Strong NT - 5 Card Majors

[Dinarius]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk8632hk97da5ckqj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np]133|200[/hv]

 

Considering the dreaded 5,3,3,2 distribution and 15-17 points.

 

Would you open 1♠ with the above hand?

 

Reverse the major suits...

 

Would you then open 1♥?

 

In both cases I open 1NT, because I consider the major suit not re-biddable.

 

If you agree with me, and you have such an agreement with your regular partner(s), which form of Stayman do you play?

 

If you agree with me, do any of you feel that this is a case for playing Puppet Stayman all the time?

 

If you disagree, what do you suggest instead?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[smerriman]

Clearcut 1N for me. I play 3♣ as Puppet as per here.

[pescetom]

Clearcut 1NT for me in both cases. I play a true-Puppet like Stayman (2♦ denies a 5cM) all the time.

[Dinarius]

Thanks.

 

I know so many pairs playing 5c/Strong NT who don’t play Puppet all the time.

 

I think it makes sense to do so.

 

D.

[apollo1201]

We’re not supposed to do this but both partner and I would open 1NT. Scattered values, half decent suit, positional tendances. And 3 in the other M.

 

We noticed that each of us had done this kind of breach more than once in our last 4 team matches. We are considering a Puppet but I hated it (not the convention but its implications on transfers and 54 M hands) when I played it over 2NT, however the GF only version of Smerriman seems nice on 1NT.

 

Just a few questions:

- when we make it official that we can have a 5CM, but as we won’t open all 5332 of 15-17 with 1NT, should we alert, if yes what should we say

- how are the balanced invitational hands treated? using 2C followed by 2NT will give lots of info to opps...

[Vampyr]

I use 3♣ as ordinary 5-card Stayman.

[steve2005]

This is a near-perfect 1NT opening and it will be hard to show 16 hcp later if you don't open 1NT.

Even people who don't always open 1NT with a 5-card major should be highly considering 1NT here.

[helene_t]

Whether the suit is rebiddable doesn't matter if you play strong notrump since the alternative to 1nt is to rebid 2c or 2d. Rebidding spades is never an option no matter how strong the suit is.

 

Things to consider:

- you have 3 hearts. Thus you are ok with opening 1nt and playing hearts if partner transfers. This suggests 1nt.

- you have a modest 16 count. Not comfortable passing 2S after p's preference bid but not comfortable bidding on either. This suggests 1nt.

- All green. This suggests 1nt.

- Good club suit so no immediate rebid problem. This suggests 1S.

- You have spades so you don't need 1nt so badly for the preemptive effect. This suggests 1S.

[smerriman]

- Good club suit so no immediate rebid problem. This suggests 1S.

- You have spades so you don't need 1nt so badly for the preemptive effect. This suggests 1S.

I don't think 'suggests' is the right word. Neither of those suggests opening 1S to me.

[awm]

I’d open this hand 1nt, but I don’t have any desire to play puppet stayman. A few reasons:

 

1. Using puppet gives opponents lots of opportunities to double for lead, meaning it can cost in the FAR more frequent case that opener has no 5M.

2. If responder has a singleton I’m showing it anyway, so puppet could only “help” when responder is balanced and there is a 5-3 fit and that fit plays better than notrump, which requires an awful lot to happen.

3. I don’t have to open 1nt on all 5332 hands in range, so the choice to open 1nt says something about the notrumpiness of my hand. This makes it even more likely than usual that 3nt plays better than 4M opposite a balanced responder.

4. There are lots of advantages to “regular stayman” at the two level (garbage/crawling and the ability to play 2S on a declined invite for example). And I have better uses for 2nt and 3C than devoting either to puppet.

[Dinarius]

Bidding is an imperfect science. That’s why we continue to play the game - because we have differences of opinion about many aspects of it. If there was a perfect system, the game would be boring.

 

The three card ❤️ suit above is a pure accident on my part. I simply wanted to discuss how people play *any* 5,3,3,2, 15-17 count. (Ditto the ♣️ suit.) The only stipulation is that the ❤️♠️ suits are not rebiddble. People seem to think the above hand was a specific deal - sorry for the confusion. That was not my intention. The question revolves around readers approaches to the generic nature of these hands.

 

As I see it, when the major is not rebiddable, the hand is worth one bid, not two.

 

So, what happens next? Is there a case for playing Puppet all the time, not just opposite 2NT?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[Zelandakh]

I don't think 'suggests' is the right word. Neither of those suggests opening 1S to me.

There is some very good statistical analysis online that suggests opening 1NT with 5♥(332) is a winner whereas opening 1NT with 5♠(332) is a loser. There are sometimes systemic reasons that override that point but it is simple logic that holding spades makes opening 1NT less desirable. That is the point that Helene was making and it is a valid one.

 

As someone who has moved from a style as a junior of never opening a hand 1NT with a 5 card major to a preference for always opening such hands 1NT and making the 1M openings always unbalanced, it is probably not surprising to posters that know me to hear that I like the 1NT opening on this hand. That said, I do not think you will lose very much, if anything, from a style that opens such hands with 1♠. If the majors were reversed then I think the case for opening 1NT is much stronger.

