[Hanoi5]

♠T42
♥AQJ5
♦9765
♣J3

Do you bid stayman? If so, how will you continue depending on your partner's re-bid? Is this hand a sign-off hand or an invitational hand in front of a 15-17 balanced opening?

[ArtK78]

At IMPs, I bid Stayman and, if partner has 4 hearts, bid game. Otherwise I invite in NT.

At matchpoints, I pass 1NT.

[jdonn]

I bid stayman at both, and invite at both.

[helene_t]

Anyone for Stayman and then pass a 2♦ and/or a 2♠ response? If the response is 2♥ obviously this hand must (at least) invite.

[mtvesuvius]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I bid stayman at both, and invite at both.

I do also. Helene, I will not pass either 2♠ or 2♦, this is an invitational hand. After partner bids 2♦ or 2♠, it's still invitational.

[Phil]

It depends. I'll pass this collection at MPs, but I'll trot out Stayman at IMPs.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Jan 19 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Anyone for Stayman and then pass a 2♦ and/or a 2♠ response? If the response is 2♥ obviously this hand must (at least) invite.

That's precisely what I would do, but I upgrade some 14's and 17's.

[Codo]

I pass.

[oldman5757]

helene_t, on Jan 19 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Anyone for Stayman and then pass a 2♦ and/or a 2♠ response? If the response is 2♥ obviously this hand must (at least) invite.

if it's IMPs, I just go ahead and invite and take my chances. At MPs, I wouldn't pass 2♦, but I might pass 2♠.

[mike777]

If you consider this a decent 8 I invite.

[MFA]

Stayman + invite.

[JLOL]

helene_t, on Jan 19 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Anyone for Stayman and then pass a 2♦ and/or a 2♠ response? If the response is 2♥ obviously this hand must (at least) invite.

If you bid stayman then passing 2S seems reasonable, but I don't like the idea of passing 2D (too much chance we are in some silly fit). IMO our hand is worth an invite only opposite a heart fit. I would go for it red at imps and pass otherwise.

Also bidding 4H after you find a heart fit is silly, if partner is going to pass a 3H invite are you really shaking in your boots that you have missed a game lol? I would hope he makes. I'm all for blasting and not inviting with hands where partner won't be able to evaluate well because he doesn't know which honors are good and which are bad, but this is a perfect hand where an invite is useful.

[mikeh]

I pass at mps and I pass at imps, white. I stayman at imps red.

Btw, for those who invite at imps when white but pass at mps.. can you please explain why?

To me, the logic of passing white at imps is that inviting has one way to win and two ways to lose...and...

1. if we catch partner with a non-minimum, we are in 3N or 4♥ either of which rate to be no better, on average, than about 50%. If we make, we win 6 imps compared to the passers, assuming that 1N makes 9 or 10 tricks. If we fail, we lose 6 imps, assuming 1N makes.

2. If we catch partner with a minimum, we are in either 2N or 3♥, both of which offer a significant chance of a minus score, while 1N was pretty sure to go plus.

Normally, when we analyze the imp odds of bidding a game, we compare the cost/benefit of playing 2N or 3N, or 3♥ or 4♥.. and on that analysis, we find that bidding a white game at imps is a 50-50 proposition.. it pays to bid games that are better than 50%, and we break even when they are exactly 50%.

But when our choice includes playing 1N rather than 2N or 3♥, when opener isn't going to game.. well, generally speaking, there is no significant upside to playing higher. Yes, once in a while 3♥ will gain an imp or even 2.. but far more frequently we are losing imps because we fail in the higher contract.

So when the decision is whether to invite (as opposed to whether to accept a try), we need better than 50% odds... not much better, in my view, but better.

All of this suggests that white at imps should be evaluated much as mps.

[orlam]

mikeh, on Jan 19 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I pass at mps and I pass at imps, white. I stayman at imps red.

Btw, for those who invite at imps when white but pass at mps.. can you please explain why?

To me, the logic of passing white at imps is that inviting has one way to win and two ways to lose...and...

1. if we catch partner with a non-minimum, we are in 3N or 4♥ either of which rate to be no better, on average, than about 50%. If we make, we win 6 imps compared to the passers, assuming that 1N makes 9 or 10 tricks. If we fail, we lose 6 imps, assuming 1N makes.

