Lying About Stayman

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak6h8742da4cj982&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

I held this hand earlier today. I bid 2d thinking my H holding was so rubbish and I have stops in all the other suits so my p signed off in 3N. I know p could have had a hand that 4H was good but 3N wasn't (if holding 4H) but was lying about stayman right? If not when is it right to lie?

 

thanks,

 

Eagles

[steve2005]

you pay your money and you take your chances. If wrong be prepared to take 100% of the blame.

 

besides the normal Stayman type hands where you could be wrong there is also the garbage Stayman hand where partner is passing whatever you say so could be in 5-2♦ instead of 4-4♥ opp a weak hand

 

 

 

 

 

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak6h8742da4cj982&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

I held this hand earlier today. I bid 2d thinking my H holding was so rubbish and I have stops in all the other suits so my p signed off in 3N. I know p could have had a hand that 4H was good but 3N wasn't (if holding 4H) but was lying about stayman right? If not when is it right to lie?

 

thanks,

 

Eagles

 

Here's a few other things to think about

 

1. The bulk of your HCPs are in Aces and Kings. Aces and Kings (often) suggest that a suit contract will play better than NT

2. You have very few useful intermediates (Jacks, 10s, 9s, etc). These slow stoppers can be very useful in a NT contract

3. You have A4 in the diamond suit which is two big flaws for a NT contract. (The suit is short, so its likely to be lead and you can only hold up on the suit once)

4. You're at the bottom of your range for a 12-14 HCP NT opening. (Holding 24-25 HCPs, a 4-4 fit will often take 1 more trick in the suit than in NT. Less true with 27-28 or so)

 

I wouldn't string my partner up for lying about a four card major, but this isn't the hand to do so...

 

Here's a 12-14 HCP 1NT opening where I'd be more tempted

 

♠ KJT

♥ 8652

♦ KQT

♣ KQT

[Stephen Tu]

I think it's extremely silly to conceal the hearts here. You don't know that partner's hearts aren't AKQx or KQJx or the like, it'd be gross if the opps run the diamonds when you have to develop club tricks or the hearts or something like that. Plus you can even construct hands where partner has xxxx trumps, and you have 3 trump losers on a 3-2 break, but 4h is the only game with play.

 

You have aces and kings and a doubleton which all point to suit play. If you were 3433 with a bunch of slow double stopped suits I'd have more sympathy for the action, though I personally would never do it. IMO let partner of NT opener decide to not use stayman, holding bad suit of his own and flat shape, rather than NT opener randomly lie when he knows a ton less about what his partner holds than vice versa.

[BillPatch]

The current expert consensus is that lying in replying to Stayman is almost always wrong. It is particularly wrong at MPs where you can lose all the matchpoints by making 3NT when 4♥ makes the extra trick. xx or Ax in your hand provide a good route to an extra ruffing trick in your hand. Stayman in his 1967 book Do You Play Stayman? recommended a suit of at least qtxx to use or reply to Stayman, for fear of bad breaks in the trump suit, but only at IMPS. It might be something to try if you need a swing at IMPS.

[eagles123]

ok thanks folks helpful answers :)

[ggwhiz]

I might be tempted (and still wrong) with 4 triple but with a ruffing value, no way.

[neilkaz]

The posts of Richard and others are spot on and I have nothing to add.

[broze]

Agree with all the posts above - I would never consider lying in response to Stayman, and especially not with this hand as it's so suit-oriented.

 

Another thing to consider. If you show the suit and it turns out that hiding it would have been better then there are no real repercussions for the partnership/team. You'll chalk it down to bad luck. Zero blame.

 

If however, you hide the suit and it backfires and you get a bottom/lose a swing, you'll look extremely silly. You partnership morale might be damaged and you'll be kicking yourself. If you have a partner who is on board with your foibles and won't criticise your off-the-wall decisions then that's okay. Sometimes doing the normal thing is better because it is normal, not because it will get you a better result. You've got to have very high confidence in the positive expected value of your action for it to be a good one. If it works, say, 60% of the time that is not nearly enough imo. This may not be the purist's way of playing but it is a better practical way of playing. I'm not discouraging brilliancy, but I am saying really make sure in your own mind that you think it's brilliant.

[MrAce]

What Steve and Richard said mostly covered everything i wanted to say, except 1 little thing, which happened to me a lot each time i tried to be genius and hidden my 4 card xxxx suit, whether after stayman or in another auction.

 

I received a lead on my xxxx suit in NT and this usually ended up ugly for me. Had i shown this suit, like all other normal people, i would have received the cream of the cake lead for me. This happens more frequently vs GIB.

[1eyedjack]

I don’t know how much credence it is worth in real life, but I very regularly lie in response to stayman when playing in robot tourneys, and I would say that the success rate of the strategy in that environment is far higher than would be suggested by the naysayers. Not saying that OP is a good example.

