Extended Garbage Stayman?

[gwnn]

helene_t and I played this over 1NT:

 

1NT-2♣

2♦-2♥ = both majors or 4♥5m. Opener should correct to 2♠ with equal length and responder can bid the 5cm.

 

1NT-2♣

2♦/2♥-2♠ = 4♠5m (if 2♦-2♠, it is ♠+♣)

 

1NT-2♣

2♠- ?? responder must pass this with 4♥5m (to not disturb 2NT/3m bids) so should have 3 cards or maybe stretch to 2NT with some 2425/2452 6-7 count.

 

So in addition to the traditional 4441/3451/4351 you can also bid 2♣ on hands with reversed minors but also 4225/4252/4135/4153/4162/4126 etc. You give up showing 5♠4♥ invitations but that's life (you can bid 2♣ and 2♥ over 2♦ or stretch to smolen).

 

I haven't seen others play this, doesn't it make sense? Having to pass over 1NT with a weakish hand while strongly suspecting you're missing a good partscore is super annoying (or maybe it's just me).

[Tramticket]

What strength NT are you playing? If playing a strong NT, then the philosophy is to find your best part-score. And note that once partner opens 1NT it is rare for opponents to be missing game. I can see the sense in your idea.

 

Playing a weak NT (as we do), there is more up-side to staying put (at least until you are doubled). Opponents often find it more difficult to compete over 1NT and may be missing game (e.g. they each hold a balanced 13-count). There are many occasions when I want to use Garbage Stayman in response to our weak NT - but only on shape suitable hands and I'm happy to pass with the 4M5m hands (and play 5m at the two-level after they double).

 

There are risks in this system e.g. if you correct to 2♠ after 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥, you might be correcting out of a 5-3 fit to a 4-3 fit.

[gwnn]

What strength NT are you playing? If playing a strong NT, then the philosophy is to find your best part-score. And note that once partner opens 1NT it is rare for opponents to be missing game. I can see the sense in your idea.

With helene_t, we played either 10-13 or 14-16, depending on vulnerability. For simplicity, we had the same NT structure over both. Even in a weak NT undoubled situation, finding decent partscores is important though, 1NT-3 is annoying when the field is in some kind of 2m contract.

Playing a weak NT (as we do), there is more up-side to staying put (at least until you are doubled). Opponents often find it more difficult to compete over 1NT and may be missing game (e.g. they each hold a balanced 13-count). There are many occasions when I want to use Garbage Stayman in response to our weak NT - but only on shape suitable hands and I'm happy to pass with the 4M5m hands (and play 5m at the two-level after they double).

Interesting - I would have thought that one of the weaknesses of the weak NT is missing out on 4-4 2M contracts which the strong NT field finds (say, 13 opposite 7); this approach would somewhat mitigate this, although definitely just by a shade. If memory serves, 2♣ then 2♥ is known to be a losing strategy on 4432's.

There are risks in this system e.g. if you correct to 2♠ after 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥, you might be correcting out of a 5-3 fit to a 4-3 fit.

I wouldn't bid 2♣ then 2♥ on 4♠5♥ if this is the principle. But yea that's a downside of its own :)

[rhm]

I haven't seen others play this, doesn't it make sense? Having to pass over 1NT with a weakish hand while strongly suspecting you're missing a good partscore is super annoying (or maybe it's just me).

The question you need to raise is not whether garbage Stayman makes any sense. It does.

The question is how many sequences do you want to reserve, finding the best contract when responder has a weak hand, how many for invitational hands and how many for strong hands.

The answer may somewhat depend on the range of your 1NT opening.

 

Playing a strong notrump (14+-17) I do not want to allocate that many sequences solely for garbage, which is usually done at the cost of showing invitational hands.

With garbage I can only continue bidding 2♥ over 2♦ after Stayman. If I bid anything else I have either an invitational or a strong hand, depending on the bid I make.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nullve]

With my last regular partners I played

 

1N-2♣ = (extended) Garbage Stayman, but not used on weak hands with 2-S4H5m (unprepared for 1N-2♣; 2♠)

 

 

1N-2♣; 2♦-?:

 

P = weak, 5+ D

2♥ = (extended?*) Crawling Stayman.

