[ArcLight]

I've been reading Marty Bergen's More Points Schmoints (a great book), and he presented a new form of Puppet Stayman.

Rather than the traditional Puppet Stayman where you start off 2♣, with this variety, with at least one 3 card major and at least 10 HCP you bid 3♣, asking pard for a 5 card major.
Opener responds:

1) with a 5 card major he bids 3 of that suit.
If responder is short he signs off in 3NT, else raise the 8 card major to game.

2) 3NT denies any 4 or 5 card major

3) 3♦ shows one or two 4 card majors.
a) responder can then signoff in 3NT or
b ) with a 4 card major, responder bids the other major, so opener will declare in the other major if he chooses to bid that over 3NT.

Ex. 1NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♠
Responder is showing 4-3 in spades and hearts. Had he bid 2♣ he would miss out on pards 5 card major. (this is the example right out of the book, personally I don't see why 5-3 is better than 4-4)


What do you think of this treatment? Does it help the defense too much? I never liked the original Puppet Stayman, but this seems like a decent treatment because it doesn't cost much, as when is the last time pard bid 3♣ over a 1NT bid (unless you are using some sort of 4 suit transfer to ♦, and don't want to use 2NT to show clubs).

[Flame]

Many play this in israel, mostly because its simple and easy, i dont think its best or nearly best, infact i believe nothing bergen write suppose to be a perfect solution, bergen is writing great books for not great bridge players, or not great partnerships.

[slothy]

Dont think it is new at all....

slight variations of this been played for a while...Marty just popularised it.

[inquiry]

I open 1NT with five card majors a lot, but have traditionally ingnored puppet stayman over 1NT. I have been experimenting with the ETM Victory 1NT responding structure which is somewhat similar...

While there is a lot to the structure, they play these 3 level bids...

1NT-3♣ = 5-4 or better in minors, GF
1NT-3♥ = 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-4-5 or 4-0-5-4 (short heart, 4S), game force
1NT-3♠ = 1-4-4-4 or 0-4-4-5 or 0-4-5-4 (short spade, 4H's) game force
1NT - 3♦ = puppet stayman (opener bids a five card major, or 3NT)

There is a lot more to the structure, like ways to look for 4 card major and then signoff in a minor at the three level. But I just show this part to highlight the puppet stayman aspect of their structure.

Ben

[helene_t]

I wonder how you are supposed to show the minor suits if you can't use 3♣ for that purpose. Of course, if you're happy to use 2NT. But the invitational hands without a 4-card major are more common than the minor-suit hands, and I really don't like to invite via Stayman if I don't have a 4-card major. It discloses opener's holding and 2♣ can get doubled.

You can skip the invitational hands alltogether (who wants to play 2NT anyway?) or you can bid some minor-suit hands, for example invitational with diamonds, via Stayman.

I don't think it's worth it. Just play 2♣ as Pubbet Stayman (or ordinary Stayman if you prefer), 2♠ as either clubs or invitational with diamonds, and 3♣ as diamonds, either strong or weak. Now you can't show a GF hand with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds, but maybe you can use 3♠ or something for that purpose, or you can bid it via Stayman.

[ArcLight]

Rather than "New Variety" I should have put "New to me", sorry for the confusion.

>Many play this in israel, mostly because its simple and easy, i dont think its best or nearly best, infact i believe nothing bergen write suppose to be a perfect solution, bergen is writing great books for not great bridge players, or not great partnerships.

Should I not be reading his books? They give the reader food for thought, and may make them aware of conventions they might not otherwise think of using.
I don't agree with him on the LAW section, but in general I have found his books worth reading. What in particular is wrong with the Bergen books? They are aimed at intermediate and begeinning players? If thats the case doesnt it make sense for an intermediate player to read them, try out the methods, and then if one improves, read other books?

What would you suggest instead? (I have many other books, I'll get to all eventually)

[inquiry]

helene_t, on Feb 16 2005, 11:59 AM, said:

I wonder how you are supposed to show the minor suits if you can't use 3♣ for that purpose. (snip)...

The entire structure is quite interesting. You can read all about it at this link...

ETM One Notrump Structure

Note, they divide this responding structure into three levels of complexities.. the regular structure, the advanced structure, and the complex structure, each building on the last. The three level responses shown in my post above are the same in all three. As is 2H, 2S, and 2NT responses. What changes are the 2D and 2C response and the follow ups.

The advanced structure uses 2D (jacoby) on some hands without four hearts, and adds second round relays after initial jacoby transfer to help with landing in right spot.

The complex structure is the advanced structure with the addition of second round transfers by responder on auctions beginning with Stayman

As for hands with both minors, the agreement is as follows..

1NT-2S = transfer to clubs
1NT-2NT = transfer to diamonds, can be weak with both minors

The theory goes like this, opener will rebid 3C over 2NT with a bad hand for playing in diamonds (this is opposite to the normal superaccept, where 3C shows great hand for diamonds). Responder with both minors and weak, then guesses to pass 3C. They reverse this superaccept for clubs as well.. so 1N-2S-2NT=bad hand for clubs.. 3C is now a signoff by responder.

Take a look, it is quite interesting, and works well with problem example hands.

BTW, misho wanted me to adopt something similar to this, but the notes were not in english, and the followup auctions where not clear. So I refused to switch to those methods and have tried to get him to consider these. I don't think he has read it yet.

Ben

[luis]

I play the revised Keri version that The Hog posted in this forum some time ago and I'm extremely extremely happy with the results.
So now that the topic emerges again thanks to Ron Klinger for his work and the other Ron for kindly posting the new version.
Luis.

[whereagles]

I play the book version of keri, with some tweaks I got from hog's posts.

