[kenrexford]

A post elsewhere inspired a thought. Thought I would share.

2NT-P-3♠ has various possible meanings. But, let's suppose, for sake of argument, that we decided to play 3♠ as showing 5+ hearts but not 4+ spades. Sure, you lose the ability to sign off at 3♥, but bear with me. If you start with 3♠, instead, you enable a spade lead-director double, but you avert a diamond lead-director double. Kind of a wash, overall, but somewhat swingy. Ok. If you won't have spades, you don't lose that much, except that you sort of force a "super-accept," but that might not be all bad. If you have a heart-minor two-suiter, nothing lost here.

Why do it, though?

Well, you then would not need 3♦ as a transfer to hearts, or at least not completely. The only time you would need that is if you had 5+ hearts and 4 spades. Well, suppose you expanded this thinking. What if 3♦, which must be 5♥/4♠ if both majors, were instead anchored to spades rather than hearts? A classic transfer to hearts shows 5+ hearts and possibly another suit. A 3♦ call anchored to spades could show 4-card spades and, if a second suit, a longer second suit. In the case of both majors, the same call is made as for normal folks (3♦), but we can agree spades more cheaply than the "normal" sequence. Plus, we have a nice sequence when 4♠/5+minor.

What if we took this another step? 3♦ allows either major fit to be found if Responder has 5♥/4♠ (Opener bids 3♥ and this is raised, or 3♠ and this is raised). If Responder has 4♠/minor, spades is found, as well. Thus, it is possible to expand this concept to have 3♦ shows 4♠ and a longer suit, or simply a longer (or both) minors. If partner bids hearts, you would bid 3♠ with four spades (checking back) but a longer minor, perhaps, so a direct 4minor need not show spades, and in fact might deny spades. Now, that part might get complicated, as this unwind might get onerous for slam moves and the like.

I have not unwound this thing completely. But, it does seem interesting as a possible restructuring idea.

The implications seem interesting. Consider an example auction. 2NT-P-3♣-P-3♥-P-4♣. The traditional meaning might be natural with four spades. If, however, you would have bid 3♦ with that hand, 4♣ is idle. Maybe it covers a gap. Maybe it is a cue in support of hearts. Whatever it means, it is idle. Restructuring that creates cheap idle bids seems to have potential for good things.

[mgoetze]

The BridgeWinners disease of article/thread titles that don't hint at the content seems to be infectious.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I can help extend your idea a little. If you arrange your system such that Opener is not allowed to be 2-2 in the majors, the responses to the proposed 3♦ are 3♥ = 3+ hearts; 3♠ = 4+ spades; 3NT = 3♠2♥. This effectively allows for many hands with 5+ spades to be covered too, thus freeing up some space after 3♥. Perhaps one could bid 5♠5m via 3♦ and 5♠4m with 3♥; or instead have a new minor after 3♥ become a pure cue. Take some time with it and report back please Ken - perhaps there is a way of creating some extra space here...

[PhantomSac]

there is no way that disallowing 22 m in the majors is worth it for anything else imo zel

[rhm]

In bridge it is clear that majors are more important than minors.
But this is mainly so because games are more common than slams.

Most partnerships are good in finding any possible 8 card or better major suit fit after a 2NT opening.
Finding good minor suit games and slams after 2NT is a different matter.

My general feeling is that the major bias after a 2NT opening has gone too far.
I personally do not worry much whether my partner, who has opened 2NT, might have a 5 card major and do not care much for a 5-3 major fit, where opener has the 5 card major.
Often 3NT is as good and sometimes a better contract and looking for such a fit can help opponents when there is no such fit.
3NT often depends on the opening lead. I like uninformative sequences like 2NT-3NT. Amazing how often you get away with it, in particular after 2NT-3NT.
In other words Puppet as a convention is overrated.

Playing that over 2NT a 3M response shows length in the other major and playing normal Stayman followed by Smolen to show major two-suiters might suffice for me.
This would open up 3♦ to show interest in one or both minors.
However, if you love if opener can show a 5 card major you could still play that 3♥ to 3♣ shows 4 or 5 cards, with 3♠ asking, while 3♠ shows 4 spades and 3NT 5 spades in response to 3♣.
The point is that if a 3♦ response denies a 4 card major you can play Smolen.

I could be convinced that this is an improvement.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

 rhm, on 2016-February-02, 07:31, said:

In bridge it is clear that majors are more important than minors.
But this is mainly so because games are more common than slams.

