Re-Stayman

[Phil]

I was kibitzing yesterday and a friend asked me about this auction:

 

1N - 2♣

2♦ - 3♣

 

and she referred to it as "Re-Stayman". I was embarrassed to admit that I had never heard of it before.

 

Apparently 3♣ is an artificial inquiry about opener's minor suit length, although I am unsure as to the responses.

 

Does anyone play it? Is it worth giving up a natural 3♣? How would you now play 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦?

[manudude03]

I don't play it nor would I ever. I think the responses are:

 

3D= (23)44

3H= 5+ clubs

3S= 5+ diamonds

3NT= 33(34)

 

1NT-2C-2D-3D then asks for a 3 card major (I think it's called "Extended Stayman").

[MickyB]

I have played it in one partnership that might be described as semi-regular. My partner, who suggested it, is from Romania, I have not seen it played by anyone else in the UK. Afraid I can't remember the responses, but playing this as asking seems wrong, on the principle that unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands.

[mgoetze]

I thought "Re-Stayman" is 1NT-p-2♣-X-p-p-XX

[mohitz]

This is a very popular treatment in India. Personally, I don't like it so much but my partner insists on playing it. After a stayman response of 2♦/2♥/2♠, a bid of 3♣ is repeat stayman. Opener's responses is in context of his initial response.

 

1N - 2♣

2♦ - 3♣

 

3♦ = Have a 5 card minor. 3♥ relay for asking which

3♥ = 2344 shape.

3♠ = 3244 shape.

3NT = 33(43) shape.

 

1N - 2♣

2♥ - 3♣

 

3♦ = Have a 4 card minor. 3♥ relay

3♥ = 5 hearts

3♠ = 4-4 majors

3N = 3433 shape.

 

1N - 2♣

2♠ - 3♣

 

3♦ = 4 clubs

3♥ = 4 diamonds

3♠ = 5 spades

3N = 4333 shape.

 

Most people who play this treatment also play

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ = 5-5 majors, invite

1N - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ = BAL slam try in hearts.

[Hanoi5]

I prefer to play 2♠ as re-stayman there, and I'd prefer to call it minor-suit stayman. Over 1N-2♣-2♠, 3♣ would be minor suit-stayman.

[peachy]

I think it means the same as Repeat-Stayman, that I have heard before in connection with 2C being Puppet over 1NT; asking which major is 3-cards. However, I would need to know the rest of the system over 1NT to judge its merits. If it means we can't introduce clubs or minors naturally, then I would not play it.

 

Mohitz showed a system but the trouble is that with "ordinary strength" responder, opponents will be given a roadmap both as to exact shape. Defenders have an easy time defending.

[JLOGIC]

In Chile I was playing at the club with hechizzero's mother, and we had this auction, I had bid 3C as natural and she took it as a re-ask. Apparantly almost everyone there plays it to the point that it's standard even undiscussed lol. To this day I call it chilean re-ask. I have never seen it in the states though.

[ggwhiz]

Not sure about a Stayman re-ask but when Zia and his squad first hit the news, I remember they were playing a Blackwood re-ask.

 

After a 5♣ response, 5♦ asked "Are you sure?" Maybe 1 and a dog?

[Free]

I've read about it, seen it, but never used it myself. I prefer other meanings for 3♣ and 3♦.

[gnasher]

playing this as asking seems wrong, on the principle that unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands.

Didn't you discard that principle when you agreed to play Stayman?

[bluecalm]

We play this way:

 

1NT - 2♣

2♦ - ???

 

3♣ = artificial ask

3♦ = ask about 3 card majors (like smolen, but you can stop in 3NT having 2-2 majors)

3♥/3♠ = shortness

 

after:

 

1NT - 2♣

2♦ - 3♣

 

You bid:

3♦ = 5 card minor (then 3♥ ask and then 3♠/3NT = 5♣/♦)

3♥ = 2-3-4-4

3♠ = 3-2-4-4

3NT = any 4-3-3-3

 

Probably not optimal or anything but simple and sometimes useful.

 

EDIT:

 

Just read the replies and I see that Mohitz describes the same system (at least after 2♦). We play that 3♦ is just 5-4+ majors and GF (thi is superior to smolen because a)you can show major shortness ;) you are able to stop in 3NT opposite 2-2-(4-5))

Sorry for repeating.

[hanp]

Very common in the Netherlands, usually referred to ask MSA, minor suit ask.

