[Shugart23]

would you consider using Garbage Stayman with 4432 shape where both 4 card suits are the Majors? Is it possible to simulate it vs passing ?

[shyams]

If this is a question on probabilities, strategies, etc. backed by data, I would suggest the starting place could well be a look at Richard Pavlicek's website (http://www.rpbridge.net)

I found something there which may be of use or perhaps serve as a starting point. Please note that I have not digested this page; sharing it from memory...

Link: http://www.rpbridge.net/8j05.htm#2

[Shugart23]

shyams, on 2024-February-11, 10:46, said:

If this is a question on probabilities, strategies, etc. backed by data, I would suggest the starting place could well be a look at Richard Pavlicek's website (http://www.rpbridge.net)

I found something there which may be of use or perhaps serve as a starting point. Please note that I have not digested this page; sharing it from memory...

Link: http://www.rpbridge.net/8j05.htm#2

Thanks...yeah, the chart doesn't seem to be much help regarding my question. The chart is looking at 8 and 9 card Spade fits and saying, "are you better off playing 2S or 1NT." I'll poke around some at the website you suggest

[mikeh]

I read somewhere, many years ago, that the 1N opener will have a four card major more than half the time but I don’t recall the exact figure and my memory may be letting me down.

However, to me the question is more about disaster avoidance. In particular, how do you think things would play out after 1N 2C 2D?

Iow, how do you rate your chances in your worst 4-3 major fit, assuming you have one (you almost surely do but not always).

Then compare that to your chances in 1N. Bear in mind that, unless one has a clear defence, 1N can be very difficult to defend and one only needs 7 tricks compared to 8 in a 4-3 fit with no ruffing values in the short trump hand.

Btw, while I suspect my memory is just emphasizing the bad results, my partners often seem to have 3=2=3=5/2=3=3=5/3=3=2=5, lol

[pescetom]

Shugart23, on 2024-February-11, 10:29, said:

would you consider using Garbage Stayman with 4432 shape where both 4 card suits are the Majors? Is it possible to simulate it vs passing ?

I did this simulation for my own 5-card Stayman, I'll see if I saved the results which would at least give the frequencies for 4 and 5 card majors in 1NT. Unfortunately I can't repeat it because BBO nuked the Tricks function in Dealer.

Oh and yes, you also have to consider 1NT opening style, in particular whether you systematically bid 5 card majors.

[DavidKok]

I ran a simulation with the following properties:

Opener has a 15-17 NT, i.e. any 5332, 4432 or 4333 shape within that range. A 5cM is allowed.
Responder has a 0-4 HCP 4=4=3=2 hand.
I am comparing three options: passing 1NT, bidding 2♣ and passing any response (Garbage Stayman), and bidding 2♣ and then pulling 2♦ to 2♥ to let opener pass or correct to their longer major (Crawling Stayman). You may wish to allow for bidding 2♣, then pulling 2♦ to 2♥ even if this nominally shows 4=5 in the majors (Garbage Stayman) risking the 4-2 fit, I did not investigate this.

The score assuming double dummy play averaged over 5,000 hands per scenario is:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +36 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +25 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +50 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +38 points per deal average.

This does not consider the possibility of being doubled in either contract, and as always double dummy studies are subject to assumptions.

Out of curiousity I repeated the simulations giving responder a 5-7 HCP 4=4=3=2 hand. Now the results were:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +18 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage and passing do equally well (+1 point per deal in favour of Garbage, which is statististically not distinguishable from zero).
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +22 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage lost to passing by -6 points per deal average (debatable whether this is significant or not).

As expected the biggest gains are when responder is very weak, when we are vulnerable and also when we have a method to run to our better (7-card) major fit rather than gamble on diamonds being playable. If your doubleton is in diamonds instead the passing 2♦ option naturally becomes less attractive.
In conclusion, I would definitely consider bidding Stayman on hands of this type, depending on the range and methods. Whether or not Crawling Stayman is worth adopting is a different matter entirely, but if you happen to already play the method it is worth bidding it on these hand types.

