[32519]

The thread on Puppet Stayman has brought some interesting alternatives to light. Here are some of them (if you know of others, let’s add them to this discussion):

1. Gladiator
2. Jasmine Club
3. Kokish Relay
4. Romex Stayman You can also try this one after blackshoes reply below.

Never having playing any of these methods myself, I wouldn’t know which one to choose as a Puppet Stayman alternative. Awm and Blackshoe both gave the thumbs up for Romex Stayman, so I guess I will start there, dissecting Romex Stayman to see if it fits into the rest of my bidding agreements.

Obviously one can never look at any of these alternatives in isolation. You always need to keep in mind how they affect the rest of your system agreements.

Thanks again all.

[blackshoe]

There is a misprint in the discussion of Romex Stayman linked above. The second group of bids starts "Actions after 2NT-3♦-3♥". It should read "Actions after 2NT-3♣-3♥". I haven't checked the rest of the structure there against my Romex references (primarily Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure), but it looks accurate. Also, of course, Romex does not use a natural 1NT opening, so the adaptation shown on that page is someone else's. Which is not to say it's bad, it's just not Romex, per se. I do note that Garbage Stayman and Crawling Stayman don't fit into the given structure (which does specify responder's hand to be "invitational or better").

[Zelandakh]

Jasmine Club was not an alternative to Puppet, it was an arrangement of the NT ladder designed to show the hand type and range at a lower level. I have a similar (but not quite so economic) scheme in my system:

(11)12-14 = 1NT
15-17 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT
18-20 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT
21-22 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 2NT
23-24 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2NT
25-26 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 3♣♦♥ (3♣ shows hearts, 3♦ shows spades, 3♥ shows neither)
27-28 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♣♦♥ (3♣ shows hearts, 3♦ shows spades, 3♥ shows neither)
29-30 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 3NT
31-32 = 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3NT

All of these can systemically contain a 5 card major and are followed by an ask, Puppet except for the 25-28 range, that can determine if one is held. While the 1♥ bid in these sequences is not Kokish it uses the same concept and belongs to the same family. Kokish is also not a means of handling 5M332 hands but a method to give you 2 ways of bidding 2NT after a 2♣ opening. One of the applications of this is to give you a third sequence where you can use Puppet Stayman over 2NT.

Similarly Gladiator is a replacement for normal Stayman and, as far as I know, has no specific means for handling 5M332 hands. Some other alternatives along these lines would be double-barelled Stayman (forcing and non-forcing), Keri, condensed transfers and ETM MiniNT. Far too many to list to be honest. I think all of these variants are designed chiefly around classical NT shapes. I do remember reading a genuine alternative some time ago where the system was specifically built to accomodate Opener having an offshape 1NT opening. Unfortunately I do not remember the name of it nor how the responses were sructured.

You should perhaps also consider various options for Puppet responses. Some that have been recently posted include:-

1. ♦ denies 5M, M shows 5M
2. ♦ shows 4M, M shows 5M, NT denies 4 or 5M
3. ♦ shows 4 hearts and/or 3+ spades, M shows 5M, NT shows <3 spades and <4 hearts
4. ♦ shows 4M, ♥ denies 4 or 5M, ♠ shows 5 spades, NT shows 5 hearts
5. ♦ shows <4 hearts, <5 spades, ♥ shows 4+ hearts, ♠ shows 5 spades, NT shows both majors
6. ♦ shows 5M, M shows 4M, 3NT denies 4M

There are others around too. FWiiW I use scheme 1 after a 1NT opening or rebid and scheme 3 over a 2NT rebid. The main reason for this is that scheme 1 gives a form of Exit Stayman (none of the others do) and scheme 3 handles 5♠4♥ hands without greatly changing the basic structure and with excellent right-siding properties.

Perhaps the best option for avoiding Puppet would be to use a forcing 1 level opening showing the major, either Fantunes-style or a transfer, and then designing the rebids to accomodate this hand type. I doubt many see the problem as big enough to completely redesign their entire bidding system around it though!

[mgoetze]

In the hope that people will finally stop generating pages of superfluous discussion in response to 32519's threads, I point you to my BBF Systems Index for a selection of the last 100 threads discussing this topic.

[lowerline]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-26, 03:44, said:

In the hope that people will finally stop generating pages of superfluous discussion in response to 32519's threads, I point you to my BBF Systems Index for a selection of the last 100 threads discussing this topic.

Great effort! I didn't know your site yet. Thank you.

Steven

[32519]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-26, 03:44, said:

In the hope that people will finally stop generating pages of superfluous discussion in response to 32519's threads, <snip>

Why do you spend so much time in these forums? Is it –
1. To learn from others?
2. To share knowledge with others?
3. Both 1 + 2?
4. Neither 1 + 2?

