[cherdano]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

You're right, after a 1NT opening bid I am more concerned with not going for a number than I am with bidding game. I also feel that way here since 1nt has 2+ hearts and garbage stayman has 3+, so we have at best an 8 card heart fit and usually even less. But of course I'm not saying we couldn't possibly have game.

I don't think garbage puppet stayman needs 3 hearts.

[the hog]

cherdano, on Mar 9 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 8 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

You're right, after a 1NT opening bid I am more concerned with not going for a number than I am with bidding game. I also feel that way here since 1nt has 2+ hearts and garbage stayman has 3+, so we have at best an 8 card heart fit and usually even less. But of course I'm not saying we couldn't possibly have game.

I don't think garbage puppet stayman needs 3 hearts.

Would you bid garbage Stayman on a 4252 shape in the hope pd will bid 2D or 2S?
If so what would you do over a 2H bid?

[han]

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

[the hog]

Hannie, on Mar 9 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

Maybe, but I think a t/f to S might work better and be less likely to risk a X.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

I have never in my entire life seen anyone bid garbage stayman with that shape at the table, both online or in person. Somehow I'm not that worried it is the case.

[gwnn]

u can bid junk p. stayman on 2+=2+=5+=x. Doesn't everyone play it like this?

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2007, 11:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

I have never in my entire life seen anyone bid garbage stayman with that shape at the table, both online or in person. Somehow I'm not that worried it is the case.

Ok Josh, how often in your life have you seen anyone bidding puppet stayman 2♣ over 1N?

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Mar 8 2007, 11:31 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 8 2007, 11:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

I have never in my entire life seen anyone bid garbage stayman with that shape at the table, both online or in person. Somehow I'm not that worried it is the case.

Ok Josh, how often in your life have you seen anyone bidding puppet stayman 2♣ over 1N?

It used to be very popular over 1N. The original article didn't even discuss auctions over 2N. I don't know of a single soul that plays it over 1N, except as 3♣.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Mar 9 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

If I had a 4-2-5-2 zero-count then I would gladly do that Ron, and if partner bids 2H then I'd pass of course. Having said that, it is not very likely that this is the case.

I have never in my entire life seen anyone bid garbage stayman with that shape at the table, both online or in person. Somehow I'm not that worried it is the case.

I think you missed the *Puppet Stayman in the original post.

[Apollo81]

Scoring: IMP

---

Here's what happened at the table:

1. The alert of Puppet Stayman was somewhat confusing. The explanation made it seem like it could include non standard hand types other than "signoff in 2♦, willing to play 2M if opener bids that." It took me (South) some time (and further questioning) to figure this out.

2. I didn't think this hand was good enough for a direct 2♥, but I thought it was close. Give me better heart spots and I'd probably have bid it. I also decided I didn't want to double, although I'm still not sure about this.

3. When the auction came back to me, I was deciding whether to double or bid 2NT. Can we play in diamonds here? I wasn't sure. I doubled just to be 100% sure partner would know I had some hearts. Do I have extras for my bidding? IMO I clearly do. If I had bid 2NT and it was understood that I was showing hearts and clubs, I don't think I would have extras for my bidding.

4. Because I took some time, North was under ethical constraints. He decided that 3♥ was not a logical alternative given that I am balancing vulnerable at IMPs against what is not guaranteed to be a fit. We play Lebensohl here, so 3♥ would have been "value showing" (He bid 4♥)

5. If pard had bid 3♥, is pass by me a logical alternative? I don't think it is since I have bid the hand so meekly so far.

6. 4♥ made, director was called, the ruling was that 3♥ was a LA for North but that I would bid game anyway. We lost the match by a small margin, so no appeal was necessary. They would have appealed.

7. The other table responded 3♣ "weak minors" to 1NT, and South did not overcall.

[inquiry]

I am not sure I understand all the problems here. Pass over stayman is fine. In the balance seat, your hesitation to decide to bid a suit, double, bid 2NT, or pass hardly conveys information about what action is correct by your partner. Although a "fast" double might encourage him to pass for penatly with four trumps, the fifth heart will make that a difficult call.

Playing lebenhsol here with a likely wasted king of spades, i agree that 3♥ is the only logical call. However, I don't think the hesitation in double favors 3♥ over pass of dbl or 4♥. You could have hesitated due to having only three hearts, or a really weakish hand.

Since I can't imagine the slow double favoring 3 or 4H, I would never rule to change 4H back to 3H. But if I had made such a ruling and even if you played lebenshol, I would not be able to see my way to rule that you had enough to raise a 3♥ value showing bid to 4♥. Imagine partner with the same hand with the spade king changed to the jack for instance. You lose a club, a diamond, and two spades. And clearly he wasn't counting the spade king for a lot with four of them.

End result, I would have ruled 4♥ bid... but not by suggesting 4♥ be rolled back and they your hand bid 4♥.

[mikegill]

Since I was his partner, I have a few comments, just to set the record straight.

1) The UI was not the slow double, but the 10,000 questions asked previous to the double, which certainly suggest partner has a "good hand," whatever that means.

2) The full hand was:

Scoring: IMP

---

(I played it so I remember it better)

3) If any one of my Ks is wasted, it's the dK, since partner is known to have 2 or fewer diamonds (this because of the difference in the posted hand). Actually with the first hand posted, I think it's even more clear to bid 4H, since they will probably lead a spade, which will set up a pitch for partner's hypothetical third diamond if he's 1435.

4) An interesting thought is what exactly "values" means here, if I were to have bid 3H. Clearly LHO's diamond bust could range up to just below a game invitation, so it's very possible that the doubler could have even up to a good 17-count or something. Then, the "values" he needs is very little in order to play game. So it's very unclear what this 3H even means.

5) Although the opponents were very good players and claimed that they would not bid 4H on my hand, I really think there is no other logical bid. When partner said he thought he could make something, he certainly was not playing me for a working 10-count with 5-card support for one of his suits. Take away the 5th heart, make us white, or change the form of scoring to MPs and now I think 3H is clear. Give partner xx AKxx xx KJxxx, which isn't even good enough for a balancing double here in my opinion, and tell me you don't want to be in 4H.

[jdonn]

Yes I obviously missed puppet stayman in the original post, sorry. Of course that explanation was a lie anyway if it can include hands like this. It sounds like the explanation was completely unclear anyway.