Why is nonpromisory Stayman so popular?

[yunling]

My simulation shows that "pass or blast" works quite well(probably a winner)even if you have a 3.25 count range for 1NT opening. But in reality many people are not very good at evaluation and just concentrate on HCP counts thus they probably have a 4 count or wider range for their 1NT, which is why a 2NT invitation is needed.

I prefer to just play forum standard without a range ask.

[rhm]

I also played pass or blast for quite a while, I think because I read on here that Fred and Brad played that way for a while, and I hated the information leak of bidding 2C first. IMO this style sucked, inviting is pretty important. I am fine with passing random 8s and do that even when I have a way to invite, but bidding game with a random 9 or passing with a good 8 sucks. Especially as you noted if you upgrade a lot which my partnerships have always done, but even if you don't upgrade that much I think bidding game with a random 9 is a loser. If partner is going to reject an invite 3N is not going to be good very often, and then you are going to sometimes go down an extra because you need to try to make it and it all compounds. In general I think we would all prefer to not be in horrible games, if our system forces them to play them in an uncontested auction it's time to change our system.

So yeah I think bidding stayman with no major invite sucks, and I think pass or blast sucks,

I do not quite understand this critic.

How often are you in 1NT and make easily 9 or more tricks, but are nowhere near 25 HCP?

It happens all the time.

On the other side there are those 26, 27 or 28 HCP 3NT contracts, which are hopeless.

Yet we are all in 3NT, because trying to find out about them would hurt us in many other ways.

Of course it is a matter of probabilities. The more HCP we have the less likely the scenario is.

So blasting with 9 is done, because on average your chances making 3NT are better than 50%.

If opener is minimum slightly less than 50%.

 

The point against inviting is

 

That information leakage is severe. Even if you do not go through Stayman. One of the tougher decisions for the defense is whether to go aggressive or passive.

As a rule inviting tells them to go passiv. Declarer has nothing in reserve and is known in very narrow limits. So do not give him his ninth trick on opening lead.

Also the biggest objection to inviting is that notrump contracts have a higher variation of tricks than suit contracts. 2NT is not really safe when opener rejects.

Just live with it. There is nothing you can do. Believing that Pass or blast sucks is not really true. It is not unfortunate, when you go down in 2NT, nor when you make overtricks in spite being minimum. It is the nature of notrump contracts itself, which sucks.

If upgrading is the issue, then I suggest improve your hand evaluation. I see all the time people upgrading hands they shouldn't and miss upgrading when they should.

 

A recent example from Bobby Wolff:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6hat86dq2cajt95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Wolff's answer:

 

"The choice is close between rebidding one no-trump or repeating the clubs. In favor of the latter action are the good club spots and the basic hand pattern (one which tends to play better in suits than in no-trump). Against rebidding one no-trump with a five-card suit is that you do have a partial diamond stop and you get the hand range off your chest accurately at one go."

 

I beg to differ. The hand does not fall into the 12-14 HCP range. I would have opened 1NT. (And if partner blasts with a nine count i expect to have reasonable chances in spite of only "23" HCP)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cthulhu D]

Has anyone sketched out forum standard?

[m1cha]

With one partner I've played 1NT - 2♣ / 2♥ - 2♠ to show a 3-card ♥ suit (while 2NT would deny it). The environment is:

1NT can include 5-card majors (otherwise this would not make sense),

2♣ always has at least one 4-card major, and

the 2♥ rebid does not exclude 4 ♠s.

The rationale behind this is that after the 2♥ rebid opener is much more likely to have a 5-card ♥ suit than a 4-card ♠ suit, so why not check for a 5-3 fit in ♥ while going for the 4-4 fit in ♠?

 

Has anyone else tried this? What is your experience? If you don't like the idea, why not? Or to put the last question in a more aggressive way: If you choose to open 1NT with 5-card majors, why don't you check for a 5-3 fit in those suits?

[aguahombre]

Has anyone sketched out forum standard?

I hope one does not emerge. IMO, it would be counter to the whole idea of these fora. However, we could have some fun with a spoof thread about "Forum Standard".

[bbochev]

Just as one another of methods (we play it with (relative) success in our system), in which opener 1♣ rebid of 1♠ shows 12-14 balanced and 1NT - 15-17 bal. Any 5332 is OK.

 

2♣ from responder is used ONLY for invitational purpose (23-25 pts in combined hands).

- 2♦ (artificial) accepts as well as jump to 3 in M (5332) or 3NT without major oriented hand. Continuation is Baron, any twice bid suit is 5th.

- 2♥♠NT - nearest(or no) major with 4-5 cards, doesnt accept invit. NF, may play 4-3 or get to 2NT.

2♦♥ are trsfrs, 2♠ is automat to 2NT (balanced hand to be declarer) following with 3♣ Puppet.

etc.

[jwccsllc]

It seems to be expert standard (including wannabe experts) to play, after partner's 1NT opening:

2♣ followed by 2NT: Denies four spades if opener bid 2♥

2♣ followed by 2♠ (if opener bids 2♥): four spades, invitational

2NT: Diamonds

 

...