...P = 2S3H**

...2♠: otherwise

2♠ = weak, 4S3-H5C

2N = puppet to 3♣

...3♣

......P = weak, 6+ C

(...)

 

* I remember we discussed using Crawling Stayman also with 3415, but I don't think we ever agreed to do that. (And Opener's rebids over 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥ suggest we didn't.)

** If Crawling Stayman is used also with 3415, then maybe Opener should pass also with 3352 and not risk ending up in 3♣ on the 5-2 fit after 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-3♣; P?

 

 

1N-2♣; 2♥-?:

 

P = weak, 3+ H

2♠ = weak, 4S2-H5+m

2N = puppet to 3♣

...3♣

......P = weak, 6+ C

......3♦ = weak, 6+ D

......(...)

(...)

 

 

1N-2♣; 2♠-?:

 

P = weak, 3+ S

2N = puppet to 3♣

...3♣

......P = weak, 6+ C

......3♦ = weak, 6+ D

......(...)

(...).

[akwoo]

In my 10-12 1N partnership, I play:

 

1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ is 44 majors or (43)15

 

1N-2♣-2♥-2♠ is 4144 or 41(53)

 

1N-2♣-2♠-3♣ as showing 1444

 

All of these are weak, with a tendency towards very weak (because we tend to pass 1N with these shapes and an 8 count).

 

I make no claim of optimality against good opponents; one of the reasons for these treatments is that, the more rounds of bidding you have, the more likely mediocre opponents are to bail you out by either bidding or failing to double. (You know (1N)-P-(P)-X is penalty - do you know what (1N)-P-(2C)-X is? What about (1N)-P-(2C)-P-(2S)-P-(3C)-X?)

 

IIRC, with 44(23) opposite a 10-12 1N, you find partner with a 4 card major around 45% of the time.

[Zelandakh]

There used to be a web site around that gave the following as Crawling/Creeping Stayman:-

 

1NT - 2♣; 2♦

==

2♥ = weak, ♥ + another

... - 2♠ = preference

... - ... - 2NT = ♥ + ♣ + ♦

... - ... - 3m = ♥ + m (this is what was written to me it makes no sense for Responder to hold ♦ as that hand would just have passed 2♦)

2♠ = weak, ♠ + minor

--

 

Unfortunately the web site appears to have closed down now and all of the sites I have links to only give the more common case of both majors. Additionally, I think it is extremely questionable whether any NT structure can get enough from the ♠ + minor case to justify losing such an important call from any constructive use. Adding the extensions to the 2♥ runout on the other hand costs very little, if you can afford to use 2NT or both 3m calls for that purpose over a 2♠ Stayman response. Even if not, there are some options for limited extension - for example, once upon a time I played a structure in which 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3♣ was a puppet to 3♦, either to play there or with GF values. In this case it becomes sound to allow a weak 2♣ response on a 4♥5+♦ hand as there is always a possible resting place, but it is not sound on the corresponding hand with clubs as in this case you are stuck over a 2♠ response.

 

This example shows that it is best to think about which extensions (or removals) might be considered in the context of the overall NT structure. I do not think it is important enough in its own right to make the rest of the NT structure less efficient in order to accommodate it.

[gwnn]

Thanks all, great input from everyone. Looks like some people like garbage more than me and some people less, but all of the mentioned schemes make sense to me.

 

I was reminded by the treatment because I had

Kxxx

xxx

x

Kxxxx

 

and reluctantly passed over 1NT but we missed a decent spade fit. True, the other table was in 4♠-1 and we won a few imps, but still, passing felt super wrong.

