Punch Stayman

[pescetom]

In the recent topic Open 1NT with 5-card major without Puppet? I mentioned that I had a 5-card major Stayman and was asked to describe it.

Here it is: Punch Stayman.

 

It certainly is fun, and might even be useful B-)

Comments are welcome, in particular from anyone who has the courage to try it out in competition.

[johnu]

In the recent topic Open 1NT with 5-card major without Puppet? I mentioned that I had a 5-card major Stayman and was asked to describe it.

Here it is: Punch Stayman.

 

It certainly is fun, and might even be useful B-)

Comments are welcome, in particular from anyone who has the courage to try it out in competition.

 

The initial responses are exactly the same as the original Puppet Stayman. The author was apparently ignorant of previous articles.

[pescetom]

The initial responses are exactly the same as the original Puppet Stayman. The author was apparently ignorant of previous articles.

 

The author wanted to start from scratch and purposely set aside the existing solutions, but yes he trod the same first steps as Silverman, Robinson and Woolsey (before versions of Puppet that bid NT to deny either 4 or 5 card majors). Things get different soon later, particularly when opener denies fit.

[johnu]

The author wanted to start from scratch and purposely set aside the existing solutions, but yes he trod the same first steps as Silverman, Robinson and Woolsey (before versions of Puppet that bid NT to deny either 4 or 5 card majors). It gets different in the replies to 2♦ above NT.

 

At best this is a very minor variation on Puppet Stayman. It certainly doesn't deserve a new name, and not crediting the original authors of Puppet Stayman does not reflect highly on the so called "author" of a new convention.

[pescetom]

At best this is a very minor variation on Puppet Stayman. It certainly doesn't deserve a new name, and not crediting the original authors of Puppet Stayman does not reflect highly on the so called "author" of a new convention.

 

I would say it differs quite significantly from both the original version of Puppet Stayman (which doesn't even define the rebids to 2♦ beyond 2NT) and the 1978 revision (which almost nobody plays). In particular, the way that responder further describes his hand in case of misfit is without precedent in any Stayman that I know of (whether it's a good idea is another matter). I chopped off two pages of Stayman history crediting the various authors for their own versions because I considered you and others here sufficiently experienced to take that for granted.

 

[edit] I updated the published version of document to credit the original authors of Puppet Stayman as you suggest, but leaving it without introduction and history.

[johnu]

I would say it differs quite significantly from both the original version of Puppet Stayman (which doesn't even define the rebids to 2♦ beyond 2NT) and the 1978 revision (which almost nobody plays). In particular, the way that responder further describes his hand in case of misfit is without precedent in any Stayman that I know of (whether it's a good idea is another matter). I chopped off two pages of Stayman history crediting the various authors for their own versions because I considered you and others here sufficiently experienced to take that for granted.

 

Some people will know you started with Puppet Stayman and didn't credit the original authors. Others who have no idea there was a method to query for 5 card majors won't know any of the history. They will look a little silly and confused if they don't know what they are playing is really Puppet Stayman with some modifications.

 

I would have started out by acknowledging that opener's responses to 2♣ come directly from Kit Woolsey's Puppet Stayman articles. Also, responder's 2♥, 2♠, and 2NT after a 2♦ rebid by opener come directly from Woolsey's articles. And Woolsey describes Smolen convention type bids for responder's rebids past 2NT.

 

Anybody who plays Puppet Stayman in an established partnership has come up with their own extensions to cover later rounds of bidding.

[pescetom]

Some people will know you started with Puppet Stayman and didn't credit the original authors. Others who have no idea there was a method to query for 5 card majors won't know any of the history. They will look a little silly and confused if they don't know what they are playing is really Puppet Stayman with some modifications.

 

I would have started out by acknowledging that opener's responses to 2♣ come directly from Kit Woolsey's Puppet Stayman articles. Also, responder's 2♥, 2♠, and 2NT after a 2♦ rebid by opener come directly from Woolsey's articles. And Woolsey describes Smolen convention type bids for responder's rebids past 2NT.

