Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2N response to 1N opening as Puppet Stayman?
302 views
Skip to first unread message
Kenny McCormack
Jan 14, 2016, 10:25:16 AM1/14/16
to
2N response to 1N opening as Puppet Stayman?
I recall seeing a reference to this recently here, but can't find it now.
Can someone supply the details of this method?
(Note that it was in the context of what a bad idea it is to use 2N as
invitational - and the idea was to re-purpose the bid)
--
For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are prohibited. How
silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which were later adopted as part of
the standard. If you want these constructs to give an error message as
“required” by the standard, you must specify ‘--pedantic’, which was
implemented only so that we can say “GCC is a 100% implementation of the
standard”, not because there is any reason to actually use it.
I recall seeing a reference to this recently here, but can't find it now.
Can someone supply the details of this method?
(Note that it was in the context of what a bad idea it is to use 2N as
invitational - and the idea was to re-purpose the bid)
--
For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are prohibited. How
silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which were later adopted as part of
the standard. If you want these constructs to give an error message as
“required” by the standard, you must specify ‘--pedantic’, which was
implemented only so that we can say “GCC is a 100% implementation of the
standard”, not because there is any reason to actually use it.
paul...@infi.net
Jan 14, 2016, 11:17:23 AM1/14/16
to
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 2N response to 1N opening as Puppet Stayman?
>
> I recall seeing a reference to this recently here, but can't find it now.
>
> Can someone supply the details of this method?
>
> (Note that it was in the context of what a bad idea it is to use 2N as
> invitational - and the idea was to re-purpose the bid)
>
While I have come to believe that 2NT invitational is mostly counter-productive, i question the value of Puppet Stayman. If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a 5-3 fit with opener? But I'll admit one advantage of using 2NT rather than 3C -- no lead-directing double.
> 2N response to 1N opening as Puppet Stayman?
>
> I recall seeing a reference to this recently here, but can't find it now.
>
> Can someone supply the details of this method?
>
> (Note that it was in the context of what a bad idea it is to use 2N as
> invitational - and the idea was to re-purpose the bid)
>
Barry Margolin
Jan 14, 2016, 12:57:40 PM1/14/16
to
In article <201c1baf-c7e3-41d1...@googlegroups.com>,
balanced. Similarly, many players don't bother with regular Stayman when
they're 4333, either.
But Puppet Stayman is still useful if responder has a short suit. You
can find a 5-3 fit, and not lose a bunch of NT tricks if opener doesn't
have the short suit well stopped.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
paul...@infi.net wrote:
> While I have come to believe that 2NT invitational is mostly
> counter-productive, i question the value of Puppet Stayman. If opener is 5332
> and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a 5-3 fit with opener? But
If that's what you believe, don't use Puppet Stayman when you're
> While I have come to believe that 2NT invitational is mostly
> counter-productive, i question the value of Puppet Stayman. If opener is 5332
> and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a 5-3 fit with opener? But
balanced. Similarly, many players don't bother with regular Stayman when
they're 4333, either.
But Puppet Stayman is still useful if responder has a short suit. You
can find a 5-3 fit, and not lose a bunch of NT tricks if opener doesn't
have the short suit well stopped.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
KWSchneider
Jan 14, 2016, 1:42:47 PM1/14/16
to
On 14 Jan 2016 10:25 AM ,gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> 2N response to 1N opening as Puppet Stayman?
>
> I recall seeing a reference to this recently here, but can't find it now.
>
> Can someone supply the details of this method?
>
> (Note that it was in the context of what a bad idea it is to use 2N as
> invitational - and the idea was to re-purpose the bid)
>
> --
> For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are prohibited. How
> silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which were later adopted as part of
> the standard. If you want these constructs to give an error message as
> implemented only so that we can say â??GCC is a 100% implementation of the
> standardâ??, not because there is any reason to actually use it.
Bruce on DEC 9 - "Puppet Stayman Lie" message chain.
