[ajfonty]

Hi all,

Having run into a couple of nightmare flat dummy hands recently, I've been exploring when to use Stayman (for a four card fit) after partner opens 1 NT (<16).

With a balanced hand and game going values, is it worthwhile to explore a 4-4 fit or go straight for 3 NT? Even with a doubleton in many cases I find it plays much like a NT hand would.

Thanks in advance

[sty2000]

I always use Stayman with such hands unless the hand shape is exactly 4M-3-3-3.

[nige1]

ajfonty, on 2015-July-23, 21:34, said:

Hi all,Having run into a couple of nightmare flat dummy hands recently, I've been exploring when to use Stayman (for a four card fit) after partner opens 1 NT (<16).With a balanced hand and game going values, is it worthwhile to explore a 4-4 fit or go straight for 3 NT? Even with a doubleton in many cases I find it plays much like a NT hand would.Thanks in advance

On his fascinating website, Richard Pavlicek has published an interesting relevant study

Notrump v Major

e.g. when you're 4333, you probably shouldn't use Stayman.

[1eyedjack]

Interestingly (?), E Torbjorn Lindeloef came up with similar conclusions to Pavlicek when he developed and published a strong-club based bidding system "Cobra" whose evaluation principles were based significantly on computer simulated deals. This was back in the early 80s or maybe late 70s. The book has to be out of print now. I think that it was only available in hardback at (for a penniless student in the day) an exorbitant price.

[steve2005]

I have to agree at imps that 4333 is best to go 3N. We open all balanced 5M 1N at imps. We missed a 54 spade fit and still made 3N with 0% chance of going down.

I;m not totally convinced at mp. If opener also 4333 then your fine, but if opener has a doubleton your likely 3-2/4-2 in a suit and may have a ruff so will often score better in 4M than 3N.

[BillPatch]

The original post queried whether it was good play to avoid searching for a 4-4 major, not only with the pancake hand, but also with balanced hands with a doubleton. Kit Woolsey, in the first edition of Matchpoints, has the rationale for when to do this with the doubleton hand playing MPs: 4 point scale-1 point each for 1. excess strength(28-30 HCP vs 25-27 2. quacks in 4 card suit overall values as opposed to acey 3. weak potential trump holdings (Hxxx or xxxx 4. quacks in the doubleton suit. Note that one half of these constraints do not apply to the pancake hands, which Woolsey did not address in the 1st edition. (By the way the 2nd Edition has just come out, I intend to review it on Amazon after I receive a copy.) Playing IMPs or other scoring systems it is more advantageous to choose to avoid the 4-4 more frequently, since at MPs you lose a full point if you make game exactly in both contracts(the safety play would only costs 1 IMP)but I have not seen any specific advice for the general game other than Kleinman's admonition to chose NT when you have 3 queens.

Many authorities have written on the subject of avoiding the major search with the pancake hand over NT openings, most recommend avoiding it each time, Ron Klinger recommends always avoiding it unless the partnership has methods to find a doubleton in opener's hand. There are several arguments against using such partnership methods 1. Richard Pavlicek's web site cited above indicates that even if you were to find the doubleton, at game level 3N is still safer at game level. 2. Avoiding extra info given out additional info about opener's hand, particularly in the commom case where he declares 3NT. 3. Additional memory load on partnership.

Edited extensively 1300 EST 7/27/2015

[BillPatch]

Also, Marty Bergen in one of the first two Marty Sez books, has a section on when to respond one NT rather than show a weak 4 card suit in response to one of a minor is closely related to this issue.

[mikeh]

I was an early reader of that Woolsey book, and his discussion of when to avoid stayman was something that impressed me then, and which I have followed ever since.

At imps, the issue is not so much making 600/630/620...the issue is about making a plus score in whichever game you reach.

So I use a slightly different approach, considering only 2 metrics....high card and trump integrity.

If we have 25-27 hcp, I look for the fit. Not only does the 4-4 often generate an extra trick via a ruff, but also there are usually more 'technique' plays available in a trump contract than in notrump.