 

As I mentioned, my full document starts off by comparing several Stayman conventions and crediting their originators and publishers, including Puppet Stayman and Kit Woolsey of course. It also reminds the reader that Punch is a Puppet, for anyone who had any doubts :) But to avoid any ambiguity I added a phrase to this stub document acknowledging that those initial bids coincide with Puppet Stayman over 1NT.

 

It wouldn't be true for me to state that I took those initial responses and rebids directly from Kit's articles, which I had not read at the time I designed the convention. It all started almost two years ago when partner suggested we start opening 5-card major in 1NT and we wanted a Stayman to match, just like the OP in that recent thread. I saw 5-card major Stayman and wasn't impressed, then found a description of Puppet Stayman over 1NT in bridgehands.com and was underwhelmed by that too - it had opener responding 2NT with no 4 or 5 card major, analogous to Puppet Stayman over 2NT, which we already played at the time. So it seemed like fun to see if we could create something that did more what we wanted, and maybe also eliminate some jumping around between Stayman and transfers with major two-suits of various strengths, and pick up that elusive 3-5 fit between opener and responder. I had seen on vugraph some people using just three initial responses to 2♣ asking for a 5 card major, and that seemed an obligatory choice if we want to maintain some garbage capability and minimise disclosure of opener's hand. For the rebids over 2♦, using 2♥ and 2♠ to indicate the other major was something already familiar from Puppet over 2NT and again seemed an obligatory choice if we want to avoid wrong-siding the contract. 2NT was originally a natural invite with no further interest in majors, but it soon emerged that 3♣ for 4-4 majors was not workable with opener in misfit and at minimum, so somebody suggested playing 2NT as 4-4 and putting the natural invite through 2♥, which also freed up a bid to continue to differentiate between 4-4 FG and 5-5 despite the introduction of transfers to both minors. Since then the base of the convention has been unchanged.

I only came across Kit's actual conventions over 1NT at the end of last year when I sat down to write an introduction for other partners. That the initial responses and rebids were identical was no real surprise, there is only so much you can do with the three bids between 2♣ and 2NT. I read that Kit and Steve first played it after just five minutes of discussion.

[nige1]

Can responder use Punch Stayman on a invitational hand without a 4 card major?

For example, what if the 1N opener is 5233 and responder is 3253?

[johnu]

As I mentioned, my full document starts off by comparing several Stayman conventions and crediting their originators and publishers, including Puppet Stayman and Kit Woolsey of course. It also reminds the reader that Punch is a Puppet, for anyone who had any doubts :) But to avoid any ambiguity I added a phrase to this stub document acknowledging that those initial bids coincide with Puppet Stayman over 1NT.

 

Thank you.

 

It wouldn't be true for me to state that I took those initial responses and rebids directly from Kit's articles, which I had not read at the time I designed the convention. It all started almost two years ago when partner suggested we start opening 5-card major in 1NT and we wanted a Stayman to match, just like the OP in that recent thread. I saw 5-card major Stayman and wasn't impressed, then found a description of Puppet Stayman over 1NT in bridgehands.com and was underwhelmed by that too - it had opener responding 2NT with no 4 or 5 card major, analogous to Puppet Stayman over 2NT, which we already played at the time.

 

I don't know where bridgehands sourced opener rebidding 2NT with no 4 or 5 card major. This 2NT does not appear in either of Woolsey's articles, nor in most other descriptions found in an internet search. 2NT reveals a lot about opener's hand which usually won't be revealed if not using 2NT, and makes Puppet Garbage Stayman unsafe.

[pescetom]

Can responder use Punch Stayman on a invitational hand without a 4 card major?

For example, what if the 1N opener is 5233 and responder is 3253?

 

He certainly can, and he will find the 3-5 fit in spades if 1N opener has that hand, then probably make a help suit game trial.

 

He will also find the 3-5 fit when 1N opener is 5233 he is 3532, which most partnerships including those playing a more normal Puppet will miss, as with 53 hands they make a Jacoby transfer in what turns out to be the wrong major.