Kurt
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Kenny McCormack
Jan 14, 2016, 5:23:01 PM1/14/16
to
In article <1_udnRkJCc64cQrL...@giganews.com>,
KWSchneider <question...@email.email> wrote:
...
here, plus one additional post by Bruce from that thread that is also
interesting:
From b...@besplex.bde.org Thu Jan 14 15:17:17 MST 2016
* That defeats the main reason for existence of 3C Puppet Stayman -- to
* find 5-4 major fits.
*
* I like 2NT 5 card Stayman. It is difficult to double this to show
* clubs, since 2NT is harder to beat than 3C. It is unclear if the
* response structure should be very natural to make lead direction doubles
* hard, or scientific to also search for 4 card majors. If opener is
* often going to bid 3C, then strangely, it is better for responding to
* have weak clubs than strong ones. When he has weak clubs, if opener
* also has weak clubs then doubles help you avoid 3NT; otherwise, doubles
* tell you that club finesses will work. Alternative Stayman bids in
* different strains allow responder to choose the one where doubles help
* the opponents least. Or the one that discloses the least when the
* opponents pass throughout.
*
* Bruce
*
From b...@besplex.bde.org Thu Jan 14 15:18:17 MST 2016
* This is expert standard of course. I used to think that it was standard
* to play both redouble and pass as wanting to play in the Stayman bid
* redoubled, but learned better. You only have the the had for playing
* in the Stayman bid redoubled if the double was an error or was unlucky.
* This rarely happens. If you have 4-5 good clubs, 3NT is too likely
* to make with low HCP because club finesses are onside, while 2CXX is
* too likely to go down on a 5-1 or worse break because the opponents
* have trump control. Then it is you that is unlucky. To allow this,
* you give up 2 bids (pass and redouble) that can be used to bid non-rare
* cases better.
*
* The double helps even more over 1NT-3C, since 3C was forcing so the
* double gives vastly more space. You can make the normal response with
* a stopper. Without a stopper, you can pass and then responder can
* redouble to give the same amount of spaces as over 3C not doubled, but
* responder has the extra options of 3D+ and should often bid 3H or 3S
* to show 1 4 card major and rightside it. You can also redouble to
* show even more hand types.
*
* If you play that you don't try to play in the Stayman bid redoubled,
* then the opponents can afford to double lighter. This gives interesting
* chicken and egg and disclosure problems. I think the opponents are
* required to disclose the meaning of a double first, and your method
* can depend on this meaning. If they play super-sound lead directional
* doubles, then you should obviously not try to play in the Stayman bid
* redoubled. Almost equally obviously, the opponents should not play
* super-sound doubles. If they want to play sound doubles, they should
* play them just unsound enough so that your best strategy is unclear.
* This is even more interesting over a weak NT. In some methods,
* especially over weak NT's, double of Stayman just shows HCP. You need
* to know this and use a system than allows playing in the Stayman bid
* often doubled but rarely redoubled.
*
* Bruce
*
--
(The Republican mind, in a nutshell)
You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible
because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is
unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly,
whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the
God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe
what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that
God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your
soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this
derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.
(Alternative condensed translation)
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".
KWSchneider <question...@email.email> wrote:
...
>
>Bruce on DEC 9 - "Puppet Stayman Lie" message chain.
Thanks. Good catch. Here is that original post, reprinted for clarity
>Bruce on DEC 9 - "Puppet Stayman Lie" message chain.
here, plus one additional post by Bruce from that thread that is also
interesting:
From b...@besplex.bde.org Thu Jan 14 15:17:17 MST 2016
* That defeats the main reason for existence of 3C Puppet Stayman -- to
* find 5-4 major fits.
*
* I like 2NT 5 card Stayman. It is difficult to double this to show
* clubs, since 2NT is harder to beat than 3C. It is unclear if the
* response structure should be very natural to make lead direction doubles
* hard, or scientific to also search for 4 card majors. If opener is
* often going to bid 3C, then strangely, it is better for responding to
* have weak clubs than strong ones. When he has weak clubs, if opener
* also has weak clubs then doubles help you avoid 3NT; otherwise, doubles
* tell you that club finesses will work. Alternative Stayman bids in
* different strains allow responder to choose the one where doubles help
* the opponents least. Or the one that discloses the least when the
* opponents pass throughout.
