[mgoetze]

Assume 1NT shows a balanced hand (including 5-card majors), 15-17 or perhaps 14-16. I am playing Jacoby transfers, with a second round of transfers after that, and 2♠ as range ask or transfer. This means that my 2♣ promises a 4-card major in all constructive variants, and that I need 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠ to show an invitational hand with 5 spades. Given this framework, what do you consider the best use for 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥?

- Invitational hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades?
- Invitational hand with 5 hearts, may or may not have 4 spades? ( This would free up the sequence 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2♠ which I am currently using for this, please specify what that should show instead then.)
- Weak with both majors? If so please specify the shapes you would use this with. Would you do it with 4414? 4513? 5413?
- Weak with 4 hearts, 3-4 spades and 5+ clubs?
- Something else?

[gwnn]

I used to play it as 4/4 or better in majors, weak, but hearts never longer than spades (so opener always corrects with 2-2 or 3-3). I don't like it with 4-4-3-2/4-4-2-3 but would do it on any 5-4-2-2. Well, on some 4432/4423 7-8 counts I think it's a cool idea to bid 2C intending to pass 2M and bid 2NT over 2D but that's beside the point of this thread.

[MickyB]

Majors, weak, hearts equal or longer. I'd typically bid Stayman then 2S [INV] with a 5431 7-count and Stayman then 2H [sign-off] with a 4531 7-count. The 4531 is horrible if you can't bid Stayman then 2H.

Edit: Alternatively, play 2H as a puppet to 2S. Now, pass = 5S4H weak, 2N = 5H4S INV, higher = up to you.

[mgoetze]

It does seem to make sense, if playing "both majors weak", to specify either "hearts equal or longer" or "spades equal or longer". But is there any argument for one of these being better, or is it just arbitrary?

[helene_t]

spades equal or longer makes opener declare more often.

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-24, 06:18, said:

It does seem to make sense, if playing "both majors weak", to specify either "hearts equal or longer" or "spades equal or longer". But is there any argument for one of these being better, or is it just arbitrary?

MickyB, on 2013-August-24, 05:47, said:

Majors, weak, hearts equal or longer. I'd typically bid Stayman then 2S [INV] with a 5431 7-count and Stayman then 2H [sign-off] with a 4531 7-count. The 4531 is horrible if you can't bid Stayman then 2H.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1NT - 2C
2D - 2H = classic Garbage Stayman ( see posts 2 and 5 ) < 7 hcp (4/4)+ Majors, equal length or longer ♠---never longer ♥.

[awm]

Sam and I play a version of MickyB's alternate suggestion:

2H forces 2S then:

Pass = weak 5S and 4+H
2NT = invite 5H and 4S
3m = GF both majors and short in other minor
3M = 6-4 majors invite (NF)

This solves the 4-5 major invite which otherwise has no bid (we use 2D...2S as just showing a heart invite since 2D...2NT is a GF with hearts and clubs). It also gives us space to show complete pattern on all 5431 hands. We lose a way to show 5H/4S weak but we gain 5S/4H weak so basically break even. I haven't had great results bidding stayman on weak 4-4 majors hands without a diamond suit in any case so don't miss that at all.

[Free]

Garbage stayman, 44+M, ♠ longer or equal than ♥, no 5+♦. Opener always corrects with 3♠s.

With a weak hand and 5+♥-4♠ we transfer and ignore the ♠s, hoping for the best.

[phoenix214]

The thing i used to play here is something that is not garbage stayman. I dont recall having a problem with that hand playing strong NT(although we did 16-18)
We used these positions for smolen type of hands. Thr bid 2M promises 5 in OM and inv+ values. Usually 4 in the bid M. But we bid like this with 5332 hands and 5-5 hands

[awm]

Free, on 2013-August-25, 01:11, said:

Garbage stayman, 44+M, ♠ longer or equal than ♥, no 5+♦. Opener always corrects with 3♠s.

With a weak hand and 5+♥-4♠ we transfer and ignore the ♠s, hoping for the best.

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

[gnasher]

awm, on 2013-August-27, 18:05, said:

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

If that's so, you should be able to improve your odds by being more selective about the hands you do it on. For example, if you use Stayman on J109x Q109x xx xxx but not on Jxxx Qxxx xx xxx you reduce, or possibly eliminate, the cost of playing in a 4-3 fit.

