Puppet Stayman

[mikl_plkcc]

I never open NT with 5 card major, so this is irrelevant to me.

 

I open all 5-3-3-2 majors and most 5-3-3-2 minors a suit. The only case that I open NT with 5-3-3-2 shape is 1NT with garbage 5-card minors, with the 5 ♣s, I will even be more cautious in opening 1NT because there is the possibility that responder bids 2♣ and run into a 4-2 ♦s (4=4=4=1 over 3=3=2=5) (This may be solved by crawling Stayman, but the usage of 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ as invitational to find a 5-3 fit in ♥s with 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s will be lost).

 

I think that the following responses to 1NT may be used to find all major suit fits with at least invitational values when 1NT does not include 5-card majors:

4 ♥s only: bid 2♣, raise ♥ but correct back to 2NT with other responses.

4 ♠s only: bid 2♣, raise ♠. Correct back to 2NT over 2♦, bid 2♠ over 2♥. Opener will raise it holding 4-4 in the majors but correct to 2NT if no 4 ♠s.

5 cards in one major only: transfer to it directly then bid 2NT as a choice bid.

4 cards in both majors: bid 2♣, raise any majors, correct back to 2NT over 2♦.

5 cards in both majors: transfer to 2♠ and bid 3♥. A fit is guaranteed in this case so the loss of 2NT is not a problem.

4 ♥s and 5 ♠s: bid 2♣, raise any majors, bid 2♠ over 2♦.

5 ♥s and 4 ♠s: transfer to 2♥ and bid 2♠.

 

Then there are still takeouts possible with busts in both majors:

bid 2♣, pass any majors and bid 2♥ over 2♦. Opener corrects to his 3-card major.

I play 4-suit transfers so the contract can be escaped to 3 of a minor with a minor bust.

 

To summarise, the whole set of major suit responses is as follows:

1NT (15-17 balanced, no 5-card major)

- 2♣ - Stayman - promises a 4-card major, any rebid except 2♥ promises invitational values and force to either 2NT or 3 of a major.

-- 2♦ - no 4-card major

--- 2♥ - weak takeout, opener correct to his 3-card major

--- 2♠ - exactly 5 ♠s and 4 ♥s, F1, raise or correct

--- 2/3NT - no major fit

-- 2♥ - 4 ♥s, may have 4 ♠s

--- 2♠ - no 4 ♥s, exactly 4 ♠s, F1, raise or correct

--- 2/3NT - no major fit

-- 2♠ - 4 ♠s, no 4 ♥s

--- 2/3NT - no major fit

- 2♦ - transfer to 2♥, 5+ ♥s

-- 2♥

--- 2♠ - exactly 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s, F1

--- 2/3NT - pass or raise with exactly 2 ♥s, otherwise, correct it

--- 3/4♥ - 6+ ♥s

- 2♥ - transfer to 2♠, 5+ ♠s

-- 2♠

--- 2/3NT - pass or raise with exactly 2 ♠s, otherwise, correct it

--- 3♥ - exactly 5 ♥s and 5 ♠s: pass, raise or correct.

--- 3/4♠ - 6+ ♠s

 

The above system works over 2NT also, but the responder is now game-forcing rather than invitational of course. Weak takeouts are still possible. With puppet Stayman, all weak takeouts are gone.

 

The above is all messed up once you include 5-card majors in your 1NT opening. When opening 5-3-3-2 majors with 1 of a suit, any 5-3 fit is guaranteed to be found since it is a simple raise only. 6-2 fit can also be found by bidding the major twice.

 

At IMPs, you shouldn't be thinking when both 3NT and 4M is making. Just choose one at your convenience. The case when 3NT makes but 4M not is rare when a fit exists, but 4M makes when 3NT not due to a lack of stoppers is common. Therefore, always play in a major when a fit can be found, 3NT should be used only as a last resort.

 

Having the opportunity of weak takeouts is essential. You don't want the opponents running your 2-card suit in a 1NT contract and get -3 when actually a 2-level suit contract can be made (with a 8-card fit) or -1 only (with a 7-card fit).

