[miamijd]

aawk, on 2016-October-13, 04:06, said:

I never get why you would play 2♣ as stayman in combination with 3♣ as puppet.

If you make 2♣ puppet with a few adjustments all your problems are solved.

Not quite. As pointed out earlier, your treatment wrong-sides all kinds of contracts, which is a major drawback. It also allows the opponents to know pretty much declarer's exact distribution before the opening lead goes down.

In addition, your treatment doesn't allow for so-called "Garbage Stayman," because if I have a horrible hand with 45 in the majors, or even sometimes 44 in the majors, in either case with 3 or fewer diamonds, I probably want to bid 2C and then 2H over 2D, telling partner to pass with 3H and bid 2s with 3S and 2H.

[miamijd]

Caitlynne, on 2016-October-13, 10:13, said:

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the best way to handle this is to use better methods. You are already at the 3M level and not only have you yet to confirm a fit, but also you don't know whether the fit that only one partner knows about it is adequate for slam purposes!

There is a reason why few people play a 3C response to 1NT as Puppet Stayman.

Meckwell played it for years; not exactly a pair of bums.

They now play 2NT as Puppet Stayman, which is probably a bit better.

[Zelandakh]

aawk, on 2016-October-13, 09:34, said:

Trying to counter the wrong-siding problem you have to give up a lot as well and you need a lot of extra conventions. Not a problem if you are a expert but a lot of ballast for 90 % of players.

Actually not. If you would take the time to look back at previous Puppet discussions you would see how easy it is. One simple approach (after 1NT - 2♣; 2♦) is for 2♥ to ask about spades and for 2♠ to show 4 hearts. You have lost Crawling Stayman here but your scheme gave up on that too. As it happens I do indeed prefer to combine it with some additional artificiality to improve the efficiency further:

1NT - 2♣; 2♦
==
2♥ = asks about spades and strength
... - 2♠ = 4 spades
... - ... - 2NT = nat, INV
... - ... - 3m = Baron
... - ... - 3♥ = GF raise
... - ... - 3♠ = INV raise
... - 2NT = 2-3 spades, min
... - ... - 3m = Baron
... - ... - 3♥ = GF with heart shortage
... - ... - 3♠ = GF with 5 spades and 3 hearts
... - others = 2-3 spades, max, GF
2♠ = 4+ hearts
... - 2NT = 2-3 hearts, min
... - ... - 3m = Baron
... - ... - 3♥ = 5 hearts and 3 spades, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = GF with spade shortage
... - 3♣ = 2-3 hearts, max (NB: it is more efficient to show the minor suits directly but it leaks information on a lot of normal hands)
... - ... - 3♦ = Baron
... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4+ clubs
... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 4+ diamonds
... - ... - ... - 3NT = 4=3=3=3
... - ... - 3♥ = 5 hearts and 3 spades, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = GF with spade shortage
... - 3♦ = 4 hearts, max
... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, min
2NT = 4-4 majors, INV
3♣ = 4+ hearts, 4+ spades, GF
... - 3♦ = no 4 card major
... - ... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, 5+ spades
... - ... - 3♠ = 4 spades, 5+ hearts
... - 3♥ = 4 hearts
... - 3♠ = 4 spades
... - others = 4-4 majors
3♦ = 5+ diamonds and a 4 card major (this is necessary due to the way the rest of the structure works (only 3-way transfers are used))
3♥ = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds (a more popular alternative is for this to show 31(45))
3♠ = 5 diamonds, 4 clubs (a more popular alternative is for this to show 13(45))

Note that the structure is not perfect. Crawling Stayman has been given up along with the invitational hands with a long minor and some other auctions are more cramped than their counterparts in alternative schemes. As I wrote before, I know of no structure that provides everything. I do think you will find the above to be a noticeable improvement on the scheme in your previous post over a strong NT, albeit at the cost of additional complexity. Hardly expert-level stuff though!

[aawk]

miamijd, on 2016-October-13, 23:15, said:

Not quite. As pointed out earlier, your treatment wrong-sides all kinds of contracts, which is a major drawback. It also allows the opponents to know pretty much declarer's exact distribution before the opening lead goes down.

In addition, your treatment doesn't allow for so-called "Garbage Stayman," because if I have a horrible hand with 45 in the majors, or even sometimes 44 in the majors, in either case with 3 or fewer diamonds, I probably want to bid 2C and then 2H over 2D, telling partner to pass with 3H and bid 2s with 3S and 2H.

