[jillybean]

Has anyone come across this?


1NT pass 2♣? The opener’s responses are: 2♥/2♠ = minimum hand (12/14/15) with a 5-card
suit. 3♥/3♠ = maximum hand (14/16/17) with a 5-card suit.

To deny a 5-card major, the opener responds: 2♦ = minimum hand with no 5-card suit. 2NT =
maximum hand no 5-card suit.

With enough for game interest, to find a 4-4 major suit fit, responder just repeats the inquiry by
bidding 3♣.

Note that responder may also bid 3♥/3♠ which is Smolen showing four cards in the bid major
suit and five cards in the other suit, then alert. Smolen does not interfere with the 5-card Major
Stayman bids.

After the three club responder bid, opener can show a 4-card major by bidding 3♥, the
cheapest major suit, identical to the 2♣ non-forcing Stayman bid.

Without game interest and hearing opener’s two diamond minimum response, responder does
not bid three clubs, but 2♥ = four hearts, 2♠ = four spades, or 2NT= no 4-card major.

[thepossum]

I don't know if this is relevant but I remember hearing somewhere (likely here) that 4-4 fits are better than 5-3 fits
or stay in NT

Everyone also knows for me KISS rules

[jdiana]

Above my pay grade. I did have 1NT-3♣ as Puppet Stayman on my "to do" list but had not heard of using 2♣. However, through the magic of Google, I did find this discussion - https://bridgewinner...puppet-stayman/

If you follow the breadcrumbs, you'll find a good description from Kit Woolsey.

Thanks for posting - I've been bored today.

[mike777]

So 1NT is 12-17 or 10- 19?
Why such a narrow range?
Off shape 1NT openings allowed also?

[jillybean]

1nt 3C puppet is fine.

I have no knowledge or experience with this, it looks like 12-17nt

[jdiana]

I don't know what you're looking at, but I think they're giving examples of three different ranges, 12-14, 14-16, and 15-17. If your range is 12-14, then min = 12, max = 14, etc.

12-17 wouldn't make much sense for a NT range IMO and wouldn't even be legal under ACBL rules, which limit the range to 5 HCP.

[jillybean]

My 12-17 reply was in response to Mike's question, personally I'd be in favour of 10-19, I like playing the hands.

I have never seen this before but from the link you posted, players have been talking about it since 2014.
It has been suggested I play it this weekend in a sectional - NO!

[paulg]

David Burn thinks that all forms of 5-card Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT are works of the devil: they give away information about the opener's hand in most auctions and the upside is small. I agree with this but much of the professional world plays Puppet, Muppet or some form of 5-card Stayman over a 2NT opener.

Over 1NT, I play Justin Lall's response structure which I believe has become quite popular in American circles:

1NT - 2♠ = range ask without a major or a weak/strong hand with 6+ clubs (2NT shows minimum, 3♣ is maximum)

1NT - 2NT = 5-card Stayman (3♣ is no major and now 3M shows 4-cards in the other major, 3M=five-card major)

1NT - 3♣ = 6+ diamonds, weak or strong

You can use the 2NT response whenever you have a game forcing hand with one four-card major that you would normally use Stayman for: the advantage is that the opener never shows their major holding. The disadvantage of this method is that you lose invitational responses with a six-card minor: you can certainly live without these playing a strong no trump.

The disadvantage of using 2♣ as 5-card Stayman, as shown previously in this thread, is that you must have at least invitational values to use it. You cannot use it on a 3-4-5-1 hand with 3HCP because you will often get too high. This is too much of a sacrifice for me.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2025-January-21, 20:03, said:

So 1NT is 12-17 or 10- 19?
Why such a narrow range?
Off shape 1NT openings allowed also?

I have played 10-15 1/2 14-19 3/4 in serious competition (The EBU outlawed artificial responses if your 1N range was >6) but you need serious artificiality to deal with that

[jdiana]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-January-22, 04:41, said:

I have played 10-15 1/2 14-19 3/4 in serious competition (The EBU outlawed artificial responses if your 1N range was >6) but you need serious artificiality to deal with that

We used to play 14+ to 18-, basically a 3-point range (15-17) with room for upgrades and downgrades. One reason we like notrump bids is that they describe our hand so precisely so I think, in general, narrower ranges are good. After 1NT, our ranges were all 2-point ranges, 18-19, 20-21, etc. (again, allowing for upgrades and downgrades).