I think the main cost of bidding Stayman on 4-4 is that you lose when you have 5-4 opposite 2-3, because you will play the 4-3 fit instead of the 5-2.

[MickyB]

gnasher, on 2013-August-28, 00:40, said:

I think the main cost of bidding Stayman on 4-4 is that you lose when you have 5-4 opposite 2-3, because you will play the 4-3 fit instead of the 5-2.

I'd correct on 3-2 anyway. Partner can be 5-5, which is obviously less frequent than 5-4, but I think it's much more important to play the 5-3 instead of the 5-2, whereas playing the 5-2 instead of the 4-3 is only a marginal gain.

[BillHiggin]

Much of this discussion has focused on trying to get to the better fir.
IMHO, I think of garbage stayman as a way to look for a great fit with a safety valve that assures a playable fit when partner does not have a four card major. Therefore, I do not really care if responder has longer hearts, longer spades or even 4-4 majors (I am not recommending the tactic with 4-4 majors, just not insisting it is always wrong). We might not end up in our best (of poor choices) fit, but at least opener will not be doing such unfortunate things as returning to no-trump or trying for game and we will have (slightly) more trumps than the opponents. The gains come when we find our 4-4 or 4-5 fit at the two level.

[DJNeill]

I like 1N-2C-2D-2H in that context to be both majors 4+-4+ majors sub-invite (use judgement with the quality of the suits in 5-4, or strength of hand with 4-4). I did once a basic simulation with Thomas Andrews' Deal program where I just gave responder any 4-4 majors hands, with various HCP ranges sub-invite, allowing opener to have a 5M, and let the program play the hand out double-dummy, and in both frequency and total points, it was a winner to do the Garbage Stayman (albeit not by much as the HCP total goes up when 1N is more viable) vs Passing 1N. Not sure if other treatments are better though. I have lost the details of the program, and I may have done it wrong, but it at least sets my mind at ease and works with enough frequency not to look dumb.

Thanks,
Dan

[Free]

awm, on 2013-August-27, 18:05, said:

Out of question, do you feel that you get good results from bidding 2♣ with weak hands which are only 4-4 majors and which are not willing to pass a 2♦ rebid by opener? My general experience is that these find a major suit fit about half the time, and that the wins from finding a 4-4 major fit are roughly offset by the losses when we play 2M on a 4-3 (instead of 1NT).

With at least half the deck I'm fine with playing a 4-3 fit, so with 5+HCP I'll stayman. With less I usually just pass, there's no good reason to give opps another chance to Double you. I haven't kept track if this is a winning strategy in practice, but in theory it sounds ok imo.

[aguahombre]

IMO, the "best use" for any sequence after a 1NT opening is to plug holes not covered by other sequences. Crawling or garbage Stayman creates more holes than we are willing to plug. Drop Dead Stayman with club shortness is free ---not requiring adjustments to our other bids.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-28, 13:20, said:

IMO, the "best use" for any sequence after a 1NT opening is to plug holes not covered by other sequences. Crawling or garbage Stayman creates more holes than we are willing to plug.

I don't see how it creates any holes. It might deny you an opportunity to plug a hole that you have elsewhere, but if I don't have those holes in the rest of my system, why shouldn't I play garbage Stayman?

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-28, 14:18, said:

I don't see how it creates any holes. It might deny you an opportunity to plug a hole that you have elsewhere, but if I don't have those holes in the rest of my system, why shouldn't I play garbage Stayman?

Well, maybe you should. But we have found uses for Stayman and 2-level continuations after 2D or 2H answers which we don't feel like trying to cram into other sequences. So playing garbage Stayman would create holes for us.

[CSGibson]

I like to use it as garbage stayman, with either major potentially being longer. I also incorporate weak 3=4=1=5 and 3=4=0=6 hands into the bid (if responder corrects to spades, I re-correct to clubs).

I think whether you garbage stayman or not with 4-4 in the majors depends on several factors. I will do so if we are playing teams and I think my hand is definitely going down in 1N, but may make 2M if we find a fit, especially NV. I might also consider whether our NT range is different than the other table, or whether we will be facing similar decisions. I am much less likely to stayman if I am a near max for my values, I tend to play 1N when we have the majority of points, but not enough to invite game.