*
* Bruce
*
From b...@besplex.bde.org Thu Jan 14 15:18:17 MST 2016
* This is expert standard of course. I used to think that it was standard
* to play both redouble and pass as wanting to play in the Stayman bid
* redoubled, but learned better. You only have the the had for playing
* in the Stayman bid redoubled if the double was an error or was unlucky.
* This rarely happens. If you have 4-5 good clubs, 3NT is too likely
* to make with low HCP because club finesses are onside, while 2CXX is
* too likely to go down on a 5-1 or worse break because the opponents
* have trump control. Then it is you that is unlucky. To allow this,
* you give up 2 bids (pass and redouble) that can be used to bid non-rare
* cases better.
*
* The double helps even more over 1NT-3C, since 3C was forcing so the
* double gives vastly more space. You can make the normal response with
* a stopper. Without a stopper, you can pass and then responder can
* redouble to give the same amount of spaces as over 3C not doubled, but
* responder has the extra options of 3D+ and should often bid 3H or 3S
* to show 1 4 card major and rightside it. You can also redouble to
* show even more hand types.
*
* If you play that you don't try to play in the Stayman bid redoubled,
* then the opponents can afford to double lighter. This gives interesting
* chicken and egg and disclosure problems. I think the opponents are
* required to disclose the meaning of a double first, and your method
* can depend on this meaning. If they play super-sound lead directional
* doubles, then you should obviously not try to play in the Stayman bid
* redoubled. Almost equally obviously, the opponents should not play
* super-sound doubles. If they want to play sound doubles, they should
* play them just unsound enough so that your best strategy is unclear.
* This is even more interesting over a weak NT. In some methods,
* especially over weak NT's, double of Stayman just shows HCP. You need
* to know this and use a system than allows playing in the Stayman bid
* often doubled but rarely redoubled.
*
* Bruce
*
--
(The Republican mind, in a nutshell)
You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible
because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is
unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly,
whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the
God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe
what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that
God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your
soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this
derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.
(Alternative condensed translation)
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".
Steve Willner
Jan 20, 2016, 10:00:42 PM1/20/16
to
On 2016-01-14 11:17 AM, paul...@infi.net wrote:
> If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a
> 5-3 fit with opener?
It's interesting that the purpose of Puppet Stayman has changed from its
> If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a
> 5-3 fit with opener?
original one of hiding opener's shape to the new one of finding opener's
5cM. I'm not sure that's progress.
Using 2NT as Puppet Stayman almost but not quite enables both benefits.
You would like responder to describe 9 hand types: 2, 3, or 4 cards in
each major. One of those, presumably the 2-2, can jump directly to 3NT,
but that leaves 8 to go through Puppet Stayman. If opener bids 3C to
ask, responder can describe 7 types at or below 3NT. That's one short.
I'm not sure whether there's a good answer.
Kenny McCormack
Jan 20, 2016, 10:14:48 PM1/20/16
to
In article <n7phfi$f5m$1...@dont-email.me>,
Could you explain how this all works? How do you get 9 possible messages
out of only 5 (3c through 3N) bids?
--
People seem to think that Youtube (and Facebook and Twitter and so on) is
(are) some sort of resource created for the public good. Why they delude
themselves into believing this is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Usenet will always be here. Longer than people remember what port 80 was for.
out of only 5 (3c through 3N) bids?
--
People seem to think that Youtube (and Facebook and Twitter and so on) is
(are) some sort of resource created for the public good. Why they delude
themselves into believing this is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Usenet will always be here. Longer than people remember what port 80 was for.
france...@googlemail.com
Jan 21, 2016, 7:23:50 AM1/21/16
to
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 03:14:48 UTC, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <n7phfi$f5m$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >On 2016-01-14 11:17 AM, paul...@infi.net wrote:
> >> If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a
> >> 5-3 fit with opener?
> >
> >It's interesting that the purpose of Puppet Stayman has changed from its
> >original one of hiding opener's shape to the new one of finding opener's
> >5cM. I'm not sure that's progress.
> >
> >Using 2NT as Puppet Stayman almost but not quite enables both benefits.
> > You would like responder to describe 9 hand types: 2, 3, or 4 cards in
> >each major. One of those, presumably the 2-2, can jump directly to 3NT,
> >but that leaves 8 to go through Puppet Stayman. If opener bids 3C to
> >ask, responder can describe 7 types at or below 3NT. That's one short.
> >
> >I'm not sure whether there's a good answer.
>
> Could you explain how this all works? How do you get 9 possible messages
> out of only 5 (3c through 3N) bids?
>
If you wanted to - and I'm not all sure this is the best approach - you can fit everything and more in (for example) as follows:
> In article <n7phfi$f5m$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >On 2016-01-14 11:17 AM, paul...@infi.net wrote:
> >> If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a
> >> 5-3 fit with opener?
> >
> >It's interesting that the purpose of Puppet Stayman has changed from its
> >original one of hiding opener's shape to the new one of finding opener's
> >5cM. I'm not sure that's progress.
> >
> >Using 2NT as Puppet Stayman almost but not quite enables both benefits.
> > You would like responder to describe 9 hand types: 2, 3, or 4 cards in
> >each major. One of those, presumably the 2-2, can jump directly to 3NT,
> >but that leaves 8 to go through Puppet Stayman. If opener bids 3C to
> >ask, responder can describe 7 types at or below 3NT. That's one short.
> >
> >I'm not sure whether there's a good answer.
>
> Could you explain how this all works? How do you get 9 possible messages
> out of only 5 (3c through 3N) bids?
>
1NT - 2NT (puppet Stayman), opener bids
3C all hands at least 3-3 in the majors
3D - 4-2 in the majors either way round (now 3H = 4+ spades, 3S = 4+ hearts)
3H - 2-5 in the majors
3S - 5-2 in the majors
3NT - 2-2 in the majors
over 3C, responder bids
3D to ask, opener bids
3H 3-5 or 3-4 in the majors (now 3S shows 3 hearts, 3NT to play)
3S 5-3 in the majors
3NT 4-3 in the majors
3H - 3-5 in the majors
3S - 5-3 in the majors
3NT - 4-4 in the majors, NF
I think this picks up all 5-3 fits either way round and all 4-4 fits (as well as all 5-4 fits) at game level. Frees up transfer-3NT as meaning something else if you want.
There's actually a lot more space than you need -some of the above is unnecessary
Slam hands have to do something different.
KWSchneider
Jan 21, 2016, 11:01:15 AM1/21/16
to
On 20 Jan 2016 10:14 PM ,gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <n7phfi$f5m$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >On 2016-01-14 11:17 AM, paul...@infi.net wrote:
> >> If opener is 5332 and responder is balanced, is it worth chasing a
> >> 5-3 fit with opener?
> >
> >It's interesting that the purpose of Puppet Stayman has changed from its
> >original one of hiding opener's shape to the new one of finding opener's
> >5cM. I'm not sure that's progress.
> >
> >Using 2NT as Puppet Stayman almost but not quite enables both benefits.
> > You would like responder to describe 9 hand types: 2, 3, or 4 cards in
> >each major. One of those, presumably the 2-2, can jump directly to 3NT,
> >but that leaves 8 to go through Puppet Stayman. If opener bids 3C to
> >ask, responder can describe 7 types at or below 3NT. That's one short.
> >
> >I'm not sure whether there's a good answer.
>
> Could you explain how this all works? How do you get 9 possible messages
> out of only 5 (3c through 3N) bids?
>
> --
2N = I have a GF+ balanced or semi-balanced hand and am potentially interested a major suit contract, and I don't have either 5+M (xFer) or 22 in the majors (else a direct 3N).
Then...
3C = relay (I have a 4 or 5 card major, otherwise 3suit = other asks)
Then: 3D -> 4H, could have 4S, then after 3H relay:
3S -> 2=4
3N -> 3=4
4C -> 4=4=2=3
4D -> 4=4=3=2
3H -> 4S, denies 4H, then after 3S relay (shows 4s or 5h, asks for 3h)
3N -> 4=2
4C -> 4=3=2=4
4D -> 4=3=4=2
3S -> 2=3
3N -> 3=2
Optional for Slam invitational hands...
4suit -> SI, suit ask (Step1 = no AKQ, Step 2 = Q, Step 3 = K, Step 4 = A, Step 5 = AK/AQ/KQ
4N -> Quantitative
Benefits:
1) This doesn't bypass 3N unless there is a guaranteed 8 card major suit fit (or responder has a SI hand).
2) Opener's hand remains undefined.
3) Opener always plays a 44 contract, a 53 or 54 spade contract, a 54 heart contract, and a 53 heart contract (except if responder is exactly 43 in the majors), while responder's hand is the only one defined.
YMMV Kurt
Kenny McCormack
Jan 22, 2016, 9:44:30 AM1/22/16
to
In article <rsWdnf9e4OtUnTzL...@giganews.com>,
KWSchneider <question...@email.email> wrote:
...
This all sounds very interesting, and I'd like to try it out.
But I don't think there is enough detail here to actually implement it.
(Think in terms of trying to explain it to a willing, but not particularly
theoretically-inclined partner...)
Do you care to supply more detail, or, better yet, is this written up
online somewhere?
--
Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:
1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).
2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
3) Now, imagine that he is white. Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
seem now.
See? That wasn't hard, was it?
KWSchneider <question...@email.email> wrote:
...
But I don't think there is enough detail here to actually implement it.
(Think in terms of trying to explain it to a willing, but not particularly
theoretically-inclined partner...)
Do you care to supply more detail, or, better yet, is this written up
online somewhere?
--
Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:
1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).
2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
3) Now, imagine that he is white. Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
seem now.
See? That wasn't hard, was it?
KWSchneider
Jan 25, 2016, 10:48:06 AM1/25/16
to
On 22 Jan 2016 09:44 AM ,gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> >Benefits:
> >1) This doesn't bypass 3N unless there is a guaranteed 8 card major suit fit (or
> >responder has a SI hand).
> >2) Opener's hand remains undefined.
> >3) Opener always plays a 44 contract, a 53 or 54 spade contract, a 54 heart
> >contract, and a 53 heart contract (except if responder is exactly 43 in the
> >majors), while responder's hand is the only one defined.
>
> This all sounds very interesting, and I'd like to try it out.
>
> But I don't think there is enough detail here to actually implement it.
> (Think in terms of trying to explain it to a willing, but not particularly
> theoretically-inclined partner...)
>
> Do you care to supply more detail, or, better yet, is this written up
> online somewhere?
Steve Willner
Jan 27, 2016, 10:43:47 PM1/27/16
to
I should preface this by saying I don't think it's worth the trouble,
but it's an amusing theoretical exercise. What you'd like to do is all
of 1) find 4-4 and 5-3 fits when appropriate, 2) avoid giving
information to opponents, 3) make opener declarer, and 4) avoid giving
opportunities for lead-directing doubles. You can't possibly do all of
that. In particular, 3) and 4) are in direct conflict: if responder
bids a short suit, an opponent can easily double, but if responder bids
a long suit, it may wrong-side the contract. You have to choose your
tradeoff, which probably depends on the level you play at among other
considerations.
On 2016-01-21 11:01 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
> 2N = I have a GF+ balanced or semi-balanced hand and am potentially
> interested a major suit contract, and I don't have either 5+M (xFer)
> or 22 in the majors (else a direct 3N).
> Then...
> 3C = relay (I have a 4 or 5 card major, otherwise 3suit = other asks)
I am not sure you can include the + part of GF+, but maybe you can with
some shapes. Also, opener cannot bid anything other than the 3C relay
without giving away information, and anyway I'm not sure what other
rebids would be used for. Maybe some uses could be found.
Given that responder can show only 7 types after 2NT and the 3C relay, I
think the best solution is to put responder's 4-4M hands into normal
Stayman. That won't give opponents any more information than Puppet.
As Kurt wrote (and I wrote earlier), hands with no interest in M bid 3NT
directly. That includes 2-2M but also some or all 4333's and maybe
4432's with a strong doubleton. Also maybe hands with a good 6cm, at
least at matchpoints.
How to show the 7 types after the 3C relay depends on your priorities
among the four goals listed above. Frances' approach tells a lot about
opener's hand but takes some of responder's 5cM types out of the
transfers. Kurt's scheme leaks a little information about opener's hand
and doesn't cover the 3=3 types (presumably with shortness in a minor if
you are looking for a 5-3M fit). If you don't care about lead-directing
doubles, a possible scheme is:
3D = 3cH: 3H asks, then 3S = 2-3, 3NT = 3-3, bidding 4+ = 4-3.
(Here 4+ is any bid above 3NT; you can decide what if anything responder
should show with these bids.)
3H = 2cH: 3S asks, then 3NT = 3-2, bidding 4+ = 4-2.
3S = 2-4
3NT = 3-4
You can sometimes overcome a lead-directing double by backing into a
Moysian 4M, but that won't always work. Also, the relays leak a little
information about opener's shape, but I don't see how to avoid that.
Maybe someone else can do better. All schemes put 3 types into 3D, 2
types into 2H, and 1 each into 2S and 2NT.
If anyone tries this out, I'd love to know how it works.
but it's an amusing theoretical exercise. What you'd like to do is all
of 1) find 4-4 and 5-3 fits when appropriate, 2) avoid giving
information to opponents, 3) make opener declarer, and 4) avoid giving
opportunities for lead-directing doubles. You can't possibly do all of
that. In particular, 3) and 4) are in direct conflict: if responder
bids a short suit, an opponent can easily double, but if responder bids
a long suit, it may wrong-side the contract. You have to choose your
tradeoff, which probably depends on the level you play at among other
considerations.
On 2016-01-21 11:01 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
> 2N = I have a GF+ balanced or semi-balanced hand and am potentially
> interested a major suit contract, and I don't have either 5+M (xFer)
> or 22 in the majors (else a direct 3N).
> Then...
> 3C = relay (I have a 4 or 5 card major, otherwise 3suit = other asks)
some shapes. Also, opener cannot bid anything other than the 3C relay
without giving away information, and anyway I'm not sure what other
rebids would be used for. Maybe some uses could be found.
Given that responder can show only 7 types after 2NT and the 3C relay, I
think the best solution is to put responder's 4-4M hands into normal
Stayman. That won't give opponents any more information than Puppet.
As Kurt wrote (and I wrote earlier), hands with no interest in M bid 3NT
directly. That includes 2-2M but also some or all 4333's and maybe
4432's with a strong doubleton. Also maybe hands with a good 6cm, at
least at matchpoints.
How to show the 7 types after the 3C relay depends on your priorities
among the four goals listed above. Frances' approach tells a lot about
opener's hand but takes some of responder's 5cM types out of the
transfers. Kurt's scheme leaks a little information about opener's hand
and doesn't cover the 3=3 types (presumably with shortness in a minor if
you are looking for a 5-3M fit). If you don't care about lead-directing
doubles, a possible scheme is:
3D = 3cH: 3H asks, then 3S = 2-3, 3NT = 3-3, bidding 4+ = 4-3.
(Here 4+ is any bid above 3NT; you can decide what if anything responder
should show with these bids.)
3H = 2cH: 3S asks, then 3NT = 3-2, bidding 4+ = 4-2.
3S = 2-4
3NT = 3-4
You can sometimes overcome a lead-directing double by backing into a
Moysian 4M, but that won't always work. Also, the relays leak a little
information about opener's shape, but I don't see how to avoid that.
Maybe someone else can do better. All schemes put 3 types into 3D, 2
types into 2H, and 1 each into 2S and 2NT.
If anyone tries this out, I'd love to know how it works.
0 new messages