I had a recent discussion with some intermediate players that got me thinking.
After a 1NT opening, I have liked 3C as GF Puppet Stayman. For the intermediates I was talking to, this was not a good option, because ne of them did not like Puppet Stayman. So, I suggested an alternative, more "natural" approach. Bid Stayman. If partner bids 2D, continue on as you will. If partner bids 2S (denyig four hearts) and you are interested in a 5-card spade suit, bid your longest minor to see if partner rebids spades. If partner bids 2H and you are interested in either a fifth heart or a four-card spade suit, bid 3C. In all instances, the next-ip by Opener would agree the minor if that was your intention, so nothing should go terribly wrong.
This is not fabulous, but it is not bad. So, why do I play Puppet 3C, then? It sure seems like this alternative structure does good enough, and perhaps 3C is better used for something else.
It is rather odd that for the past 80 years people have tinkered with response structure to 1NT, and yet there is always some new thought. Weird.
I played 2NT response as Puppet (originally Rodwell's idea), then 3C, and now I'm thinking about making 3d response as Puppet. (We don't really need to hear 3d from opener as "No 4-card major"; 3NT response would do that equally well.
Post a Comment