[Flem72]

With a new partner who wants to play SNT with very frequent 5-card majors, I am suggesting this thing: 2C asks for the 5-carder, 2N = 5-4 minors with loaded Ms, 2M = 5 cards (max or min), 2D says no. After 2D:

P = long weak D
2M = major s/he doesn't have
2N = natural inv
3C = GF+ with 6+ minor and usually 6-3-3-1 or 6-3-2-2, but maybe 6m-4M. Now O bids major if s/he has it, 3N = none, 4C = 4-4 minors
3D = both majors
3M = Smolen. Now, possible for R to use 4m over 3N as Relay Smolen with SI 6-4.
3N = to play
4C = 5+-5+ majors, slammish
4D = 4-6 Texas, game only
4H = 6-4 Texas, game only

(a) Any suggestions for Good Stuff in thisn kind of structure?
(b) It seems as if we'll be using this after 95% of 1NT openers. It seems there would be advantages to the 1 Major structures: What if we say that We always open 1N with the 15-17 range, even if it looks like AKQJx xx AKx xxx? Experience? Suggestions?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[aguahombre]

Toys are fun. When we adopt one, we want to make sure we need it and the fix doesn't mess other things up. Do you really have better uses for all the non-2c responses normally employed by others but incorporated into 2C in your method?

At first glance, one sequence jumped out at me.

1N-2C
2D-3D, defined as "both majors". Presumably this means 4-4 in majors and interest in game, forcing to game, or interest in slam. However, opener must by inference jump to 4M with a routine game acceptance, leaving you pretty much only Wood to explore for slam.

[Flem72]

"1N-2C
2D-3D, defined as "both majors". Presumably this means 4-4 in majors and interest in game, forcing to game, or interest in slam. However, opener must by inference jump to 4M with a routine game acceptance, leaving you pretty much only Wood to explore for slam."

Surely not insurmountable or, even, more clumsy than the norm? 3D would be flat; define 4M as minimum, not slam suitable; We could agree that anything other than 3H sets S, so that 4m is a cue for S? You have at least as much flexibility as the more 'normal'

1N-2C
2M-4D where this is a balanced slam try in M?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

edit: I must add that this is not my preferred approach in a SNT context. Just trying to accomodate this preference in partner without losing too much....

This post has been edited by Flem72: 2011-September-30, 11:22

[Zelandakh]

I play Puppet over 1NT so perhaps my scheme will be useful to you:-

1NT
===
2C = asks for a 5-card major
2D = hearts
2H = spades
2S = range ask (2NT = min, 3C = max)
2N = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV
3m = nat, slammy
3H = 3-suited with diamond shortage
3S = 3-suited with club shortage
3N = to play
4C = majors
4D = hearts
4H = spades

1NT - 2C; 2D (no 5 card major)
============
2H = not interested in a heart fit
... - 2S = 4 spades
... - 2N = min, <4 spades
... - 3m = max, <4 spades, 4+ suit
... - 3H = max, 3433
2S = 4+ hearts
... - 2N = min, <4 hearts
... - 3m = max, <4 hearts, 4+ suit
... - 3H = min, 4 hearts
... - 3S = max, 4 hearts
... - 3N = max, 3433
2N = 4-4 majors, INV
3C = 4+, 4+ majors, GF
... - 3D = 3 card major, no 4 card major(now 3M = 5 in other major)
... - 3M = 4 card suit
3D = 5+ diamonds, 4 major, GF
3H = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds, GF
3S = 5 diamonds, 4 clubs, GF
3N = to play

1NT - 2S; 2NT/3C
================
P/3C = to play
3D = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts
3H = 5+ clubs, 4 spades
3S = 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
3N = to play
--

In conjunction I play

1NT - 2D; 2H - 2S as a multi-way bid
and
1NT - 2D; 2H - 2NT as 5 hearts, 4 spades, INV

Then to complete the both major hands
1NT - 2H; 2S - 3H is invitational with 5-5
and
1NT - 2D; 2H - 3D is 5-5 and GF (properly slammy since you can just respond 4C with only game interest).

Finally, it is a good idea to pass the weak take-out through 2C since most of the time you hear a 2D response. Then you need to incorporate that hand type over a 2M response too. As you can see above I also pass the diamond hands with 4 major through here too so transfers are useful...

