[dosxtres]

Partner opens 1NT and you bid 2♣ stayman.

You play stayman with at least one four card major and 8+ HCP.

- Is need generally speaking alert stayman?

- If stayman is a convention not alertable in the contest?:
Do u have to alert it because you would bid 2♣ with a weakish 4441 with the intention of passing whatever p bids?

- If you alert stayman when u have to, do u have to say all meanings like this 4441 weak as posible? Even if you bid 2♣ with 5/4 6/4 in the majors weak/strong?



kind regards,

[helene_t]

The general rule is that you must alert calls the agreed meaning of which may be surprising to the opps (for reasons of lack of knowledge of your system and agreements, not for lack of general bridge knowledge).

Stayman is what most would assume a 2♣ response to 1NT to be, so you probably don't need to alert it. Some TDs say that you must alert all conventional calls. If playing under those rules, you must alert stayman since it's a conventional call.

I don't think you should volunteer the information that it may be weak with both majors. Much less the possibility that it can be weak with majors+diamonds. Especially the latter is quite standard. If you have specific reasons to think that opps may not expect this, you must volunteer the information.

If opps query for the specific meaning of 2♣, you must give full disclosue, especially with regard to weak variants.

[zielona]

helene_t, on Oct 19 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

The general rule is that you must alert calls the agreed meaning of which may be surprising to the opps (for reasons of lack of knowledge of your system and agreements, not for lack of general bridge knowledge).

The general rule is to alert conventional bids.

Quotes from the WBF Laws and Alerting Policy:

Alerting Policy said:

The following classes of calls should be alerted:
1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.

1997 Laws as quoted by ABF said:

2.1 Convention
A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the
denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards
or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

It is always good to know that Stayman, being a convention, should be alerted. However, in a casual game it often is not and this is normally not disputed and rightly so.

The "surprise" factor is commonly seen in local alerting regulations. Eg my local regulations include phrases like this one "The bid is natural, but you have an agreement by which your bid is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect.". It requires me to venture into the minds of my opponents in an attempt to guess what possibly they may think of my bid. Alternatively, in addition to all the bridge knowledge, I am expected to memorize bidding method stats so where a need arises I can quickly work out what is more and what is less likely.

helene_t, on Oct 19 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

If opps query for the specific meaning of 2♣, you must give full disclosue, especially with regard to weak variants.

The simple partnership agreement regarding Stayman is that it is a bid asking for a 4 card major. Therefore it is usually enough to say "asking about a 4 card major". That's unless you have a specific agreement with your partner like Stayman on zero points. In any case, the purpose of the explanation is not to describe to the oppoisition the card - shape, strength - you are holding.

[nickf]

slightly OT but I must relate a hand that I played an hour ago.

The opps opened 1NT, responder bit 2C and somewhat to my suprise the auction continued:

1NT-2C
3C-5C

I asked before the auction was over what 3C meant and was told natural - fair enough I thought - some people might have these methods. So out of interest I asked what 2C was by clicking on the bid and back came an alerted response 8trefl (8 clubs). Well I thought that was a bit unusual that 1NT-2C should show 8 clubs, but who knows.

Dummy hit with 3 clubs and true to the (late) explanation declarer did indeed have 8 clubs. Unfortunately our opp's command of english prevented them from answering my question what they would bid with only seven clubs.

Unusual but effective methods. Back to this topic, I'd say the example I relate above is definitely a situation where 2C should be alerted.

nickf
sydney

[glen]

nickf, on Oct 21 2007, 01:19 AM, said:

...definitely a situation where 2C should be alerted.

I disagree - he bid 2♣ and was intending to take 8 tricks with ♣s as trumps holding an 8 card trump suit - what could be more natural than that?

[blackshoe]

The correct rule, general or otherwise, is that you alert the calls your sponsoring organization requires you to alert. So in order to answer the original question, we must know who the sponsoring organization is, or at least what their regulations are.

An alert is a notification to opponents that they may want to ask about the meaning of a call. If they ask (whether you alerted it or not) you are required to fully disclose everything you know about the call from partnership agreement or experience. If your agreement includes a certain possibility, such as 4=4=4=1 weak, intending to pass partner's rebid, then failure to disclose this fact is a violation of the rules, and deliberate failure to do so is cheating.

If a 2♣ response to 1NT is natural, I think it should be alerted unless the SO's regulations specifically exempt it from alert - e.g. "do not alert any natural bid". Absent that, 2♣ natural rather than Stayman is so unusual it should require an alert.

