[wclass___]

 MickyB, on 2010-November-09, 15:31, said:

I don't think your goals over a weak NT are that different to over a strong NT - if 1NT was 8-11 then I might think again!

T

Well, most strong NT methods are focusing to make 1N opener as declarer. That should change with mini/weak NT. (I belive that when you have approximately the same point count as your partner, the one whose hand is less defined should be declarer.)


Anyway, I would always play 1N-2N as bal-semibal GF, it is just too powerful method not to use.
I would also play 1NT-2♠ as weakish 5+; 1N-2♣ as asking bid definetly including 4♠+ inv+

[mikestar13]

 Zelandakh, on 2010-November-11, 01:22, said:

@mikestar13, I am wondering what you do with an invitational hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. This is traditionally the problem hand playing puppet Stayman and most schemes that I know of use a 2NT response to handle it. I am wondering how you fix this in order to use 2NT to show clubs.

Game forcing 5-4 majors (either way) use Puppet Stayman and rebid the shorter major Smolen-syle over opener's denial of a four-card major. Invitational 5-4s go through Jacoby, responder's rebid of the other major is not forcing and can't be 5-5 because these go though
3♦.

Puppet Stayman answers are as follows:
2♦=no 5cM, 1 or 2 4cM.
2♥/2♠=5c in bid suit.
2NT=no majors, minimum.
3♣=no majors, maximum.

[Zelandakh]

 mikestar13, on 2010-November-11, 16:33, said:

Game forcing 5-4 majors (either way) use Puppet Stayman and rebid the shorter major Smolen-syle over opener's denial of a four-card major. Invitational 5-4s go through Jacoby, responder's rebid of the other major is not forcing and can't be 5-5 because these go though
3♦.

Puppet Stayman answers are as follows:
2♦=no 5cM, 1 or 2 4cM.
2♥/2♠=5c in bid suit.
2NT=no majors, minimum.
3♣=no majors, maximum.

Hmmm, so with an invitational 54xy the bidding is 1NT - 2H - 2S - 3H? This strikes me as an issue when Opener has a 23xy minimum. Either play in a 7 card fit at the 3 level or an understrength 3NT. There is also the problem of Responder having an invitational hand to 3NT but a GF hand opposite a heart fit. A more typical puppet structure gains on these hands but loses the invitational minors - seems like a system choice. I was hoping you might have had a method that improves my puppet scheme that uses
1NT - 2NT for 5S4H invitational;
1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT for 5H4S invitational;
1NT - 2C - 2D - 2NT for 4S4H invitational;
1NT - 2H - 2S - 3H for 5S5H invitational. Then GF hands with both majors go through
1NT - 2C - 2D - 3C for 4S4H or 5-4 either way; and
1NT - 2C - 2D - 3D for 5S5H

I would love to be able to use the 2NT/3C transfers too but I am not convinced the trade-off is worth it - might have a play with it. Instead I currently have natural slammy 3m responses and 2S covers the weak takeout in clubs and big minor 2-suiters. For me one of the major advantages of using a puppet scheme is the ability to play in 2D with a weak hand and long diamonds so I am surprised you have given this up with your 2NT/3C responses over 2C. Anyway, thanks for sharing - I will mull it over.

[mikestar13]

[delete inadvertent post]

[wodahs]

I like to play this over an 11-14 1NT. I find that four-point ranges too often get me too high, but this variation nicely stops at 2M when opener has a minimum. 2♣ is invitational or better, so no Garbage Stayman. 2♣ asks range first, then if responder wants to GF, Puppet 3♣ queries majors. After 1N 2♣, then

2♦ = 11-12 minimum without 5M, then if responder wants to stop in partial, they bid four-card majors up the line, stopping at 2M in a 4=4 fit or 2NT. Either can opt sometimes to play in a 4=3 M fit along the way, if the urge strikes. For example opener after 1NT 2♣; 2♦, 2♥; might hold xx/KQx/AQxxx/xxx and choose to pass instead of settling in 2NT. Likewise responder with KQx/AQxx/xxxx/xx can choose to play in 2S after 1N 2♣; 2♦ 2♥; 2♠ (opener shows minimum with 2♦, responder shows four hearts with 2♥, opener denies four hearts but has four spades with 2♠). If responder is still GF after 2♦, he Puppets with 3♣.

2♥/♠ = 11-12 minimum with five M.

2NT = any 13-14 max, then responder if interested in majors, Puppets with 3♣.

