Stayman or 3NT?

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk864hq84dk983cq5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np]133|200|15-17[/hv]

 

IMPs, nil vul.

Stayman or 3NT, or ....

[Vampyr]

I am on the fence but if I bid Stayman I will bid 5-card Stayman to find any 8-card major fit if one exists.

[MrAce]

You should change the option 1 to "yes 4-4 or 5-4 ♠ fit will be better"

Most of us open 5M332 hands 1 NT.

I personally play regular stayman and that is what I would do.

Make it (11)12+ hcp and I would blast 3 NT.

[lycier]

If south holds 4333 shape hand, of course, directly bid up to 3nt, for others shape hand, it would better start with stayman.

[wank]

I'd bid 3nt. This soft rubbish won't play enough better in spades to justify the info leak.

 

Being 43 as opposed to 42 in the majors is a plus because they'll be tempted to lead one.

[Winstonm]

It's not enough to look at your hand only and decide it is no-trump. Partner's hand has to be considered, too. Stayman for me.

[Phil]

Puppet then 3N.

[jogs]

If south holds 4333 shape hand, of course, directly bid up to 3nt, for others shape hand, it would better start with stayman.

Ditto. This is pretty much my style. The 4-4 fit must play at least one trick better than notrumps before 4 of a major is superior to 3NT.

[miamijd]

Here are the factors to consider when comparing a 44 major to 3NT:

 

1. Do you have the intermediates in your trump suit?

 

Qs and Js in the trump suit are important. If you don't have good intermediates, a 4-1 trump break could buffalo you. If you do, you can often overcome it.

 

2. How much strength do you have?

 

If you are minimum for game, the suit contract will generally make an extra trick. If you have substantial extra strength, however, you might make the same number of tricks on power alone.

 

3. How good is your side four-card suit?

 

If your side four-card suit is good, that may provide a good source of tricks for NT.

 

This one is borderline. Your trump suit isn't great, and you have the Qx in your doub suit. That would argue for 3NT. But you don't have extra power, and your side 4 card suit is not good. That would argue for Stayman.

 

I can't say either bid is terribly wrong.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

4. Do you have the Q in your doubleton suit?

 

In order for the ruff not to be useful, you either need to win the third-round trick on power (and Queens win third-round tricks) or else you have to not need the ruff (which is why 2 and 3 are relevant).

[miamijd]

Here are the factors to consider when comparing a 44 major to 3NT:

 

1. Do you have the intermediates in your trump suit?

 

Qs and Js in the trump suit are important. If you don't have good intermediates, a 4-1 trump break could buffalo you. If you do, you can often overcome it.

 

2. How much strength do you have?

 

If you are minimum for game, the suit contract will generally make an extra trick. If you have substantial extra strength, however, you might make the same number of tricks on power alone.

 

3. How good is your side four-card suit?

 

If your side four-card suit is good, that may provide a good source of tricks for NT.

 

This one is borderline. Your trump suit isn't great, and you have the Qx in your doub suit. That would argue for 3NT. But you don't have extra power, and your side 4 card suit is not good. That would argue for Stayman.

 

I can't say either bid is terribly wrong.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

4. Do you have the Q in your doubleton suit?

 

In order for the ruff not to be useful, you either need to win the third-round trick on power (and Queens win third-round tricks) or else you have to not need the ruff (which is why 2 and 3 are relevant).

[miamijd]

Here are the factors to consider when comparing a 44 major to 3NT:

 

1. Do you have the intermediates in your trump suit?

 

Qs and Js in the trump suit are important. If you don't have good intermediates, a 4-1 trump break could buffalo you. If you do, you can often overcome it.

 

2. How much strength do you have?

 

If you are minimum for game, the suit contract will generally make an extra trick. If you have substantial extra strength, however, you might make the same number of tricks on power alone.

 

3. How good is your side four-card suit?

 

If your side four-card suit is good, that may provide a good source of tricks for NT.

 

This one is borderline. Your trump suit isn't great, and you have the Qx in your doub suit. That would argue for 3NT. But you don't have extra power, and your side 4 card suit is not good. That would argue for Stayman.

 

I can't say either bid is terribly wrong.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

4. Do you have the Q in your doubleton suit?

 

In order for the ruff not to be useful, you either need to win the third-round trick on power (and Queens win third-round tricks) or else you have to not need the ruff (which is why 2 and 3 are relevant).

[aawk]

A hand with 10 LTC is better for 3nt then a possible 4♠ but I am a loosing trick count fan.

[Vampyr]

Here are the factors to consider when comparing a 44 major to 3NT:

 

1. Do you have the intermediates in your trump suit?

 

Qs and Js in the trump suit are important. If you don't have good intermediates, a 4-1 trump break could buffalo you. If you do, you can often overcome it.