[pilowsky]

If responder has a very weak hand then it seems more likely that opener's holding will be biased towards 17 rather than 15.
Does this affect the results?
If a partnership includes super-accepts would this be problematic?

[Cyberyeti]

What range notrump you play may also matter. One agreement you want if you do garbage stayman 4-4s is that you bid 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥ if 3-2 in the majors you pull to 2♠.

[smerriman]

I suspect what the opposition hold is also going to have a fairly significant impact on the results, not only considering hands where they would have doubled / overcalled, but also that they may be more likely to compete after you've specifically told them they hold half the deck or given them extra opportunities to come in.

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2024-February-11, 15:23, said:

If responder has a very weak hand then it seems more likely that opener's holding will be biased towards 17 rather than 15.
Does this affect the results?

No, the simulation will take account of this.

pilowsky, on 2024-February-11, 15:23, said:

If a partnership includes super-accepts would this be problematic?

No, responder did not transfer.

[pescetom]

FWIW, my 5 year experience of playing Garbage+Crawling with a 4 card Stayman was that it did offerr marginal gains at MP, but they were not offset by the loss of confidence with many partners when things went pear shaped.

Moving to a 5 card Stayman with no Crawling but a rock solid diamonds transfer Garbage was a definite upgrade.

[fuzzyquack]

I use GS on mps while on imps it kills 54MM invitational. Yes, 44 is good enough from my rather long experience. 7-card fits play surprisingly well on average, and finding 44 fit when the field passes (North America) is a bonus situation. You also interfere with the opponent in the reopening position. (43)MM 5D are excellent for GS. Last case is 3415. Here you also GS, when partner responds 2H/S you pass. After 2D you bid 2H, and when partner corrects to S, you bid 3C.

[Gilithin]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-12, 04:39, said:

I use GS on mps while on imps it kills 54MM invitational.

Why? There are many alternative ways of showing an invitational hand with 5-4 majors than just 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 2M.

[fuzzyquack]

Gilithin, on 2024-February-12, 13:55, said:

Why? There are many alternative ways of showing an invitational hand with 5-4 majors than just 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 2M.

You are apparently right, but then you have problems with showing various GF hands. I should have stated: on imps GS interferes too much with showing invitational and/or GF hands.

[Gilithin]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-13, 00:40, said:

You are apparently right, but then you have problems with showing various GF hands. I should have stated: on imps GS interferes too much with showing invitational and/or GF hands.

It really doesn't. There is a wide array of possibilities for structure over 1NT. If you are using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman then you typically do have to give up on Crawling Stayman as 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 2♥ is too valuable as a forcing call to give up. For everyone else, there is enough space to allow for 2♥ to be non-forcing providing you agree to play something reasonably efficient in its design. The downside (there is always a downside) is that certain major suit invites force to the 3 level with fit rather than stopping in 2M. There is not an issue with actually showing the hands.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-11, 14:18, said:

I ran a simulation with the following properties:

Opener has a 15-17 NT, i.e. any 5332, 4432 or 4333 shape within that range. A 5cM is allowed.
Responder has a 0-4 HCP 4=4=3=2 hand.
I am comparing three options: passing 1NT, bidding 2♣ and passing any response (Garbage Stayman), and bidding 2♣ and then pulling 2♦ to 2♥ to let opener pass or correct to their longer major (Crawling Stayman). You may wish to allow for bidding 2♣, then pulling 2♦ to 2♥ even if this nominally shows 4=5 in the majors (Garbage Stayman) risking the 4-2 fit, I did not investigate this.

The score assuming double dummy play averaged over 5,000 hands per scenario is:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +36 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +25 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +50 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +38 points per deal average.

This does not consider the possibility of being doubled in either contract, and as always double dummy studies are subject to assumptions.

Out of curiousity I repeated the simulations giving responder a 5-7 HCP 4=4=3=2 hand. Now the results were:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +18 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage and passing do equally well (+1 point per deal in favour of Garbage, which is statististically not distinguishable from zero).
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +22 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage lost to passing by -6 points per deal average (debatable whether this is significant or not).

