Best use for 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥?

[mgoetze]

Assume 1NT shows a balanced hand (including 5-card majors), 15-17 or perhaps 14-16. I am playing Jacoby transfers, with a second round of transfers after that, and 2♠ as range ask or transfer. This means that my 2♣ promises a 4-card major in all constructive variants, and that I need 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠ to show an invitational hand with 5 spades. Given this framework, what do you consider the best use for 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥?

 

- Invitational hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades?

- Invitational hand with 5 hearts, may or may not have 4 spades? ( This would free up the sequence 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ which I am currently using for this, please specify what that should show instead then.)

- Weak with both majors? If so please specify the shapes you would use this with. Would you do it with 4414? 4513? 5413?

- Weak with 4 hearts, 3-4 spades and 5+ clubs?

- Something else?

[gwnn]

I used to play it as 4/4 or better in majors, weak, but hearts never longer than spades (so opener always corrects with 2-2 or 3-3). I don't like it with 4-4-3-2/4-4-2-3 but would do it on any 5-4-2-2. Well, on some 4432/4423 7-8 counts I think it's a cool idea to bid 2C intending to pass 2M and bid 2NT over 2D but that's beside the point of this thread.

[MickyB]

Majors, weak, hearts equal or longer. I'd typically bid Stayman then 2S [iNV] with a 5431 7-count and Stayman then 2H [sign-off] with a 4531 7-count. The 4531 is horrible if you can't bid Stayman then 2H.

 

Edit: Alternatively, play 2H as a puppet to 2S. Now, pass = 5S4H weak, 2N = 5H4S INV, higher = up to you.

[mgoetze]

It does seem to make sense, if playing "both majors weak", to specify either "hearts equal or longer" or "spades equal or longer". But is there any argument for one of these being better, or is it just arbitrary?

[helene_t]

spades equal or longer makes opener declare more often.

[cherdano]

It does seem to make sense, if playing "both majors weak", to specify either "hearts equal or longer" or "spades equal or longer". But is there any argument for one of these being better, or is it just arbitrary?

 

Majors, weak, hearts equal or longer. I'd typically bid Stayman then 2S [iNV] with a 5431 7-count and Stayman then 2H [sign-off] with a 4531 7-count. The 4531 is horrible if you can't bid Stayman then 2H.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1NT - 2C

2D - 2H = classic Garbage Stayman ( see posts 2 and 5 ) < 7 hcp (4/4)+ Majors, equal length or longer ♠---never longer ♥.

[awm]

Sam and I play a version of MickyB's alternate suggestion:

 

2H forces 2S then:

 

Pass = weak 5S and 4+H

2NT = invite 5H and 4S

3m = GF both majors and short in other minor

3M = 6-4 majors invite (NF)

 

This solves the 4-5 major invite which otherwise has no bid (we use 2D...2S as just showing a heart invite since 2D...2NT is a GF with hearts and clubs). It also gives us space to show complete pattern on all 5431 hands. We lose a way to show 5H/4S weak but we gain 5S/4H weak so basically break even. I haven't had great results bidding stayman on weak 4-4 majors hands without a diamond suit in any case so don't miss that at all.

[Free]

Garbage stayman, 44+M, ♠ longer or equal than ♥, no 5+♦. Opener always corrects with 3♠s.

 

With a weak hand and 5+♥-4♠ we transfer and ignore the ♠s, hoping for the best.

[phoenix214]

The thing i used to play here is something that is not garbage stayman. I dont recall having a problem with that hand playing strong NT(although we did 16-18)

We used these positions for smolen type of hands. Thr bid 2M promises 5 in OM and inv+ values. Usually 4 in the bid M. But we bid like this with 5332 hands and 5-5 hands

[awm]

Garbage stayman, 44+M, ♠ longer or equal than ♥, no 5+♦. Opener always corrects with 3♠s.

 

With a weak hand and 5+♥-4♠ we transfer and ignore the ♠s, hoping for the best.

 

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

[gnasher]

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

If that's so, you should be able to improve your odds by being more selective about the hands you do it on. For example, if you use Stayman on J109x Q109x xx xxx but not on Jxxx Qxxx xx xxx you reduce, or possibly eliminate, the cost of playing in a 4-3 fit.