 

P.S.

 

In this thread, Rainer Herrmann asked, Minors over 2NT: Do you have good agreements?

 

If you still haven’t been convinced to dump Puppet Stayman, the post below has been copied in from the above thread.

 

Minors Over 2NT: Do you have good agreements?

 

Rainer Herrmann:

This thread of yours appears to have stumped the panel of posters. I have no idea if this has happened before. A handful of people have offered a bidding sequence for the actual hand posted. Thus far, no one has offered a TOTAL GOOD AGREEMENT as suggested in the thread title.

 

My own bidding agreements over 2NT have a much greater focus on the majors. I’m guessing that other regular posters are guilty of the same error as myself. You have opened up a hole in my bidding structures which I am diligently working on to plug.

 

What are my objectives over 2NT? I still want to be able to retain as many as possible of the following:

1. Stayman / Garbage Stayman / Crawling Stayman

2. Jacoby Transfer Bids

3. Smolen (both 5/4 and 6/4 holdings)

4. Minor Suit Stayman / 4-Way transfer bids. As I cannot have both, once I have managed to plug the hole in my bidding agreements, it will become evident which one gets dumped.

5. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with no slam interest

6. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with slam interest

7. The ability to sign off in 4 of a minor with a minor suit bust

8. The ability to transfer into a minor suit single suiter and then continue with slam exploration with the appropriate hand

9. Texas / SA Texas in my current agreements will need to go to make room for 5-8 above. This will be accommodated via Jacoby Transfer Bids followed by a raise to game. I still need to decide exactly what I will use the 4♣ and 4♦ bids for now.

10. Gerber has long ago been dumped in favour of a quantitative 4NT

 

I am already facing some creative thinking to restructure my current agreements to accommodate all of the above. I am now asking this for the third time; how do you also include Puppet Stayman in amongst a very scarce resource i.e. available bidding space? To complicate this jigsaw puzzle even further; I need to be able to cope with opposition interference.

 

 

1. OK

2. OK

3. Just exchange meaning of the above 2NT-3♣-3♦-3♠ and 2NT-3♣-3♦-4♥ (since 3♥ is taken as crawling Stayman) to use Smolen transfer and its OK. With a 6-card suit, always Jacoby transfer to it directly since a fit is guaranteed.

4. 2NT-3♠ can be used as MSS

5. Just copy the above Stayman system

6. Just copy the above Stayman system

7. bid it directly

8. use 4♥ and 4♠ as transfers to the minors respectively

 

The complete 2NT system above:

 

2NT (20-21 balanced, no 5-card major)

- 3♣ - Stayman - promises a 4-card major, any rebid except 3♥ forces to major/NT game. (There is no need to use Smolen on 6/4 holdings since a fit is guaranteed.)

-- 3♦ - no 4-card major

--- 3♥ - weak takeout, opener correct to his 3-card major

--- 3♠ - exactly 4 ♠s and 5 ♥s, Smolen transfer, accept or reject.

--- 3NT - no major fit

--- 4♥ - exactly 5 ♠s and 4 ♥s, Smolen transfer (however, 3NT is lost in this case. This is a caveat brought by crawling Stayman)

-- 3♥ - 4 ♥s, may have 4 ♠s

--- 3♠ - no 4 ♥s, exactly 4 ♠s, GF

--- 3NT - no major fit

-- 3♠ - 4 ♠s, no 4 ♥s

--- 3NT - no major fit

- 3♦ - transfer to 3♥, 5+ ♥s

-- 3♥

--- 3♠ - exactly 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s, GF

--- 3NT - pass with exactly 2 ♥s, otherwise, correct it

--- 4♥ - 6+ ♥s

- 3♥ - transfer to 3♠, 5+ ♠s

-- 3♠

--- 3NT - pass with exactly 2 ♠s, otherwise, correct it

--- 4♥ - exactly 5 ♥s and 5 ♠s: pass or correct.

