[jdonn]

Please do NOT answer the poll if you are advanced / expert (but feel free to participate in the discussion if you want to). That is not the perspective I am attempting to find out. Thanks

[Cyberyeti]

Not engaging in the poll, we play:

P - suggestion to play in clubs maybe Q9xx or J8xxx (to taste whether you do this with 4 good clubs and a 4M, if you do, you need to play XX by responder as "I really want a Stayman response")
XX - strong suggestion to play in clubs perhaps KJ109 or Q10xxx
2♦ - no 4M, likely to hold diamonds but could be 333xxxx

So I bid 2♦

[neilkaz]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-07, 09:19, said:

Not engaging in the poll, we play:

P - suggestion to play in clubs maybe Q9xx or J8xxx (to taste whether you do this with 4 good clubs and a 4M, if you do, you need to play XX by responder as "I really want a Stayman response")
XX - strong suggestion to play in clubs perhaps KJ109 or Q10xxx
2♦ - no 4M, likely to hold diamonds but could be 333xxxx

So I bid 2♦

I like this.

[nige1]

Jdonn said:

You open 1NT (15-17) with KQx AJx KQJxx xx. Partner bids 2C stayman, which RHO doubles to suggest a club lead. What do you do

After 1N (Pass)2♣(Double)??, IMO

• Pass = NAT. 4+ ♣s, No 4-card M.
• 2♦ = NAT. 4+ ♦s, No 4-card M.
• 2M = NAT. 4+ M.
• Redouble = ART. Equal length in Ms (3-3 or 4-4). No ♣ stop.

Redouble to show good ♣s seems dangerous. That redouble seems to fix partner, when he has say,
♠ x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x x ♣ x x

If redouble shows ♣s, then partner's main choices seem to be:

• Losing about 1000 in 2♣XX.
• Settle for 3♣X to lose only about 800.

Admittedly, if you play a strong notrump, then the penalty might be less.

[keithhus]

Redouble!,,

1. More points - obvious
2. No support for Cs
3. No support for majors - obvious
Partner would then bid D or NT with C stopper or pass .
Flying a kite but what do you think!

[jdonn]

 nige1, on 2015-May-07, 11:24, said:

After 1N (Pass)2♣(Double)??, IMO

• Pass = NAT. 4+ ♣s, No 4-card M.
• 2♦ = NAT. 4+ ♦s, No 4-card M.
• 2M = NAT. 4+ M.
• Redouble = ART. Equal length in Ms (3-3 or 4-4).

Redouble to show good ♣s seems dangerous. That redouble, seems to fix partner, when he has say,
♠ x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x x ♣ x x

If redouble shows ♣s, then partner's main choices seem to be:

• Losing about 1000 in 2♣XX.
• Settle for 3♣X to lose only about 800.

Admittedly, if you play a strong notrump, then the penalty might be less.

I think bidding stayman with that hand is insane, but if you had something like 4441 0 count and partner redoubled to show good clubs, obviously you would pull to 2D and play the same fit you were always going to play anyway.

[Antrax]

We play one of those half-clever ideas my partner likes so much. Opener redoubles with good clubs, ignores the double with a club stopper and passes without a stopper. Responder may pass but never will, redoubles to re-stayman with no stopper and bids "naturally" when we want to have a disaster (without peeking at the notes I don't remember if 2M is inv or shows garbage stayman). The idea is to rightside the contract against a club lead.

[sfi]

I think not being able to redouble to show good clubs is very poor. You take away the opponent's risk of doubling and stop yourself from getting lucky occasionally.

I've never discussed other continuations, but would expect that pass is a suggestion to play clubs and 2D is a catch-all denying a major.

Time to discuss it...

[helene_t]

Undiscussed I think pass is neutral, rdbl shows clubs and diamonds is diamonds. I don't think it matters much what level p has although some beginners may ignore the double.