 

As far as 1NT responses go, my preference when playing the above style for 5332 hands is for a method based around 2♣ being Puppet Stayman. It is true that this offers more opportunities for a lead-directing double then regular Stayman but this does not in practice seem to be such a big issue at the 2 level as the 3 level, which is what the majority of ordinary Stayman pairs tend to prefer. Crawling Stayman is another loss of course but the truth is that you can transfer with 5-4 hands and lose little, while the Exit Stayman hands turn out to be a wash, since the shapes required for its use change but the expected returns do not. In the end I suspect Adam's point #3 ends up being quite important in choosing a response structure. The key is that everything fits together to create a harmonious system. Whether you gain on one set of hands or another is not so important as the overall system effect and the comfort that the players have of playing within their system choices.

[pescetom]

So, what happens next? Is there a case for playing Puppet all the time, not just opposite 2NT?

There certainly is a case - Puppet was born opposite 1NT, and the authors weren't even opening 5cM as 1NT, come to that. It's inherent superiority in terms of hiding the opener's hand is evident. It didn't sweep the world because the original developments were not as flexible and complete as traditional Stayman and because the later "Blabbermouth" modification (replying ♦ with one or both 4-card majors) diluted many of Puppet's advantages. But true-Puppet variants are enjoying a return at advanced and expert level and Blabbermouth is being taught to beginners here as part of opening 5cM as 1NT.

 

It is true that this offers more opportunities for a lead-directing double then regular Stayman but this does not in practice seem to be such a big issue at the 2 level as the 3 level, which is what the majority of ordinary Stayman pairs tend to prefer. Crawling Stayman is another loss of course but the truth is that you can transfer with 5-4 hands and lose little, while the Exit Stayman hands turn out to be a wash, since the shapes required for its use change but the expected returns do not.

I agree that the lead-directing double issue is real but not so big, in any case more than compensated by the advantages in concealment of opener's hand and avoidance of wrongsiding. Crawling Stayman is a very minor loss indeed. By Exit Stayman I assume you mean what is also called Garbage Stayman - if so then I assume your "wash" comment is linked to the Blabbermouth mechanism, because I find that a true-Puppet (having only three responses and a pretty safe bet on one of those, namely ♦) is quite effective as an exit transfer mechanism.

[pescetom]

Just a few questions:

- when we make it official that we can have a 5CM, but as we won’t open all 5332 of 15-17 with 1NT, should we alert, if yes what should we say

The alert question depends upon your RA. Here, you do not need to alert a 1NT that may contain a 5cM, independent of whether or not you open all such hands as 1NT. You simply announce the range. I think that's quite typical. If opponents ask about distribution I say what we currently agree - "at most a 5-card major or a 6-card minor, at most two doubletons, no singletons".

 

 

- how are the balanced invitational hands treated? using 2C followed by 2NT will give lots of info to opps...

We avoid this by using 1NT 2♠ as a Range Ask initially.

[apollo1201]

We avoid this by using 1NT 2♠ as a Range Ask initially.

Thanks! So you lose the possibility to supper accept C transfer if 2S is now 2-tone. I guess one can’t have it all and is just a question of trade up. From what I remember, super accept proved helpful twice in my life (KQxxxx C and bid 3NT, and a slam found, not found at the other table). And you probably have it back on D hands with 2NT transfer to D.

Let’s convince my p😎

[RuflRabbit]

We avoid this by using 1NT 2♠ as a Range Ask initially.

 

This is well worth it if you're playing 4-way transfers. Not only does it give away less info, but it means that 2C promises a major. This means that responder doesn't have to rebid 2S with four spades and invitational values after 1NT-2C-2H, so that bid is freed up for other valuable things.

[pescetom]

Thanks! So you lose the possibility to supper accept C transfer if 2S is now 2-tone. I guess one can’t have it all and is just a question of trade up. From what I remember, super accept proved helpful twice in my life (KQxxxx C and bid 3NT, and a slam found, not found at the other table). And you probably have it back on D hands with 2NT transfer to D.

Let’s convince my p

 

The 2NT transfer to ♦ retains an acceptance signal of course, but you don't completely lose it during transfer to ♣ either. For one thing over 2♠ you already get a range signal, which is useful in terms of deciding whether to pursue 6♣ or 3NT. But also if you go for ♣ and bid your shortage at 3-level opener can now bid 3NT to show dislike (negative acceptance) of the transfer and give you a last chance to back out.

[fromageGB]

For me, always 1NT at IMPS, 1M at matchpoints. When matchpoints, use Gazzilli 2♣ over a forcing next step (hoping this does not take it out of the "natural bidding" category) to show 15+hcp. It's a compromise but at matchpoints I think it better not to lose the major part score.

[pescetom]

For me, always 1NT at IMPS, 1M at matchpoints. When matchpoints, use Gazzilli 2♣ over a forcing next step (hoping this does not take it out of the "natural bidding" category) to show 15+hcp. It's a compromise but at matchpoints I think it better not to lose the major part score.