--- 4♠ - 6+ ♠s

- 3♠ - GF minor suit Stayman, at least 4-4 in the minors (with a 6-card minor, transfer to it directly)

-- 3NT - no 4-card minor

--- 4♣ - exactly 4 ♦s and 5 ♣s. slam interest (otherwise stop at 3NT)

--- 4♦ - exactly 5 ♦s and 4 ♣s. slam interest (otherwise stop at 3NT)

--- 4♥/♠ - 5-5 minor slam interest with shortness in the named major

--- 4NT - quantitative slam interest - no minor fit

--- 5♣ - 5-5 in the minors, pick one, no slam interest

-- 4♣/4♦ - confirms a fit, bid game or use 4♥/♠ as some sort of slam try (e.g. Kickback)

- 3NT - STOP

- 4♣/♦ - minor bust sign-off

- 4♥/♠ - 6+ card transfers into ♣ or ♦ respectively. Opener must bid game. Responder may then bid slam.

- 4NT - quantitative

 

Enough?!

[glen]

... Enough?

No, I would like more on Replying to Puppet Stayman

[aguahombre]

I never open NT with 5 card major, so this is irrelevant to me.

 

I open all 5-3-3-2 majors and most 5-3-3-2 minors a suit. The only case that I open NT with 5-3-3-2 shape is 1NT with garbage 5-card minors, with the 5 ♣s, I will even be more cautious in opening 1NT because there is the possibility that responder bids 2♣ and run into a 4-2 ♦s (4=4=4=1 over 3=3=2=5) (This may be solved by crawling Stayman, but the usage of 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ as invitational to find a 5-3 fit in ♥s with 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s will be lost).

 

..........................................

Enough?!

Quite more than enough in a Puppet thread.

[Statto]

My strings are tied.

[mikl_plkcc]

Perhaps not including any 5-card majors in NT may pose rebid problems like:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat52hj7dkt65cq82&n=skjhaq952dqj4ck63&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1sp]266|200[/hv]

With 15-17 1NT, bidding 1NT here means 12-14 balanced, 2NT means 18-19 balanced, 2♥ would means 6+ ♥s, and all other suits would mean 4+ of that suit.

 

Can you suggest a bid here?

[Cthulhu D]

You have to bid 2C.

[glen]

You have to bid 2C.

I would have bid "due fiori"

[32519]

Due to the popularity of Puppet Stayman, I have been meditating on a simpler PS continuation bidding structure over 1NT. How about this?

 

1NT = 15-17 HCP, may include a 5-card major

2♣ = Stayman/Puppet Stayman

 

Opener continues as follows –

2♦ = No 4-card major / no 5-card major

2♥/2♠ = 4-card major

2NT = Two 4-card majors

3♥/3♠ = 5-card major (you would have bid this anyway over 3♣)

 

The continuation bidding by responder now falls into 9 different categories –

1. After 2♦, responder with 5/4 in the majors continues with Smolen

2. After 2♦, how does responder show a 5-card major of his own (no 4-card major)?

...a. You can bid the suit directly and become declarer

...b. You can transfer into the suit keeping the stronger hand as declarer. Choosing this option 2♥ becomes a transfer into a 5-card ♠ suit and 3♦ becomes a transfer into a 5-card ♥ suit. Depending on whether or not opener has 3-card support for the suit, signoff takes place in the appropriate game (3NT or 4M)

3. After 2♥/2♠, responder with a 4-card fit continues with standard Stayman sequences

4. After 2♥/2♠, responder without a 4-card fit but with a 5-card suit in the other major, continues as follows –

... 3♣ = No fit with your major partner but I have 5-cards in the other major. Opener signs off in the appropriate game.

5. After 2NT promising both majors, the ability to differentiate between an 8-card trump fit and a 9-card trump fit could possibly mean the difference between game and slam. So how do we show this?

...a. With 4-card support for either major, you can bid the suit directly on level 3 and become declarer or you can transfer into the major you have allowing the stronger hand to become declarer. The choice is yours.

...b. With 5-card support for either major, you can bid the suit directly on level 4 and become declarer or you can transfer into the major you have allowing the stronger hand to become declarer. The choice is yours.