 

2. How much strength do you have?

 

If you are minimum for game, the suit contract will generally make an extra trick. If you have substantial extra strength, however, you might make the same number of tricks on power alone.

 

3. How good is your side four-card suit?

 

If your side four-card suit is good, that may provide a good source of tricks for NT.

 

This one is borderline. Your trump suit isn't great, and you have the Qx in your doub suit. That would argue for 3NT. But you don't have extra power, and your side 4 card suit is not good. That would argue for Stayman.

 

I can't say either bid is terribly wrong.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

4. Do you have the Q in your doubleton suit?

 

In order for the ruff not to be useful, you either need to win the third-round trick on power (and Queens win third-round tricks) or else you have to not need the ruff (which is why 2 and 3 are relevant).

 

OK already! We have got your point!

[nekthen]

No one has mentioned the scoring. At IMPs I aim for the major game as generally safer, and yes use 5 card stayman (I use 3♣)

At MP I will punt 3N.

1. You will be playing with the field

2. Opps cannot double your club bid

3. 10 extra points are really important

[Vampyr]

No one has mentioned the scoring. At IMPs I aim for the major game as generally safer, and yes use 5 card stayman (I use 3♣)

At MP I will punt 3N.

1. You will be playing with the field

2. Opps cannot double your club bid

3. 10 extra points are really important

 

Was the form of scoring omitted? It is there now.

[msjennifer]

My personal feeling is ,when this hand is lacking the fillers ,making 9 tricks in NT or 10 tricks in 4S is not possible if opener is BARE minimum.I think that this is an invitational hand only.I shall use Stayman and if P does show a spade suit I shall bid an invitational 3S and on any thing else 2NT again an invitation.

[AyunuS]

I'd definitely go for Stayman. Only time I wouldn't is if I'm 3334 or maybe if I just don't like my high cards for 4M. Like when you have no honors in what would be the trump suit, and otherwise high cards that are better in NT.

[nekthen]

Was the form of scoring omitted? It is there now.

 

Maybe I missed it, but no one else has mentioned that they would do it different at MP scoring.

Am I alone or do the stayman bidders agree?

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk864hq84dk983cq5&n=sqj72hjtdqjtcakj7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np]266|200[/hv]

 

So nothing makes. East had

♠T3 ♥AK52 ♦7 ♣T86432

 

and 4♠ was lost two ruffs for -150.

3NT has no play on a heart lead but a club lead would test West.

 

Prefer 3NT on the South cards. Likely to be lacking the firepower to hold the defenders to 3 tricks.

Admittedly, the North hand turned out to be very notrumpy.

Terrible hand so there is a case for raising to 2NT. (Hoefully via 2♠ = clubs or a raise)

[Jinksy]

Maybe I missed it, but no one else has mentioned that they would do it different at MP scoring.

Am I alone or do the stayman bidders agree?

 

I think you've got it backwards. At IMPs, for Stayman to substantially gain, you have to be making two+ more tricks in your 4-4 fit (and for those two to be the difference between 3N making 8, and 4M making 10). At MPs, if you only make one more trick in 4M, you'll still get a much better score (regardless of whether you're making or going off).

 

As for 'playing with the field', I can't see why - I would expect most pairs to go via Stayman (and in Australia, a handful of the field might be playing a weak NT, so very likely to find a spade fit if it exists).

[helene_t]

according to han's analysis, stayman has a small edge when one factors in the impact of the information leak on the opening lead. I tend to believe that factoring in the impact on the whole defence would give blasting a small edge but that would require lots of data to demonstrate.

[bobcandoit]

Even with a spade fit, losing trick count implies game is not likely.

[rmnka447]

I'd definitely Stayman with the hand because of the normal advantages of a 4-4 major fit. In this particular hand, neither 3 NT nor 4 ♠ was particularly good. Those are the breaks sometime.

 

You might not "prefer 3 NT on the South cards" if partner's ♥ and ♣ were reversed. Then 3 NT can go down off the top with a ♣ lead.

 

The point being that you can't always judge what's right solely from your own hand.

[helene_t]

Even with a spade fit, losing trick count implies game is not likely.

Interesting. I automatically bid game with ten points but considering some possible hands partner could have, an invite may be enough.

 

Partner could have AQxx-KJxx-Ax-Kxx. So I think we need to give it a chance. But obviously he would accept with that.

 

BTW, the poll questions are strange. If I consider it worth only an invite I could still use Stayman.

[maartenxq]

Difficult. 3nt may be better but shape and medium intermediate cards make me bid stayman. Plus i hate to be the wise guy who decides on some whims where to go without consulting partner.

Maarten Baltussen