[MickyB]

playing this as asking seems wrong, on the principle that unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands.

Didn't you discard that principle when you agreed to play Stayman?

Sorry, careless post before.

 

The principle should probably be "unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands in game-forcing auctions". I play Stayman because of the hands where responder has both majors and just wants to play game in a 4-4/5-4 fit if there is one and in a part-score/invite if there is not.

 

When an unbalanced hand describes itself to a balanced hand, you can often place the contract once you know shape and strength. When the opposite occurs, honour concentration becomes much more significant, as the unbalanced hand needs to know what honours are opposite its shortage. Therefore, it feels wrong to just play 3♣ as a shape ask.

[hanp]

Agree with mickyb's careless post. I suspect that so does gnasher and he is just being difficult.

[gnasher]

Agree with mickyb's careless post. I suspect that so does gnasher and he is just being difficult.

I wasn't being wholly serious, but there was a point in there somewhere. I'm thinking of adding Stayman to my list of bad conventions that everyone seems to play.

 

Look at this sequence (1NT-2♣;2♦-3♣). It may be true that 3♣ is more useful as a natural bid, but it's not that useful, because it's hard for opener to judge what to do without knowing which major responder has.

[hanp]

What would Gnasher post in such a situation? Perhaps:

 

Might it be possible to find out what opener's major is below 3NT?

[MickyB]

Gnasher - if you don't have Stayman available over 1NT, do youhave a sensible way to bid unbalanced hands with both majors and about a 7-count (assuming a 15-17 NT)? Perhaps something along the lines of 2C = spades, 2D = hearts, 2H = both majors constructive NF?

[gnasher]

Gnasher - if you don't have Stayman available over 1NT, do youhave a sensible way to bid unbalanced hands with both majors and about a 7-count (assuming a 15-17 NT)?

I hadn't really got that far - it seemed easier just to snipe at everyone's first convention.

[gnasher]

What would Gnasher post in such a situation? Perhaps:

 

Might it be possible to find out what opener's major is below 3NT?

True, you could bid 3♦ to ask what the major is. Does anyone do that?

[Cyberyeti]

We keep 1N-2♣-2any-3♣ as natural to play and use 1N-2♣-2♦-3♥ (or bid of the other major if partner shows one) as our minor suit ask with a possibly slamgoing hand (replies 4m = 5 card suit, 3♠ = minimum no 5CS, 3N = maximum no 5CS and further asks over 3♠/3N).

 

We use 1N-2♣-2♦-3♠ as slam invite plus with exactly 5♦/3♣ as it's the one combination that we have trouble with in the system we use where you want to know if partner has 5 clubs or 3+ diamonds, and can't find out about both fast enough.

[Finch]

Mohitz showed a system but the trouble is that with "ordinary strength" responder, opponents will be given a roadmap both as to exact shape. Defenders have an easy time defending.

You don't use this method as an 'ordinary strength' responder, it's only used when responder has slam interest.

 

I play 3C as artificial in both regular partnerships, but just to keep MickyB happy in both cases it is 'showing' something rather than asking. And I do have other ways to show a game forcing hand with clubs....

[Zelandakh]

Gnasher - if you don't have Stayman available over 1NT, do youhave a sensible way to bid unbalanced hands with both majors and about a 7-count (assuming a 15-17 NT)? Perhaps something along the lines of 2C = spades, 2D = hearts, 2H = both majors constructive NF?

I don't play it (heaven forbid) but this structure, designed for a weak NT, seems to do what you are asking without using Stayman

http://www.bridgematters.com/weakmini.htm

[NickToll]

In Italy the standard meaning of the sequence 2♣-then-3♣ by the responder has been "Re-Stayman" for a long time. It was a minor-suit ask: usual replies by the opener were 3♦ with four or five diamonds, 3NT with four or five clubs, 3M with that three-card major and both four-card minors. After a 2M reply to Stayman, over 3♣ opener had to show a second 4card suit with 3♦, 3OM or 3NT (for clubs), or repeat his original major with 4333 (or possibly 5332). Very simple and very inefficient: today almost nobody plays it anymore.

 

The standard system at that time didn't even include transfers: the only forcing response was 2♣, whereas 2♦♥♠ were natural signoffs and 3♣♦♥♠ were invitational with HHxxxx and out. 2♣-then-3♣ was more or less the only way to handle minor two-suiters and strong balanced hands.