[Califdude]

Assume partner opens 1NT 15-17 and opponent passes.

1. What is your minimum point count to allow a stayman 2C?

2. Holding a 5-card suit, do you play that a transfer bid requires a minimum point count?

thanks for replies.

[vuroth]

As an intermediate:

1. Invitational values. Optionally, garbage stayman may be used.
2. Nope. I'd be happy to transfer with a distributional 0 count, if trump offered better chances to go plus than 1NT.

[hrothgar]

1. 0
2. 0

On question 1:

Let's assume that partner open's 1NT and you hold something like the following

♠ xxxx
♥ xxxx
♦ xxxxx
♣ Void

Stayman seems obvious. Worst case scenario: Partner holds a 3=3=2=5 and you land in a 7 card fit. However, its MUCH more likely that you've corrected into an eight card fit.

[eros2]

Any hand where I do not mind passing 2D.

[Cascade]

eros2, on Dec 21 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

Any hand where I do not mind passing 2D.

... or can correct to a non-forcing non-constructive 2Major.

(and in some partnerships 3minor after having bid Stayman might show a weak hand.)

Otherwise exactly what Richard said.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 inv. strength, i.e. 8HCP.
Obviously I dont play weak stayman, it is not really
needed playing a strong NT.

#2 0

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

0
0

Richard explained it perfectly, even without typos!

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Dec 21 2008, 05:38 AM, said:

0
0

Richard explained it perfectly, even without typos!

Sure, ... assuming your responses to the 2C inquiry
are only 2D,2H and 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mtvesuvius]

hrothgar, on Dec 20 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

1. 0
2. 0

On question 1:

Let's assume that partner open's 1NT and you hold something like the following

♠ xxxx
♥ xxxx
♦ xxxxx
♣ Void

Stayman seems obvious. Worst case scenario: Partner holds a 3=3=2=5 and you land in a 7 card fit. However, its MUCH more likely that you've corrected into an eight card fit.

I completely agree... Especially if you are playing garbage stayman.

[CSGibson]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 21 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Free, on Dec 21 2008, 05:38 AM, said:

0
0

Richard explained it perfectly, even without typos! 

Sure, ... assuming your responses to the 2C inquiry
are only 2D,2H and 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Even playing as I do, that partner can rebid 3 of a major with a max and a 5 card major in response to stayman, I think it's right to use stayman.

[P_Marlowe]

CSGibson, on Dec 21 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Dec 21 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Free, on Dec 21 2008, 05:38 AM, said:

0
0

Richard explained it perfectly, even without typos! 

Sure, ... assuming your responses to the 2C inquiry
are only 2D,2H and 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Even playing as I do, that partner can rebid 3 of a major with a max and a 5 card major in response to stayman, I think it's right to use stayman.

Playing Stayman with 0 points has its adv.

The given hand is an example.

There are of course also disadv., or lets say, playing
that Stayman promises at least inv. values has also
adv.
If the oppoenets intervene, it is easier to catch them.
And if you play that the Stayman bid promises values,
than you have to pass with the 3-suited 0 count, by the
way, a very frequent hand type.

You may believe, that the adv. are greater than the
disadv., but lets at least agree, that the coin has two
sides.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[CSGibson]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 21 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Dec 21 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Dec 21 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Free, on Dec 21 2008, 05:38 AM, said:

0
0

Richard explained it perfectly, even without typos! 

Sure, ... assuming your responses to the 2C inquiry
are only 2D,2H and 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Even playing as I do, that partner can rebid 3 of a major with a max and a 5 card major in response to stayman, I think it's right to use stayman.

Playing Stayman with 0 points has its adv.

The given hand is an example.

There are of course also disadv., or lets say, playing
that Stayman promises at least inv. values has also
adv.
If the oppoenets intervene, it is easier to catch them.
And if you play that the Stayman bid promises values,
than you have to pass with the 3-suited 0 count, by the
way, a very frequent hand type.

You may believe, that the adv. are greater than the
disadv., but lets at least agree, that the coin has two
sides.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages. There are those for every agreement.

I was disagreeing with the proposition that you should only bid stayman on the example hand if the only possible rebids were 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠. I still disagree with that statement.

[FrancesHinden]

Califdude, on Dec 21 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

Assume partner opens 1NT 15-17 and opponent passes.

1. What is your minimum point count to allow a stayman 2C?

2. Holding a 5-card suit, do you play that a transfer bid requires a minimum point count?

thanks for replies.

Everyone agrees that the answer to your second question is zero.

As you have seen, there are two schools of thought to the first:
1. Using Stayman guarantees invitational values (maybe 7+ HCP)
2. Using Stayman promises nothing.

It's important to know which you are playing, and it's simply a matter of partnership agreement (although any other agreement than the two possibilities above is extremely rare). You can "agree" that 2C promises invitiational values, then pass the 2D response without going too far wrong, holding e.g. xxx xxxx xxxxxx -. However, it then affects whether the auction

1NT - 2C - 2D - 2H is
i) a very weak hand with 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors ("garbage stayman")
or
ii) some form of invitational hand

and this is where misunderstandings can arise.

[P_Marlowe]

CSGibson, on Dec 22 2008, 03:56 AM, said:

<snip>
Of course there are advantages and disadvantages.  There are those for every agreement. 

I was disagreeing with the proposition that you should only bid stayman on the example hand if the only possible rebids were 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠.  I still disagree with that statement.

I agree, and you are right, sry.

I made a claim, and you gave a valid counter example.
And in my reaction I discussed something else, it may be,
that I have already posted to much on the forum..

With kind regards
Marlowe