5 card stayman opposite 1 no trump

[JLOGIC]

As for the question, I like to use 3C as puppet stayman over 1N. I generally play 4 way transfers and 3D GF minors, 3H/3S shortness with (13)54 so 3C is not that useful as anything (you can play weak minors, inv minors, or 4441 or whatever, all have some use but it's marginal and infrequent). Puppet comes up all the time, so I feel like I get a lot of use out of it. If you play a good version of it you can minimize information leakage on a lot of hands (even hands you'd normally have bid regular stayman with) so that's another big plus.

[fromageGB]

Well, compare

 

1NT 2♣

2♠

 

to, for instance

 

1♠ 1NT

2♣

 

In the first case you showed

- 15-17 hcp

- 5332 shape

 

In the second you showed

- 11-17 hcp

- anything from a normal 54 to a wierd 65 freak

 

and you still have to see what to do with a bal 15-17 after 1♠-1NT.

 

How can you say you're giving a good picture in the second case? The first case is WAY more well-defined.

If 1NT 2♣ 2♠ shows 5 spades, then OK, but we end up in the same contract. But that probably means you can't find other hands.

 

The balanced 15-17 is no problem. 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦(8+, asking, says nothing about diamonds) 2NT is 15/16, and 3NT is 17+.

And of course the cheapest answer, 2♥, is 12-14.

 

In the second you showed

- 11-17 hcp

- anything from a normal 54 to a wierd 65 freak

Not really, 1♠ 1NT 2♣ is say 12-19. Responder will find out the strength on the next bid.

A 55 or freaker will bid 1♠ 1NT 3♣ if 15/16, or 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3♣(GF) if 17+.

[fbear]

I've agonized over why we can't easily employ a version of 5 card Stayman over 1NT and there are simple versions that lose the chance to bail out at the 2 level with weak hands. But I think the following allows this and isn't too complex. I'd be interested in people's views.

 

It uses the sequence 1NT-2C-2D-3H/3S which is unnecessary to show both majors if you play a transfer followed by a new suit as forcing as you can transfer to one of them and then bid the other.

 

1NT-2C-?

 

2D = Either 5 card major (max) OR denies both 4 and 5 card major

2M = Either 5 card major (min) OR simply 4 card major

 

 

1NT-2C-2D-?

 

2M = To play

2NT = Invitational

3m = natural and forcing

3M = 3+ cards in 'support' of opener's 5 card major if he has one. If Opener hasn't, then he rebids 3NT. 1NT-2C-2D-3H-3S shows a 5 card spade suit. This responder rebid effectively takes the place of what he would have originally done which is bid 3NT.

 

 

 

1NT-2C-2D-2NT-?

 

3M = 5 card suit (max)

 

 

The only situation where a 5-3 fit is 'lost' is when responder only has invitational values and can't rebid anything other than 2NT and opener has a minimum:-

 

1NT-2C-2M-2NT-Pass

 

2M could be a 5 card major (min), but with 3 card support and only invitational values responder has to rebid 2NT and there they will play.

[fromageGB]

It uses the sequence 1NT-2C-2D-3H/3S which is unnecessary to show both majors if you play a transfer followed by a new suit as forcing as you can transfer to one of them and then bid the other.

OK for some people, but I prefer opener to be declarer, as there will be a minor lead round to his longer suits.

 

1NT-2C-2D-?

2M = To play

If so then presumably you will not be using transfers to a major when less than invitational? I can't see what advantage this gives you, and it wrong-sides the 2M.

 

I am not a user of 1NT with 5 card majors, so I cannot know whether this is better than normal methods or not. I prefer finding the 5-3 fits when responder is both invitational and when he is weaker.

[PhilKing]

 

1NT-2C-2D-3M = 3M

 

This leaks masses of information to the hand on lead. Most of the time you end in 3NT having pinpointed your 3-3/3-2 fit.

[fromageGB]

This leaks masses of information to the hand on lead. Most of the time you end in 3NT having pinpointed your 3-3/3-2 fit.

It shows 3+, so is hardly a leak when you can have a 4-3 fit. And as responder also bids 2♣ on practically any hand, less of a leak than 1NT 2♣ promissory and 1NT not-2♣.

[PhilKing]

It shows 3+, so is hardly a leak when you can have a 4-3 fit. And as responder also bids 2♣ on practically any hand, less of a leak than 1NT 2♣ promissory and 1NT not-2♣.

 

Yeah. Misread a bit, but 3♠ by responder IS a leak, since it pinpoints a doubleton heart.

[DJNeill]

Sorry to be non-scientific, but I agree that not playing 5M's in 15-17 really is painful on many hands where that is hard to show.

 

As to Puppet Stayman to reveal those, I definitely don't like 2C Puppet Stayman, but I'm neutral about "Puppet Stayman, no idea how to follow up after major(s) shown", which is basically like buying a shiny capgun. A nice bang but you are left with nothing much to show for it. Just figure out how to set a suit as trumps and then RKC after Puppet (and how to quant without a fit). Then you are using a useful convention.

[GreenMan]

Meckwell's 1NT-2NT puppet has great appeal to me; I've started playing it with one partner but we haven't had a chance to try it out yet. Responses:

 

3♣ no 5cM

3♥/♠ 5

 

After 3♣, responder with both 4cMs bids 3♦; with one 4cM he bids OM and opener bids game as appropriate.

 

One big benefit is that opener describes his hand as little as possible. Minimal leaks.

[johnu]

Puppet Stayman after 1NT is not popular because you lose stayman with weak hands.

However whith 10+ some play 3♣ as puppet stayman.