1NT - 2C; 2H - 2S = range ask
1NT - 2C; 2H - 2NT = clubs
1NT - 2C; 2H - 3C = diamonds
1NT - 2C; 2H - 3D = GF heart raise

1NT - 2C; 2S - 2NT = natural
1NT - 2C; 2S - 3C = diamonds
1NT - 2C; 2S - 3D = Baron for the minors (hearts = clubs, spades = diamonds)
1NT - 2C; 2S - 3H = GF spade raise
--

There is more but I think that gives the general idea. Hopefully one or two of the ideas contained within the system are at least a little helpful.

[Free]

My advice: don't play 2♣ puppet stayman. It complicates matters, loses some options and it hardly gains anything.

With one of my partners I play 1NT-2NT as some sort of puppet stayman (asks 5 card Major but also includes various hands that want to show later). This works well and we still have our normal stayman sequences available as well.

With another partner I don't play puppet stayman, but after 1NT-2♣-2M, we use 3m artificial:
3♣ = puppet to 3♦ (except with fit OM), going to show a GF hand with 4OM and a longer minor
3♦ = asks more info about the Majors (opener bids natural)
Also, if opener has a 5 card M and responder rebids 2NT invitational, he can bid 3M with max and a 5 card suit. The case where you miss a 5-3M fit are when opener is minimum with 5M and responder has an invite, we play 2NT instead of 3M, so usually not a big deal.

[Zelandakh]

Free, on 2011-October-07, 00:50, said:

My advice: don't play 2♣ puppet stayman. It complicates matters, loses some options and it hardly gains anything.

Which options, Free? You certainly lose Exit Stayman so that is a loss, but to compensate you get your weak take-out in diamonds to be usually at the 2 level. You also lose the chance to have a weak invite with a 5 card spade suit available, one that is not strong enough for transfer then 2NT in standard. There just is not enough space for this over 2C Puppet without losing something else important whereas it is possible over normal Stayman. Many do not play this though. A plus is that it allows you to take all balanced hands in range out of your 1M bidding without giving up on alot of 5-3 fits. I posted the basics of my structure - I think it it deals with most normal hands and that you are actually gaining options (over 1M since it can be made unbalanced, if desired) at very little cost.

[Free]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-07, 08:14, said:

Which options, Free? You certainly lose Exit Stayman so that is a loss, but to compensate you get your weak take-out in diamonds to be usually at the 2 level. You also lose the chance to have a weak invite with a 5 card spade suit available, one that is not strong enough for transfer then 2NT in standard. There just is not enough space for this over 2C Puppet without losing something else important whereas it is possible over normal Stayman. Many do not play this though. A plus is that it allows you to take all balanced hands in range out of your 1M bidding without giving up on alot of 5-3 fits. I posted the basics of my structure - I think it it deals with most normal hands and that you are actually gaining options (over 1M since it can be made unbalanced, if desired) at very little cost.

I'm not convinced about the advantages of including weak ♦ hands. You claim to have a weak signoff in ♦ available, however if you have a 6331 with singleton M, partner will bid 2M more often than average. What will you do then? Play in a 5-1 fit? Or end up in 3♦ wrongsided (or rightsided somehow, but with lots of info given to the defense)? Also, if opps intervene over 2♣, the weak ♦ hand makes this version of puppet stayman more difficult than the standard where 2♣ shows INV+ values. Ok, continuations may make things clear sometimes, but when opener knows immediately that responder has INV+, he can bid/dbl more easily imo. The worst case is probably 1NT-p-2♣-2♠;p-3♠. If opener has a 5 card ♥, with regular puppet stayman he could bid 3♥, now that's dangerous, and responder has to do something with his INV+ hand.

The loss of garbage stayman is pretty big imo (please don't start this discussion again ), and even if you don't play 1NT-2♣-2X-2♠ as INV with 5♠, it may have another meaning which can be very useful.

If you really want to ask for 5 card Majors immediately, then use 1NT-2NT or 1NT-3♣ as regular GF puppet stayman. It's much better imo.

[glen]

Free, on 2011-October-07, 14:59, said:

I'm not convinced about the advantages of including weak ♦ hands. ... Or end up in 3♦ wrongsided (or rightsided somehow, but with lots of info given to the defense)? ...

He uses a second round transfer:
1NT - 2C; 2H - 3C = diamonds
1NT - 2C; 2S - 3C = diamonds

imo, just extra info but not "lots of info"

[Zelandakh]

Thank you glen, that is correct .

