suggest that bidding 2S should show a Heart guard, and pass should deny. Why? If partner has the guard you would rather he declared. Bit of a problem if you have (say) Axx guard and would still rather partner declared with Qx. If you apparently deny a guard then partner will get it wrong.

 

Arguing against the above suggestion, if you pass to show a guard (but not enough for a penalty double) then responder can double for penalties on perhaps a bit less in the trump suit than he would otherwise be comfortable with.

 

On the other hand, a direct bid to show a guard (and other features determined by the bid) removes from responder some problems of how to continue with a misfit. This is probably more important than placing the declaration in a suit contract (after all, the declaration of NT and Club contracts is already determined, and you don't want to play in the enemy suit, so that leaves only two denominations up for grabs).

 

Anyway, enough of my random thoughts, time to listen to what others play. Not least among my areas of doubt are the continuations by responder after opener passes (whatever you decide that means).

 

I concede the floor to my honourable peers.

[Free]

I prefer to keep the same line of thought (and logic) all through the system. Since we play takeout doubles almost everywhere, I like opener and responder using takeout doubles. The occasional big penalty might vanish in a NT contract at our side, but nothing is perfect.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I switched to TO doubles after we open 1NT. The number of penalties actually rose IMHO. It also made some difficult auctions better. "If' either hand has a penalty double, you may 'pass' and let partner double for you or 'if' you are worried about missing a game, you simply bid 3NT with game values. If non game values and a trump stack are held, you pass in tempo and partner will reopen with the dreaded TO double so that you may pass for penalty.

 

I very much like Stayman, however, I play a 'juiced' up version that shows shortness at the three level after opener bids. We try to avoid playing stopper less 3NT contracts and also seek out good 4-3 major and even some good minor games.

 

My initial reply

 

1) is that 'if' partner has invitational+ vaules, he will very likely reopen with a double 'if' you hold a penalty type 1NT opener. If partner holds the penalty type pass, opener will very likely be short and will make a TO double.

 

I generated a fair number of hands and garbage stayman seemed a fairly steady winner, however, I still do not play garbage stayman because it would cost me many other possible auctions that gain much more and occur somewhat more frequently.

 

2) pass is not played as forcing, since the TO double suggests shortness in the bid suit. If you have to double with game values and 3+ trumps and partner still passes for penalty. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[1eyedjack]

While both of the responders to date agree on direct double being for takeout, neither addresses the question of what a direct bid (ie, other than pass or double) by opener should mean, or even clarify whether such a bid is possible, and if it is possible, how it fits between the "takeout" hand types (on which you would double) and the "Penalty" hand types (on which you would trap pass). What, if anything, is implied about opener's holding in the opponent's suit if he bids, and can he (opener, that is) bid at the 3 level?

 

Take-out or penalty, either should "work" with approximately equal frequency and results, once you agree, and agreeing on a method that is consistent with the rest of your system therefore understandably takes priority. But the devil is in the detail, and what it means when you act otherwise than doubling or passing waiting for a double still needs to be honed down.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you opened a weak NT, and if the 2C

did not promise any strength at all, i

would doubt that any other bid than Pass

by opener is a sound strategy.

 

You have no reason to believe that the hand

belongs to your side and that you even

have the bal. of power.

This vulnerability is the price you pay to open

a weak NT and to bid 2C on nothing.

You have disrupted there bidding and made it hard

for them to decide how high they can go, be content

with that.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

Hi,

 

if you opened a weak NT, and if the 2C

did not promise any strength at all, i

would doubt that any other bid than Pass

by opener is a sound strategy.

 

You have no reason to believe that the hand

belongs to your side and that you even

have the bal. of power.

This vulnerability is the price you pay to open

a weak NT and to bid 2C on nothing.

You have disrupted there bidding and made it hard

for them to decide how high they can go, be content

with that.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

OK, I understand that as far as it goes. But then: what is meant by a protective double by the 2C Stayman bidder? Takeout? Penalty? Balance of power with 2 or 3 trumps?

Or a protective 2S bid by responder ie

1N - (P) - 2C - (2H)

P - (P) - 2S

Does this indicate the presence or absence of a Heart guard? Presumably at this stage it must be at least game invite or you would be happy to pass out 2H. But if a protective double is for take-out, is 2S even a possibility?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

OK, I understand that as far as it goes.  But then: what is meant by a protective double by the 2C Stayman bidder?  Takeout?  Penalty?  Balance of power with 2 or 3 trumps?

Or a protective 2S bid by responder ie

1N - (P) - 2C - (2H)

P  - (P) - 2S

Does this indicate the presence or absence of a Heart guard?  Presumably at this stage it must be at least game invite or you would be happy to pass out 2H.  But if a protective double is for take-out, is 2S even a possibility?

<snip>

Hi,

 

I would think, that dbl should cater

for the bal. hand with inv. strength+.

If you have enough for game, you

will have to look at vul. to decide which

offers you the best chance to earn most.

 

I would take 2S as just competitive,

say 5-4 in the mayors with a weak

hand.

2NT would be Lebensohl, however

you play, in effect forcing the partnership

to game.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: If one plays weak NT, playing dbl by

responder after a direct intervention as penalty

oriented is probably as good as anything else,

in my opionion playing a negative seq. makes

only sense with a strong NT, altough I wont state

how strong the NT has to be.

.

[Blofeld]

I would play:

 

Double with 4♠ (though perhaps not if I also held 4♥);

Bid 2♠ with five;

Pass otherwise.

 

As responder if opener passed I would play double as takeout-oriented, but happy for opener to pass with four or a chunky 3. 2♠ would be natural and invitational with, usually with 4♠ and short hearts unwilling to sit for penalties[1]. 2NT would be a GF hand with 4♠ unwilling to double. 3m would be whatever stayman+3m usually means in your no-trump structure.

 

[1] Unless Stayman includes invitational hands with 5+ spades, in which this bid is reserved for that handtype.