 

Any thoughts?

 

I usually play 4-suit transfers which use 2♠ as transfer to clubs and 2NT transfer to diamonds allowing Opener to SuperAccept with the intervening bid when holding 3 or more in the minor with at least one of the top honors. Frequently this results in minor suit slams that others miss.

 

I play South African Texas transfers when playing 10-12 or 11-14 1NT openings where the 4♣ and 4♦ bids are transfers to 4♥ or 4♠ respectively and 4♥ or 4♠ are to play. Using this, if responder want to use Gerber, it require 1NT 2♣ 2? 4♣.

 

In either case, I usually reserve the 1NT 2♣ 2? 2NT sequence to invitational hands where I have a reasonable source of tricks. I tend to pass 1NT with balanced invitational hands when playing baby and weak 1NT ranges as it gives opponents a good chance to get into trouble in the balancing seat.

[Jinksy]

Expert standard in US now (and apparently England) is 1N 2S range ask. You lose inviting in clubs but gain 1N 2N bids without information leakage (though they still might get a lead directing X in).

 

What's your impression of how bad that risk of a lead-directing X of 2♠ is?

 

As I say, we've found it a serious enough flaw that we specifically made Stayman non-promissory while keeping the rangefinder, just so we can manouvre around having to bid 2♠ with such as (opposite a weak NT) x KQx QT8xx AT9x.

 

(I also think if you swap the majors on that hand, 2♣ might be better, since the a) the dreaded 2♠ is unlikely and b) absence of an X might lead them to find the dreaded ♥ lead.)

[aguahombre]

What's your impression of how bad that risk of a lead-directing X of 2♠ is?

 

As I say, we've found it a serious enough flaw that we specifically made Stayman non-promissory while keeping the rangefinder, just so we can manouvre around having to bid 2♠ with such as (opposite a weak NT) x KQx QT8xx AT9x.

 

(I also think if you swap the majors on that hand, 2♣ might be better, since the a) the dreaded 2♠ is unlikely and b) absence of an X might lead them to find the dreaded ♥ lead.)

This is a good point. When we are quanting, a double of 2S is more likely to be harmful to us than a Double of 2C..but I am sure all the experts who are moving/have moved to the 2S quant already considered that wrinkle.

[Vampyr]

I usually play 4-suit transfers which use 2♠ as transfer to clubs and 2NT transfer to diamonds allowing Opener to SuperAccept with the intervening bid when holding 3 or more in the minor with at least one of the top honors.

 

This is the wrong way round, as it doesn't get you to the presumed better spot with a weak 5-5 in the minors.

[jallerton]

This is a good point. When we are quanting, a double of 2S is more likely to be harmful to us than a Double of 2C..but I am sure all the experts who are moving/have moved to the 2S quant already considered that wrinkle.

 

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Responder has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs.

 

It's certainly not silly to play 1NT-2NT as natural (particularly if you are not going to make decent use of a conventional 2NT). I understand that some Norwegian internationals favour this approach.

Edited October 17, 2014 by jallerton

[jwccsllc]

This is the wrong way round, as it doesn't get you to the presumed better spot with a weak 5-5 in the minors.

 

I didn't put our 3-bid structure:

 

3♣ 5-5 minors weak

3♦ 5-5 minors Game Force

3♥ GF splinter in hearts

3♠ GF splinter in spades.

 

This along with transfer to a major then bid a 2nd suit allows Responder to show all 2-suited hands at the 2 or 3 level.

[aguahombre]

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Opener has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs.

I was thinking the double of 2♠ is higher frequency when responder has no 4-card Spade suit AND that the more traditional uses for 2♠ like MSS often have spade shortness anyway --reducing the value of the double to the badguys (and increasing its value to our side) when they do have a double...a parlay which might be significant.

[Cthulhu D]

I hope one does not emerge. IMO, it would be counter to the whole idea of these fora. However, we could have some fun with a spoof thread about "Forum Standard".

 

It seems clear to me that it would be a living document, updated as you found better ideas.

[Vampyr]

I didn't put our 3-bid structure:

 

3♣ 5-5 minors weak

3♦ 5-5 minors Game Force

3♥ GF splinter in hearts

3♠ GF splinter in spades.

 

This along with transfer to a major then bid a 2nd suit allows Responder to show all 2-suited hands at the 2 or 3 level.

 

OK. Switching your responses to minor-suit transfers would free up your 3♣ bid for something else.

[jmcilkley]

It's amazing how many different ways of playing have been suggested. 2s as 11 points only is rather a waste of a bid as you can use Baron 2s to show 11 or 18+ (if playing 12-14 nt). With a min 1nt opening rebid 2nt and with a max bid 3 of cheapest 4 card suit. Now responder can bid game with 11 points and look for a slam with 18+ if there is a fit. As for bidding 2nt with 12 - I would just bid 3nt with most 12 point hands with any useful feature.

Playing full transfers does allow you to bid 3nt with support for the minor. Breaking the transfer without 3 cards to an honour in the suit allows you to stop in 3 of the minor while completing the transfer to show 3 with an honour may allow responder to try 3nt with a pretty solid 6 card suit.