6. After 3♥/3♠, raise to 4 with 3-card support or bid 3NT with less than 3-card support.

7. After 3♥, no support but a 5-card ♠ suit of your own, continue with 3♠. Opener will sign off in the appropriate game.

8. After 3♠, no support but a 5-card ♥ suit of your own, the continuation bidding becomes a bit more risky. If your hand can stand playing in a final contract of 4NT (partner with no fit for the ♥ suit), then bid 4♥. With 3-card ♥ support, opener will pass. With only 2-card support, opener will signoff in 4NT.

If your hand cannot stand playing in a final contract of 4NT, then signoff in 3NT, even with a 5-card ♥ suit of your own.

9. And finally, what about a possible double fit in the majors? How do we explore for a double fit?

...a. After 3♥/3♠, bid 4♣ guaranteeing 3-card support for the suit bid and 5-cards in the other major.

...b. Without a double fit, opener signs off in his suit.

...c. With a double fit, opener must bid the other major confirming the double fit.

...d. The double fit confirmation now becomes 6-card Blackwood. The advantages with this approach is that your Blackwood sequence can start on a lower level allowing more room for signoff on the 5-level or an additional asking bid.

 

“No! No! No!” I hear your protesting. “You have made no allowance for minor suit orientated hands with responder.”

For minor suit orientated hands you can –

a. Try some of the suggestions in this post

b. Use whatever you currently use with any adjustments required

 

[i've coined the name Stuppet for this bidding sequence, being a combination of Stayman and Puppet].

[gwnn]

Perhaps not including any 5-card majors in NT may pose rebid problems like:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat52hj7dkt65cq82&n=skjhaq952dqj4ck63&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1sp]266|200[/hv]

With 15-17 1NT, bidding 1NT here means 12-14 balanced, 2NT means 18-19 balanced, 2♥ would means 6+ ♥s, and all other suits would mean 4+ of that suit.

 

Can you suggest a bid here?

Of course if we play that this hand has no rebid, then it means that on this hand we have no rebid. But:

 

Some people play 1NT=12-15, 2NT=16-18(19), with most 19 counts opening 2NT. I believe this is sometimes played in Germany and France.

 

FrancesHinden sometimes plays 1NT=12-17, responder will enquire most of the time and then you can stop in 2M in most hands.

 

Some versions of Gazzilli include quite weakish balanced hands. Hence 1H-1S; 2C would be:

*10-15, 5H4C

*15+ balanced

*17+ any

or something along these lines.

 

So there are solutions. I am not saying they're perfect, though. I prefer opening 1NT, even if we don't play any form of puppet.

[aguahombre]

Of course if we play that this hand has no rebid, then it means that on this hand we have no rebid. But:

.................

I prefer opening 1NT, even if we don't play any form of puppet.

This really covers it. The whole idea of opening 1NT with (semi) balanced hands which are in range is to avoid the need for convoluted gadgets to make up for the fact that there is no good rebid and narrowly define rebids in NT. For weak Notrumpers, a 1NT rebid with 15 up to maybe 18 isn't horrible; but, for strong Notrumpers to rebid 2NT with hands in the 15-17 range is a joke. All avoidable by planning ahead to one's second bid before knee-jerking the first bid.

[RunemPard]

One thing I have to add...recently I have been playing around with using 1NT-2C as puppet period. So far it has worked just fine. Which leads me to ask...why have I never seen anybody play 1NT-2C as puppet in the past? Is there some serious issue with it that I am missing?

 

1NT-2C...

-2D: 4cM

-2H: 5cH

-2S: 5cS

-2N: MIN no major

-3C: open for descriptive max bid

-3D: open for descriptive max bid

-3H: MAX 5cH (or play 2H as forcing)

-3S: MAX 5cS (or play 2S as forcing)

-3N: MAX no major

 

???

[aguahombre]

The reason we don't use Puppet 2♣/1N is that the answers (especially those in your array) take up too much room.

 

We would have to give up trying for a better contract with the garbage three-suiters short in Clubs. We have invitational Smolen sequences which could get screwed up. We wouldn't gain anything if we have forcing hands containing 4M and 5+m. I am sure I forgot to mention a few more, but we choose not to give up traditional Stayman, even though we have the 3C jump available as a Puppet enroute to 3NT.