 

Puppet Stayman has never been popular compared to regular Stayman because relatively few people know how to play it and people are used to playing regular Stayman. You definitely can use it with weak hands, just a different class of hands, 5+ diamonds with major suit tolerance. Of course, if you never or almost never have a 5 card major, why play puppet Stayman?

[awm]

Why do you think it's so important to locate these 5-3 major fits? If both hands are balanced, 3nt will often be a better game (especially single dummy where 1nt-3nt is hard to lead against). If responder is unbalanced then pinpointing the shortness is far more valuable (and leaks less info about opener's hand).

[fromageGB]

1NT-2C-?

2D = Either 5 card major (max) OR denies both 4 and 5 card major

2M = Either 5 card major (min) OR simply 4 card major

I think you can modify this, and it solves most of the problems.

 

Starting point : 1NT can include a 5 card major (5cM)

Objectives : to find the 5-3 M fits; to be able to use garbage stayman

 

Responder bids a red suit transfer when 5cM except GF{54} both majors; 2♠ and upwards = normal methods (don't need 2NT natural); otherwise passes when less than invitational unless he has a holding at least 333x and fancies garbage stayman. Otherwise when invitational (Inv) or better (GF), or with garbage, starts 2♣.

 

1NT 2♣ ...

Opener bids :

2♦ = any 5cM or no 4cM

2M = that 4cM (♥ if both ♠ & ♥)

 

1NT 2♣ 2♦ ...

Responder bids :

Pass = garbage

2M = cheapest 3+cM, Inv only

2NT = no 3cM, Inv only

3♣ = available for minor slam tries or to play or whatever

3♦ = GF request for 5 card major

3M = GF 4cM in a {54} both majors hand (Smolen)

3NT = to play, no 3cM

 

1NT 2♣ 2M ...

Responder bids are natural, though of course you can do other things :

Pass = garbage

2NT or 2♠ (4cM over 2♥) = Inv only

3NT or 4M or 3♠ (4cM over 2♥) = GF

 

After 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2M ...

Opener bids :

Pass = that 5 card major, min, to play

2♠ over 2♥ = 5cM min, for pass or convert to 2NT

2NT = no M, min

3♠ over 2♥ = 5cM max, for pass or convert to 3NT

3NT = no M, max

4M = max 5cM

 

After 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3♦ ...

Opener bids :

3M = 5cM

3NT = no M

 

This does give you the invitational but game denied 5-3 fits played at the 2 level, which is better than some methods. This modification also helps in right-siding. Of course there is minor "information leakage" as called by some, but called "finding the right contract rather than potting an inferior one for a poor MP score" by others.

[Free]

In one of my partnerships we play regular Stayman and use 3♦ as a further inquiry to figure out about a 5 card M (or 4 card OM). An extra advantage is that 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦ can be used to show a GF hand with 5-5M (rightsiding the contract) and allows us to use 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ as INV with 5-5M.

You can overload 1NT-2♣-2X-3♣ to cover for the loss of the natural 3♦ rebid.

[RGranville]

There are various ways to find 5-3 major suit fits after a 1NT opening, but I don't like using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman, since this prevents responder from making that bid on weak hands.

 

A much better approach is to exploit the rule that the 2♣ bidder won’t have a 5 card major unless he has 4 cards in the other major. For example, the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ tends to be unused at present. The following shows how most 5-3 major suit fits can be found if responder has invitational values. There’s no simple way to find a 5-3 spade fit when responder has invitational values and opener is minimum.

 

Opener replies to Stayman as usual, with 2♥ or 2♠ showing either 4 or 5 cards in the bid major.

 

Rebids after 1NT – 2♣ – 2♥

2♠ 4+ card spade suit. If responder has enough for game, he might have interest in a 5-3 heart fit.

2NT Denies 4 spades, therefore invitational with interest in a 5-3 heart fit.

3NT Denies 4 spades, therefore interest in a 5-3 heart fit.

 

Rebids after 1NT – 2♣ – 2♥ – 2♠

2NT Minimum, not 4 spades, 4 or 5 hearts. Responder bids 3♥ if he wants to play in a 5-3 heart fit.

3♣ Maximum, not 4 spades, 4 or 5 hearts. Responder bids 3♥ if he wants to play in a 5-3 heart fit.

3♠ Minimum, 4 spades.

4♠ Maximum, 4 spades.

 

Rebids after 1NT – 2♣ – 2♠

2NT Invitational with 4 hearts.

3♥ Interest in a 5-3 spade fit.

3NT No interest in a 5-3 heart fit.

[fromageGB]

There’s no simple way to find a 5-3 spade fit when responder has invitational values and opener is minimum.

That's 50% of the hands the OP is concerned about. So how is your suggestion "A much better approach"? The OP method does work, and is simple.

 

Rebids after 1NT – 2♣ – 2♥ – 2♠

2NT Minimum, not 4 spades, 4 or 5 hearts. Responder bids 3♥ if he wants to play in a 5-3 heart fit.

Assume responder is invitational. If opener has a 5 card suit you are playing at the 3 level when an invitation is declined, compared with the 2 level in the modified OP's idea, and moreover you are forcing to 3NT, or 3♥ on a 4-3 fit, if opener has only 4 hearts.

 

If you are therefore saying that responder can only bid 2♠ if he has a GF hand, then not only are you always failing to find the 5-3 fit in opener's spades when responder is invitational, you also fail when opener has hearts.

 

I think perhaps you may like to rethink.

[Zelandakh]

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.

 

 

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]

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]

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. :unsure:

[nige1]

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. :unsure:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..." ;)

 

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