[nige1]

paulg, on 2020-November-12, 09:16, said:

To be fair, Helen only blamed 'the other table'. I know it was a NICKO match and you were playing with Stuart Maurice but, as the club had so many teams, there were few eligible members available for substitutes.

Oh dear. Stuart Maurice was my favourite partner and rarely made mistakes, so it seems it was my fault again

Helen is still enjoying her Scrabble, I see
https://en.wikipedia...ki/Helen_Gipson
https://www.wespa.or...=Helen%20Gipson

[johnu]

paulg, on 2020-November-11, 11:06, said:

"We play Acol, 5-card majors, a short club and a strong no trump"

What so strange? I play Precision Club, natural 1♣ opening, 4 card majors, 15-17 NT.

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2020-November-12, 04:09, said:

I'm afraid that I still lose matches, single-handedly the last on Monday of this week

You're probably a bit too hard on yourself. I remember we once lost a JEC match and you took a lot of responsibility while really you didn't do much wrong other than agreeing to play with me Then again, it was great fun even if we lost ♥

[ali quarg]

Try below to find 4-4 & 5-3 major fits

1NT-2♣

--2♦ No 5 card major - not 2♠ & 3♥

----2♥ Denies 4♥

------2♠ 4♠

--------2NT Denies 4♠

--2♠ 4♥ Denies 4♠

--2NT 4-4 Majors

--2♥ 5♥

--2♠ 5♠

--2NT 2♠ & 3♥

1NT-2♦ 5+♥

--2♥ 5+♥

----2♠ 5+♥ & 5+♠ invitational

[seaspell]

Vampyr, on 2020-November-10, 19:04, said:

This evening my partner surprised me. His very interesting method was that 1NT-2♣ asks for a 4-card major, and if the continues 2♦-3♣ responder is now asking for a 3-card major.

I assumed he had a 4-card major and clubs. We had never discussed the specific auction, so I assumed the standard meaning, but my partner insisted that my interpretation was idiosyncratic and that this extended Stayman was totally part of Acol since it was in the Acol book (I assume by Crowhurst) he had read 40 years ago, and that using transfers will never show equal length.

40 years ago I had never even heard of Acol, and while that’s not an excuse when I’m playing with a lifelong Acol player, i don’t think that I should be expected to know (and assume) Acol treatments that are dated; or even, to quote Buffy Summers, carbon dated.

Can Acol players please confirm whether this weird treatment is totally part of Acol and I was remiss in not knowing that?

This is my first post so hope i do ok. I play acol weak nt and my partner has got me to use extended (or emergency) stayman if I have 4♥ & 4♠ and a very weak hand. If partner has a major, bingo, but if he replies 2♦ I try to find a 4/3 fit and bid 2♥, partner leaves it with 3 or adjusts to 2♠. Hopefully the opps then come in to the bidding and rescue us!

We use Stayman in Doubt (SID) to determine the final contract, so 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ is telling partner, we have a ♥ fit and enough for game but you decide whether to play in 3NT or 4♥.

Hope that's not too confusing

[Zelandakh]

paulg, on 2020-November-11, 11:06, said:

"We play Acol, 5-card majors, a short club and a strong no trump"

It is hard to keep a straight face.

The first Acol book I read taught a system that was 5 card majors, 16-18 NT. The original Acol used a 15-17 1NT Vulnerable and allowed 1♣ on a 3 card suit. It is not so absurd as you seem to think.

helene_t, on 2020-November-11, 14:49, said:

So maybe the conclusion is that extended Stayman was replaced by transfers?

Replaced is the wrong term as they can also work together beautifully...

Vampyr, on 2020-November-11, 06:26, said:

My partner said that the actual correct bid in his system (which he called Stayman-in-doubt, which is something else entirely) was 3♦, but he didn’t know whether I thought we were playing this convention, so bid 3♣ instead for some unknown reason.

In any case, is this really an integral part of decades-old Acol?

SID was never mainstream Acol without agreement but it was for a while quite a popular convention. Extended Stayman on the other hand was often regarded as the default meaning for 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♦ in Acol. It was included in the Blue Book, which was generally seen as the Acol Bible during the 70s and 80s. Not that it is only used in decades-old NT structures either, both are still part of my response structures for both ordinary and Puppet Stayman:-

Ordinary:-
--
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣ = FG, at least 5-4 majors (effectively replaces Smolen)
1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 3♦ = FG 4+ hearts, either 3433 or slam interest
1NT - 2♣; 2♠ - 3♥ = FG 4+ spades, either 4333 or slam interest
--

Puppet:-
--
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣ = FG, at least 4-4 majors (if 3♦, 3M next is delayed Smolen)
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♥ = FG 4+ spades, either 4333 or slam interest
--

Douglas43, on 2020-November-11, 11:51, said:

but do have one partner who plays extended stayman (he likes to know that a transfer to spades followed by 3H shows precisely four hearts.)

Ironically the structures above are designed to achieve the opposite effect, so that 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♥ is in both 5-5 or better majors with invitational strength.

[Vampyr]

seaspell, on 2020-November-13, 07:49, said:

This is my first post so hope i do ok. I play acol weak nt and my partner has got me to use extended (or emergency) stayman if I have 4♥ & 4♠ and a very weak hand. If partner has a major, bingo, but if he replies 2♦ I try to find a 4/3 fit and bid 2♥, partner leaves it with 3 or adjusts to 2♠. Hopefully the opps then come in to the bidding and rescue us!

This is not extended Stayman, it is Garbage Stayman, and nearly everyone plays it.

Quote

We use Stayman in Doubt (SID) to determine the final contract, so 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ is telling partner, we have a ♥ fit and enough for game but you decide whether to play in 3NT or 4♥.

Hope that's not too confusing

SID is kind of OK, in a way, but it doesn’t tell partner what she might need to know, eg whether a suit is wide open. I think that the frequency doesn’t justify SID, because you have to be 4333 AND have chosen to use Stayman in the first place. YMMV

[Zelandakh]

seaspell, on 2020-November-13, 07:49, said:

We use Stayman in Doubt (SID) to determine the final contract, so 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ is telling partner, we have a ♥ fit and enough for game but you decide whether to play in 3NT or 4♥.

The original SID, where 3♦ guarantees 4333 shape, is terribly inefficient and has rightly been discarded in most circles. If you also include raises with slam interest here though, it becomes quite useful as the information that Opener is 4333 is also very helpful. Hopefully that gives you some ideas how you could expand the utility of the call in your own structure.

[Douglas43]

Hi Seaspell, welcome aboard. I only joined this year and there are quite a few interesting hands and topics on the forum. Also people are (almost always) polite

Using Stayman as an escape mechanism like that is certainly a good idea when you play a weak NT.

The particular gadget that Vampyr was describing though is a further development of Stayman that used to be popular back in the day before transfer responses became the norm. 1NT - 2C ("any 4 card majors?") - 2D ("no") - 3D ("I'm 5-5 what about 3 card majors?")

I have one partner who likes it, but it's rare and easy to forget, so I'd prefer to bid 1NT - 2H (spades) - 2S (accept transfer) - 3H (I've got both majors) - and if I heard 3NT ("sorry, not got 3 spades or 4 hearts") - could bid 4H ("I'm 5-5 or better")