As expected the biggest gains are when responder is very weak, when we are vulnerable and also when we have a method to run to our better (7-card) major fit rather than gamble on diamonds being playable. If your doubleton is in diamonds instead the passing 2♦ option naturally becomes less attractive.
In conclusion, I would definitely consider bidding Stayman on hands of this type, depending on the range and methods. Whether or not Crawling Stayman is worth adopting is a different matter entirely, but if you happen to already play the method it is worth bidding it on these hand types.

Thank you for running the simulations. Our NT range is 13-15. We do not include 5332 hands where the 5-card suit is a Major, preferring to show the Major. I would be very interested in hearing what other strong club players do with 5332 shapes. Do they open the Major, or do they open 1NT? I could actually see a distinction made between Hearts and Spades. If you open 1H, Opponents can overcall 1S, so one may be better off opening 5332 hand with the 5332 Heart hand as 1NT (instead of 1H) for the preemptive value.

[Cyberyeti]

Shugart23, on 2024-February-13, 07:42, said:

Thank you for running the simulations. Our NT range is 13-15. We do not include 5332 hands where the 5-card suit is a Major, preferring to show the Major. I would be very interested in hearing what other strong club players do with 5332 shapes. Do they open the Major, or do they open 1NT? I could actually see a distinction made between Hearts and Spades. If you open 1H, Opponents can overcall 1S, so one may be better off opening 5332 hand with the 5332 Heart hand as 1NT (instead of 1H) for the preemptive value.

13-15 (we play 12-14) I suspect garbage stayman is a big winner (OK this is what DK calls crawling stayman). Also you don't need to play smolen as responder's hand is likely to be as good as opener's. We open all 5M332s (yes we might make an exception for AKQJ10 and a quack or two) 1N.

It's not unreasonable to stayman on bad 3352s and just pass the response

[DavidKok]

With the code already written it was light work to rerun it with your specifications. 1NT 13-15 and not 5M332, but including the 4333, 4432 and 5m332 shapes. Many strong club partnerships prefer to include many semibalanced hands in 1NT, e.g. (42)(52), 6m322 and a range of hands with a singleton (top) honour that would otherwise have to be opened 1♦. I've omitted these for now.
As the 1NT opening is a bit weaker I've slightly adjusted the ranges of responder.

Giving responder a 0-5 HCP 4=4=3=2 the score assuming double dummy play averaged over 5,000 hands per scenario is:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +22 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +16 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +40 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage beats passing by +21 points per deal average.

Giving responder a 6-9 HCP 4=4=3=2 the score assuming double dummy play averaged over 5,000 hands per scenario is:

• Not vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +11 points per deal average.
  
• Not vulnerable, Garbage loses to passing by -11 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Crawling beats passing by +13 points per deal average.
  
• Vulnerable, Garbage loses to passing by -12 points per deal average.

This is mostly in line with my previous results, though it suggests passing more often.

Personally I have strong opinions about NT ladders and possible 5cM hands, but it is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-13, 08:20, said:

It's not unreasonable to stayman on bad 3352s and just pass the response

But that's only 1.2% of all bad hands, plus 1.1% for the (43)51s plus 0.75% for the 4441s.

Compare that to a Stayman which replies 2♦ with anything but a 5cM. It's virtually a diamonds transfer even if you're opening all possible 5cMs and you can cheerfully use it with say a bad 2263.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-February-13, 12:17, said:

But that's only 1.2% of all bad hands, plus 1.1% for the (43)51s plus 0.75% for the 4441s.

Compare that to a Stayman which replies 2♦ with anything but a 5cM. It's virtually a diamonds transfer even if you're opening all possible 5cMs and you can cheerfully use it with say a bad 2263.

Also 3361 and (43)60s

Hate that version of Stayman, in a lot of situations it wrongsides 2M where opener would have bid the major and you'd have passed it.