If you want to rightside a suit contract it is better to play transfers but that means you have only two calls for the three non major hand types so maybe that is a bad idea. Otoh if you don't have weak hands with both majors in your stayman you could play:
Pass=four poor clubs or 3343
Rdbl=clubs
2d/h=transfer
2s=five diams, club stop
2n=diamonds, no club stop
If you play nonpromisory there will be too many hands to differentiate so it probably won't work.

[Antrax]

 helene_t, on 2015-May-08, 00:57, said:

If you play nonpromisory there will be too many hands to differentiate so it probably won't work.

Of course we do, to allow us to play four transfers.

[mikeh]

At the risk of digressing far from the poll topic, my current partner has a 'solution' which is a little (?) complex but seems to have some merit, altho I haven't played much yet.

His notion is that opener passes unless he has a club stopper. If he has a club stopper, he bids normally, with redouble showing 4+ decent clubs.

So assume opener passes, and it is back to responder:

Pass says we play here: we give up on the penalty redouble, which isn't much of a loss.


Redouble is sort of like repeat stayman, except that opener is to transfer to a major if he holds one. So 2♦ shows hearts, 2♥ shows spades, 2♠ shows 5+diamonds, and 2N shows none of the above.

Responder doesn't have to redouble or pass, of course. Responder can bid suits naturally.....2♥ would be pass or correct to spades, 2♦ is an offer to play 2♦.

In this partnership, we play 2 way stayman (more precisely, 2♦ is an artificial game force, with artificial responses) so the inferences would be different than if we played transfers. Thus with an invitational hand with a long major we might start with 2♣, altho some invites are shown by 3M immediately. Accordingly, if anyone is interested, I'd suggest giving some thought to what other calls mean by responder once the double is passed around.

[helene_t]

I would be a little worried about passing with every hand without a club stopper. Especially when playing 2way so that responder can have all kinds of invitational hands. Next hand might well bid 3c.

Also I am not sure if it is good not to allow responder to redouble for business. 2cx is not game.

[kuhchung]

 Antrax, on 2015-May-08, 01:47, said:

Of course we do, to allow us to play four transfers.

Nonpromisory is such a bulky word. Can we just call it Leaky Stayman?

[1eyedjack]

Mikeh introduces transfers in response to the redouble re-stayman, which is a new idea for me and I like it. The rest of his post seems to be largely a repetition of a popular method expressed a few times in this thread: XX to show a stack, pass without a guard and bid with one.

I like this, except that I normally reverse the meaning of pass and X. We have a meta agreement that works in several competitive situations of which this is just one, where XX shows a stack, pass shows a guard and bid without.

The rationale being that if partner is at all inclined to pass out the hand in the doubled contract, he is more likely to have such a hand if he knows that partner has a guard in trumps opposite, than when lacking.

[Cthulhu D]

 Antrax, on 2015-May-08, 01:47, said:

Of course we do, to allow us to play four transfers.

You can play 4 suit transfers and prommisory stayman, e.g.:

2C: Stayman!
2D: Hearts
2H: SPades
2S: Clubs or range ask (bid 2N with a min, 3C with a max)
2N: Diamonds.

[helene_t]

 1eyedjack, on 2015-May-10, 03:46, said:

We have a meta agreement that works in several competitive situations of which this is just one, where XX shows a stack, pass shows a guard and bid without.

The rationale being that if partner is at all inclined to pass out the hand in the doubled contract, he is more likely to have such a hand if he knows that partner has a guard in trumps opposite, than when lacking.

Also, it is better to make the nebulous pass when you have a guard so that lho is slightly less likely to raise.
But it is especially when you don't have a guard that you want responder to declare and if you play transfers immediately you are uncomfortable with 3343 and no guard. I suppose you could play 2S as this hand. Garbage stayman hands will either be able to pass or bid 3di.
But how often do you want to play 2c doubled? Most gs hands are short in clubs and if responder has game strength, 2cx isn't profitable enough. So I think it's only when responder has an invite and knows opener is min and doesn't have a major fit. But the nebulous pass doesn't give that information.