[Cyberyeti]

jdiana, on 2025-January-22, 06:50, said:

We used to play 14+ to 18-, basically a 3-point range (15-17) with room for upgrades and downgrades. One reason we like notrump bids is that they describe our hand so precisely so I think, in general, narrower ranges are good. After 1NT, our ranges were all 2-point ranges, 18-19, 20-21, etc. (again, allowing for upgrades and downgrades).

We found that the wide range caused massive issues for the defence. dummy decks a 9 count opposite 10-15 and the defence may not know if they're trying to beat this or prevent the second overtrick. The upsides when you don't open 1N are enormous. We eventually adjusted it to 11-16 so we had a 17-19 1N rebid.

[DavidKok]

I have seen (and come around to) 2♣ Puppet Stayman over 1NT, and I have also seen 2♣ 'always invitational+' Stayman, and I have also seen wide-ranging 1NT openers. This specific combiation is new to me though, but if a partnership wants to embrace all of these points I think the structure is relatively sound. You get to invite at the 2M-level, find your 5-3 fits cheaply, and retain a relatively simple structure.

Last year I was attempting to not comment on 1NT systems. That year has gone and passed, and over the Christmas holidays I started writing a long, very long piece on balanced hand bidding. After the recent heated discussions here I've abandoned that - why lose many good hours if it's just going to lead to another fight - but I did have a lot of research saved that was intended to go into that piece. A brief response to some comments upthread:

jdiana, on 2025-January-21, 20:00, said:

I did have 1NT-3♣ as Puppet Stayman on my "to do" list but had not heard of using 2♣.

jillybean, on 2025-January-21, 20:12, said:

1nt 3C puppet is fine.

paulg, on 2025-January-22, 04:31, said:

David Burn thinks that all forms of 5-card Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT are works of the devil: they give away information about the opener's hand in most auctions and the upside is small.

[..]

You can use the 2NT response whenever you have a game forcing hand with one four-card major that you would normally use Stayman for: the advantage is that the opener never shows their major holding. The disadvantage of this method is that you lose invitational responses with a six-card minor: you can certainly live without these playing a strong no trump.

Currently using 1NT-2NT or 1NT-3♣ as a form of Puppet Stayman is gaining in popularity. You can choose between a 'low-information' version or a more standard version, both with their upsides and downsides (though I think 'low-information' has slightly more going for it). Personally I think superior alternatives exist, but it's an easy method with a relatively low cost. You do not need to sacrifice invitational bids with a 6cm for this, though to some degree that is passing the buck - by e.g. using 2♠ as purely clubs rather than range/clubs, you can cater better to the clubs invite but must commit to some alternative with invitational hands without a 4cM. Some choose blast-or-pass, some choose to put it through 2♣, and there are even more exotic solutions. I think there is a good case for using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman.

paulg, on 2025-January-22, 04:31, said:

The disadvantage of using 2♣ as 5-card Stayman, as shown previously in this thread, is that you must have at least invitational values to use it. You cannot use it on a 3-4-5-1 hand with 3HCP because you will often get too high. This is too much of a sacrifice for me.

There are Puppet Stayman versions that can be bid with weak hands just fine, and actually 3=4=5=1 is a prime example. The particular variant in this discussion uses the 2NT and up rebids by opener to show a maximum, but that is not a vital component of the method. Instead we can use 2♣ as simply asking for a 5cM, with 2♦ being the general negative. Then weak 3=4=5=1, and more generally weak hands with at least 2-2 in the majors and 5(+) diamonds, can bid 2♣ intending to pass opener's response. A daredevil might even do it with a 4-card diamond suit, though I'm not sure that's wise. It's even possible to cater to weak two-suited hands in the continuation scheme, though this is optional at best.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-January-22, 15:55, said:

There are Puppet Stayman versions that can be bid with weak hands just fine, and actually 3=4=5=1 is a prime example. The particular variant in this discussion uses the 2NT and up rebids by opener to show a maximum, but that is not a vital component of the method. Instead we can use 2♣ as simply asking for a 5cM, with 2♦ being the general negative. Then weak 3=4=5=1, and more generally weak hands with at least 2-2 in the majors and 5(+) diamonds, can bid 2♣ intending to pass opener's response. A daredevil might even do it with a 4-card diamond suit, though I'm not sure that's wise. It's even possible to cater to weak two-suited hands in the continuation scheme, though this is optional at best.