[akwoo]

Yes - it's important to note that the structure we play over the 10-12 1N has ways of showing 5m4M game forcing hands that don't go through Stayman. I won't give the whole structure here, but the basic idea is that bids generally show a weak transfer to the next suit or a invitational+ hand in the bid suit. When all is said and done, what we lose compared to the usual transfer or 2-way Stayman structures is that opener is in the dark, so opener cannot superaccept or compete effectively over 4th seat interference.

[gwnn]

Yes - it's important to note that the structure we play over the 10-12 1N has ways of showing 5m4M game forcing hands that don't go through Stayman. I won't give the whole structure here, but the basic idea is that bids generally show a weak transfer to the next suit or a invitational+ hand in the bid suit. When all is said and done, what we lose compared to the usual transfer or 2-way Stayman structures is that opener is in the dark, so opener cannot superaccept or compete effectively over 4th seat interference.

I have played (after 10-12)

1NT-2♣

2x-3m = weak, to play

 

with

1NT-(minor transfer)

(accept)-3M = 5m4M.

 

I won't give the whole structure here, but .. oh wait that was the whole structure. :lol: Basically anything other than 1NT-2♣; 2M-3oM was just garbage.

[Zelandakh]

For Mini-NT system lovers.

[gwnn]

Is there a version without funny symbols? :)

 

edit: ok I made one. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t8WameH-4gWPDevrpVNMYn01YiaEXtNZjLyofLQ37Jc/edit?usp=sharing

edit2: I don't like it, way too complicated. I prefer systems where I can understand what I should respond without needing to look up 3-rd round followup bids.

[Zelandakh]

edit2: I don't like it, way too complicated. I prefer systems where I can understand what I should respond without needing to look up 3-rd round followup bids.

There is a reason I do not play it despite generally liking "system" solutions to bidding problems. ;) :lol: Against that it does seem to be an excellent structure for pairs that have the time and inclination to go through it and understand the intricacies.

[gwnn]

There is a reason I do not play it despite generally liking "system" solutions to bidding problems. ;) :lol: Against that it does seem to be an excellent structure for pairs that have the time and inclination to go through it and understand the intricacies.

I hope those pairs spend some time understanding full disclosure as well. "Asks about hearts, may or may not have hearts" seems inadequate to me when obviously it is not random whether they ask about hearts or spades or not ask at all.

[nige1]

helene_t and I played this over 1NT:

1NT-2♣

2♦-2♥ = both majors or 4♥5m. Opener should correct to 2♠ with equal length and responder can bid the 5cm.

 

1NT-2♣

2♦/2♥-2♠ = 4♠5m (if 2♦-2♠, it is ♠+♣)

 

1NT-2♣

2♠- ?? responder must pass this with 4♥5m (to not disturb 2NT/3m bids) so should have 3 cards or maybe stretch to 2NT with some 2425/2452 6-7 count.

 

So in addition to the traditional 4441/3451/4351 you can also bid 2♣ on hands with reversed minors but also 4225/4252/4135/4153/4162/4126 etc. You give up showing 5♠4♥ invitations but that's life (you can bid 2♣ and 2♥ over 2♦ or stretch to smolen). I haven't seen others play this, doesn't it make sense? Having to pass over 1NT with a weakish hand while strongly suspecting you're missing a good partscore is super annoying (or maybe it's just me).

John Matheson advocates a similar approach. For example, he employs Stayman whenever he is 44 in the majors.

Extended Garbage Stayman works well with a slightly modified response structure. AFAIR Justin Lall recommended something like what we play over a 1N opener ...

• 2♣ = ASK. for Ms. Garbage Stayman. (Often weak).
• 2♦ = TRF. 5+ ♥s.
• 2♥ = TRF. 5+ ♠s.
• 2♠ = TRF. 5+ ♣s.
• 2N = TRF. 5+ ♦s.
• 3♣ = ART. G/F. Puppet or Muppet Stayman (with G/F hands).
• 3♦ = SPL. G/F. ♣/♦ shortage. Then 3♥ = Which? 3♠/N = ♣/♦ shortage.
• 3♥ = SPL. G/F. ♥ shortage.
• 3♠ = SPL. G/F. ♠ shortage.