To worry about wrong-sided and call it a major drawback is highly overated like i said before if you hold 10+ HCP opposite a 15-17 nt it is not a big problem and i gave the 2 situations where it could be a drawback.

And yes if you play garbage stayman it is not possible to play 2c as constructive needed in IMP play. And if you hold 5-4 in the majors with nothing just give a transfer to your 5 card. Even if partner holds 4-2 in the majors it is recommended to give a transfer. Why you must ask ? The 1nt opener plays the contract and your hand has more value if you play in a 5-2 fit opposite a possible 4-4 fit if you are weak and only want to play at 2 level.

The comment that you reveale to much information about your distrubution is not a argument imo because in nearly all cases the bidding is a slam invite or better. And in IMP play you are looking for the best (safe) contract and not the best paying contract certainly for slam.

But don't worry if you don't like the structure a gave don't play it. But imo you will mis a lot of slams based on a double fit with a range of 27-31 HCP from both hands combined (if you play the loosing trick count you can).

[Phil]

Caitlynne, on 2016-October-13, 10:13, said:

I know this is not what you want to hear, but the best way to handle this is to use better methods. You are already at the 3M level and not only have you yet to confirm a fit, but also you don't know whether the fit that only one partner knows about it is adequate for slam purposes!

There is a reason why few people play a 3C response to 1NT as Puppet Stayman.

Systems and conventions come and go, and frequently new treatments take a long time to get adopted by established partnership.

However, I would say over the past 5 years among top pairs 3 ♣ puppet (note: it's not puppet, per se, it only initially asks for a five card major) has had the highest adoption rate.

JLall's discussion

justinlall.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/puppet-stayman-after-a-1n-opener/

Should be considered required reading for all top players.

[kenberg]

As I was browsing the web I saw references to this article of Justin's.
The link you provide works, the ones I saw earlier did not.
This is a very clearly written article, and it addresses my concerns.
Hey, here is an idea: If a world class player takes the time to write a clear article about how to play a convention, it might be a good idea to take his advice!
At the very least, consider taking his advice!
Thanks.

[PhantomSac]

Phil, on 2016-October-14, 07:55, said:

Systems and conventions come and go, and frequently new treatments take a long time to get adopted by established partnership.

However, I would say over the past 5 years among top pairs 3 ♣ puppet (note: it's not puppet, per se, it only initially asks for a five card major) has had the highest adoption rate.

JLall's discussion

justinlall.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/puppet-stayman-after-a-1n-opener/

Should be considered required reading for all top players.

One meckwell improvement is to play 2n as puppet and 3c as diamonds, you lose inviting in diamonds but gain

A) they can't double 3c for the lead
B) you can put (31)(54) into puppet, over 3c no major you bid 3d to show that (partner asks), this frees up 1n-3M

[Phil]

PhantomSac, on 2016-October-14, 17:25, said:

One meckwell improvement is to play 2n as puppet and 3c as diamonds, you lose inviting in diamonds but gain

A) they can't double 3c for the lead
B) you can put (31)(54) into puppet, over 3c no major you bid 3d to show that (partner asks), this frees up 1n-3M

But you also give up being able to show a weak 55 in the minors too if you are using 3♣ as ♦.

But...I give you props and you propose an alternate method??

[PhantomSac]

Phil, on 2016-October-14, 18:17, said:

But you also give up being able to show a weak 55 in the minors too if you are using 3♣ as ♦.

True!

lol, evolution is a thing! Transfers after transfers have also gotten much more involved now, in a good way

[kenberg]

I started this thread after kibbing a table where the auction went 1NT-3C-3H-6H, making 7 on a nice fit. Afterward, responder explained that she was not sure just what meant what over 3H, and I realized I wasn't so sure either. I don't recall the hands in any detail, but it was far from clear they could have reached 7 even if they had clear understandings.

Perhaps I will one day try transfers over transfers, but I don't suggest that you hold your breath for it. In the meantime, this has been very useful and I thank everyone.


Whether a convention is a good convention or not often depends on the detail and clarity with which it is implemented. I gave my "kibbing approval" to the leap to 6H mentioned above, there is not point in getting into a more complicated auction if you have no idea of what the various calls mean, but we could all be a little more cautious in agreeing to play a convention after a discussion such as "Puppet?" "Ok".

Thanks.

[nige1]

Experts can afford to design and learn different sophisticated conventions appropriate to 1N and 2N openers. Lesser players with poorer Bridge-memories find it hard to remember even one complex method. Hence some of us have decided to use a similar method, in both contexts. 1N openers are commoner than 2N openers and this consistency reduces floundering over the latter.