 

It is quite a refreshing environment in this regard (robot tourneys, that is). You can experiment with psyching as often as you like to your heart’s content. OK you will get a mixture of tops and bottoms, but (1) partner will never complain, (2) opps will never complain, (3) there is no TD to complain, and (4) there is no ethical baggage of implicit agreements born of frequency.

 

In my observation, a lot of the unexpected long term net gain derives from (1) robot tendency (that is, more so than humans) to lead short unbid suits v NT, and (2) robot blind trust in oppo having their bid. A common consequence of this is that on many of the occasions when you end in an inferior 3N having missed a major fit due to lying in response to Stayman, that theoretical inferiority is at least compensated for by misdefence born of erroneous construction of declarer’s hand.

 

I find that the most successful lies are when you open 1N with a 5 card major, and then deny possession of a 4 card major in response to stayman. Not only does this maximise the disparity between declarer’s actual v expected hand, augmenting the potential for misdefence, but also there is a slightly reduced chance of partner having 4 card support and thereby missing a fit.

 

Over the last year I have been opening 1N more often with a 6 card major in the hopes of denying 4 in response to Stayman. Works rather more often when holding Hearts than Spades, as you would expect.

[kenberg]

Maybe one more thing: If you think you pay the cards well, then you want to be in the same contract everyone else is in. You can beat them in the play.

 

But as for this hand, having small hearts and short diamonds looks good to me. If partner has the AK he can draw two round, either immediately or while setting up the ruff, depending on his hand. If he has AQ maybe the finesse works. KQxx is apt to give you an extra trick playing in hearts.

 

But most of that has been said. So I'll stick with the thought of getting to the contract everyone is in and playing it better.

[eagles123]

anyone ever wished they could delete a topic! FWIW 3NT made and 4H was down so i guess i am a genius after all :D :P ;)

 

Eagles

 

ps only joking, all part of learning process :)

[Stephen Tu]

I don't know how much credence it is worth in real life, but I very regularly lie in response to stayman when playing in robot tourneys, and I would say that the success rate of the strategy in that environment is far higher than would be suggested by the naysayers.

 

I really don't think you can use success vs. robot defenders to suggest what works in the real world against competent opps. You are taking advantage of a situation where you can essentially play illegally, having a concealed partnership agreement of frequent concealment of 4 cd majors without disclosure against opps who have no way of being informed of this. Plus playing against opps who are super-rigid about possible NT distributions and point count, and have a tendency to be passive and not lead long suits. Or lead long suits then not continue them because of inability to read signals! This is a pretty much perfect environment to play in the "wrong" contract and do better. I don't think this works against decent humans.

 

OP's question is about bridge in general, not how to take max advantage against current GIB software design limitations.

[aguahombre]

Robot's don't get irritated when you operate them. Partners, even if they won't show emotion, will store your cleverness in the back of their mind ---and who knows when it will come to the surface? I know; on a hand where you want partner to trust your calls.

[kenberg]

anyone ever wished they could delete a topic! FWIW 3NT made and 4H was down so i guess i am a genius after all :D :P ;)

 

Eagles

 

ps only joking, all part of learning process :)

 

I generally believe that my partner should do what he thinks is right. I would respond 2♥ and go down in 4♥. As said above you pays your money and you takes your chance.

[chasetb]

Eagles, while this isn't the hand to lie on, it isn't a bad question. We learn by making mistakes and asking questions, and based on your posts I think you have been making massive improvements!

 

I have only lied twice to Stayman, both times playing 15-17 NT. The first one was something like ♠xx ♥AKx ♦KTx ♣AQJxx . I ended up in 4♥, but I was the strongest player in the field (novice/beginner game), and 4♥ played one trick better than 3NT and scored a top. The second one was on BBO, I did it on ♠xx ♥AKQ ♦KJTx ♣ATxx and we ended up in 4♥ instead of 3NT. Partner had ♠KQJT, and 3NT scored far better than 4♥.

 

Everyone else well covered why this hand isn't a good one to lie. Garbage Stayman (maybe even in a 4-2 fit), all the controls, and having a Major are reasons not to lie. They are horrid hearts, but partner could have all the honors, or they can easily lie favorably. Stay with the room, and outplay them.

[the hog]

It is never right to lie. You have no idea what partner's hand is and he has a much better idea of yours. Furthermore if you lie you are masterminding and do not have a proper partnership.

[JLOGIC]

The only spot I know where it is routine to lie in response to stayman is when you have 6 solid in a major. You are just gambling that having a fit there is unlikely and you screw them on defense. This is esp true vs robots who will 100 % shift to that suit upon seeing whatever in dummy, but it also works well irl imo.