Not to be a purist (although I am) but one could argue that the original Puppet Stayman was excellent with weak hands and that varying it to promise anything more than diamonds or 3 cards in a major is to do it a disservice. My own Stayman (inspired by accounts of the original Puppet Stayman without having access to the Bridge World documentation) does indeed use 2♣ as simply asking for a 5cM, with 2♦ being the (obligatory) negative. As responder I would bid 2♣ ready to pass any response with a great deal of weak hands including diamonds, many more than is reasonably possible with a 4-card Stayman.

[mw64ahw]

jdiana, on 2025-January-21, 20:00, said:

Above my pay grade. I did have 1NT-3♣ as Puppet Stayman on my "to do" list but had not heard of using 2♣. However, through the magic of Google, I did find this discussion - https://bridgewinner...puppet-stayman/

If you follow the breadcrumbs, you'll find a good description from Kit Woolsey.

Thanks for posting - I've been bored today.

I play a non-promissory 5-card Major ask via 2♣ primarily so I can use the 1N-2♣-2X-3♣ sequence to look for slam hands in a minor. This enables opener to show a 5/4 or even 3-card minor(s) when opener has a 5-card Major.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2025-January-22, 15:55, said:

I have seen (and come around to) 2♣ Puppet Stayman over 1NT, and I have also seen 2♣ 'always invitational+' Stayman, and I have also seen wide-ranging 1NT openers. This specific combiation is new to me though, but if a partnership wants to embrace all of these points I think the structure is relatively sound. You get to invite at the 2M-level, find your 5-3 fits cheaply, and retain a relatively simple structure.

Last year I was attempting to not comment on 1NT systems. That year has gone and passed, and over the Christmas holidays I started writing a long, very long piece on balanced hand bidding. After the recent heated discussions here I've abandoned that - why lose many good hours if it's just going to lead to another fight - but I did have a lot of research saved that was intended to go into that piece. A brief response to some comments upthread:

Currently using 1NT-2NT or 1NT-3♣ as a form of Puppet Stayman is gaining in popularity. You can choose between a 'low-information' version or a more standard version, both with their upsides and downsides (though I think 'low-information' has slightly more going for it). Personally I think superior alternatives exist, but it's an easy method with a relatively low cost. You do not need to sacrifice invitational bids with a 6cm for this, though to some degree that is passing the buck - by e.g. using 2♠ as purely clubs rather than range/clubs, you can cater better to the clubs invite but must commit to some alternative with invitational hands without a 4cM. Some choose blast-or-pass, some choose to put it through 2♣, and there are even more exotic solutions. I think there is a good case for using 2♣ as Puppet Stayman.

There are Puppet Stayman versions that can be bid with weak hands just fine, and actually 3=4=5=1 is a prime example. The particular variant in this discussion uses the 2NT and up rebids by opener to show a maximum, but that is not a vital component of the method. Instead we can use 2♣ as simply asking for a 5cM, with 2♦ being the general negative. Then weak 3=4=5=1, and more generally weak hands with at least 2-2 in the majors and 5(+) diamonds, can bid 2♣ intending to pass opener's response. A daredevil might even do it with a 4-card diamond suit, though I'm not sure that's wise. It's even possible to cater to weak two-suited hands in the continuation scheme, though this is optional at best.

Welcome back!

"superior alternatives exist, but it's an easy method with a relatively low cost" - as a simple club player with no big aspirations regarding tournament play, simplicity is key, right behind utility in terms of criteria for conventions. I will always settle for something that's easy to remember, solves a problem, and covers most of the common situations. If I get an occasional bad board from not playing better methods, I can live with that. At my level, there's a much better return on investment from focusing on better counting and card play.

[johnu]

jdiana, on 2025-January-21, 20:30, said:

12-17 wouldn't make much sense for a NT range IMO and wouldn't even be legal under ACBL rules, which limit the range to 5 HCP.

Yes, in the ACBL, there is a 5 point maximum range for 1NT, even in the highest level Open+ convention charts.

