[Tramticket]

Our basic system includes a weak no trump. Over the years we have gradually moved to include 5332 with a five-card major in our 1NT and now would open 1NT with almost any 5332 hand in the range. We have recently started playing that a 2♣ response is standard Stayman (including garbage-type sequences) and a 3♣ response is (game-forcing) 5-card Stayman.

I am worried that when we use 5-card Stayman, we may be giving useful information to opponents on the way to playing the 3NT contract that was always the likely destination.

So I guess that my questions are:
- Is this method worthwhile?
- Given these methods, would you as responder always bid 3♣ on the way to a 3NT raise? Or might you use discretion?
- Does the form of scoring make any difference?

An example hand:

---

Do you bid 3♣ and look for the major suit fit "because clubs might be wide open"? Or raise directly to 3NT "giving little away and hoping to run your six diamonds with either a favourable lie or favourable lead"?

[Vampyr]

It doesn’t really give that much information. It will tell the opponents whether opener has a five card major or not, a bit more if you follow up with bidding a 4-card major. As for you, it is kind of revealing since you willhave jone or two 3-card majors or a three and a four (though you will clearly not bother with the 4-card major if declarer has 5 in the other one.)

[Xgasman]

5-3-3-2s are commoner than 4-3-3-3s and less common than 4-4-3-2s
If we restrict NT opening distributions to these, intuitiion suggests partner will have a 5 card suit roughly a third of the time. It will be a major a sixth of the time.
Kelsey & Glauert suggest, if I understand the statistics, a more accurate a priori (6 cards in ♢s may affect this) 16.2990…%
And partner may have the clubs and his other major stopped. Or a wide open suit may not be lead. Or break or be blocked.

So…

wouldn’t use (waste?) 3♣ on 5 card Stayman

would use discretion if I did

and would always bid 3NT on the example hand at Pairs.

5 card majors in a weak NT opener seem a good idea to me.

Though I seem to miss 5-4 major fits when as responder I forego Stayman on 4-3-3-3 far more often than statisticians might suggest…

[mycroft]

I much prefer the version where 3♦ denies a 5 card major, and says nothing about a 4-card one. The number of times you're 4-3 and want to check for both fits is small; much more often you're just doing a "well, if we have a spade fit, it'll be better. We don't? Okay 3NT" - and I don't want to give anything else away while we do it.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-January-21, 10:18, said:

I much prefer the version where 3♦ denies a 5 card major, and says nothing about a 4-card one.

I do not think anyone would play another way.

[Xgasman]

The partnership's bidding may give little away.
However the convention provides a second bid (as well as 2 clubs) you might make that LHO can double for the lead. Even a failure to make one is an inference for the likely opening leader.
Just another factor to put in the balance if you're adopting the convention or contemplating the bid.

[Vampyr]

Xgasman, on 2020-January-21, 11:55, said:

The partnership's bidding may give little away.
However the convention provides a second bid (as well as 2 clubs) you might make that LHO can double for the lead. Even a failure to make one is an inference for the likely opening leader.
Just another factor to put in the balance if you're adopting the convention or contemplating the bid.

This is true over ordinary Stayman as well. But the only suit that can (relatively) frequently be doubled is clubs, since subsequent bids are natural.

[smerriman]

I don't know the slightest thing about how a weak no trump works.

But when I play it over a strong no trump - and I expect it's exactly the same over a weak no trump - you can use 3♣ to *avoid* giving information to the opponents. You can bid it with a 4 card major and choice of game hand (ie you don't even need 3 cards in the other major). While you occasionally reveal opener has a 5 card suit, the rest of the time (and more common case) you hide the information you would have revealed with Stayman about whether opener has 4 cards in the other major.

[apollo1201]

I think at the end you tend to leak a bit less info (provided you don’t use Stayman with balanced invites w/o majors). Take for instance:

1NT - 3C! -> 12-14 bal / do you have a 5cM
3D! - 3S! -> no / do you have 4H
3NT -> no

Opening leader knows nothing about opener’s hand.

Versus in normal Stayman when the answer is 2S and now we know H in dummy and S in opener’s hand.