[Mbodell]

One thing I have to add...recently I have been playing around with using 1NT-2C as puppet period. So far it has worked just fine. Which leads me to ask...why have I never seen anybody play 1NT-2C as puppet in the past? Is there some serious issue with it that I am missing?

 

You lose garbage stayman. Depending on your responses to the 2♦ you also either wrong side the major or force to the three level more often. If you can overlook these issues puppet stayman might be ok, but there is a much better way to play where 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ (I.e., a forced bid) using the keri system.

[Zelandakh]

One thing I have to add...recently I have been playing around with using 1NT-2C as puppet period. So far it has worked just fine. Which leads me to ask...why have I never seen anybody play 1NT-2C as puppet in the past? Is there some serious issue with it that I am missing?

Perhaps because I am on ignore? I have posted several times about schemes over 1NT including 2♣ as Puppet Stayman, including this thread iirc (long time ago). There are plusses and minuses to this approach but the ones given here - taking up too much space, losing Exit Stayman (I am assuming you mean this for Garbage), Smolen and 4M-5m hands - are not among them. In truth, if you look at the overall scheme of things 2♣ Puppet Stayman is (arguably) slightly more efficient on space usage than the alternative schemes using, say, 3♣ as Puppet. Similarly, you still have Exit Stayman but on different hand shapes than when using normal Stayman. You also gain the abilit to run out into 2♦ much more often.

 

For 5-4 hands you have some options in a Puppet scheme. In my own methods the 2NT response is specifically set aside for 5 spades, 4 hearts and invitational. With 5-4 the other way and invitational strength the auction is 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 2NT. Game-forcing hands with these shapes are bid via 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣, which shows a GF with both majors. Opener now bids a 4 card major or 3♦ with a 3 card major, over which Responder can make the standard Smolen call. Similarly, for 4M-5m hands you can do various things. My solution is for a 2♠ response to include the 4M.5♣ hands (rebid 3♦ for hearts or 3♥ for spades) and for 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♦ to handle the 5♦-4M hands.

 

What you do lose for certain is Crawling Stayman (some people call this Garbage Stayman too so apoliogies if I misunderstood). You will also lose something else somewhere against a well-designed 1NT structure that does not have any Puppet Stayman response. My choice is to lose the invitational hands with a long minor but there is some flexibility here. I think the point here is that comparing a bad Puppet scheme against a good normal Styman scheme will obviously favour normal Stayman. But when you build a good Puppet scheme (noting that the 2 presented here are not good) you lose alot less and now (most of) the arguments against it start to sound a little hollow.

 

Comparing 2♣ Puppet Stayman with Keri is much like comparing a Puppet scheme with a non-Puppet scheme. Sure, Keri is more efficient when Opener cannot have a 5 card major but if that were the case we would not be considering Puppet would we? When wanting to deal with Opener having hands including a 5 card major it is more efficient to allow Opener to bid it over 2♣. This takes a whopping 6(!) hand shapes out of 2♦ is 2 bids and that makes the 2M rebids easy to handle. Mixing them in with the 22 (or more) hand shapes for 2♦ makes little sense.

[32519]

The reason we don't use Puppet 2♣/1N is that the answers (especially those in your array) take up too much room.

 

We would have to give up trying for a better contract with the garbage three-suiters short in Clubs.

Reply: No you don’t have to. After 1NT-2♣-2♦/♥/♠ you can still bail out. After 1NT-2♣-3♥/♠ you end up one level higher, but with a 9-card “garbage” fit, short in ♣. Opener will have a 2-card suit somewhere (5332 hand pattern), so you have good cross-ruff potential now. The limiting factor will be a 2-card ♣ suit with opener (short in both hands).

 

We have invitational Smolen sequences which could get screwed up.

Reply: I have retained Smolen. Nothing forces opener to bid game with a minimum 5-3 fit after the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♥ (4♥/5♠). Granted, you do have a problem after 3♠.

