raspeball

You are correct, your way is better if 3♦ shows 4-3 or 3-4 in the majors (I did not read carefully enough what you wrote, and not even what i wrote myself !) :) But in the sequence: 1nt-2nt 3♣-3♦ ? I dont see why opener cannot bid 3♥ with 5 card hearts sometimes (Especially if he is not afraid of a lead directing double of 3 ♠, and he prefer to declare the hand himself). If responder shows 4 hearts, opener can play play 4hearts without showing that he has 5 hearts: 1nt-2nt; 3♣-3♦ 3♥-3♠ 4♥ If responder bid 3nt, opener can still correct to 4♥. And I assume that opener can jump directly to 4♥/♠ over 3♦, if he think that he should declare :) Another (stupid) idea that is that opener shows that he might or might not have one major: 1nt-2nt ? 3♣=Denies 4 or 5 card spades.(Opener might or might not have 4 or 5 card hearts). 3♦=Denies 4 or 5 card hearts.(Opener might or might not have 4 or 5 card spades). With both majors one possibility is that opener bids 3nt directly (Leaking information if responder only was interested in 5 card majors). This leaves room for responder to choose who should declare. After 3♣ from opener, responder bid 3nt if he is not interested in hearts, or bids 3♥ with 3 card hearts, and 3♠ with 4 hearts. Simillary after 3♦ from opener responder bids 3nt with no interest in spades, and 3♥ with 4 spades and 3♠ with 3 card spades.

Good point! The 4-4 major hand should then bid 2♣. If the 4-4 major hands can be taken out, that make the 3 ♦ free for other purposes: 1nt-2nt 3♣-? 3♦=one 3 card major, not interested in the other major(Opener relays with 3♥, and responder bids 3♠ with 3 card hearts and 3nt with 3 card spades) 3♥=4 ♠, not interested in ♥. 3♠=4 ♥, not interested in ♠. 3nt=3-3 in majors. Another option is to use 3♦ as awm suggested, but with opener always relaying for information (So that defenders does not know if he has the other major or not, if we ends up in 3nt)

That works. But after the sequence 1nt-2nt 3♣-3♦ 3♥(=4♥)-3nt(4 ♠ and 3♥) the defenders know to much. Also after the normal stayman sequence we provide the opponents with more information than we want to (With the 4-4 major hand with responder I think we have to accept it,but with the 4-2 hands it is avoidable.). I actually thought about a similar scheme, where openers 3♣ was forced. The scheme would then be: 1nt-2nt 3♣-? 3♦=4-4 in majors. 3♥=4 ♠, not interested in ♥. 3♠=4 ♥, not interested in ♠. 3nt=3-3 in majors. The downside here is that you cannot show the hands with 3 cards in one major, and 0-2 cards in the other (But some of those hand might be bidding 1nt-3x to show a three-suited hand anyway, depending on your agreements).

This is true. But it is less bad that the opponent knows that I don't have a 4 or 5 card major, than that they knows that I have 5 card major when I end up in 3nt.

Thanks for your reply. The reasoning for the proposed idea is that I hate the following auction: Responder search for one major, opener shows 5 card suit in the other, and we end up playing 3nt. Now opener have revealed way to much of his hand, and the defense gets much easier than it should be :). In my proposed idea the sequence: 1nt-2nt; 3♦-3♥(=3 or 4 ♠ and by implication 0-2♥) 3nt=Opener does not have 5 card ♠. Opener have now shown: No 4-5 card♠, not 4♥ (Opener might still have 5 card ♥). But I see that my suggested alternative gives way to many lead directing options. Inspired by the responses i have come up with an alternative to the alternative: :) 1nt-2nt; ? 3♣ responses. Denies 5 card major. May or may not have 4 card majors(Same as above) 3♦=5 card ♠, or no 4 or 5 card major. 3♥= 5 card ♥, or no 4 or 5 card major. Now there is room for responder to show 3 card in the major that opener might have. There are different ways to do this, one is: 1nt-2nt; 3♦ ? 3♥=Asks opener to bid 3♠ with 5 spades 3♠=Asks opener to bid 4♠ with 5 ♠ (Responder wants to play the hand!). 3nt=Not interested in 5 card ♠. 1nt-2nt; 3♥ ? 3♠=Asks opener to bid 4 ♥ with 5 card hearts. 3nt=To play. Not interested in 5 card ♥. True the proposed alternative also gives the opponent more lead directing opportunities, and occasionally gives away more information than needed about openers hand. But it avoids the worst situation in my mind where opener shows a specific 5 card major and later ends up in 3nt.

Good point. This is something that I did not think about. Lets say that the hand with a 4 or 5 card major are distributed like this: 25% have a 5 card major, and 75% have one/two 4 card(s) major. Then i think it make sense that the hands without a 4 or 5 card major should bid 3♦ on only 25% of those hands, and 3♣ on the remaining 75%.

Thanks for your reply. Yes this is kind of what i was thinking of. If i choose to say that with no 4 or 5 card major i bid 3♣ if I have an odd number of black cards, and 3♦ with an even number of black card, would that be ok?

I wanted feedback on the following idea. Assumption you use 1nt-2nt as puppet stayman, normally only with hands with gamestrength and want to check if you should play 3nt or 4♥/♠. My proposed idea has the following respones: 3♣= No 5 card major. Could have one or both 4 card major(s), or could be a hand without 4 or 5 card major. 3♦=No 4 card major. Could have a 5 card major, or could be a hand without 4 or 5 card major. So a hand with no 4 or 5 card major could choose to bid 3♣ or 3♦ randomly. Further responses could be as follows: 1nt-2nt 3♣ 3♦=4 card ♥ and 4 card♠ 3♥=4 card ♠ 3♠=4 card ♥ 3nt= No 4 card major (Was searching for 5 card major) 1nt-2nt 3[♦ 3♥=3 card ♠ 3♠=3 card ♥ 3nt= Both majors, want to play 4 major if opener have a 5 card major. The advantage (i think) is that there could be less information leakage if we end up in 3nt. My questions are: 1: Assuming that you want to play 1nt-2nt as puppet, do you think this idea has merit, or has it some flaw that i have not seen? 2: Do you think the method have any problems with disclosure, since a hand without 4-5 major, could bid both 3 ♣ or 3♦? 3: Do you know somebody playing this already?