I would restrict the use to when you think 4M might play better, like if you have a small doubleton or very concentrated values in 2 suits e.g Axx xx KQxx KJxx or xxx AQ AQxxx xxx. But with only a 3cM and no strong feeling about playing NT, I’d just bid 3NT.

Also if I want to show a minor because I’m strong or have a side singleton, I wouldn’t use 3C but 2C.

[Zelandakh]

Here is an alternative for you that may or may not match to your needs better:-

2♣ = Puppet Stayman (most strong diamond-based hands are included here)
... - 2♦ = no 5 card major
... - ... - 2♥ = asks if 4 spades are held (denies interest in a 4-4 heart fit)
... - ... - ... - 2♠ = 4 spades
... - ... - ... - ... - 2NT = nat invite
... - ... - ... - ... - 3m = nat Baron-like
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = GF spade raise
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = nat invite
... - ... - ... - 2NT = <4 spades, min
... - ... - ... - ... - 3m = nat Baron-like
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = GF with heart shortage
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = GF with 5 spades (and 3 hearts)
... - ... - ... - 3m♥ = <4 spades, max, cheapest 4 card suit (Baron-like)
... - ... - 2♠ = 4+ hearts, <4 spades
... - ... - ... - 2NT = <4 hearts, min
... - ... - ... - ... - 3m = nat, Baron-like
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = GF with 5 hearts (and 3 spades)
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = GF with spade shortage
... - ... - ... - 3♣ = <4 hearts, max (originally I went straight to Baron here without a ♥ fit but on balance losing efficiency on slam hands for avoiding information leakage on game hands seems better)
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 4+ clubs (Baron-like)
... - ... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4+ diamonds, <4 clubs (Baron-like)
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4+ diamonds (Baron-like)
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = spade shortage
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 4 hearts, max
... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, min
... - ... - 2NT = 4-4 majors, invite
... - ... - 3♣ = 4-4/5-4 majors, GF
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = no 4 card major (then 3M = 5 in other major)
... - ... - ... - 3M = 4 card M
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ diamonds, GF
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ clubs, 4 diamonds (could also be played as 3=1=(5-4) if preferred)
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+ diamonds, 4 clubs (could also be played as 1=3=(5-4) if preferred)
... - 2♥ = 5 hearts
... - ... - 2♠ = Baron range ask
... - ... - 2NT = puppet to 3♣
... - ... - 3♣ = puppet to 3♦
... - ... - 3♦ = GF heart raise
... - ... - 3♥ = nat invite
... - 2♠ = 5 spades
... - ... - 2NT = nat invite
... - ... - 3♣ = puppet to 3♦
... - ... - 3♦ = minor suit Baron (3♥ = clubs; 3♠ = diamonds)
... - ... - 3♥ = GF raise
... - ... - 3♠ = nat invite
2♦ = 5+ hearts
... - 2♥ = any non-superaccept
... - ... - 2♠ = range ask with 5 card invite; or GF with clubs; or slammy 1-suiter
... - ... - ... - 2NT = min, <3 hearts
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♣ = 4 clubs
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = one-suiter
... - ... - ... - 3♣ = max, <3 hearts
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 4+ clubs
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = one-suiter
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = max, 3+ hearts
... - ... - ... - 3♥ = min, 3+ hearts
2♥ = 5+ spades
... - 2♠ = any non-superaccept
... - ... - 2NT = nat invite
... - ... - 3♣ = GF; diamonds or slammy one-suiter
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 2 spades, 4+ diamonds
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = one-suiter
... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 2 spades, <4 diamonds
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = one-suiter
... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 3+ spades, <4 diamonds
... - ... - ... - others = 3+ spades, 4+ diamonds
2♠ = range ask; (semi-)balanced or clubs
... - 2NT = min
... - ... - 3♣ = sign-off
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
... - 3♣ = max
... - ... - 3♦ = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts
... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades
... - ... - 3♠ = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, invite
3m = nat one-suited, slammy
3♥ = 3-suited with short diamonds
3♠ = 3-suited with short clubs
4♣ = both majors
4red = puppet to 4M

[Tramticket]

Zelandakh, on 2020-January-22, 08:38, said:

Here is an alternative for you that may or may not match to your needs better:-

Thanks Zel. This structure seems to be at the cost of Garbage Stayman? I can't see partner giving up on that.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-23, 04:08, said:

This structure seems to be at the cost of Garbage Stayman? I can't see partner giving up on that.