Otherwise 4-suit transfers, and whatever you like for higher.

[Cyberyeti]

I actually used to play an 11-16 1N in 1st/2nd, 14-19 3rd/4th.

What we did was to use inv+ 4 card transfers to the majors with 2 point range step responses without/with a fit, and used 2♣ as a sort of bucket bid for many other hands. This worked surprisingly well, the only issue being handling the middle range which was not GF opposite the invite.

Was looking at trying to play a wide range no trump again and put together something a bit simpler with only two ranges, but haven't got it together yet.

[mikestar13]

Been studying 5-4 major hands and I have a solution: use Romex Stayman rather than Puppet Stayman.

Rebids after 1NT-2♣:
2♦=denies 4♥ or 5♠
2♥=4 or 5 ♥, not 4♠
2♠=5♠
2NT=4-4 majors, minimum
3♣=4-4 majors,maximum

Rebids after 1NT-2♣-2NT/3♣:
Pass (of 2NT)=to play
3♦/3♥=transfer to next higher suit
3NT=to play

Rebids after 1NT-2♣-2♠:
2NT/3NT=no ♠ fit
3♠/4♠=♠ fit

Rebids after 1NT-2♣-2♥:
2♠=asks for ♥ length; partner will bid NT with 4 and ♥ with 5
2NT/3NT=no major interest
3♥/♥=♥ support

Rebids after 1NT-2♣-2♦:
2♥=asks for 4♠
2♠=5♠-4♥-x♦-x♣, invitational
2NT/3NT=no major interest


The rest of system remains the same except that 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ is forcing 5-4 majors, while 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ is 4-5 majors, invitational or better, round forcing only.

[olien]

It seems like many of these stayman structures use 2N/3♣ to show 4/4 major hands directly over the stayman response. This would seem like it wouldn't work all that well. Why is it played like this and does it work well? (especially opposite an 11+-14 NT)

[MickyB]

 olien, on 2010-November-25, 11:21, said:

It seems like many of these stayman structures use 2N/3♣ to show 4/4 major hands directly over the stayman response. This would seem like it wouldn't work all that well. Why is it played like this and does it work well? (especially opposite an 11+-14 NT)

It really depends what hands you are putting through Stayman. The advantage is that 1N:2C, 2M denies four in the other major. Playing standard stuff, this means that 1N:2C, 2M:2NT neither shows nor denies length in the other major without any guesswork later, and 1N:2C, 2H:3m, 3S isn't needed to agree spades. The main disadvantage is that garbage hands land up at the three-level. I'm using a structure where Stayman then 3m is invitational with or without a major, sadly this isn't compatible with the "both major" 2NT and 3C responses because I would need every bid over 2NT to be non-forcing.

[Gerben42]

I played 1N - 2♣ - 2N as 5♥ and with one partner even 3m directly as 4441 hands. That worked well

[Zelandakh]

 olien, on 2010-November-25, 11:21, said:

It seems like many of these stayman structures use 2N/3♣ to show 4/4 major hands directly over the stayman response. This would seem like it wouldn't work all that well. Why is it played like this and does it work well? (especially opposite an 11+-14 NT)

This is a standard trick used in puppet schemes. The idea is to be able to handle all of the GF hands with both majors through 3C rather than needing to use all of 3D, 3H and 3S which is less efficient. In 4 card major Stayman schemes 3C usually requires 5-4 majors (a form of Extended Stayman) and then you only gain a potential advantage if pushing 5-5 hands through Stayman, against the loss of another meaning for the 3m rebid. Whether it works well depends more on the rest of the system than the benefits of the convention itself. The idea itself is sound and has been around for a long time.

[skaftij]

Where can I find description of Heeman?

[chalcraft]

I like hitchhiker over a weak NT:

2♣=stayman
2♦= hitchhiker
2M = to play
2N/3♣ = weak transfer
3♦ = puppet
3M = stiff

the responses to HH are:

2M = 2 card in that major
2N = at least 3-3 in majors , min
3m = at least 3-3 in majors, 4+m, max
3M = 5M - 3oM

The only problem with this is that it is hard to set a major in a GF auction after a 2M response to 2♦.
In this case I think Heeman is a little more well defined. Also heeman has that 3!D multi-invitational!

a link is here: http://gerben.homepa...ems/weaknt.html

@cchalc
@tresboof

[Free]

 skaftij, on 2010-December-04, 07:55, said:

Where can I find description of Heeman?

Here