2. If we catch partner with a minimum, we are in either 2N or 3♥, both of which offer a significant chance of a minus score, while 1N was pretty sure to go plus.

Normally, when we analyze the imp odds of bidding a game, we compare the cost/benefit of playing 2N or 3N, or 3♥ or 4♥.. and on that analysis, we find that bidding a white game at imps is a 50-50 proposition.. it pays to bid games that are better than 50%, and we break even when they are exactly 50%.

But when our choice includes playing 1N rather than 2N or 3♥, when opener isn't going to game.. well, generally speaking, there is no significant upside to playing higher. Yes, once in a while 3♥ will gain an imp or even 2.. but far more frequently we are losing imps because we fail in the higher contract.

So when the decision is whether to invite (as opposed to whether to accept a try), we need better than 50% odds... not much better, in my view, but better.

All of this suggests that white at imps should be evaluated much as mps.

I thought we only lose 5 IMPs to those in 1N when we play 3N-1, and they play 1N+1?

[whereagles]

Stay + invite. The ♣J sux, but the hearts compensate for it.

[JLOL]

orlam, on Jan 20 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

I thought we only lose 5 IMPs to those in 1N when we play 3N-1, and they play 1N+1?

Yes his numbers are wrong, you even lose only 5 if you go down 2 in 3N and 1N makes 1, and also only lose 5 if you go down 2 in 4H vs 110.

On a good day the opponents will only beat you 1 in 3N or 4M since you are in game and their goal is just to set you, and your counterparts will play safe to make their contract, since theyre only in 1N or 2M, and you will only lose 4! Of course this could work the other way and you go down an extra trying to make your contract on an unlikely layout and you lose 6.

The whole concept of bidding game at imps white like you are playing MP is bogus obviously since it is 6 vs 5 in normal cases, but it is also bogus for perhaps a less obvious reason. Let's say you are a good card player. If the contract is especially difficult to make but you find the right line that most people won't find because they aren't as skillfull, or if the contract is hopeless and you find the right way to swindle them into letting you make, or if the opponents simply let you make more often than you go down cold because you are better than them then you are winning 1 imp if you aren't in game, and 7 if you are in game (note, you are now winning 7 instead of 6!). That extra trick was worth a lot BECAUSE you were in game.

If you were playing matchpoints, then all of this equity you have because of your cardplay edge doesn't matter nearly as much because if you make 170 into a bunch of 140s or 150 into a bunch of 120s then you gain nothing by bidding game. In that case you only want to bid game if a majority of people did also, which you can assume they didn't since we're discussing whether or not to be aggressive in trying for game or not and you can assume more than half the field is not.

This is negated a little bit by the fact that you may get doubled, but I would say I make more no play games or games where you might take one of two lines and get it right more often than I get doubled by a lot, so it really doesn't negate it anything close to the amount it would need to for you to start bidding games at white imps just like you're playing matchpoints.

You could of course make the argument that if you make 45 % games more than 45 % of the time, they were not in fact 45 % games (durrrrrr). But the thing is if the best line is 45 %, and I make it an additional 7 % by deviating from that sometimes then I would still not want to be in that game at MP assuming it's an aggressive game. Obviously I would be happy to be in that game white at imps. Plus in general when people say a game is x% they are just calculating what is quantifiable, taking the best line of play and crunching how often that succeeds, since it is impossible to calculate how many times you will get them to do idiotic things vs how often you will do something idiotic lol.

In reality conventional wisdom to just bid white games at imps somewhere between the amount that you're bidding game at MP and bidding game red at imps is easily correct.

[benlessard]

Another factor however is that defense at imps will try everything to put you down while at MP they will often make safe defenses to avoid deadly overtricks. This is in favor of bidding close game at MP vs imps.

Also they are more likely to make lightner or penalty X at imps then at MP.

IMO at 50% its pretty much a break even point so since you cannot pinpoint accuratly all diverse factor anyway stick to 50% and you wont go wrong by too much

[brianshark]

Stayman and invite at both forms of scoring. This is a very normal hand in a very normal situation. I'm starting to think people are over-analysing things a bit too much.