[relknes]

Puppet Stayman is the clasic way to check for a 4 or 5 card major when partner's NT opening could contain a 5 card major. This has several drawbacks, however.

1. You loose the ability to use "garbage stayman" on weak hands
2. You give away a lot of information to the defenders about the shape of both hands

It seems to me that the first could be solved entirely, and the second addressed in part, by using the following:

1N - 2♣ = regular stayman. Opener will bid a 4 or 5 card major, and bid 2♦ without either major
2M - 3♣ = followup asking if opener has a 5th card in the major

This will give detailed information to the opponents much less frequently than puppet stayman (i.e. only when responder makes the followup ask) and still allows the use of stayman on a weak hand. It dosn't solve the problem of finding 2M when a 5-3 fit exists, but you can't have everything.

The obvious cost is that you loose whatever meaning you otherwise had for 1N-2C-2M-3C (for instance to show a hand with 5+ clubs and 4 in the other major) but I don't find myself using that sequence much anyways. The rationalle seems the same as for giving up the natural meaning of 2♣ over 1NT.

Any thoughts?

[Furlan]

3♣ as shape ask after the response to Stayman is standard around here ("second Stayman", as we call it). Hands with 5m+4OM bid 3♦ (3♥ by opener asks for the minor). The structure I'm used to play is:

1N - 2♣
2♥ - 3♣
3♦ = 4♥+4m (3♥ asks for the minor)
3♥ = 5-card ♥
3♠ = 4♥+4♠
3NT = 4♥333

Same after 1N - 2♣ - 2♠.

[Free]

In one partnership I play 1NT-2♣-2M-3♦ as a relay asking for more info about the Majors. This way we can check if opener has a 5 card M, or 4-4M. Also note that opener can choose which Major to bid with 4-4M. We use 3♣ to show GF hands with 4OM and a longer m (3♦ and 3♥ ask, 3♥ shows fit OM). So we don't lose much, except a little bit of space when responder holds 4M & 5+m.

[Cascade]

We have used 3♦ for this purpose for a long time. It works well.

We use 3♣ as a general slam try without a fit and balanced (no singleton).

[Zelandakh]

I started by writing quite a critical post on this but over the course of thinking about it I have come round and think the idea has some merit. I do still disagree with your point 1 about Puppet though...

1) You still have garbage Stayman available over Puppet, it is simply made with different hand types (2362 instead of 3451 for example). With regular Puppet you can also much more often get out in 2D - overall this is not a negative imho.

For point 2, the cost in your method comes from the knock-on effect in other areas of the structure. Since you can no longer Stayman and show clubs (or diamonds if you use transfers here) you probably need to your club (or diamond) transfer scheme to accomodate 2-suiters rather than the rebid showing shortage. This is not really a problem but some forum posters always bring up the thought that "rebids should show shortage" after a minor suit transfer. I agree that your method will give information to the defence less often since asking for 4 card majors comes up more often than asking for 5 cards.

I think I am with Wayne that if I wanted to play something like this I would want the follow-up bid to be 3D rather than 3C. Of course that goes against the basic premise of the method in giving the opps 2 chances to double an artificial bid. However, I still like the ability to show diamonds via Stayman and for that one needs the 3C rebid over a 2M response. Over a 2H response this would mean (for me) having to use the 2S rebid as a multi-way bid, also to agree hearts. I would have to look alot deeper to see if this sort of trade-off was worth it.

One last point. You can use the exact same concept over a Puppet 2D response. That is 1NT - 2C; 2D - 3C = both majors and GF. Responses can be simple: 3D with a 3 card major, 3M with a 4 card major, and 3NT with 2-2 majors. I suspect this produces an overall more efficient system but does so with more information leakage. This is the crux of it really and why I have come around to the idea. I think the information leakage is quite likely to be the bigger negative as an initial impression. Of course it needs some practical testing to see if this is really so and sometimes good idea come into practical difficulties when you put a complete system together around them. But I do think it is worth investigating.