 

I think the main cost of bidding Stayman on 4-4 is that you lose when you have 5-4 opposite 2-3, because you will play the 4-3 fit instead of the 5-2.

[MickyB]

I think the main cost of bidding Stayman on 4-4 is that you lose when you have 5-4 opposite 2-3, because you will play the 4-3 fit instead of the 5-2.

 

I'd correct on 3-2 anyway. Partner can be 5-5, which is obviously less frequent than 5-4, but I think it's much more important to play the 5-3 instead of the 5-2, whereas playing the 5-2 instead of the 4-3 is only a marginal gain.

[BillHiggin]

Much of this discussion has focused on trying to get to the better fir.

IMHO, I think of garbage stayman as a way to look for a great fit with a safety valve that assures a playable fit when partner does not have a four card major. Therefore, I do not really care if responder has longer hearts, longer spades or even 4-4 majors (I am not recommending the tactic with 4-4 majors, just not insisting it is always wrong). We might not end up in our best (of poor choices) fit, but at least opener will not be doing such unfortunate things as returning to no-trump or trying for game and we will have (slightly) more trumps than the opponents. The gains come when we find our 4-4 or 4-5 fit at the two level.

[DJNeill]

I like 1N-2C-2D-2H in that context to be both majors 4+-4+ majors sub-invite (use judgement with the quality of the suits in 5-4, or strength of hand with 4-4). I did once a basic simulation with Thomas Andrews' Deal program where I just gave responder any 4-4 majors hands, with various HCP ranges sub-invite, allowing opener to have a 5M, and let the program play the hand out double-dummy, and in both frequency and total points, it was a winner to do the Garbage Stayman (albeit not by much as the HCP total goes up when 1N is more viable) vs Passing 1N. Not sure if other treatments are better though. I have lost the details of the program, and I may have done it wrong, but it at least sets my mind at ease and works with enough frequency not to look dumb.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[Free]

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

With at least half the deck I'm fine with playing a 4-3 fit, so with 5+HCP I'll stayman. With less I usually just pass, there's no good reason to give opps another chance to Double you. I haven't kept track if this is a winning strategy in practice, but in theory it sounds ok imo.

[aguahombre]

IMO, the "best use" for any sequence after a 1NT opening is to plug holes not covered by other sequences. Crawling or garbage Stayman creates more holes than we are willing to plug. Drop Dead Stayman with club shortness is free ---not requiring adjustments to our other bids.

[mgoetze]

IMO, the "best use" for any sequence after a 1NT opening is to plug holes not covered by other sequences. Crawling or garbage Stayman creates more holes than we are willing to plug.

I don't see how it creates any holes. It might deny you an opportunity to plug a hole that you have elsewhere, but if I don't have those holes in the rest of my system, why shouldn't I play garbage Stayman?

[aguahombre]

I don't see how it creates any holes. It might deny you an opportunity to plug a hole that you have elsewhere, but if I don't have those holes in the rest of my system, why shouldn't I play garbage Stayman?

Well, maybe you should. But we have found uses for Stayman and 2-level continuations after 2D or 2H answers which we don't feel like trying to cram into other sequences. So playing garbage Stayman would create holes for us.

[CSGibson]

I like to use it as garbage stayman, with either major potentially being longer. I also incorporate weak 3=4=1=5 and 3=4=0=6 hands into the bid (if responder corrects to spades, I re-correct to clubs).

 

I think whether you garbage stayman or not with 4-4 in the majors depends on several factors. I will do so if we are playing teams and I think my hand is definitely going down in 1N, but may make 2M if we find a fit, especially NV. I might also consider whether our NT range is different than the other table, or whether we will be facing similar decisions. I am much less likely to stayman if I am a near max for my values, I tend to play 1N when we have the majority of points, but not enough to invite game.

[rhm]

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

If you read

 

http://taigabridge.net/articles/dd/garbage.htm

 

carefully, you will realize that

 

a) Garbage Stayman is useful on many more hand patterns and strengths than people realize.

b) It is important to get out of 1NT with a weak hand even if nobody doubles.

c) With a weak hand even a 4-3 fit in a major shows on average a small profit overall over 1NT. (except when responder is 4333)

 

What matters is not whether you always reach a better contract, but whether your chances reaching a better contract outweighs the occasional loss.

