[m1cha]

 mgoetze, on 2015-July-22, 11:33, said:

Also "2♣ = Stayman" really doesn't tell you much at all, there are so many different ways to play it. For instance, I include invitational hands with 5 spades. Or there are the crazy French people and their German copycats who play 1NT-2♣-2NT as showing both majors...

Well, I'm really not a friend of this 1NT-2♣-2NT showing both majors; yet I don't see what is so bad about it that it deserves being called 'crazy' within a system of a 15 - 17 point 1NT. Could you please help me a little with this? Of course, if you want to play Crawing Stayman, perhaps in a Weak NT system, I fully agree.

[mgoetze]

 m1cha, on 2015-July-23, 17:13, said:

Well, I'm really not a friend of this 1NT-2♣-2NT showing both majors; yet I don't see what is so bad about it that it deserves being called 'crazy' within a system of a 15 - 17 point 1NT. Could you please help me a little with this? Of course, if you want to play Crawing Stayman, perhaps in a Weak NT system, I fully agree.

Even playing Strong NT there are enough hands where you will do better to get out in 2M. Anyway the main problem with this method is that it doesn't have any advantages to offset the disadvantages (can't get out in 2M, information leakage, and depending on your followups potential wrongsiding though that is of course easy to avoid).

[m1cha]

 mgoetze, on 2015-July-23, 19:26, said:

Even playing Strong NT there are enough hands where you will do better to get out in 2M. Anyway the main problem with this method is that it doesn't have any advantages to offset the disadvantages (can't get out in 2M, information leakage, and depending on your followups potential wrongsiding though that is of course easy to avoid).

When I ask people why they want to play this with me (2NT over Stayman showing both majors), I hear: 'It helps responder to evaluate the hand.' And while this is true, I wonder how often this is needed. I guess you are right that it helps opponents more often than responder.

About escaping to 2M: When opener opens 1NT with 4432, the chances of having both majors is 16.7 %. If responder has 4-4 in the majors, the chances of opener also having 4-4 in the majors are less than this. If opener opens 1NT with any other distribution, the chances of 4-4 in majors is zero (ignoring 4441). So we end up with a total chance of perhaps 4 - 6 % depending on system. What I want to say is: If you as responder have a hand where you think getting out in 2 of a suit is a good idea, then it is probably still a good idea even if there is a small possibility that opener may respond to Stayman with 2NT. Sh** happens.

As a side note: Yes, there are solutions for almost everything. In one case partner wanted to play the 2NT rebid while we also wanted to play 1NT - 2NT as transfer and decided Stayman should not promise a 4-card major. Here the problem is that if opener rebids 2NT for both majors, there is no way to invite to 3NT! So what we did was: 2NT showing both majors with minimum (which could be passed), 3♣ showing both majors with maximum, over which we played 3-level Jacoby transfers to right-side the desired suit-contract. I'm not recommending this. Just saying: If your preferences create problems, there are usually solutions. And obviously information leakage to opponents was not a concern that time .

[awm]

My preference is not quite captured in the poll even though it includes stayman and Jacoby:

2s = range ask or one suited minor invite
2nt, 3c = straight xfer to the next suit
3d,3h,3s = splinters but not in the bid suit nor the next suit up; in particular 3d is short clubs and 3M is short in the other major with 4 in the bid major.

[antonylee]

Minor additions for me: 2N=D or weak D+C; 3H=31(54) or 4144 (the additional step makes this easy to unwind) but 3S=13(54) :-)

[akwoo]

The only thing I use that I don't see is

3D = 55 majors invitational

[gwnn]

PhilKing has a nice structure using 1N-2C; inverted major responses (2H=spades, 2S=hearts, 2N/3C=both majors min/max) since transfers are always inv+. The Italians (not all of them but quite a few top ones I thought) also use 2N/3C this way so it's probably not awful.

[Jinksy]

 m1cha, on 2015-July-24, 16:48, said:

When I ask people why they want to play this with me (2NT over Stayman showing both majors), I hear: 'It helps responder to evaluate the hand.' And while this is true, I wonder how often this is needed. I guess you are right that it helps opponents more often than responder.