Which part score are you worried about losing - 2S (in 5-3 fit) when others are in 1NT ?

[fromageGB]

Which part score are you worried about losing - 2S (in 5-3 fit) when others are in 1NT ?

Precisely. A 5 card suit has more likelihood of finding 3+ cards opposite than fewer, the suit contract makes one more trick than NT, and at matchpoints the score of 110 is vastly superior to the score of 90. Similarly 140 rather than 120. Depending on the field, you can get a significantly better percentage. For me, playing in a predominantly weak NT region, my 110 is merely a good average as the majority of the others are in the major as well. (But my benefit is in the 12-14 range where twalsh gets me 110 while the field languishes in the 1NT opened.) Playing in a predominantly strong NT field your benefit is indeed in the 15-17 range.

 

Conversely, playing at IMP scoring, I open 1NT because the odd IMP lost in partscores is probably more than compensated by the gains when both contracts make 9 tricks and 4M goes off, or where (again when the same number of tricks are available) 2M goes one off. The major making an extra trick is more usual, of course, but here the scoring difference outweighs the frequency.

 

If anyone is quoting analysis that demonstrates the supposed superiority of the 1NT open, I would be interested in whether the data basis is teams or not. This seems probable, and of course the conclusion is therefore not valid at matchpoints. My own experience convinces me to maintain my approach. Naturally this entails different Gazzilli inferences or treatment at teams and pairs, but I believe it is worth it.

[Zelandakh]

Precisely. A 5 card suit has more likelihood of finding 3+ cards opposite than fewer, the suit contract makes one more trick than NT, and at matchpoints the score of 110 is vastly superior to the score of 90. Similarly 140 rather than 120. Depending on the field, you can get a significantly better percentage.

Is this potential advantage not completely swallowed by the combination of being forced to play in a 5-2 fit, often making the same number of tricks as those in NT, combined with the times when opps are able to find their own fit, which they would have missed after a 1NT opening, particularly their finding 2♠ after a 1♥ opening?

[pescetom]

There is some very good statistical analysis online that suggests opening 1NT with 5♥(332) is a winner whereas opening 1NT with 5♠(332) is a loser.

 

If anyone is quoting analysis that demonstrates the supposed superiority of the 1NT open, I would be interested in whether the data basis is teams or not. This seems probable, and of course the conclusion is therefore not valid at matchpoints.

 

I couldn't find any such analysis online, maybe Zelandakh can help. I did find a mention that Richard Pavlicek had done such analysis and concluded that opening 1NT was a clear winner with 5 hearts and a slight loser with 5 spades (no indication about scoring system or other assumptions). I can't find that on the RP site, although I did find this sobering 1NT vs 2S comparison instead.

[pescetom]

Is this potential advantage not completely swallowed by the combination of being forced to play in a 5-2 fit, often making the same number of tricks as those in NT, combined with the times when opps are able to find their own fit, which they would have missed after a 1NT opening, particularly their finding 2♠ after a 1♥ opening?

 

I would have thought partly so. There is also the point that opps (wisely or not) will often not leave us in 1NT. And also that 1NT might lead to a hearts fit that would not have been discovered over 1S. But above all, what I do not miss is the 1S - 1NT - 2NT auction where we were basically guessing and quite likely to go down or miss game.

[fromageGB]

I did find a mention that Richard Pavlicek had done such analysis and concluded that opening 1NT was a clear winner with 5 hearts and a slight loser with 5 spades (no indication about scoring system or other assumptions). I can't find that on the RP site, although I did find this sobering 1NT vs 2S comparison instead.

This analysis (or my analysis of this analysis) is amazing. If my sums are right opening 1NT is a massive loser.

 

First what I read a single line to say - eg the top line - is that with the given distribution, 1NT wins (ie is the better open) and 2♠ goes off 19.54 percent of 30302 cases, while 2♠ makes on 42.94%+37.52% of 30202. Agreed? The website says that the figures are for where there are no overtricks in either contract.

Now assuming the shape you are concerned with in the choice of whether to open 1NT or 1♠ is the 5{332} and you don't open 1NT on more extreme shapes, you can eliminate those other shapes.

Multiply each percentage by the number of cases to give the effective frequency result, add the columns, and you get a total of 1NT winning on 8.7% of hands and 2♠ winning on 91.3% of hands.

 

That's a huge difference in a matchpoint scenario. I can't believe it would be that different for a 1♥ open, as the play is the same, but of course opponents could intervene with a 1♠ bid.

[fromageGB]

Is this potential advantage not completely swallowed by the combination of being forced to play in a 5-2 fit, often making the same number of tricks as those in NT, combined with the times when opps are able to find their own fit, which they would have missed after a 1NT opening, particularly their finding 2♠ after a 1♥ opening?

Not in my pairs experience. Spades are obviously better than hearts, but if the opponents overcall a major they are likely to be overcalling or protecting a 1NT. In teams, opponents are more cautious at partscores. Yes, you do get the 5-2 fit but this often plays for a trick more too. Why else would everyone transfer in response to a 1NT open?