[helene_t]

zielona, on Oct 21 2007, 06:51 AM, said:

Quotes from the WBF Laws and Alerting Policy:

Alerting Policy said:

The following classes of calls should be alerted:
1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.

As I said, if the TD has stipulated those rules, they should be adhered to. Some sponsoring organizations (Australia) require Stayman to be alerted, some (England) require it to be announced, some (Netherlands) require neither. On BBO, the club (or individual TD) serves as sponsoring organization.

Quote

The simple partnership agreement regarding Stayman is that it is a bid asking for a 4 card major. Therefore it is usually enough to say "asking about a 4 card major". That's unless you have a specific agreement with your partner like Stayman on zero points.

Yes, but it is more helpful to tell what a call means instead of telling what it asks for. Some say that Stayman doesn't mean anything because it's an asking bid, but that is not true. What kind of hands the Stayman-bidder can have depend on follow-ups (would stayman followed by, say, 3♣ be NF?) and alternatives (would a direct 2NT response be natural?) and that is what opps need to know.

Quote

In any case, the purpose of the explanation is not to describe to the opposition the card - shape, strength - you are holding.

Of course, "full disclosure" means "full disclosure of agreements". Thanks for elaborating.

Quote

Eg my local regulations include phrases like this one "The bid is natural, but you have an agreement by which your bid is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect.". It requires me to venture into the minds of my opponents in an attempt to guess what possibly they may think of my bid. Alternatively, in addition to all the bridge knowledge, I am expected to memorize bidding method stats so where a need arises I can quickly work out what is more and what is less likely.

I personally agree with your sentiment but the fact is that all SOs (except maybe Australia and a few others) disagree with us, so random opps are likely to be used to unusual, natural calls being alerted. You must adhere to your opps legimite expectations, not to your own ideology.

[zielona]

nickf, on Oct 21 2007, 12:19 AM, said:

Unfortunately our opp's command of english prevented them from answering my question what they would bid with only seven clubs.

. But of course the agreement was not 8♣! Probably 5 or may be 6.

helene_t, on Oct 21 2007, 03:10 AM, said:

Of course, "full disclosure" means "full disclosure of agreements". Thanks for elaborating.

I elaborated for the benefit of other readers Helene. Every time I get a BBO player to understand what alerting is all about I feel like a winner
Nick's example proves that the great portion of BBO community believes that they are expected to say what they have in their hand and not what they promise to their partner. Sadly a BBF poll would not be very effective in proving/disproving that theory. The majority do not read BBF for more or less obvious reasons.

[dosxtres]

I think i didnt explain very well first time.



Would you rule? and if so, why?

Auction goes:

1N pass 2♣
(alert by opener)
(what's the meaning by East?
Answere: Stayman
East passes
Opener bid 2♦ pass pass and pass

Dummy shows 4441 3 HCP

EW called TD.

Would you rule?
I think "A Full disclosure" is not an argument beacuse this pair play stayman as promising a 4 card major and 8 HCP and that was explained with "Styman".

So, the real question is:

Opener thinks his partner has at least one 4-card major and 8HCP.
Responder bids 2♣ with the intention to pass what ever bid from his partner, and did so.

EW says they are playing modified stayman that need Full disclosure.
What if I dont play the weak mode?
If I find the 4441 I simplely bid 2♣ and pass my partner's bid.
It is not on system, I am choosing the best bid I think i have available, as rules says a player can choose his bid, even out of his system sometimes.

Can someone make clear this statment please?

[hrothgar]

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

Can someone make clear this statment please?

Alert / announcement rules are determined by the sponsoring organization.

The answer to your question varies depending on whether you are playing in:

1. An ACBL sanctioned tournament
2. A random table in the Main Bridge Club
3. A tournament sponsored by an established club like Unibridge or HomeBase
4. Something else

[dosxtres]

In spain, but, I think it should be irrelevant.

Think you are playing with me.
Our agreement is to play styman promising 8HCP and at least one 4 card major.
Nothing more.

But If you open 1NT and I have a weak 4441 I'm bidding 2♣.
Not an agreement, I'm only choosing the best bid I can find, regardless it is well or not good bridge judment.

[helene_t]

But Stayman with 4441 and 3 points is not "modified Stayman". It's standard Stayman. At least to me. If this tournament was restricted to players from a country in which "Stayman" specifically means "8+ points, 4-card in one or both majors", while these players had the special agreement to play another kind of Stayman, then ok.

