Frequent MP problem after 1NT opening

[bluecalm]

You have some hand with 4-4-2-3 shape and 4-7hcp. Say:

 

A832

JT52

T2

872

 

Your partner opens 1NT.

Your option are to pass or to stayman and bid 2♥ (choose a major, weak) after 2♦ and pass after 2M response.

 

Your style of opening 1NT is that partner opens 2-2-(4-5) shapes if hand is suitable (Hx Hx in short suits). As to 5 card majors you open 1NT if hand is suitable (5-3 in majors, very weak 5 card suit etc.). You don't open every 5M-3-3-2 with 1NT.

 

Do you prefer to pass or bid stayman with those hands ?

[gnasher]

I used to bid Stayman on this sort of hand, but now I don't. INT openings on 5422s and 6322s seem much more common than they used to be.

 

It sounds as though your style allows fewer offshape 1NT openings than most, so I suspect that Stayman is still right in your partnership.

[CSGibson]

pass. You are a balanced hand with half the deck, and the lead going into the strong hand. Play 1N like a man, dammit.

[aguahombre]

Not willing to give up what Stayman followed by 2H means in our style ---plus all the other things we would have to give up to play Crawling Stayman with different hands.

 

the only drop-dead Stayman we use is the old one which is willing to play 2D (very short in clubs).

[MarkDean]

I calculated the probability that partner has a four-five card major before. Obviously it depends on what hands you open, but in general, partner is in the 50-55% range to hold one if I remember correctly. However, taking in that the 44 fit won't always play better, a 4-3 fit may occassionally play better, and that the opponents might change behavior, I really do not have anywhere to go with that percentage. I usually pass: stayman is definitely more likely to be top/bottom.

[Siegmund]

The weaker your hand is, the more inclined you should be to use Stayman here.

 

If your agreement is that 1NT-2C-2D-2H is non-invitational with both majors, I think that's acceptable on these cards. You are basically gambling on opener having a 4-card major or having 3-2 in the majors (so that the 4-3 fit gains a trick via a ruff in the hand with only 3 trumps).

 

As already mentioned in the thread, that is a nonstandard agreement though it has a substantial following.

 

Edited to add:

It sounds as though your style allows fewer offshape 1NT openings than most, so I suspect that Stayman is still right in your partnership.

 

This is backwards. Opening fewer offshape notrumps makes using Stayman quite a lot less attractive -- 2254/2245 hands are bad for this responder, but the 4252 hands and all the hands with a 5-card major are major gains for using Stayman.

[gnasher]

This is backwards. Opening fewer offshape notrumps makes using Stayman quite a lot less attractive -- 2254/2245 hands are bad for this responder, but the 4252 hands and all the hands with a 5-card major are major gains for using Stayman.

Maybe.

 

(42)(52) shapes are good for using Stayman, but 22(54) and 22(63) shapes are disastrous.

 

If all of those shapes were excluded, we'd know that Stayman would lead to either a 4-4 fit (good), or a 4-3 fit (probably OK). If those shapes are included, we increase the chance of a gain, but also increase the chance of a disaster. So at the very least a looser 1NT style makes Stayman a higher variance action.

 

When I said "offshape", I wasn't incluidng hands with a five-card major (what's offshape about 5332?) I agree, though, that if some of these are excluded from 1NT that argues against bidding Stayman.

[JLOGIC]

IMO at MP you just want to do what the field does on this type of hand, which is (everywhere I have played) to pass. If your partner is a worse declarer than the field, you probably want to gamble and stayman.

 

Of course that is not an exact science, maybe your partner opens 1N more than the field and has won the board already by opening 1N on a 6 card minor or something (again in the fields I normally play it is very common for even average minus players to open 1N on 5332 with a 5 card major, more common than it is for those players to open 1N on a 6 card minor).

 

If most of the field started staymaning with this hand type (and I do notice more people doing so), I would start also.

[JLOGIC]

At imp scoring I really dislike stayman though. Even if you miss a 4-4 major suit fit you have half the deck and only have to take 7 tricks, 1N will often still make.

 

However if you land in a 4-3 fit (or worse!) having to take 8 tricks, your odds of making are much less than playing 1N with a 4-4 major suit fit imo.

 

Also, sometimes the opponents balance and you can defend 2 of a major whereas if you stayman they will not bid.

[nigel_k]

IMO at MP you just want to do what the field does on this type of hand, which is (everywhere I have played) to pass. If your partner is a worse declarer than the field, you probably want to gamble and stayman.