[nullve]

He will also find the 3-5 fit when 1N opener is 5233 he is 3532, which most partnerships including those playing a more normal Puppet will miss, as with 53 hands they make a Jacoby transfer in what turns out to be the wrong major.

Here's a Puppet Stayman-like 2N response I came up with a couple of years ago, partly in order to solve this problem.

 

1N-2N = GF, (semi)balanced hands that in more standard methods are suitable for either a) Puppet Stayman or b) Jacoby transfer + CoG 3N

 

1N-2N; ?:

 

3♣ = 4-S4-H, likely ruffing value (or else he could just bid 3N, to play)

...Kungsgeten's improvements:

...3♦ = 4 S

......3♥ = 3- S

.........3♠ = 4 H

.........3N = to play

...3♥ = 5 S or no major

......3♠ = wants to play 4♠ opposite 5 S

...3♠ = 5 H

...3N = 3-S4H

3♦ = 5 H

...3♥ = 5S2H

3♥ = 5 S

...3♠ = 2S5H

3N = to play (i.e. no likely ruffing value)

 

+ 4-level transfers enabling the contract to be played by either hand in many (most?) cases

[pescetom]

1N-2N; ?:

 

3♣ = 4-S4-H, likely ruffing value (or else he could just bid 3N, to play)

...Kungsgeten's improvements:

...3♦ = 4 S

......3♥ = 3- S

.........3♠ = 4 H

.........3N = to play

...3♥ = 5 S or no major

......3♠ = wants to play 4♠ opposite 5 S

...3♠ = 5 H

...3N = 3-S4H

3♦ = 5 H

...3♥ = 5S2H

3♥ = 5 S

...3♠ = 2S5H

 

My partner would love you for that B-) One of the goals of Punch was to keep things as natural as possible, so that it is accessible to intermediates and less error prone in general.

 

The decision to put 5-3 and 5-5 majors through the Stayman - rather than 6-4 majors like Kit Woolsey does - pays off in other ways too, in particular it reduces and focalises the use of transfers. By inference from the non-use of Stayman, a rebid of 2NT shows shortage in the other major, whereas a rebid of the other major lengthens the transferred suit to 6 cards. So for instance 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ shows 6-card hearts and 4+card spades.

 

This also takes a lot of pressure off the partnership who no longer need to remember a bunch of rules like that with 5♠-4♥ one should bid Stayman, but with 4♠-5♥ game strength one should transfer to hearts and rebid spades, and with 5-5 one should transfer to hearts and rebid spades twice if it is invitational but transfer to spades and rebid hearts if it is game forcing - all very logical, but error prone at the table.

[nige1]

Can responder use Punch Stayman on a invitational hand without a 4 card major?

For example, what if the 1N opener is 5233 and responder is 3253?

He certainly can, and he will find the 3-5 fit in spades if 1N opener has that hand, then probably make a help suit game trial. He will also find the 3-5 fit when 1N opener is 5233 he is 3532, which most partnerships including those playing a more normal Puppet will miss, as with 53 hands they make a Jacoby transfer in what turns out to be the wrong major.

Good :) I understand, at last :)

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 2N

Suppose you reply 2♣ with an invitational 3253, to check whether the 1N-opener has a 5-card major.

Unfortunately opener rebids 2♦ denying a 5-card major.

Now, responder continues with 2♥ which asks opener about ♠ but does not promise ♠s

Your 2N rebid is invitational

[pescetom]

Good :) I understand, at last :)

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 2N

Suppose you reply 2♣ with an invitational 3253, to check whether the 1N-opener has a 5-card major.

Unfortunately opener rebids 2♦ denying a 5-card major.

Now, responder continues with 2♥ which asks opener about ♠ but does not promise ♠s

Your 2N rebid is invitational

 

Exactly :)

It works the same way over 2N opening too, only in that case 3N is to play.

 

As mentioned previously, I originally chose the sequence:

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N

which is more natural and does not risk divulging unnecessary information about opener's spades, but that is incompatible with full handling of 4-4 majors in responder's hand.