Question: What does your invitational Smolen sequence look like?

 

We wouldn't gain anything if we have forcing hands containing 4M and 5+m.

Reply: Not sure how to interpret this.

 

I am sure I forgot to mention a few more, but we choose not to give up traditional Stayman, even though we have the 3C jump available as a Puppet en route to 3NT.

Reply: What would a typical hand look like when?

....a. Responding 2♣ over 1NT

....b. Responding 3♣ over 1NT

 

[32519]

The biggest drawbacks for including 5332 hands (5-card major) in your 1NT (or 2NT) come when partner is too weak for either Puppet or Stayman, not when he has a game force.

 

Any thoughts?

[Vampyr]

The biggest drawbacks for including 5332 hands (5-card major) in your 1NT (or 2NT) come when partner is too weak for either Puppet or Stayman, not when he has a game force.

 

Any thoughts?

 

No.

[mikestar13]

The biggest drawbacks for including 5332 hands (5-card major) in your 1NT (or 2NT) come when partner is too weak for either Puppet or Stayman, not when he has a game force.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think rather the contrary: If responder is weak, 1NT will usually play better than 2M when responder has two cards opposite partner's 5 card major, a little worse, with three cards, and much worse with four cards (but then opponents have enough shape they should be bidding); with a stiff or void in partner's major, some other suit will usually play better than NT if you can find the right suit (no sure thing on weak hands), but 1NT will play much better than opener's major. 1NT will usually play better than the 3M that you will often get to if you open 1M on these hands. If responder is invitational, you can find the fit when opener is going to accept (assuming a well-developed method). So there are losses when responder has good support (4 cards) we break even at worst when responder has three cards, and gain a little or a lot if responder is shorter.

 

My advice: With 5-3-3-2 (5 card major) in your NT range, open 1NT unless your hand is very suit oriented and your major is so good you don't mind pretending it's a six carder.

 

I believe this would be reasonable in a world where Puppet Stayman were never invented, not to mention the actual world.

[32519]

I think rather the contrary: If responder is weak, 1NT will usually play better than 2M when responder has two cards opposite partner's 5 card major, a little worse, with three cards, and much worse with four cards (but then opponents have enough shape they should be bidding); with a stiff or void in partner's major, some other suit will usually play better than NT if you can find the right suit (no sure thing on weak hands), but 1NT will play much better than opener's major. 1NT will usually play better than the 3M that you will often get to if you open 1M on these hands. If responder is invitational, you can find the fit when opener is going to accept (assuming a well-developed method). So there are losses when responder has good support (4 cards) we break even at worst when responder has three cards, and gain a little or a lot if responder is shorter.My advice: With 5-3-3-2 (5 card major) in your NT range, open 1NT unless your hand is very suit oriented and your major is so good you don't mind pretending it's a six carder.I believe this would be reasonable in a world where Puppet Stayman were never invented, not to mention the actual world.

 

If the hand belongs to the opponents, how do you parachute out of 1NT after say e.g. a penalty double? Escaping to the 5-card major now is silly. How could 2M in any way play better than 1M?

 

The question was about the DRAWBACK of including a 5-card major in your 1NT when partner is too weak to respond. Without a trump suit you have no way to stop the opponents running your 2-card suit.

 

Naming your 5-card major immediately has other advantages. Partner with an otherwise bust hand could easily have a distributional fit with your suit (Law of Total Tricks). Immediately lifting the auction to level-3 (or even level-4) when the hand belongs to the opponents makes it tough for them to enter (especially at favourable vulnerability and the major is ♠). Many players are big fans of Bergen Raises. Including a 5-card major into your 1NT range reduces the use or effectiveness of Bergen Raises.

 

Since this thread was started I have swung from the anti-Puppet camp to the pro-Puppet camp and now back to the anti-Puppet camp again. The more I see posted on this topic the more convinced I am that Puppet Stayman is just plain dumb! Puppet Stayman must be losing bridge.

 

To repeat the question, here it is again –

The biggest drawbacks for including 5332 hands (5-card major) in your 1NT (or 2NT) come when partner is too weak for either Puppet or Stayman, not when he has a game force.