Playing that 2D denies a 5-card major you still have garbage capability, it's just different - all you really need is diamonds.
What you usually give up is crawling, but we hardly noticed the loss, although that is over strong NT.

[Xgasman]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-21, 03:50, said:

So I guess that my questions are:
- Is this method worthwhile?
- Given these methods, would you as responder always bid 3♣ on the way to a 3NT raise? Or might you use discretion?
- Does the form of scoring make any difference?
Do you bid 3♣ and look for the major suit fit "because clubs might be wide open"? Or raise directly to 3NT "giving little away and hoping to run your six diamonds with either a favourable lie or favourable lead"?

This lowly, at best intermediate, new forum member seems alone in wondering if the answer to Tramticket's first question, might be "no".
Applying an ancient Scottish international's 3 criteria for adopting a convention…

• Is it really effective on the hands for which it was designed?
  No idea! But there seem to be a few versions: in my former profession a plethora of treatments for a disease suggested lack of efficacy.
  
• Does it fully compensate for the the loss of the natural bid it replaces?
  Probably. A minor suit slam try over a weak NT is uncommon.
  
• Does it have a reasonable frequency of occurrence?
  Any shiny new club in a golf bag produces a temptation to overuse. Experts will presumably resist.

All irrelevant to me, as Xgasgirl tells me we're not adopting it

[Vampyr]

Xgasman, on 2020-January-23, 06:52, said:

This lowly, at best intermediate, new forum member seems alone in wondering if the answer to Tramticket's first question, might be "no".
Applying an ancient Scottish international's 3 criteria for adopting a convention…

• Is it really effective on the hands for which it was designed?
  No idea! But there seem to be a few versions: in my former profession a plethora of treatments for a disease suggested lack of efficacy.
  

Well, OK. But there are many different bidding systems around too.So I don’t think the comparison is valid.

Quote

Does it fully compensate for the the loss of the natural bid it replaces?
Probably. A minor suit slam try over a weak NT is uncommon.

You can always show a minor suit slam try in other ways. You can play 4-suit transfers, 2♠ as one minor weak/slam try, etc. You surely have something along those lines at your disposal.Really what you are giving up is other artificial meanings of a 3♣ response (or invitational with clubs, a treatment that has fallen out of favour, probably due to the prevalence of 4-suit transfers, where you effectively accomplish the same thing.

Quote

Does it have a reasonable frequency of occurrence?
Any shiny new club in a golf bag produces a temptation to overuse. Experts will presumably resist.

All irrelevant to me, as Xgasgirl tells me we're not adopting it

Well, you can occasionally bypass a poor 3NT contract. More useful at IMPs compared to MPs.

[Flem72]

If it interests anyone, I have a structure taking what seems to be the best alternatives from Pavlicek and Woolsey who have both favored 5cdM Stayman for a very long time. Message me, and we'll get it together.

[Zelandakh]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-23, 04:08, said:

Thanks Zel. This structure seems to be at the cost of Garbage Stayman? I can't see partner giving up on that.

You still get Exit Stayman but instead of needing ~ 3+♠, 3+♥, 4+♦ you instead need ~2+♠, 2+♥, 5+♦. In addition your weak takeout in diamonds will often get out at the 2 level instead of the 3 level. Against this you lose the 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ sequence for Crawling/Creeping Stayman. With that hand you will either pass (4-4), transfer (5-4/5-5) or, in a weak NT context, Texas (5+-5+). Optionally the 3♥ response could also be used as 5-5 majors and weak if desired, with the slammy 4414/4405 hand being bid as 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣; 3♦ - 4♣. In practice you get some wins and some losses but the difference is not hugely significant in the grand scheme of things. It would certainly be nice to retain Crawling here but it is just too valuable for constructive purposes to use in a non-forcing way, even over a weak NT.