Personally, I think keri is the best thing since sliced bread

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Feb 16 2005, 11:02 AM, said:

Rather than "New Variety" I should have put "New to me", sorry for the confusion.

>Many play this in israel, mostly because its simple and easy, i dont think its best or nearly best, infact i believe nothing bergen write suppose to be a perfect solution, bergen is writing great books for not great bridge players, or not great partnerships.

Should I not be reading his books?  They give the reader food for thought, and may make them aware of conventions they might not otherwise think of using.
I don't agree with him on the LAW section, but in general I have found his books worth reading.  What in particular is wrong with the Bergen books?  They are aimed at intermediate and begeinning players?  If thats the case doesnt it make sense for an intermediate player to read them, try out the methods, and then if one improves, read other books?

What would you suggest instead?  (I have many other books, I'll get to all eventually)

You misunderstood me, i said his books are great and ment it, i also said they are great for non great players or non great partnerships which i ment exactly as you later said, non expert players(not that an expert wont learn anything, just not too much). As I mentioned before, ppl in israel dont believe in complex systems, so even our world class player might play something suggested by bergen. Our number 1 cauch which coach the juniour believe and teach that no convention is worth one misunderstanding, and therefore teach them to play as simple as possible. I object to that and think it will do well in the long run that our juniours will expirence new things even in a cost of bad results at the present, for more enjoysble bridge and a long run benefit. (but who asks me)
For more serious, less fun reading you can read mike lawrence's books.

[Flame]

Question about keri, should i buy the book, or the post by Ron on the forum is enough ?

[whereagles]

I would say stick to the revised version that Ron gave us.

The book version has a slightly different philosophy, which gives some extra precision but complicates matters considerably. The revised version is simpler, covers up a few "holes" of the book version and the loss of precision is minimal.

[Flame]

whereagles, on Feb 16 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

I would say stick to the revised version that Ron gave us.

The book version has a slightly different philosophy, which gives some extra precision but complicates matters considerably. The revised version is simpler, covers up a few "holes" of the book version and the loss of precision is minimal.

maybe you guys can solve the problem we had with keri (on the non nat systems)
What do you bid as opener with max 5♠3♥.
1nt-2c
2d-2h
???

[pclayton]

Im playing the old version of Keri.

I still like it a little better than the new; which seems to be adapted for the primary reason of allowing 6 card minors to be opened.

[luke warm]

any sequence (and i'm speaking with a weak nt slant) that allows a pair to 1) find a 5M with opener; 2) stay out of a bad 3nt; 3) easily find game elsewhere, even a minor (by finding opener's distribution) is worth trying, imo... all in all, i like keri just fine, but i prefer 2c as puppet (or garbage, depending) and 2d as gf... like a 2/1, if the combined values are enough for game, it's known immediately

[HeartA]

luis, on Feb 16 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

I play the revised Keri version that The Hog posted in this forum some time ago and I'm extremely extremely happy with the results.
......
Luis.

Could you give the link or repost it?

[pclayton]

I've also played the 1N - 3♣ as puppet. The bid promises a 3 or 4 card major and a good 9 to a poor 15. It has a few neat advantages:

1. You shut out the 2 level lead directing overcall.
2. 1N - 2♣ is now either garbage, invitational, slammish or Smolen
3. 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ / 2♥ / 2♠ - 3N can be played as a mild slam invitation (else go through 3♣).

[inquiry]

HeartA, on Feb 16 2005, 07:22 PM, said:

luis, on Feb 16 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

I play the revised Keri version that The Hog posted in this forum some time ago and I'm extremely extremely happy with the results.
......
Luis.

Could you give the link or repost it?

Revised Keri

[Free]

ArcLight, on Feb 16 2005, 02:58 PM, said:

I've been reading Marty Bergen's More Points Schmoints (a great book), and he presented a new form of Puppet Stayman.

Rather than the traditional Puppet Stayman where you start off 2♣, with this variety, with at least one 3 card major and at least 10 HCP you bid 3♣, asking pard for a 5 card major.
Opener responds:

1) with a 5 card major he bids  3 of that suit. 
If responder is short he signs off in  3NT, else raise the 8 card major to game.

2) 3NT denies any 4 or 5 card major

3) 3♦ shows one or two 4 card majors.
a) responder can then signoff in 3NT  or
b ) with a 4 card major, responder bids the other major, so opener will declare in the other major if he chooses to bid that over 3NT.

Ex. 1NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♠
Responder is showing 4-3 in spades and hearts.  Had he bid 2♣ he would miss out on pards 5 card major. (this is the example right out of the book, personally I don't see why 5-3 is better than 4-4)


What do you think of this treatment?  Does it help the defense too much?  I never liked the original Puppet Stayman, but this seems like a decent treatment because it doesn't cost much, as when is the last time pard bid 3♣ over a 1NT bid (unless you are using some sort of 4 suit transfer to ♦, and don't want to use 2NT to show clubs).

I've played this treatment for years without problems! However, I disagree with the fact that responder shows 4-3 in the Majors. You don't need a 4 card M, and you also don't need both Majors.

If you have a GF hand with 3-3 or less in the Majors, you want to hide partner's Major suit by using puppet stayman. If he shows a 5 card you might find your fit, if he bids 3♦ he shows 1 or 2 M suits, but that's unknown to opps. If responder now bids 3NT opps still don't know anything. If opener has 4-4M, he also doesn't have to show it, since partner will show his M suit holding. You can't even get useful lead directing Dbl's, since opener bids 3♦ and his LHO has to lead against any contract (except ♣).

Btw, if you have a 4-4 fit and a 5-3 fit, then usually playing in the 4-4 fit will be better, not the other way around...

[HeartA]

inquiry, on Feb 17 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

Revised Keri

Thanks, Ben.