For example with 0-1 HCP it is correct to bid Stayman with 4♠-2♥-4♦-3♣, even though you will have to pass a 2♥ reply irrespective of vulnerability or whether IMPs or matchpoints.

For me 1NT--2♣-2♦-2♥ always shows a weak hand, which does not want to play 2♦. For this reasons I do not like restrictions like one of the majors must be at least as long as the other etc. I am convinced they are inferior.

Opener is supposed to preference to 2♠ only with three spades and two hearts and will pass otherwise. If I bid 3♣ over 2♠ I show a weak hand close to 3♠-4♥-1♦-5♣.

Other continuations after 1NT--2♣--2♦ I do not play as a sign-off, because playing them as garbage would give you a diminishing return and there are better use for these continuations.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[awm]

There are several problems with this analysis.

 

1. 1NT has a significant declarer advantage over double dummy (because much depends on the lead). 4-3 major fits tend to be the opposite (because you want to draw trump if and only if they are breaking typically).

 

2. Opponents are more likely to double 2-suit. 1nt will rarely be doubled (some do not even play penalty) and you will have a better chance to scramble later if they do double.

 

3. Assumptions about opener shape are never explicitly given. My partners often open 1nt with 2245 and sometimes with 22(36) both of which can be disasters for some of these patterns.

[Siegmund]

Yes, it is a purely double-dummy result, and using Stayman WILL result in better defense.

 

Whether it is more likely to result in a penalty double is debatable - I can remember many more times I've used Stayman even after a double, and not been doubled in 2M, than times I have been nailed in 2MX after Stayman. One plus is only one opponent knows you are Garbaging in time to stomp on you.

 

3. Assumptions about opener shape are never explicitly given. My partners often open 1nt with 2245 and sometimes with 22(36) both of which can be disasters for some of these patterns.

 

I did several articles at once, and I see I didn't spell it out as clearly as I could have. The simulations allowed all 5422 patterns (I think-- I don't remember excluding 5S4H, and I know I DO open 1NT with 4S5H), and 6322s with a 6-card minor.

The "If you play very old-fashioned conservative 1NT openings" paragraph was based on 5332, 4432, or 4333, no 5-card major. I suppose there might be somebody who allows a 6-card minor but forbids a 5-card major; such a pair should be conservative in their use of garbage stayman too. But most everyone who ever opens on 2236 also opens on 5M332, and they are gaining a lot more from having some of their '4-3' fits really be 5-3, than they are losing on their minor-oriented hands.

 

(And whether everyone agrees with the findings or not - it is good to know someone is reading. Even if it makes me feel guilty that I have hardly written anything new in the past 2 years.)

[rhm]

There are several problems with this analysis.

 

1. 1NT has a significant declarer advantage over double dummy (because much depends on the lead). 4-3 major fits tend to be the opposite (because you want to draw trump if and only if they are breaking typically).

Not really true here when dummy is broke or entry less. The defense against 1NT then tends to be straight forward, while declarer has rarely good options.

Low level 4-3 fits present some unique challenges to both declarer and the defense, but, as is usually the case, the defense tends to be even tougher.

 

2. Opponents are more likely to double 2-suit. 1nt will rarely be doubled (some do not even play penalty) and you will have a better chance to scramble later if they do double.

Penalty doubles are much more common over notrump than suit bids. Nobody plays initial doubles of suit bids as penalty nowadays. The suggested philosophy contradicts common wisdom.

 

3. Assumptions about opener shape are never explicitly given. My partners often open 1nt with 2245 and sometimes with 22(36) both of which can be disasters for some of these patterns.

True, it depends on many factors like whether you are going to open 1NT with a 5 card major. However, even if 2-2 in the majors is a possible shape for opener, it will be infrequent enough not to matter much (much less frequent than a 5 card major if you open 1NT with 5M332).

I repeat what matters is not the occasional loss, but the frequency of gain.

 

Rainer Herrmann