Should I Bid Stayman?

[@j.d.kurtzman7333]

Bias (assuming you identify the NT opener first) is that it will overweight that example of a 15-17 NT opener (because you keep it until you find a 4-4 weak hand, whereas it might be overall one of the less likely hands to be 1NT opposite 4-4 weak) EDIT: Actually, since you did it the other way, I think it might overweight some of the 4432 hands that have fewer possible 1NT openers across from them (for example if you have 2 kings or 3 queens, since that removes a lot of possible 1NT openers due to stiff requirement)

[@flameousfire2896]

To answer the second question, what to do with this: Play garbage stayman (or crawling or however to call it), based on this I might be playing 4-3 fit some 40% of time. Maybe more in total as can end up with 4-3 when 5-3 fit was available. But we also manage to handle weak 4144, 4054, 4x[(6+)x] distributions.

[@ShiroiTensh1]

We had simulation dozen years ago on this topic over statistically significant amounts, and the conclusion was that when you have ~6pc mostly located in minors then it was worth it to bid 2C, bcs partner is more likely to have points in majors then, and with that more cards in them you reduce the risk of playing worse contract

[@puffinbasher]

I think the impact of ignoring the hcp distribution (around 9:40) is actually quite large. We know our hand is weaker than most, yet we have more majors than minors, and as such a major held by opener is more likely to be an honour than a minor in his hand. Couple this with the fact that he has to have more than his fair share of honour cards, it actually tilts more towards them holding more majors. This is a really interesting problem actually. I might break out some code later, would be interested to see how a monte carlo validation matches the slightly fudged statistical modeling.

[@puffinbasher]

P.s. the bigger point is actually that we are ignoring the fact that our opponent has not bid. Our ops have half the deck - if spades are 2 6 4 1 around the table, there's a real chance we would already know about it, especially if opener is in a later seat. Honestly, one of the reasons I don't tend to bid staymen in these spots is that: a) lead directing doubles are a real cost b) if we're actually going to get slaughtered in NT, that involves a double, and if your scramble methods are good, you can get to a playable fit more often. At MPs, it might be a bit different, as undoubled unders could be evil here - but IMPs, I would typically prefer to wait and see if I need to scramble. c) a pass of 2d gives opponents a lot of information about the layout and points on the hand, and gives them either a great defensive headstart, or an opportunity to bid on with a near full count on defence at trick one. At a weaker club level, I absolutely would want people to make that bid - especially if they have garbage stayman on the card

[@janiswehner4071]

Great video. I wouldn't have bothered with the math and went with the simulation in the first place, but nice to see the work done. Very interesting result.

[@AnkurRathi]

Awesome content as always, Rob!

[@tracasserie]

Great, loved this video. Deserves many more views. So what was the subtle bias introduced in you hand selection method?

[@benthomas3395]

For what it is worth I think Stayman is trotted out far too often. I play a weak NT and get fed up being landed in an impossible 2NT because my partner happened to have a four card major and no shape and minimal HCPs.

[@j.d.kurtzman7333]

Was gonna say before I saw the phone call, when are you gonna do the match point EVs haha (I think clearly wrong to do at IMPs since if there is 1 trick difference between NT and major suit who cares, and playing in bad fit at 2 level can have much bigger downside)

[@jyutzler]

1. I'm surprised you chose such a strict definition for the 1NT opening. In the DC area, the 15-17 NT is obsolete and good 14 counts are routinely upgraded. Those hands are far more common than the fiddly 5-4-3-1 hands. 2. 95% of this is handled by Richard Pavlicek's Companion Hand Calculator, which I won't link but is easily googleable.

[@paulholloway4867]

video is more digestible mind you..

[@jyutzler]

@@paulholloway4867 He could have made a video explaining hand patterns and freakness and the CHC, giving Pavlicek credit for the original work but putting his own video spin on it.

[@solarc7066]

I don't get how you get an error rate of ~0.1% at 7:00 between 4423 and 4414 in the vandemonde's identity section. I see the total from the identity is 20,349 with 19,635 hands+714 excluded for 4423 and 19,431 hands +918 excluded for 4414. The difference is 1% between the number of hands in the two distributions.

[@bradybot0]

The error calculated is in the final percentage, not in the relative disparities between an intermediate calculation.

[@carolynefox1289]

PLEASE keep on keeping on WITHOUT Rob Barrington. You are SO much better! Love your commentary and your serious approach to the game. Rob and his crew are auditioning for SNL…not that they will be successful.

[@zapsniff]

Wait, what's wrong with Rob Barrington?

[@carolynefox1289]

@@zapsniff There’s nothing wrong with Rob but I’ve listened to both and he and his commentators are very often not focused on the hands or the match. They tell war stories, make fun of people, praise people, talk about how hungry they are and what they are going to eat, etc. Sure, it starts when one of the players is in the tank and that’s ok, but it continues even as the hand continues. When the board changes, one of them, usually Rob, will say something like “what happened here?” This is NOT an unusual occurrence. If you have watched the Trials with him, you know what I’m talking about. Brady bot is all about the match and when he said last night that Rob had reached out to him to join him, I felt compelled to comment.