This is the answer on these kind of matchpoint problems.

 

Your partner is a better player than most of the field and the contract at most tables will be 1NT, which is a difficult contract to play and defend. So your expectation is about 65-70% if you pass. Even if you could improve the contract 60% of the time by bidding Stayman you probably shouldn't do so because at best you increase your 65% to 100% and you could convert your 65% to near zero if you bid Stayman and it's wrong.

 

Don't go against the field in the bidding unless you are fairly sure it is right. The lower the level of the contract, the more strongly this applies.

[hanp]

2C has the advantage that you might get to play the hand.

[jdonn]

I have tended to bid stayman on these but frankly found it work out badly most of the time. I think my sample is 6 or 7 hands which may not be enough to draw a conclusion, but I think now I only bid stayman if you make the hand more like AT9x JT8x Tx xxx.

[MFA]

I disagree almost entirely with the idea of trying to mastermind the field's decisions in specific bidding situations like this and then trying to copy them.

 

My perception of matchpoint bridge is that it's a game where the crowd will produce a swarm of different results, and even when some specific scores seem particularly popular on some board, there will often be many different routes to those scores.

 

So what I am trying to do is to achieve scores that are competitive against a whole range of results from the field. I try to get good scores through good bidding judgement as well as in the card play. I generally don't care much about what the field is doing since the diversity will often be too great anyway. As a consequence I would very rarely be scared of making "anti-field decisions" if I judge it's the right thing to do.

 

I think it's right to pass most of the hands in question and only use stayman with hands that are very oriented towards suit play in 2M. Often there will simply be more to lose than to gain by using stayman. 1NT could well be a reasonable contract even with a 4-4 fit in a major. Also in 1NT the chance of a defensive meltdown is often much greater than in 2M. On the other hand in 2M, if it's a bad contract, it will often be very bad with few second chances for a good result on the board.

[eyhung]

So what I am trying to do is to achieve scores that are competitive against a whole range of results from the field. I try to get good scores through good bidding judgement as well as in the card play. I generally don't care much about what the field is doing since the diversity will often be too great anyway. As a consequence I would very rarely be scared of making "anti-field decisions" if I judge it's the right thing to do.

MFA, I definitely agree with your philosophy to ignore the field when you have a clear judgement advantage. For example, I almost never bid Stayman with 4333 pattern, even though that might be slightly anti-field. However, I am convinced that it is a significant advantage to bypass Stayman with 4333. There are far more hands where you get a better score from avoiding the 4-4 fit/not telling the defense about opener's pattern/not letting them double Stayman for a lead-director than by finding a 4-4/5-4 fit which plays a trick better than notrump.

 

For this situation, though, it's not clear at all that Stayman is best here. You're essentially gambling that opener has a fit (around 50-60%), and if you are wrong, you are going to get a bad board. In that case, if your expectation from passing is 65-70% from good declarer play / worse balancing decisions by opponents, it seems poor to risk a bad board 40-50% of the time. You seem to agree with this. I just wanted to clarify that we are not sheep -- we can and will deviate if we think it's significantly +EV -- but here, I just don't think our advantage is significant enough to deviate.

[JLOGIC]

I disagree almost entirely with the idea of trying to mastermind the field's decisions in specific bidding situations like this and then trying to copy them.

I agree with this almost always and am usually the one preaching it. The biggest problems with trying to "go with the field" are:

 

1) People usually have no idea what the field will do

2) People don't know if something unusual has happened in their auction yet, so that the field doesn't have the same problem

3) The field sucks, so why would you try to do what they do if you can figure out something better?

 

That said, in a situation like this I feel like there is not much to choose from WRT stayman or passing. I have similar numbers to markdean (~48-54 % for partner having a 4+ card major, depending on your style). Probably if partner has a 4+ card major, stayman will win, and if he doesn't stayman will lose, minus a little because sometimes 1N will be better even with a 4-4 fit (but I think that's pretty rare with weakish hands and holding a doubleton, plus sometimes the 4-3 fit plays better than 1N).

 

So imo there is not much edge either way. Depending on the field and your country or whatever, there is also probably a very dominant NT range. Let's say I'm playing a regional pair game, or an NYC club game, I know at least 9 out of 10 pairs will be playing 15-17. I also know that in america, probably 8.5 out of 10 pairs will open 1N when holding a 5 card major.

