Garbage Stayman or not?

[helene_t]

IMPs, weakish opps. Partner opens 1NT (15-17) in 1st seat, r/w. Partner mostly has classic shape but can occasionally have a 5cM or two doubletons.

 

Q863-943-9762-83

 

Opps play Landy or some such, in any case something with a penalty double. If LHO doubles you can bid 2♦ to show 4/4 diamonds/major.

[bluecalm]

If our plan is to bid 2C and pass every response it's -0.5imp/hand assuming they never bid and double dummy play.

It would be better with 4-4 majors because then we can bid 2H after 2D and here we are in for disaster opposite 3325 and 2D on 4-3 diamonds won't be an improvement over 1N anyway.

[wank]

i bid. if we find a fit, our hand improves massively, going from a contract that's very likely to go off to one which is probably 50-50. if we don't find a fit, we just increase the 50s.

[steve2005]

I don't use Garbage Stayman.

 

Reason: I like opener to be able to co-cooperate in doubling opponents should opponents interfere over a Stayman response.

 

Also, when you pass opener's response the jig is up and opponents may be able to back in to the auction or even make a penalty double

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

I'm passing but can see the merits of bidding although it comes with risks.

 

Weakish or weakfish? Some of them are brave enough to double 1nt but not 2 of a major into game.

 

Add my partnership tendency to upgrade chunky 14's with a 5-card suit (clubs?) and I'm best to pass. We can scramble out later (redouble for us or however you do it) and give them the max chance to bid a suit.

 

Note to Wank: You are increasing the 100's not the 50's which is why I lean to giving them every chance to bid something.

[yunling]

I believe 2C will lead to a small improvement.

 

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

[helene_t]

Thanks all, I especially found yunling's link interesting.

 

I would normally Stayman with (43)42 automatically unless the hand is strong enough that I expect partner to make 1NT most of the time. Assuming that partner has classic shape, it is only if she has 3=3=2=5 that Stayman leads to a clearly inferior contract, while there are many patterns that lead to a clearly superior contract. More so if partner is allowed to have a 5cM or an offshape hand (although giving partner a 6-card clubs would lead to a silly contract).

 

Here I thought it was very close. The poor diamond suit makes a 4-3 fit in diamonds very likely to play worse than 1NT. The fact that I have spades rather than hearts means that we will be in the wrong fit whenever p has both majors. With some partners (though not with this one) it is also a consideration that she would be more likely to open a semibalanced or threesuited hand with four hearts than four spades.

 

The fact that we are vulnerable makes it slightly less attractive to Stayman, I think, because of the risk of being one or two more down in 2♦ than in 1NT.

 

Scrambling after a double doesn't sound attractive I think. Bidding 2♦ showing ♦+M will lead to an inferior contract slightly more often than stayman will, I think, and 2♦ and 2♠ will both be wrongsided after they double. Then again, then don't always double us. Vulnerable, especially at IMPs, I would actually prefer to defend instead of playing 1NT undoubled.

 

FWIW I bid 2♣. Partner was 3=3=3=4 and made six tricks, she would probably have made the same trick in notrumps as neither side ruffed anything (yes I know that this doesn't follow logically).

 

Maybe I should have mentioned that opps at the other table play 4cM and weak NT so that the auction will be different there and is unlikely to end in 1NT.

[bluecalm]

I believe 2C will lead to a small improvement.

 

His simulations are done with assumption that 5M332 hands routinely opens 1N while mine are with the assumption they don't hence the difference.

[gszes]

Do I have good reason to fear 1n x YES

If I were to choose stayman do I expect to be able to pass

whatever partner bids? yes

Do I have good reason to assume whatever partner bids will

be better than 1n yes.

 

If one can answer yes to all 3 of those questions using garbage

stayman seems clear cut. I read the article and found the term

"always" as over used. It clearly meant that over a lifetime of

bridge bidding garbage stayman with 4243 (for ex) would yield

a + imps expectation. It does not mean it will not yield some

really horrid scores in there as well due to playing in a 42

fit (x no less) which will probably be far worse than 1n (x).

 

Since the lifetime expectation is so low I feel that one should

use garbage stayman only when it meets the 3 requirements listed

above or the partnership needs to add some rules on how to bid

after an x. It may also be advisable for opener to "run flee

scurry" from 1n x if they have 5 card suit to run to as a matter

of insurance (especially at imps) so using garbage stayman with

a hand like 4243 can get one in really hot water if p was intending

to run to 2c and you end up playing 2d (ughh) opposite 3325.

[Siegmund]

His simulations are done with assumption that 5M332 hands routinely opens 1N while mine are with the assumption they don't hence the difference.

 

Yes, the more often your 1NT is offshape, the stronger the case for Garbage Stayman. (Though I would have expected (443)2 to always show a profit, as (43)51 and 3361 do, even in a classical style.)