Stayman does not show INV+ values in standard. Justin said in a recent thread that he would use Stayman on pretty much any 4441 or 4450 hand and I think this approach is normal. The equivalent using Puppet is using exit Stayman with a 3352 hand but something like (23)53 works just fine too. Perhaps the exit Stayman hands are very slightly more common, I am not sure, but when you also factor in the 6 card diamond hands then I think it is a wash (agree though, this has been debated before without any clear answer).

I think most systems have difficulties when the opps barrage to 3S on the first round. You are not really better off in standard here either since partner might have a weak 3352 hand and bidding 4H is still dangerous.

The alternative of GF puppet using 2NT or 3C is ok but it turns out to be less efficient overall when you go through the schemes line by line. Yes I am aware that Meckwell play this and they are not too bad at bidding theory. Nonetheless, playing this you lose some options in comparison with a 2C puppet Stayman scheme, which was precisely the point you made in the first place about why puppet should be avoided!

[Free]

glen, on 2011-October-07, 15:39, said:

He uses a second round transfer:
1NT - 2C; 2H - 3C = diamonds
1NT - 2C; 2S - 3C = diamonds

imo, just extra info but not "lots of info"

That's an option you also have using regular stayman (which I play btw: 3♣ puppet to 3♦ = signoff or some strong hands with a long minor). So not really an advantage, perhaps a very small one since opener will rebid 2♦ more often using puppet.

[phil_20686]

I have always found puppet stayman after 1N to be basically useless.

5-3 fits in balanced hands often play better in 3N anyway.

5-3 fits in an unbalanced hand are always uncovered in stayman auctions anyway, provided you play that 3M shows (31)(45) hands.

Losing garbage stayman is big at MP but tiny at imps.

As for suggestions, playing 1N-2h-2s-3m-3S as showing 4card support for the minor, and playing 4C as showing support for the minor is a big gain which takes the pressure off on a lot of hands where you would like to tell partner that you have 4 card support without bypassing 3N.

You seem to have given up 4M5m hands on your structure, I would prefer 4 way transfer, so that transfer to a minor + a bit shows shortage. Showing 4-5 minors with loaded majors seems absurd, how seldom will these hands not wish to play 3N? We open these hands 1N for the same reason - they play better in NT on average. since hands with 54 minors and s singleton major are shown by a 1N=3<M sequence we should be fine.

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-01, 19:32, said:

I have always found puppet stayman after 1N to be basically useless.

Puppet 2C does muck things up a bit, if the partnership likes garbage stayman and some other toys.

But notice many top pairs have adopted 3C puppet in response to 1NT with (4-3) or (3-x) in the majors and G.F., keeping their 2C for all the other Stayman sequences...including the balanced invite.

[Free]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-01, 19:47, said:

Puppet 2C does muck things up a bit, if the partnership likes garbage stayman and some other toys.

But notice many top pairs have adopted 3C puppet in response to 1NT with (4-3) or (3-x) in the majors and G.F., keeping their 2C for all the other Stayman sequences...including the balanced invite.

3♣ Puppet Stayman is popular because it's a quick way to find out if opener has a 5 card M. It has 2 main purposes:
- quickly find a 5-3M fit. 1NT-3♣-3M-4M instead of 1NT-2♣-2M-something-something-...
- don't give as much info away to opps when it's not necessary. After 1NT-3♣-3♦-3NT the defense doesn't know if opener has 4♥, 4♠, or even 4-4. Also, after 2♣ Puppet Stayman, opener will show if he's min or max, after 3♣ he doesn't have to do this.

They also keep all their options open after 1NT-2♣ regular Stayman. The disadvantage of using 3♣ as Puppet Stayman is that you could've used this bid for other purposes. However, Puppet Stayman is more frequent than whatever you'd use 3♣ for otherwise, so it usually improves the NT structure. Sacrificing 2♣ Stayman to replace it with Puppet Stayman is imo taking a step back.

[Zelandakh]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-01, 19:32, said:

You seem to have given up 4M5m hands on your structure, I would prefer 4 way transfer, so that transfer to a minor + a bit shows shortage. Showing 4-5 minors with loaded majors seems absurd, how seldom will these hands not wish to play 3N? We open these hands 1N for the same reason - they play better in NT on average. since hands with 54 minors and s singleton major are shown by a 1N=3<M sequence we should be fine.