Most partnerships are good in finding any possible 8 card or better major suit fit after a 2NT opening.
Finding good minor suit games and slams after 2NT is a different matter.

My general feeling is that the major bias after a 2NT opening has gone too far.
I personally do not worry much whether my partner, who has opened 2NT, might have a 5 card major and do not care much for a 5-3 major fit, where opener has the 5 card major.
Often 3NT is as good and sometimes a better contract and looking for such a fit can help opponents when there is no such fit.
3NT often depends on the opening lead. I like uninformative sequences like 2NT-3NT. Amazing how often you get away with it, in particular after 2NT-3NT.
In other words Puppet as a convention is overrated.

Playing that over 2NT a 3M response shows length in the other major and playing normal Stayman followed by Smolen to show major two-suiters might suffice for me.
This would open up 3♦ to show interest in one or both minors.
However, if you love if opener can show a 5 card major you could still play that 3♥ to 3♣ shows 4 or 5 cards, with 3♠ asking, while 3♠ shows 4 spades and 3NT 5 spades in response to 3♣.
The point is that if a 3♦ response denies a 4 card major you can play Smolen.

I could be convinced that this is an improvement.

Rainer Herrmann

If 3♦ were simply MSS, that might be kind of cool. 3♥ for clubs, 3♠ for diamonds, 3NT no 4-card minor. Not sure if that is all good, but I keep thinking along these lines.

3♣ as Puppet or Muppet or whatever has been structured to find 5-3's all over the place. It might be possible to restructure it to find other things, as you mentioned. The one issue is that you might have a problem when Opener has 4-4 majors unless 3♣ promises at least one major, but that is not all bad, especially if 3♦ is used as minors. For instance, 3♦ could be slammish of stiff somewhere in a major. Then:

2NT-P-3♦-P-?

3NT = 4+ diamonds

3♠ = 4+ clubs

3♥ = no 4-card minor, or 4♠ with poor hearts.

That restructuring allows Responder to bid 3♠ over 3♥ as a sort of 3145/3154, although 3244/2344 works also, perhaps. The parallel with three hearts, short spades, might somehow be handled in 3♣.

[nullve]

 kenrexford, on 2016-February-01, 15:16, said:

But, let's suppose, for sake of argument, that we decided to play 3♠ as showing 5+ hearts but not 4+ spades. Sure, you lose the ability to sign off at 3♥, but bear with me.

I'm sure you've noticed, but the seemingly growing number of pairs who play something like

2♣ = 20-21 bal. or GF (=> 2M = to play opposite 20-21 bal. (= bright idea #1))
2N = 22-24 bal.,

the idea (= bright idea #2, enabled by bright idea #1) being that

2♣-2♦; 2N-[3M-1]; ?: / 2N-[3M-1]; ?:

3M = M fit (=> 4m = cue)
3N = no M fit (=> 4m = nat.),

have already renounced the ability to stop in 3M (on a dime). So the next logical step for these pairs might be to consider why they play Jacoby transfers over 2N at all instead of something else (e.g. your scheme, if successful) that could save them some precious space overall.

[kenrexford]

I keep thinking about this. If 3♦ is freed up as minors-oriented, this could be rather sexy.

Suppose, for instance, that 3♦ is a sort of MSS, with flag responses of sorts but adjusted in a similar way as Puppet Stayman:

3NT = 4+ diamonds

3♠ = 4+ clubs

3♥ = no 4-card minor

This structure would allow a 3♠ re-check. Why, then, would you want a 3♠ re-check? Could be a relay to show the one-suited or two-suited minor hands. However, suppose the immediate showing calls said something about a major suit also. For instance:

3NT = 4+ diamonds, 4 spades

3♠ = 4+ diamonds, 4 spades

3♥ = no 4-card minor or not 4 spades

That seems silly. However, what if the MSS did not ask for a minor but rather mere minor preference, coupled with a major ask:

3N = Not 4 hearts, prefers diamonds

3♠ = Not 4 hearts, prefers clubs

3♥ = 4 hearts (3♠ then asks second question)

The identification of the minor preference helps when Responder has 5-5 minors and later show it, because fit is established.

This kind of approach might help with 4♥, longer minor. It might eliminate out a hand type from 3♣ (e.g., with 2434/2443, just bid 3♦), and also advance non-disclosure of Opener's majors outside of hearts.

[lycier]

For me, 2nt - 3nt= 5♠ + 4♥ even I also play puppet.