[SimonFa]

MPs, R v R, 15 - 17NT, opps silent.

♠J87 ♥J972 ♦KJ972 ♣8

The Bridge Guys reckon 0-7pts no matter what NT range you play.

It worked out well (68%) this time but I was wondering if the forum thought this was a bit too strong, especially at MPs where being in 1NT with 21HCP has lots going for it?

As always, thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Simon

PS I'm aware that in this case I also risked a poor 4:3 spade fit as well.

[gwnn]

2♣ is the best bid. You can invite or jump to game if partner bids 2H, or else pass over 2D/2S. Note that 2S will usually play well because you have a singleton with the 3-card trump support.

[Trinidad]

I would bid Stayman. I would pass 2♦ and 2♠, but 2♥ I would raise to 3♥.

"Garbage" Stayman is not always used to "run" from 1NT. Often a 4-4 fit will play a trick better, in particular when you have shortness. At MPs, I would rather score 140 then 120. Sure, you are slightly unhappy when partner bids 2♠, but even then it is still possible that opener has 5 spades or that you can get club ruffs for more tricks than the notrumpers.

Obviously there are no guarantees, but I think it is the percentage thing to do.

Rik

[aguahombre]

I don't play Garbage Stayman as a treatment, but would still bid it here as a Drop Dead. And yes, if Pard bids 2H I will re-evaluate and invite.

I disagree with one little point in Rik's post. We ARE running from 1NT; we believe a suit contract will score better. That doesn't necessarily mean fright --and the fact that I have this 6-count rather than some zero-five really didn't matter.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with aquaman about improving the contract not bidding out of fright. Our stiff club is often an asset even on a spade moyse and playing a few of those fits will improve your play.

However over 2♥ I would invite at imps but pass at mp's expecting a really good score for +170 and a goose egg for down 1.

[rmnka447]

You can hardly go wrong if you bid 2 ♣ and pass partner's rebid. If partner bids 2 ♦ and has 5 ♣s you're still playing a 5-2 7 card ♦ fit. if partner plays a 4-3 ♠ fit, you can accommodate ♣ ruffs in the short trump hand.

[Endymion77]

I would also bid 2♣ but I pass all rebids including 2♥

[TylerE]

The club suit might say 'run', but the ♦ suit and "matchpoints" says stay. I pass.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-06, 08:37, said:

I disagree with one little point in Rik's post. We ARE running from 1NT; we believe a suit contract will score better. That doesn't necessarily mean fright --and the fact that I have this 6-count rather than some zero-five really didn't matter.

It's obviously a matter of semantics, but I think that with this hand we are not running from 1NT, we are walking away from it with our head up.

We run if we are on the brink of disaster. We walk calmly to score 140 instead of 120. Those are two entirely different things.

Rik

[Free]

I don't think the hand is particularly nice unless we play in ♥s. The two Major suit Jacks aren't worth much, and our long suit is like Swiss cheese. I'd definitely start with 2♣ since I expect to improve the contract for sure. If partner bids 2♥ it's borderline between raise or pass imo, after any other response I'd just pass.

[aguahombre]

Endymion77, on 2013-September-06, 16:39, said:

I would also bid 2♣ but I pass all rebids including 2♥

Yeh, my better half agrees with you. She doesn't want to look for magic after happily finding a suit.

[JLOGIC]

Never pass over a 1N opener with a stiff club on any hand...ever. One of the only 100 % rules that have no exceptions lol.

[SimonFa]

JLOGIC, on 2013-September-10, 03:49, said:

Never pass over a 1N opener with a stiff club on any hand...ever. One of the only 100 % rules that have no exceptions lol.

I was beginning to wonder if Garbage Stayman was a misnomer and perhaps should be referred to as something like short club Stayman.

[RSClyde]

Definitely stayman. If partner bids hearts it's worth an invite, but, you've already improved the contract so pass is tempting.

[Zelandakh]

SimonFa, on 2013-September-10, 11:52, said:

I was beginning to wonder if Garbage Stayman was a misnomer and perhaps should be referred to as something like short club Stayman.

I usually try to use Exit Stayman and Crawling Stayman, since the term Garbage Stayman is used in different circles to refer to both.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-11, 07:44, said:

I usually try to use Exit Stayman and Crawling Stayman, since the term Garbage Stayman is used in different circles to refer to both.

LOL I don't know what any of those terms means!

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-11, 08:20, said:

LOL I don't know what any of those terms means!

ZEL is like 32519 in a way. The difference is ZEL has X 10000 more knowledge about the game, X 10000 more skills, X 1000000000 less annoying (if annoying at all, to me he is not) then the other.

[JLOGIC]

I can't even tell if that's intended as an insult or a compliment goin with the latter

[aguahombre]

How much would timo have to increase the numerical estimates so that we could be sure it was a compliment?

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2013-September-11, 16:41, said:

ZEL is like 32519 in a way.

I agree lol! Perhaps a mix of 32519 and kenrexford; with a pinch of TWO4BRIDGE and Cyberyeti thrown in? I suspect that all of the posters that are more focused on bidding than card play annoy some readers from time to time. I am certain that I am no exception to that.

As for the mysterious terms, Exit Stayman is where you bid Stayman and pass - "short club Stayman" as it was decsribed earlier in the thread. Crawling Stayman (aka Creeping Stayman) is one of more of the following:-

1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = both majors, weak
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = hearts and another suit, weak
1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = spades and a 5+ card minor, weak

One of the potential advantages of playing your 2♥ = both majors as "never longer spades" rather than "never longer hearts" is that you can get away with the second of these over the first. If partner prefers spades to hearts then you take out into the longer minor instead. The last one is something I have never actually seen played in reality but is often given as part of the convention "completing the set" of weak takeouts.