About escaping to 2M: When opener opens 1NT with 4432, the chances of having both majors is 16.7 %. If responder has 4-4 in the majors, the chances of opener also having 4-4 in the majors are less than this. If opener opens 1NT with any other distribution, the chances of 4-4 in majors is zero (ignoring 4441). So we end up with a total chance of perhaps 4 - 6 % depending on system. What I want to say is: If you as responder have a hand where you think getting out in 2 of a suit is a good idea, then it is probably still a good idea even if there is a small possibility that opener may respond to Stayman with 2NT. Sh** happens.

Responder doesn't need to be 4-4 in the majors to want to use Garbage Stayman. (34)51 is also a common shape, (34)42 and 3352 are probably worth doing it on if weak enough that you think 1N is going off. Playing opposite a weak 1N I'll do it on all sorts of hands - if I'm very weak then I'll do it on virtually any sort of hand that can't xfer or retreat decisively after an X. On a good day, they won't be playing a 4th-seat X of Stayman as values, and even if they are (and have discussed continuations), starting off our wriggle before waiting for them to confirm we need it gives them less space to describe their own hands.

[m1cha]

 Jinksy, on 2015-July-25, 04:00, said:

Responder doesn't need to be 4-4 in the majors to want to use Garbage Stayman. (34)51 is also a common shape, (34)42 and 3352 are probably worth doing it on if weak enough that you think 1N is going off. Playing opposite a weak 1N I'll do it on all sorts of hands - if I'm very weak then I'll do it on virtually any sort of hand that can't xfer or retreat decisively after an X. [...]

I used to play 9 - 14 1NT for quite a while. It was fun to play. I don't recommend this because it has some obvious problems though not as many as one may think. What I can recommend from that time are our escape sequences after opponents' double:

- XX shows any 5+ card suit (weak) and puppets to 2♣ for pass or correct;

- Any direct bid on the 2 level shows 4 cards in the suit bid plus 4 cards in spades. Except 2♣ can also be any 4333 distribution. Opener will bid a known fit or otherwise suggest a long suit of his/her own;

- Pass puppets to XX which responder may pass with any strong hand. If responder bids a minor suit now, this shows 4 cards in the suit bid plus 4 cards in a higher red suit. If responder bids a major suit now, this is natural and invitational (and probably distributional because otherwise pass may score higher).

54xx hands can be bid as 5xxx or 44xx depending on suits and values. The sequences were tested and optimized to guarantee a 97+ % chance of a 7-card fit and some 60 % chance of an 8-card fit, iirc, not counting responder hands with 6+ card lengths (which always guarantee an 8-card fit). Opps never know how good your fit is, so this is difficult to double. You never play 1NTX but you can play 1NTXX (which is a full game) if you go for it and unless opps run (which is, unfortunately, what they usually do in that situation).

[Jinksy]

I play a lot of weak NT too, but I would not voluntarily play a wriggle with a forcing pass. There are more important things than finding all 4-3 fits. Even I were, I'd rather not wait for them to X me before I start wriggling.

[Phil]

Conclusions from the NT poll:

1. Strong NT dominates by a 2:1 margin. 4 play a ‘mini’. 8 play a split range depending on seat and/or vulnerability.

2. Some of the responses at the two and three level probably reflect a strong/weak NT philosophy.

3. Stayman (and variants), and Jacoby transfers dominate.

4. 2♠ as clubs (or clubs/range ask) dominates, but the respondents are very divided on showing diamonds via 2N or 3♣.

5. 2N as a natural invite garnered a surprising number of votes.

6. Three level responses did not generate a clear consensus., and I think this is largely because methods diverge after 2♠. 3M as 13(54) is the most popular, but not anywhere near a consensus. However, its also clear that about half of the respondents didn’t even bother to vote – maybe poll fatigue LOL.

[jeffford76]

I play a 12-14 1NT with a 2NT response showing exactly 5 hearts, invitational (which I know is idiosyncratic). I also play 3H/3S as natural to play, which isn't listed either.

[mr1303]

I don't see 2S = 11 points, 2nt = 12 points on the list (opposite a 12-14 nt).

Loads of players play that in the UK