4

People like Marty Bergen have written things like, "almost anytime you're responding to your partner's 1NT and you have few clubs, you should respond 2 clubs," Stayman (this is a paraphrase, not an exact quote).

The point I think he was trying to make was that you should aim for a two-level suit contract, even with something like (s) xxxx (h) xxx (d) xxxxx (c) x.

Here, you're bidding Stayman while, weak, not aiming for a game contract.

If partner responds 2 diamonds (no four card major), should you just pass and be glad he bid your "suit," even though he might have a 3-3-2-5 distribution? If he bids 2 hearts, should you accept what may be "Moysian" (4-3) fit and pass?

In general, should you pass whatever your partner bids, after bidding a weak Stayman? Are there exceptions to the rule? Or would you recommend against bidding this way with the hand listed above?

Improve this question
9
  • It is Marty Bergen and typically called garbage stayman.
    – Aryabhata
    Sep 9, 2013 at 6:38
  • @Aryabhata: Would you bid 2 diamonds (Jacoby transfer) with a Yarborough and six hearts? Does weak Stayman operate on the same principle?
    – Tom Au
    Sep 9, 2013 at 13:23
  • Yes. With a normal 3-2 break, the hearts will provide at least 3 tricks(which they don't in a NT contract) and entries which can be used to take finesses etc. I would transfer even with 5 hearts. It is likely better to play even in a 7 card fit at the 2 level, rather than 1NT when the responder has a yarbourough. 4-2 fits, not so useful. So, don't use garbage stayman unless you have 5 diamonds and at least 3 of each major.
    – Aryabhata
    Sep 9, 2013 at 17:13
  • @Aryabhata: Then my example above was OK, five diamonds, four spades, three hearts, one club. Because you need 3-3-5-2 (or better) right?
    – Tom Au
    Sep 9, 2013 at 17:21
  • Yes. Textbook example :-)
    – Aryabhata
    Sep 9, 2013 at 17:24

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

One you have decided to bid a weak Stayman, it is imperative that you pass opener's rebid.

Any subsequent action of any sort by your hand categorically promises 8+ points.

Consequently, you must have a hand that can tolerate any of the three acceptable responses to Stayman. It is unwise to make this bid with club tolerance for two reasons:

  • Partner responds 2D too often, and you have jumped into an inferior contract that is easier for the opponents to double than was 1NT.
  • You lose the valuable inference from the auction following that you have either a few points or club tolerance or both:

    1NT P P Dbl
    ?

It is possible to play more complicated sequences in these situations, but they must be very well discussed with partner. It is extremely demoralizing for a partnership to be at risk of 500 or 800 point sets on every 1NT opening, due to bad experience with toys like poorly agreed weak Stayman.

Improve this answer
0
0

In order to play garbage stayman, you must first remove the 2NT response from your convention card (some people play that it shows both majors).

As far as the previous answer is concerned

One you have decided to bid a weak Stayman, it is imperative that you pass opener's rebid. Any subsequent action of any sort by your hand categorically promises 8+ points.

, i have to make an amendment. Biddind 2h after 1NT-2c-2d is not forcing. it is a "pass or correct" bid where opener should pass with 3 hearts or bid 2s when not having 3 hearts (so he has 3 spades).

That way you can bid garbage stayman even with: xxxx, xxxx, x, xxxx

If until now you played this sequence (1nt-2c-2d-2h) to show an invitational hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, you can always use (1nt-2d-2h-2s).

You could even more extend it further and use this kind of stayman with hands like x,xxxx,xx,xxxxxx where the bidding could be like (1nt-2c-2d-2h-2s-3c). This is for sure sign-off, since 2h can be passed. So now instead of signing-off immediately in 3c, you can check for a heart fit, (or even a moysian one).

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Please read the whole post before criticizing it. As noted in my post: "It is possible to play more complicated sequences in these situations, but they must be very well discussed with partner."
    – Forget I was ever here
    Oct 2, 2013 at 0:59
  • 1
    well, I surely had read the whole post. And I'm not criticizing. I'm just explaining my POV of the "toys" which are neither complicated nor hard to remember. There is nothing in my post that criticizes your post (unless you think that the word "amendment" is too harsh to be used). Your words "imperative" and "categorically" seem to make you disagree with my answer but this should not be a reason to downvote a well-claimed useful post.
    – Thanos Darkadakis
    Oct 2, 2013 at 6:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .