[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2013-September-14, 03:54, said:

1NT 2♣ ...
Opener bids :
2♦ = any 5cM or no 4cM
2M = that 4cM (♥ if both ♠ & ♥)

Not sure why you did it this way round, since the same structure works with 2M showing a 5 card major and has certain advantages. Some experience has also shown that it is better to make the 2M advances after Opener's 2♦ forcing too, to include several GF hands here. If you devote too many bids in a 2♣ Puppet structure to non-forcing sequences then you run out of space very quickly. I suspect that it is exposure to such builds that is what gives 2♣ Puppet a bad name, since there is nothing inherently bad about the method when good follow-ups are employed.

RGranville, on 2013-September-15, 15:11, said:

but I don't like using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman, since this prevents responder from making that bid on weak hands.

As has been pointed out many times, both on this thread and elsewhere, this is simply not true. It changes the types of weak hands. There is one weak hand type, weak with diamonds, where 2♣ Puppet has a major advantage over regular Stayman due to the more common 2♦ rebid from Opener. The weak hand type where 2♣ Puppet struggles is both majors, assuming the regular Stayman players are using 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ for that. Playing a weak NT, most of the time the opps do not manage to pass it out when you hold that hand though.

However, the biggest disadvantage comes probably not from weak hands so much as that the loss of space forces you to lose one or more hand types. In the case of the structure that I use, I do not have a sequence for an invite with a long minor. Despite the issues, I like the 2♣ Puppet structure a lot. I feel that you give up less here than, for example, using 3♣ as Puppet. But the nature of the follow-up structure is important, and Puppet structures are more sensitive to going wrong than regular Stayman structures, since there is more to pack in. So saying that all 2♣ Puppet methods are bad based on a limited set of experiences is just silly. I had a similar reaction to 5 card majors as a junior based on an equally limited exposure.

What I can say is that there are many, many possibilities for good NT structures around. Most standard structures do not take full advantage of every trick. The next question is whether that is a good or bad thing. But by taking advntage of all the tricks, you can do almost everything with Puppet as with regular Stayman. If you think this is incorrect then feel free to search for my response structure - I have posted it often enough.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-16, 09:53, said:

Not sure why you did it this way round, since the same structure works with 2M showing a 5 card major and has certain advantages. Some experience has also shown that it is better to make the 2M advances after Opener's 2♦ forcing too, to include several GF hands here. If you devote too many bids in a 2♣ Puppet structure to non-forcing sequences then you run out of space very quickly.

Zel, I did it this way round because this was a simple improvement to the OP suggested method. He had 2♦ = weak 5cM or no 4cM, so with little change it becomes any 5 or no 4. The 2M bids are non-forcing, because that was the expressed requirement, to be able to find the 5-3 and 4-4 major fits when not forcing.

There may well be other methods, and it would not surprise me to find that yours is the best thought out to cater for many alternative developments, but the OP expressed a desire to play "a simple version that isn't too complex". As you are aware, my opinion is that it better to not have to find a 5 card major, because there will not be one in a 1NT opening. As a predominantly MP player, my preference is to open 5 card majors. 1M is therefore gapless in strength. Major fits are key, and I am prepared to take the hit of not being able to show opener's second minor suit (if any) when weak, to be able to distinguish between 12-14 and 15/16.

So please read the above merely as a simple suggested modification.

[Vampyr]

RGranville, on 2013-September-15, 15:11, said:

For example, the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ tends to be unused at present.

In my experience, it tends to be used as a hand too good to raise to 4♠.

[blackshoe]

One of the (many) things that bemuses me about bridge is this: people who play that a 1NT opening can be made with a five card major tend to add a point for the fifth card, so that their range might be 14-16 instead of the more usual 15-17. Yet people do not do this with a five card minor. While I grant that majors are "better" than minors in many ways, it seems to me that a length point is a length point — either the fifth card in a suit is worth an extra point, or it isn't. I don't see why whether it's a major or a minor suit should make any significant difference.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-18, 16:27, said:

One of the (many) things that bemuses me about bridge is this: people who play that a 1NT opening can be made with a five card major tend to add a point for the fifth card, so that their range might be 14-16 instead of the more usual 15-17. Yet people do not do this with a five card minor. While I grant that majors are "better" than minors in many ways, it seems to me that a length point is a length point — either the fifth card in a suit is worth an extra point, or it isn't. I don't see why whether it's a major or a minor suit should make any significant difference.

Most of our opponents don't seem to distinguish between 5-M and 5-m when opening 1N on 14-15 HCP. With a 5-card M and 14-15 HCP, however, some players are reluctant to open 1M because that range is awkward for Gazzilli.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2013-September-17, 02:31, said:

the OP expressed a desire to play "a simple version that isn't too complex".

What does "OP" mean in your world?

[Zelandakh]

OP is original post or original poster, Michael - although I cannot immediately see where Wackojack posted this.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-19, 01:52, said:

OP is original post or original poster, Michael - although I cannot immediately see where Wackojack posted this.

That's what it means for me too, but first of all I can't see the reference and secondly I don't see why a necroed thread should be limited to what someone wanted to know in 2010.

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2013-September-19, 02:36, said:

That's what it means for me too, but first of all I can't see the reference and secondly I don't see why a necroed thread should be limited to what someone wanted to know in 2010.

Maybe you should explain this "necroed"!

Of course OP means "original post" or "original poster" (either, depending on context) but apply some lateral thinking. This thread was dead and buried in 2010 but just this month a new poster fbear started the topic up again requesting views on his idea of discovering opener's 4 or 5 card major and bailing out at the 2-level, having discovered a 5-3 fit or a 4-4 fit. This post #28 in the thread now assumes the role of OP. Of course if she/he had raised a new thread there would be no misunderstanding.

I guess there is an advantage in re-using old threads in that it keeps all ideas and comments relating to one topic in one place. Perhaps we should have a "topic index", and only add a new topic if it is not in the list.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2013-September-19, 04:24, said:

This post #28 in the thread now assumes the role of OP.

I would suggest the unambiguous formulation "The necromancer expressed a desire..." rather than "The OP expressed a desire..."

Quote

Perhaps we should have a "topic index", and only add a new topic if it is not in the list.

http://bridge.mgoetze.net/bbf.html

[mycroft]

in case it wasn't clear from mgoetze, "necroed" = (re-)starting a long-dormant thread, as a necromancer "raises the dead".

Unless you have 3 Black and want to pay 1 life per card.</offtopic>

[mgoetze]

All my swamps are tapped.

[Zelandakh]

Crack your Mox and Ritual.

[joeytd]

I am playing 4 suit transfers which means than 1NT-2C does not promise a 4 card major.
This seems to lead very well into playing puppet stayman as 1NT-2C.
Further, by allowing the 1NT opener to respond ONLY with the 5 card major or 2D showing NO 5 card major, seems to have very little downside.

I would really appreciate some advanced or expert opinion on this.

[Kungsgeten]

kenberg, on 2010-December-05, 09:50, said:

As wacko intimates, nothing is perfect. Eg Partner opens 1NT, you hold five hearts, three spades, game forcing values. Suppose 3♣ is puppet. It could be right to check for five spades but surely most would transfer to hearts and bid 3NT, which will be right in the more frequent case that partner has three hearts.

If you play 3C as Puppet Stayman you could also use it with GF hands with one four card major (but not both). With this agreement you could use regular 2C Stayman with a GF hand with 5-3 majors:

1NT--2C;
2D = No major
...3M = Smolen, but may have 5-3 majors instead of the regular 5-4
2H = 4 hearts, not 4 spades
...3NT = Choice of games with 5 spades and 3 hearts
2S = 4 spades, not 4 hearts
...3NT = Choice of games with 5 hearts and 3 spades
2NT = 4-4 majors, minimum
3C = 4-4 majors, maximum

Over a 2NT/3C response to Stayman you use transfers at the three-level.

[Trumpace]

joeytd, on 2014-February-02, 09:54, said:

I am playing 4 suit transfers which means than 1NT-2C does not promise a 4 card major.
This seems to lead very well into playing puppet stayman as 1NT-2C.
Further, by allowing the 1NT opener to respond ONLY with the 5 card major or 2D showing NO 5 card major, seems to have very little downside.

I would really appreciate some advanced or expert opinion on this.

Something like this is definitely playable.

I first encountered it on pavlicek's site: http://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#4

Seems a bit strange that no one seems to have mentioned this...

[Zelandakh]

joeytd, on 2014-February-02, 09:54, said:

This seems to lead very well into playing puppet stayman as 1NT-2C.

Hello Joey - welcome to the BBO forums. I am not one of the experts you want opinions from but I do play a method based on 2♣ Puppet Stayman, albeit in combination with 3-suit transfers rather than 4. Some of the diamond-based hands are pulled into the 2♣ response instead.

The main issue with 4 suit transfers is dealing with the 5♠4♥ invitational hand. I use a 2NT response for this (hence not 4-suit transfers). What you do not want to do is, for example, use 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ (or 2♥) for this hand type. You really need both 2M rebids to be forcing here.

Also, as pointed out earlier in the thread, you do get less space here than in a regular Stayman structure so you have to make some sacrifices somewhere. My structure does not have bids for invitational minor 1-suiters, is a little more cramped when Responder has 4 hearts and <4 spades, and also lacks a sequence for weak with both majors at the 2 level. Perhaps you can do better.

[fromageGB]

joeytd, on 2014-February-02, 09:54, said:

I would really appreciate some advanced or expert opinion on this.

Joey - As you will discover, Zel (Zelandakh) is indeed an expert in bridge theory. You will find over time that his ideas and comments are well worth exploration.

[Wayne_LV]

dicklont, on 2010-December-05, 07:33, said:

Puppet Stayman after 1NT is not popular because you lose stayman with weak hands.
However whith 10+ some play 3♣ as puppet stayman.

Don't lose anything if you use 3♣ as puppet over 1NT. This leaves 2♣ for Garbage / Crawling Stayman and for Smolen.