If we have 28+ hcp, then if we are 4333, we'd probably have to be unlucky for them to run a suit on us. More to the point, if we have 28+ hcp and weak trump, we rate to have all side suits stopped, and to be able to generate 7-8 tricks in the side suits, and now the main threat to the contract is losing 3 trump tricks when we are playing Jxxx opposite Axxx or worse.

Thus my style in imps is to stayman unless we are 4333/3433, have 28+ hcp, AND responder's major is Hxxx, or worse.

[mikeh]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-24, 01:37, said:

Interestingly (?), E Torbjorn Lindeloef came up with similar conclusions to Pavlicek when he developed and published a strong-club based bidding system "Cobra" whose evaluation principles were based significantly on computer simulated deals. This was back in the early 80s or maybe late 70s. The book has to be out of print now. I think that it was only available in hardback at (for a penniless student in the day) an exorbitant price.

I moved to Victoria in 1986 and joined the local library. I wasn't looking for bridge books, but I checked anyway. Iirc, they may have had an old Goren book or two, but the only book I remember for sure was the book on Cobra, advertised on the cover blurb as the first system generated using computer analysis. I checked it out....I think I was the first person ever to do so, according to the record then kept on the inside cover of the book. I didn't spend much time on it because I knew that I would never get anyone to play it with me even if the method looked good. I'm sure the book was rubbished a long, long time ago. I had completely forgotten about this until I read your post

I have no idea at all as to how the Capital Region District library authority made the decision to acquire this very obscure, esoteric book and for all I know I was the only person who ever checked it out of the library.

[Zelandakh]

steve2005, on 2015-July-24, 05:22, said:

I;m not totally convinced at mp. If opener also 4333 then your fine, but if opener has a doubleton your likely 3-2/4-2 in a suit and may have a ruff so will often score better in 4M than 3N.

It makes a difference what the combined hcp strength is - with a little extra the ruff often does not provide an extra trick. It also makes a difference if you play a system that can identify a mirror 4333 shape in Opener's hand.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2015-July-24, 15:47, said:

I moved to Victoria in 1986 and joined the local library. I wasn't looking for bridge books, but I checked anyway. Iirc, they may have had an old Goren book or two, but the only book I remember for sure was the book on Cobra, advertised on the cover blurb as the first system generated using computer analysis. I checked it out....I think I was the first person ever to do so, according to the record then kept on the inside cover of the book. I didn't spend much time on it because I knew that I would never get anyone to play it with me even if the method looked good. I'm sure the book was rubbished a long, long time ago. I had completely forgotten about this until I read your post I have no idea at all as to how the Capital Region District library authority made the decision to acquire this very obscure, esoteric book and for all I know I was the only person who ever checked it out of the library.

The Computer-Designed Bidding System COBRA. E Torbjörn Lindelöf. Victor Gollancz. 1983. H/B. 280pp. ISBN 0-575-02097-0. I've got it too but haven't managed to read all of it.

[BillPatch]

I have just completed an extensive revision of my first post replying to this topic, correcting the material from Kit Woolsey's book, and adding additional material from the R Pavlicek website.

[scsm1963]

mikeh, on 2015-July-24, 15:47, said:

I moved to Victoria in 1986 and joined the local library. I wasn't looking for bridge books, but I checked anyway. Iirc, they may have had an old Goren book or two, but the only book I remember for sure was the book on Cobra, advertised on the cover blurb as the first system generated using computer analysis. I checked it out....I think I was the first person ever to do so, according to the record then kept on the inside cover of the book. I didn't spend much time on it because I knew that I would never get anyone to play it with me even if the method looked good. I'm sure the book was rubbished a long, long time ago. I had completely forgotten about this until I read your post

I have no idea at all as to how the Capital Region District library authority made the decision to acquire this very obscure, esoteric book and for all I know I was the only person who ever checked it out of the library.

I played it (successfully) for 10+ years. It was written before transfers, Lebensohl, Multi so changed system to Precision but still incorporated many of COBRA's features.