In this thread Minors over 2NT: Do you have good agreements, Rainer Herrmann exposed a hole in my own agreements. I went further than the actual hand posted looking at the following as well:

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 long 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 still haven’t managed to satisfactorily address all of my objectives. Then these posts on Romex Stayman etc began appearing. So I decided to start the thread and find out if there is something there that can assist me in covering all (most) of my objectives above.

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me you can achieve all of your objectives that are not mutually exclusive (eg Smolen + Crawling Stayman) with the following:-

3♣ = Stayman (or a Puppet Stayman variant that copes with 5♠4♥ hands)
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = spades
3♠ = puppet to 3NT, to play there or both minors and slam interest
3NT = puppet to 4♣, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♣ = puppet to 4♦, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♦ = puppet to 4♥, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♥ = puppet to 4♠, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♠ = quantitative invite or Baron hand
4NT = both minors, no slam interest

You have to decide if the downside of not being able to bid 3NT directly is more or less important than the ability to make a weak takeout into 4♣. I assume less since this was not listed in your design goals. For me it is more important so I include the one-suited slam hands with clubs into the 3♠ bid instead.

[glen]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-27, 01:45, said:

... You have to decide if the downside of not being able to bid 3NT directly ...

If you are willing to pay that price, then:

3♣ = Stayman, updated (see below)
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = spades
3♠ = puppet to 3NT, to play there or ♣s or both minors and slam interest
3NT = 4♠s, choice of game
4♣ = puppet to 4♦, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♦ = puppet to 4♥, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♥ = puppet to 4♠, to play there or one suited with slam interest
4♠ = quantitative invite or Baron hand
4NT = both minors, no slam interest

Stayman, updated, is like regular Stayman, except:
bid 2NT-3NT with 4♠s, no slam interest, and no interest in 5-3 ♥ fit
3♣-3NT = 5♠s, and now 4♥ is transfer
3♣-3♥-3NT = 4♠s, 3♥s
3♣-3♥-3♠ = either slam try in ♥s or asks for 5♥s, 3NT=no (now responder bids again with slam try), 4♣/♦/♥=5♥s graded from good to bad
Thus responder will find out if opener has 5 of either major

2NT-3♠ can be hit with a lead directing double, but 2NT-3NT avoids the leading directing double of 2NT-3♣ in standard Stayman, and 2NT-3NT does not discloses opener's ♥ length on the auction

[Zelandakh]

 glen, on 2012-April-27, 05:17, said:

If you are willing to pay that price, then:

I think you missed the part about requiring a weak takeout into 4♣ (#7 on the shopping list). My argument is (still) that this is less important than being able to bid 3NT naturally but the OP has different requirements. Your scheme gives up on both of these and including the 3NT hand in 3♠ prevents Opener from pre-accepting clubs, which they could if 3♠ was always clubs (with or without diamonds) and slam interest (which is what I prefer to play).

[glen]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-27, 05:31, said:

I think you missed the part about requiring a weak takeout into 4♣ ...

I think you missed the part about 3♠ being ♣s etc.

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-27, 05:31, said:

... including the 3NT hand in 3♠ prevents Opener from pre-accepting clubs ...

the scheme you listed (3♠ = puppet to 3NT, to play there or both minors and slam interest) prevents this too

[Zelandakh]

 glen, on 2012-April-27, 05:51, said:

I think you missed the part about 3♠ being ♣s etc.

The scheme says that 3♠ shows either a hand that wants to play 3NT or clubs (and possibly diamonds) and slam interest. If you add an additional hand type - weak with clubs - then this might be acceptable to the OP but, as given, 4♣ would be forcing after 3NT.

 glen, on 2012-April-27, 05:51, said:

the scheme you listed (3♠ = puppet to 3NT, to play there or both minors and slam interest) prevents this too

Here I was comparing your method with my own which uses a natural 3NT response and the 3♠ response is therefore always clubs. This allows Opener to bid 4♣ with a fit.

[glen]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-27, 05:57, said:

The scheme says that 3♠ shows either a hand that wants to play 3NT or clubs (and possibly diamonds) and slam interest ...

that's one way of parsing "to play there or ♣s or both minors and slam interest" but not the way I intended it to be read

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-27, 05:57, said:

... Here I was comparing your method with my own which uses a natural 3NT response and the 3♠ response is therefore always clubs. This allows Opener to bid 4♣ with a fit.

It seems you were comparing your method with your method - that is the method you list above (3♠ is a puppet) to the method you prefer (3♠ shows ♣s, allows super accept). One issue is whether to allocate much bidding space to stopping on a dime (10 tricks) in 4 of a minor.