[johnu]

paulg, on 2025-January-22, 04:31, said:

David Burn thinks that all forms of 5-card Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT are works of the devil: they give away information about the opener's hand in most auctions and the upside is small. I agree with this but much of the professional world plays Puppet, Muppet or some form of 5-card Stayman over a 2NT opener.

I don't know the full context of what David Burn said, but from what you quoted, I disagree. True, when opener shows a 5 card major, that reveals more information than standard Stayman. Of course, the advantage is that responder can choose to play in a 5-3 major suit fit instead of NT.

When opener has a 4 card major (or 2), then opener doesn't reveal they have a 4 card major unless responder shows a 4 card major first. Consider the case where opener responds with a 4 card major, but responder was just using Stayman before making an invitational 2NT bid. There's only a negative inference when responder shows a 4 card major, and opener doesn't have 4 card support. So Puppet Stayman gives away less information than standard Stayman. That's one of Kit Woolsey's points about the advantages of Puppet Stayman.

[mike777]

I find the concerns over information leakage a bit wet.
All bids/calls leak information. Bridge does not exist if zero leakage.
Sure it is nice to communicate and not leak. It is nice to bid and not leak but the concerns seem overblown.
I don't play puppet, don't plan on playing it and information leakage with stayman is the least of my bridge priorities.

Over the decades the larger concerns have been lack of full disclosures.

The problem of partner understanding the nuance of bids not made in unusual systems and opponents in the dark.

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2025-January-22, 20:27, said:

I don't know the full context of what David Burn said, but from what you quoted, I disagree. True, when opener shows a 5 card major, that reveals more information than standard Stayman. Of course, the advantage is that responder can choose to play in a 5-3 major suit fit instead of NT.

When opener has a 4 card major (or 2), then opener doesn't reveal they have a 4 card major unless responder shows a 4 card major first. Consider the case where opener responds with a 4 card major, but responder was just using Stayman before making an invitational 2NT bid. There's only a negative inference when responder shows a 4 card major, and opener doesn't have 4 card support. So Puppet Stayman gives away less information than standard Stayman. That's one of Kit Woolsey's points about the advantages of Puppet Stayman.

Very few good players play that 2C doesn’t promise a major? Why? . Because they use 1N 2S as any hand with clubs OR an invite in notrump, no major. Why? Afaik, the concept was first written up in a book called ‘camouflage’ which was all about ways to minimize information leakage

Why do good players play this? Because good players are trying to improve their methods against other good players. The vast majority of people who play bridge are virtually deaf to information leakage. They either don’t recognize it as an issue or they don’t understand the harm suffered when playing experts.

Puppet was invented before this range ask was invented. Puppet always leaks information. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand the concept.

1N 2S 2N/3C says dummy won’t have a major but gives away zero info about the more important, and hidden, hand when the contract is in any number of notrump. Since dummy is exposed, camouflaging his hand loses value at trick one. But puppet always discloses a lot about opener’s hand, no matter what

He owns a 5 card major but responder, 3-2 in the majors, bids 3N. Ding, ding, ding. Opener has a known 5 card major, responder lacks 3 card support….and opener won’t (usually) have 4 cards in the other major. Opener denies a 5 card major but promises one or two 4 card majors? Ding, ding, ding. Opener is 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 (or has a stiff in a minor)

Often puppeteers go even further….telling the opps which 4 card major responder has and that opener has the other. Ding, ding, ding.

Now, if you still think that the best way to invite in notrump is to use 2C even without a major, I’ll concede that puppet sometimes doesn’t leak quite as much information. But…at least amongst good players….you are significantly behind the times

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-January-22, 21:33, said:

The vast majority of people who play bridge are virtually deaf to information leakage. They either don’t recognize it as an issue or they don’t understand the harm suffered when playing experts.

Your average club player only encounters experts at tournaments, unless of course they play at one of the clubs on Vancouver Island, where you are likely to run into one of a handful of experts living in the area and to a limited extent, a the big games in Vancouver. At the average club games, where as you say, the vast majority wouldn't notice or be able to take advantage of any leaks.

How important is addressing this information leakage, given the memory load the complexities involved in these systems?
Is it best to attempt to play the best possible system or play a "lesser system, better"?