[jallerton]

It's amazing how many different ways of playing have been suggested.

 

It's also amazing how many people seem convinced that their own methods are superior to all others.

[DAVDJ1]

It seems to be expert standard (including wannabe experts) to play, after partner's 1NT opening:

2♣ followed by 2NT: Denies four spades if opener bid 2♥

2♣ followed by 2♠ (if opener bids 2♥): four spades, invitational

2NT: Diamonds

 

Some invert 2♠ and 2NT after the 2♥ rebid, and some play something similar to GIBerish with 2NT->clubs, but in any case "everybody" bids 2♣ when holding 8-9 points balanced without a four-card major.

 

It strikes me as extremely inefficient. I understand that opener doesn't care about responder's four-card major when the rebid is 2♦, and doesn't care about responder's four hearts when the rebid is 2♠. So superficially it has some appeal. But even if you insist in using the direct 2NT bid for something artificial, wouldn't it be much better, when holding a balanced hand with 8-9 points and no 4-card major, just to pass with 8 and blast with 9?

 

Pass-and-blast would be marginally less accurate because opener is in a better position to decide opposite 8-9 than responder is opposite 15-17. But:

- You play 1NT instead of 2NT with 15+8 points.

- You don't leak information about opener's major suit holding when you don't care about it.

- You don't tell opps whether you are in a tight game or not, and you don't tell them about opener's HCPs.

- They can't double 2♣ (or make some lead-directing bid).

- The 2♠ bid can be used for something else. If nothing else fits in your structure, you can always define it as a weak hand with four spades and longer diamonds (including 4144, allowing opener to suggest 3♣ just in case).

 

Any thoughts?

[DAVDJ1]

Bergen responses solve many of the problems: 1nt p 2cl, p 2d= both majors & 15-bad16 2h=min w/h not s, 2nt=min no major, 3cl= ma, no maj 3d= max both majs, 3h= max h not sp, 3sp=max sp not h. I use this with my regular P

[aguahombre]

It's also amazing how many people seem convinced that their own methods are superior to all others.

That is to be expected. Some of those people might even be right. Some might even recognize other people's methods are superior for other people, but not for themselves.

 

I like seeing all those methods. There are reasons beyond stubbornness that we don't adopt superior methods. In this case, we don't want to change six or seven other parts of our NT structure in order to do it.

[Vampyr]

Bergen responses solve many of the problems: 1nt p 2cl, p 2d= both majors & 15-bad16 2h=min w/h not s, 2nt=min no major, 3cl= ma, no maj 3d= max both majs, 3h= max h not sp, 3sp=max sp not h. I use this with my regular P

 

I think that most people prefer being able to bid Stayman with weak hands.

[jallerton]

Bergen responses solve many of the problems: 1nt p 2cl, p 2d= both majors & 15-bad16 2h=min w/h not s, 2nt=min no major, 3cl= ma, no maj 3d= max both majs, 3h= max h not sp, 3sp=max sp not h. I use this with my regular P

 

I agree. This informative system will help to solve many defensive problems.

[Jinksy]

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Responder has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs.

 

Do you find this happens often enough to be a comparable risk? I haven't played much nonpromissory Stayman compared to the amount of rangefinding I've played, but I've definitely found the easy X of the latter be a constant concern. By comparison I hardly remember any overcalls when I've been playing promissory Stayman, which intuitively I would guess isn't much less likely to suffer them.

 

When they do have the strength to overcall, I'd guess it's reasonably often going to keep you out of a non-making 3N anyway, assuming neither of you is strong enough in their suit to penalise them for it.

[jallerton]

Do you find this happens often enough to be a comparable risk? I haven't played much nonpromissory Stayman compared to the amount of rangefinding I've played, but I've definitely found the easy X of the latter be a constant concern. By comparison I hardly remember any overcalls when I've been playing promissory Stayman, which intuitively I would guess isn't much less likely to suffer them.

 

When they do have the strength to overcall, I'd guess it's reasonably often going to keep you out of a non-making 3N anyway, assuming neither of you is strong enough in their suit to penalise them for it.

 

In 4th seat, one of the main purposes of overcalling here is to direct the lead (in fact the main purpose if the 1NT opening was strong), so I think overcalling here implies a decent suit rather than general strength.

 

Stayman is bid on so many hand types with a major then the 'normal' Stayman hand type will be more commonly held than the raise to 2NT without a major, even when 4th hand has overcalled.

 

Doubling the 2♠ or 2♣ response isn't risk free, and Opener should be ready to redouble with a good 4- or 5-card holding in the suit doubled.

[jdeegan]

The most efficient set of responses to a 1NT opening bid I know of was devised by Marshall Miles back in the early 1990's for use with Meckwell's 10-13 HCP Kamikazi opener. I once whiled away an eight hour car trip going through all its myriad variations. It was based on a sort of 2 way puppet Stayman w/o xfers.

 

It's almost enough to make me want to go back to playing the old Kamikazi 1NT. Only problem with it was (and I actually saw this in a Grand National Team trial event in Jackson, MS) "Board 6?" "+1280" "Push".