1NT - 2C; 2D - 3D covers the 5+ diamond, 4 major hands while
1NT - 2S; 2NT (or 3C) - 3D = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts, and
1NT - 2S; 2NT (or 3C) - 3H = 5+ clubs, 4 spades cover the 5+ club, 4 major hands.

The hands that would be shown in 4-way transfers by xfer and shortage can be shown by simply responding 3m. I could use 3m+1 as a shortage ask here if I wanted but I prefer use the space or a cue auction. I find this approach very effective at finding minor suit slams when Responder has a 1-suiter.

I agree that showing the longer minor with (31)(45) hands rather than the major fragment is against most advice. But I like this after opener has denied a 5 card major. Since this also shows slam interest, opener will only be playing 3NT if slam does not look good. Getting to the right minor suit slam is also important - whether it is more important than getting to the Moysian 4M when it is right is not an easy question to answer imho. Note also that I could use 3M for these hands if I wanted but have found it is more useful for me to have 2 ways to show 3-suiters with a short minor and thus use my 3M bids for these hands (the second way of showing the hand type takes us above 3NT).

I will not argue with you that there are disadvantages to this method. However not being able to show these very common hand types is not a fair criticism. Remember too, that by playing puppet this way I have all of my natural 1 of suit openings guaranteed to be unbalanced. All one needs is to be close to breaking even on 1NT hands to have gained a decent advantage overall.

Edit: Finally @Free, I want my 2C response to 1NT to be common, ideally nearly as common as all of the responses from 2H up. Is this not precisely the point of optimising bidding space?

[Free]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-02, 05:23, said:

Edit: Finally @Free, I want my 2C response to 1NT to be common, ideally nearly as common as all of the responses from 2H up. Is this not precisely the point of optimising bidding space?

Not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think you're confusing a few principles here. Optimizing bidding space means that the higher you bid, the better your bid describes your hand. As a result, lower bids contain many more hands, but that doesn't necessarily mean the lower bid is more frequent, because it depends on what sort of hands you put in there.

For instance (warning: extreme example!), if you have 2♣ showing all possible hand types with an 8 card suit, and 3♠ showing GF hands with exactly 1=3=4=5 distribution, then obviously 3♠ will be much more frequent although it contains fewer different hand types.

[phil_20686]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-01, 19:47, said:

Puppet 2C does muck things up a bit, if the partnership likes garbage stayman and some other toys.

But notice many top pairs have adopted 3C puppet in response to 1NT with (4-3) or (3-x) in the majors and G.F., keeping their 2C for all the other Stayman sequences...including the balanced invite.

I normally play 3C as a five card suit ask, so 1n-3c-3d-3h-3S/3N=5C/D (ie 3d= a 5 card minor 3h asks).

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-02, 05:23, said:

1NT - 2C; 2D - 3D covers the 5+ diamond, 4 major hands while
1NT - 2S; 2NT (or 3C) - 3D = 5+ clubs, 4 hearts, and
1NT - 2S; 2NT (or 3C) - 3H = 5+ clubs, 4 spades cover the 5+ club, 4 major hands.
However not being able to show these very common hand types is not a fair criticism. Remember too, that by playing puppet this way I have all of my natural 1 of suit openings guaranteed to be unbalanced. All one needs is to be close to breaking even on 1NT hands to have gained a decent advantage overall.

Edit: Finally @Free, I want my 2C response to 1NT to be common, ideally nearly as common as all of the responses from 2H up. Is this not precisely the point of optimising bidding space?

I was talking about the OP's structure.

Free, on 2011-November-02, 06:49, said:

Not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think you're confusing a few principles here. Optimizing bidding space means that the higher you bid, the better your bid describes your hand. As a result, lower bids contain many more hands, but that doesn't necessarily mean the lower bid is more frequent, because it depends on what sort of hands you put in there.

For instance (warning: extreme example!), if you have 2♣ showing all possible hand types with an 8 card suit, and 3♠ showing GF hands with exactly 1=3=4=5 distribution, then obviously 3♠ will be much more frequent although it contains fewer different hand types.

Pretty Z means that if your 2C is very common then 2c-2banannas-3N gives less information to the defense.

[han]

http://justinlall.com/

[whereagles]

another resource:

http://www.bridge-fo...ingerbourke.htm

[stegenborg]

Kit Woolsey has a cool 2c structure. Here is an example:

http://www.bridgewin...he-right-strain