[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]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-08, 13:17, said:

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]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-08, 13:17, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-08, 13:37, said:

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]

32519, on 2012-July-25, 23:32, said:

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]

32519, on 2012-July-25, 23:32, said:

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]

mikestar13, on 2012-July-29, 01:35, said:

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 –

32519, on 2012-July-25, 23:32, said:

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]

RunemPard, on 2012-July-08, 13:17, said:

... 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...lseyStewart.jpg

Richard Pavlicek had this to say:

Quote

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]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-06, 07:23, said:

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

Perhaps you meant tainted, as per what RP wrote:

Quote

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]

glen, on 2012-August-06, 07:32, said:

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.

[32519]

Seems like Larry Cohen doesn't recommend Puppet Stayman after a 2NT opening bid (because it makes it hard to handle 5-4 in the majors).

[glen]

32519, on 2012-September-08, 06:55, said:

Seems like Larry Cohen doesn't recommend Puppet Stayman after a 2NT opening bid (because it makes it hard to handle 5-4 in the majors).

You may not know this, but Larry Cohen (Florida) is "persona non grata" at the SBO (Secret Bridge Olympics) due to his constant whining about having to play against exotica

[32519]

Is this hand another failure for Puppet Stayman or just poor bidding by N/S?

---

1. East led the ♣3 to the Queen
2. What's your plan now?

4♠ can't fail. So was this hand poor bidding or just unlucky? Some may frown upon the 2NT bid when holding 5/4 in the majors?

[aguahombre]

We, too, would have opened 2NT with that one. IMO, when the primes are so strong in the majors, opener should choose to respond to Puppet as if he/she has one or two 4-carders rather than just showing the 5-bagger. Pard and I have discussed this.

Then, responder can get us to 4♠.

[lalldonn]

If I had opened 2NT with that hand and had to choose, I would much rather show both majors than five hearts. Missing a 4-4 spade fit looks more damaging than missing a 5-3 heart fit.