[karlson]

The only spot I know where it is routine to lie in response to stayman is when you have 6 solid in a major. You are just gambling that having a fit there is unlikely and you screw them on defense. This is esp true vs robots who will 100 % shift to that suit upon seeing whatever in dummy, but it also works well irl imo.

 

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

[1eyedjack]

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

 

Opponents are often not amused when you psych, period. They just have to suck it up (or ban it unlawfully in certain BBO arenas).

 

As to JLogic's post to which this responded, it is routine and fair game to attempt to protect the subterfuge of an earlier psych in the auction by continuing the lie. It is not the lying in response to Stayman that is the issue but the original psychic NT opener.

[1eyedjack]

I really don't think you can use success vs. robot defenders to suggest what works in the real world against competent opps.

Hence the caveat with which I opened my post.

You are taking advantage of a situation where you can essentially play illegally, having a concealed partnership agreement of frequent concealment of 4 cd majors without disclosure against opps who have no way of being informed of this.

Absolutely not. No-one, least of all I, advocates having implicit concealed understandings, and I trust that you do not suggest that this is possible in the robot tourney environment or that the action is in anyway illegal, "essentially" or otherwise, in that environment.

 

Much of the success of the policy in the robot world is reliant on opponents' trust in your bid. Were you capable of disclosing to the robot a high frequency tendency to psych, then the benefits would evaporate. Were you to do this with a regular partner in a F2F game sufficiently frequently as to require disclosure, that is indeed the outcome that would result. And some of the benefit would dissipate even on the first occasion because the possibility of a lie should be apparent to the human defenders. However small a likelihood, it will be greater than the zero likelihood assumed by a robot. But judging by the prevalent advice in this thread (that it is virtually never right to lie) then the opponents are equally versed in that optimal strategy so the perceived likelihood, while positive, will be sufficiently small for some comparison with the robot environment to be more reasonable.

Plus playing against opps who are super-rigid about possible NT distributions and point count, and have a tendency to be passive and not lead long suits. Or lead long suits then not continue them because of inability to read signals! This is a pretty much perfect environment to play in the "wrong" contract and do better. I don't think this works against decent humans.

 

OP's question is about bridge in general, not how to take max advantage against current GIB software design limitations.

Again, hence the opening caveat.

The point about trying these things out in the robot environment is that you have the opportunity to test out a hypothesis, such as the benefits of lying in response to Stayman, with a very high frequency without "essentially playing illegally" where such a tactic in a F2F game would very definitely be illegal. Were you to conclude on the basis of those results, that the tactic has legs in a F2F environment, then in order to keep it legal while avoiding a disclosure requirement which would eliminate the benefits, you would have to tone down the frequency. But the high frequency in robot tourneys is simply in order to get a large population of hands to examine in a relatively short time frame.

 

For sure, you would have to make adjustments to the success rate to account for misdefences by robots that you might not expect a human to make on the same information (such as finding the killing lead and then switching when declarer ducks). Provided that you are capable of doing this, the exercise still has merits.

 

I think that there is a growing tendency among humans to lead short suits against NT, more in line with the way that robots play (to trick 1). Maybe it is an improved technique, but it increases I think the defenders' exposure to this psych.

[helene_t]

I have a theory that modern bidding systems are too focused on suit length and too little on honour placement. I am not suggesting making radical changes here like frequently up- or downgrading suit length but I think that some auctions could benefit from doing so in extreme cases. With Richard's example hand I would prefer not to mention my hearts. I say "would prefer" because with most partners I would not dare to do it. The risk of annoying partner (she might accuse me of masterminding) or eroding trust isn't worth the putative gain in expected value of the board itself. Therefore it is good to discuss these things with partner.

 

Lying about distribution is a dangerous thing. You won't be able to pattern out correctly so sometimes partner will infer that you have a distributional feature which you haven't got. For example, if you respond 2♦ to Stayman you promise a 4+-card in a minor so with 4-4 in the minor partner might give you a choice of minor suit slam which might not work so great if you are 3433.

 

Playing weak notrump, partner almost never makes you pattern out (he probably doesn't even have the tools for it). Besides, once you show your hearts partner is always bidding 4♥ with a GF hand with hearts and no slam interest. So the only way to avoid a 4♥ contract is to lye about the hearts, or, if partner raises 2♥ to 3♥, to suggest 3NT.

 

Partner could have an unbalanced hand with four hearts. So even if you are confident that 3NT will play better opposite a balanced hand, you usually shouldn't lye.

[Trump Echo]

I would have bid 2 Diamonds as well, but I would not have considered it a lie since, at least in my mind, a 4-card major suit promises a Queen minimum.

[PhilKing]

OP will probably go to hell. :ph34r: