[nullve]

Suppose Responder to a 2N opening would never use Puppet Stayman without a 3-card or longer major. Then it should be possible to play

2N-3♣; ?:

3♥ = 5 M
3♠ = freed up!

2N-3♣; 3♥-?:

E.g.:

3♠ = 3+ H
...3N = 5 S
......4♣ = 2-S3+H5+C, F4N
.........4♦ = 5S3(+)C, RKC(♣)
.........4N = 5S2C
......4♦ = 2-S3+H5+D, F4N
.........4♥ = 5S3(+)D, RKC(♦)
.........4N = 5S2D
......4♥ = slam try in S
......4♠ = to play
......4N = 2344 or 1444, quantitative
...4♥ = 5 H
3N = 3-4S2-H, NF
...P = 5 H
...4♠ = 5 S
4♣ = 3+S2-H5+C, F4N
...4♦ = 5H3(+)C, RKC(♣)
...4♠ = 5 S
...4N = 5H2C
4♦ = 3+S2-H5+D, F4N
...4♥ = 5H3(+)D, RKC(♦)
...4♠ = 5 S
...4N = 5H2D
4♥ = 3244 or 4144, F4N
...4♠ = 5 S
...4N = 5 H

Thoughts?

Edit: Changed 'at least a 3-card major' (ambiguous at best) to 'a 3-card or longer major'. Sorry about the confusion. I knew something had gone seriously wrong when I read post #11.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-January-14, 06:14

[mgoetze]

Lots of work for absolutely no gain, amazing job.

jlall said:

What makes a good convention? There are 4 factors:

• Frequency – The more it comes up, the better.
  
• Simplicity – The easier it is to remember, the better.
  
• Effectiveness – The more you gain when it comes up, the better.
  
• Cost – The less you have to give up in order to play it, the better.

Your convention is very infrequent, is extremely complicated, gains absolutely nothing, and costs a lot.

[straube]

I don't think it would be that difficult to learn. It's pretty straightforward.

I guess a downside is that responder introduces a second suit sometimes before he knows whether opener has a fit for his fragment.

2N-3C, 3H-3N and now opener can cue bid with a 5-3 spade fit, but

2N-3C, 3H-4D or 4H and now opener can agree 4S but can't show whether he likes his hand more or not.

What are you thinking of using 2N-3C, 3S for?

[kenrexford]

Interesting concept. I like the idea of attempting a restructuring for restructuring sake. Once step one is accomplished, then maybe a use for the structure comes later. Maybe the tweak method ends up applied elsewhere. Good stuff.

[mgoetze]

 straube, on 2016-January-13, 21:21, said:

I guess a downside is that responder introduces a second suit sometimes before he knows whether opener has a fit for his fragment.

Is this downside even worth mentioning? It pales in comparison to the massive loss of not being able to bid 3♣ on a wide variety of hands that bid 3♣ in a normal system.

[straube]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-13, 21:54, said:

Is this downside even worth mentioning? It pales in comparison to the massive loss of not being able to bid 3♣ on a wide variety of hands that bid 3♣ in a normal system.

I think you're right and 3C shouldn't be restricted to hands that have a 3-cd major. I assume he is using 3S or 3N to handle some of these, but then he would lose out on 5S/4H hands or something else.

Your tone is awful, especially to the OP. You should have just said "I think this is a bad idea because.....".

[nullve]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-13, 21:54, said:

Is this downside even worth mentioning? It pales in comparison to the massive loss of not being able to bid 3♣ on a wide variety of hands that bid 3♣ in a normal system.

 straube, on 2016-January-13, 22:23, said:

I think you're right and 3C shouldn't be restricted to hands that have a 3-cd major.

I'm not sure which hand types you have in mind, or what you regard as normal, but it would certainly be possible to change

2N-3♣; 3♥-3♠ = 3+ H

to

2N-3♣; 3♥-3♠ = 3+ H or strong options

and then use more of the available space after that. (I.e. not let Opener just bid 4♥ with 5 H, which is kind of preemptive.)

[nullve]

 straube, on 2016-January-13, 21:21, said:

What are you thinking of using 2N-3C, 3S for?

The obvious choice would be to offload the 3N rebid. But then there would also be information leakage to worry about, so I don't know.

[Vampyr]

 straube, on 2016-January-13, 22:23, said:

I think you're right and 3C shouldn't be restricted to hands that have a 3-cd major. I assume he is using 3S or 3N to handle some of these, but then he would lose out on 5S/4H hands or something else.

Your tone is awful, especially to the OP. You should have just said "I think this is a bad idea because.....".

I think that it would be nice if people posting on the internet showed a bit of respect for people.

I don't think they need to show respect for ideas.

[Vampyr]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-13, 21:54, said:

Is this downside even worth mentioning? It pales in comparison to the massive loss of not being able to bid 3♣ on a wide variety of hands that bid 3♣ in a normal system.

What types of hands would usually bid 3♣ without a 3-card major (assuming that you have both 3♠ and 3NT available to show various minor-suit hands?)

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2016-January-14, 04:31, said:

What types of hands would usually bid 3♣ without a 3-card major (assuming that you have both 3♠ and 3NT available to show various minor-suit hands?)

I would bid 3♣ on such mundane shapes as (42)(43) and (41)44. 3♠ and 3NT aren't going to help you when you have (41)(35) shape and just want to see whether you have an 8-card major fit; and even when you are willing to go beyond 3NT to show the minor they seem awkward. You can vary this very frequent shape to get less frequent ones like (41)(26), (40)(45), (40)(36), etc. etc. Sometimes I might even bid it on a (31)(36) or (30)(46) shape. Oh and I've not even mentioned (42)(52)!

We're not looking at one crooked tree here. Half the forest has been burnt down.

So in contrast, the gains from this convention are going to need to be amazing. Instead, the OP would like to gain... absolutely nothing. If you rebid 3♠ instead of 3NT on the no-major hands from opener your gain is negative - responder is going to need 3NT as "to play" so you don't gain any space and meanwhile you've given the opponents a free double or non-double of 3♠. Let's say you were more creative and decided to play 3♠ as showing a hand with a 6-card minor. The one additional slam per 10 years you manage to bid is going to be offset by the 30 other times you bid this and simply helped the opponents defend better.

I agree completely that people deserve respect. One way to show respect is by not wasting their time, for instance by telling them that you play "upside down carding if global warming is real, standard otherwise" or by proposing ridiculously bad conventions on a discussion forum.

[fromageGB]

Methinks "3-cd major" was meant literally, and interpreted as "3 or more".

[Vampyr]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-14, 05:29, said:

I would bid 3♣ on such mundane shapes as (42)(43) and (41)44. 3♠ and 3NT aren't going to help you when you have (41)(35) shape and just want to see whether you have an 8-card major fit; and even when you are willing to go beyond 3NT to show the minor they seem awkward. You can vary this very frequent shape to get less frequent ones like (41)(26), (40)(45), (40)(36), etc. etc. Sometimes I might even bid it on a (31)(36) or (30)(46) shape. Oh and I've not even mentioned (42)(52)!

I don't quite understand. It seems as if all of the shapes you give have a 3-card or longer major.

Quote

I agree completely that people deserve respect. One way to show respect is by not wasting their time, for instance by telling them that you play "upside down carding if global warming is real, standard otherwise" or by proposing ridiculously bad conventions on a discussion forum.

People who propose ridiculously bad conventions are trying. And you are doing them a service by telling them just how bad it is.

[nullve]

Corrected bad wording in OP.

[straube]

 nullve, on 2016-January-14, 06:16, said:

Corrected bad wording in OP.

I assumed 3C was handling 4-cd majors, too. 2N-3C, 3D- no problem.

Maybe after 2N just use

3S-puppets 3N
.....4m-minor
.....4M-short major, both minors
3N-5S/4H

I think a lot of people play that or a variation of that.

[Kungsgeten]

I think the posted structure could work, but I am not sure what opener's 3♠ response to 3♣ should show. This seems to be the benefit of the convention, if I understand correctly? Perhaps a 6 card minor? With this structure, compared to Muppet (even though the original post compares it to Puppet), responder's hand with 5♠ and 4♥ can not be bid via 3♣ I presume?

2NT--
3♣ = Nullve's gadget. 3--4 cards in one (or both) majors, but no 5 card major.
3♦♥ = Transfer?
3♠ = Transfer to 3NT? Or perhaps 5♠ and 4♥.
3NT = To play, or perhaps 5♠ and 4♥ if 3♠ is a transfer.

2NT--3♣;
3♦ = At least one 4 card major
3♥ = Nullve's gadget. A 5 card major
3♠ = 6 card minor seems like a reasonable option. Could also show exactly 3 spades, but that seems like an odd choice.
3NT = No 4+ major.

[Kungsgeten]

Actually the 3♠ response could show exactly three spades, and then 3♣ could be defined as:

1. 3--4 cards in one/both majors.
2. 5+ spades and 3--4 hearts.

2NT--3♣; 3♦--3♥ (4+ spades);
3♠ = 3 spades, 4 hearts
3NT = 2 spades, 4 hearts
Other = 4 spades

Now this leaks a lot of information, so the benefit of having the 3♥ transfer showing 0--2♥ would have to be big. Just throwing some thoughts out there

[nullve]

 Kungsgeten, on 2016-January-14, 13:26, said:

Actually the 3♠ response could show exactly three spades, and then 3♣ could be defined as:

1. 3--4 cards in one/both majors.
2. 5+ spades and 3--4 hearts.

2NT--3♣; 3♦--3♥ (4+ spades);
3♠ = 3 spades, 4 hearts
3NT = 2 spades, 4 hearts
Other = 4 spades

Now this leaks a lot of information, so the benefit of having the 3♥ transfer showing 0--2♥ would have to be big. Just throwing some thoughts out there :P

A slightly different scheme:

2N-3♣: now also with 5+S3+H

2N-3♣; ?:

3♦ = 4 M or 3 S
3♥ = 5 M
3♠ = 2S2H
3N = 2S3H

Not that it solves the information leakage problem.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-April-04, 08:42