 

So while it's possible partner has opened a "weird" 1N and we're not with the field, it's not clear that that gives an edge either way. Maybe he has 4225 or 5224 with strong doubletons and chose to bid 1N and stayman is right, or maybe he has a 6 card minor and passing is right, etc. Still not much edge there.

 

However, if we assume we are with the field already which seems reasonable in this instance (and if we're not, it's not clear what to do anyways and again I see not much edge in either bid), then we essentially have a coin flip that most other people will have.

 

So the last point is, we don't know what the field will usually do. However this auction is a very standard auction with a very standard situation. I am very confident that in all fields that I play in, passing is the standard solution with this hand.

 

Given all of this information I think this is a specific scenario where you can accurately guess the field, and even if something weird has happened with the 1N bid it's not clear which way is better to go so we can choose to ignore that.

 

It's pretty obvious to me that if you were given some idealized version of bridge on a literal 50-50 decision you would usually choose to stay with the field. I think this is a pretty close representation to that. Even if it's not literally 50-50, I don't think either choice can offer enough of an edge to compensate going against the field and risk eliminating much of your cardplay edge.

[nige1]

IMO at MP you just want to do what the field does on this type of hand, which is (everywhere I have played) to pass. If your partner is a worse declarer than the field, you probably want to gamble and stayman. Of course that is not an exact science, maybe your partner opens 1N more than the field and has won the board already by opening 1N on a 6 card minor or something (again in the fields I normally play it is very common for even average minus players to open 1N on 5332 with a 5 card major, more common than it is for those players to open 1N on a 6 card minor).  If most of the field started staymaning with this hand type (and I do notice more people doing so), I would start also.

It may or may not be good idea to use Stayman on this hand. IMO, however, unless you are doing well with few boards left, you should choose the bid with the best expectation at the current form of scoring. If you simply bid with the field, play with the field, and defend with the field, then you finish in a mediocre rut :(

[JLOGIC]

If you simply bid with the field, play with the field, and defend with the field, then you finish in a mediocre rut :(

Who said anything about playing and defending with the field? I would expect to win most events if every contract/auction/lead was standardized, and we started from there.

[nige1]

If you simply bid with the field, play with the field, and defend with the field, then you finish in a mediocre rut :(

Who said anything about playing and defending with the field? I would expect to win most events if every contract/auction/lead was standardized, and we started from there.

I did. If one choice has no clear advantage over another, then a good player should go with the field; but otherwise, what's so special about bidding? I don't understand this peculiar matchpoints strategy. Presumably, you think you have an edge in all areas of the game? Do you want to give opponents a sporting chance by willingly sacrificing one of your advantages? :)

[hanp]

Trolltime!

[JLOGIC]

Trolltime!

lol

[jdonn]

JLOGIC is a slightly below average bidder so he is just consolidating his immense play advantage.

[awm]

Perhaps an additional question is, suppose that you know you play a non-standard notrump range. So the "rest of the field" will not likely have this decision. Does this effect your action?

[NickRW]

If you play strong NT in EBU land or weak in ACBL land, then you will for sure notice some swings in your favour where you've found a 44 major fit and the field hasn't - and also some swings against you where you didn't find the fit everyone else did. However, if you make such an 'antifield' choice in your bidding system then presumably you did it because you thought it was better - or at least that you were more comfortable with it - so live with your choice instead of trying to make up for the possible downside once in a while - IMO.

 

Nick

[Cascade]

JLOGIC is a slightly below average bidder so he is just consolidating his immense play advantage.

Is he from North America?

[helene_t]

If one choice has no clear advantage over another, then a good player should go with the field; but otherwise, what's so special about bidding? I don't understand this peculiar matchpoints strategy. Presumably, you think you have an edge in all areas of the game? Do you want to give opponents a sporting chance by willingly sacrificing one of your advantages? ;)

You have an edge in terms of avoiding stupid mistakes that are very unlikely to gain.

 

You may also have an edge in terms of getting the 51/49 decisions right but those are subject to fluctuations so a sensible strategy is to go with the field when it comes to close decisions, but deviate from the field by making fewer stupid can-only-lose mistakes.

 

The "go with the field" theme can come up in opening leads, defense and declarer play also, but only if you can assume that the field will be facing the the same choice as you do. A first seat opening is a choice the whole field will be facing so here you can chose to go with (or against) the field if you know the field well. As the bidding (and play) progresses, going with the field becomes less and less of an issue.