 

Any thoughts?

 

With proper partnership agreements, you should always be able to find game after 1M and 15-17 HCP. The only concern is that the weaker hand may become declarer in 3NT. I cannot see how this poses a problem for Precision players where the weaker hand is often declarer.

[mike777]

yet another thread that claims:

 

 

we have super secxret agreements and no issue...sigh

[glen]

... Which leads me to ask...why have I never seen anybody play 1NT-2C as puppet in the past? ...

These two were often on vugraph, as recently as June in the USSBC Quarterfinal:

http://usbf.org/docs/2012usbc/acblcards/WoolseyStewart.jpg

 

Richard Pavlicek had this to say:

Evidence strongly suggests to open 1 NT with hearts but not with spades. Experts have long been aware of the rebid problem after a balanced one-heart opening, but the extreme difference compared to spades is remarkable.

See:

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x41.htm

 

If 1NT can have 5♥s but not 5♠s, after 1NT-2♣ you can play one of these:

 

2♦: no 4cM

2♥: 4 or 5♥s, not 4♠s, 2♠ asks

2♠: 4♠s, not 4♥s

2NT: both majors minimum

3♣: both majors maximum

 

or

 

2♦: no 4cM

2♥: 4♥s, can have 4♠s

2♠: 4♠s, not 4♥s

2NT: 5♥s minimum

3♣ or 3♥: 5♥s maximum

 

or

 

2♦: not 4♥s, can have 4♠s, 2♥ asks

2♥: 4 or 5♥s, not 4♠s, 2♠ asks

2♠: both majors

[32519]

That article on Richard Pavlicek's site has some other very interesting reading "What flavour Two Diamonds?"

 

Seems like Multi scores the worst (another of my pet hates).

 

Thanks a million for the link. Much appreciated.

[Zelandakh]

The statistics from RP's site look bogus. If I have a 2♦ opening to show precisely ♦KQJxxx and 2263 shape then I might show a profit on opening 2♦ against not; but it is not a good agreement. You have to factor in all the times you did not open it and were forced to pass or open 3♦ (or whatever). The reverse is true for the multi. Here one uses the 2♦ opening with a broader definition. I am actually surprised to see it gain at all. The benefit from this opening is the freeing up of other openings (primarily 2♥ and 2♠) where you hope to gain often.

 

Similarly for 5M332 hands. While you might do better on these hands by opening them 1♠, you might also do worse on every other hand that you open 1♠ with. Without comparing the reverse aspects of bidding decisions you are simply creating numbers that have little bearing on the reality of overall results. This applies for everything, even things I agree with like opening light. He says they are a winner but these statistics only say they win on the marginal hands. It could still be that including these hands into opening bids is such a drain on the auctions where we hold a better hand (one where everyone opens) that it is an overall negative. It is impossible to say if you do not analyse all the affected hands. And that is why this kind of analysis is completely worthless.

[glen]

The statistics from RP's site look bogus ...

Perhaps you meant tainted, as per what RP wrote:

 

Results are tainted in several ways: First, the use of any convention affects auctions besides those in which it occurs. Second, a scan of the Flannery camp reveals more top pairs than either of the others, so its IMP percent has a high-octane boost.

 

The fact that each camp beats its opposition in direct comparison is no surprise. No matter what you play, when hands come up to fit your system, you will show a profit ...

[Zelandakh]

The fact that each camp beats its opposition in direct comparison is no surprise. No matter what you play, when hands come up to fit your system, you will show a profit

That is generally untrue for Multi since the majority of players will open a weak 2 in a major (or perhaps 2NT if that hand type is included)) when they have a qualifying hand. A weak 2 in a major is usually more effective than a multi 2♦. This is the reason why I am somewhat surprised that "Multi-2♦ versus not" shows a profit. Any analysis of Multi-2♦ that does not investigate 2M openings is (imho) more than tainted. Equally, RP only lists this caveat for the 2♦ openers and not for the other categories. My previous post explained why the statistics of every category in this list are flawed.