Also, how were opps damaged? As soon as 2♦ was passed, opener's RHO could see what was going on. So his final pass was fully informed.

Quote

It is not on system, I am choosing the best bid I think i have available, as rules says a player can choose his bid, even out of his system sometimes.

Right. You can bid whatever you want. Deviating from an agreement can never be an infraction. The only question is if the explanation "Stayman" was an adequate description of the agreement they had. And if not, if opps were damaged.

[dosxtres]

2♣ and pass is an agreement?
Is a system exception that you are not aware on system?

I was not playing, but worried about the TD ruled.

Myself have no agreement to bid 2♣ on weak hands, so, when I bid 1N an p bids 2♣ I always explain like styman. 1/2 4 card major and 8+HCP.

If p passes my bid, now I realized it was the exception and CAN IMAGINE what's going on?
Is this part of our system? Do I have to explain all of the circumstances that can arise when my pard can go over the system?

OK. The opps were damaged because they passed. That's the issue.
They argue they explained as stayman and nobody said nothing about this posibility.

Is this stayman or modified stayman? Is it really an agreement?

[hrothgar]

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

In spain, but, I think it should be irrelevant.

Think you are playing with me.
Our agreement is to play stayman promising 8HCP and at least one 4 card major.
Nothing more.

But If you open 1NT and I have a weak 4441 I'm bidding 2♣.
Not an agreement, I'm only choosing the best bid I can find, regardless it is well or not good bridge judment.

Comment 1: Most jurisdictions permit players to violate their agreements. You could (conceivably) make a legitimate claim that

1. You have an explicit agreement that 2♣ promises 8+ HCP and a 4 card major

2. You chose to psyche 2♣ holding a weak 4=4=4=1 hand

Comment 2: Where this might run into trouble is that the combination of your explicit agreement and random psyche is a precise match for another very common agreement about Stayman. (LOTS of people play so-called garbage Stayman in which a 2♣ response shows either a 4 card major and X HCP OR a weak 4=4=4=1 hand) You might have some trouble convincing a TD regarding implicit / explict agreements. I don't know the Spanish Alerting regulations. However, I would expect that you'd run into the most trouble if "normal" Stayman is not alertable but Garbage Stayman is alertable and you just happen to make this random psyche. Some might claim that you are abusing the concept of a psyche to avoid disclosure regulations.

I think that the main problem is a sematic one: Assuming that your main goal is to avoid a repeat incident, I think that you would be much better off if your partnership explictly discussed how to handle minimum strength 4=4=4=1 / 4=4=5=0 patterns after a 1NT opening and then modified your agreement about a 2♣ response so that it matches the way that you actually bid with these hands.

[jtfanclub]

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

Answere: Stayman

The name of a system is never the explanation of a bid. Ever.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Nov 5 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

Answere: Stayman

The name of a system is never the explanation of a bid. Ever.

That's what the ACBL regulation says, and I agree with them. But in some other jurisdiction, for example Spain, you'd have to see what the local regulation says. With luck, it'll say the same thing, or something very like it. But if it doesn't...

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Nov 5 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

Answere: Stayman

The name of a system is never the explanation of a bid. Ever.

Max Hardy wrote in his 2/1 book that "Stayman" is adequate explanation. Opps know approximately what it means. Full disclosure would be a long story about all the handtypes (not) covered by this particular Stayman variant. But opps generally know that there are different versions of Stayman, and they can ask if it matters.

Some TDs write that Stayman must be alerted if it does not promise a 4-card major. That's a bit silly IMHO, but at least it's a clear rule.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 5 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Max Hardy wrote in his 2/1 book that "Stayman" is adequate explanation.

He was wrong, particularly in the ACBL.

[barmar]

A more complete description of Stayman for most pairs would be "Asks opener to bid a 4-card major if he has one, otherwise he should bid 2♦." Unless you have specific agreements otherwise, it doesn't specifically show any particular hand type by responder, although it implies a hand that can make use of opener's response. This is usually an invitational hand with at least one 4-card major, but sometimes it's a hand that wants to pass any response (the classic example is 4=4=5=0, since 4=4=4=1 risks playing in a 4-2 ♦ fit if opener is 3=3=2=5). (With appropriate agreements there may be other cases: if you play 4-way transfers you have to start with Stayman to make a balanced invitation; and there's Crawling Stayman that allows you to stop in 2Maj in a 4-3 fit with a weak hand.)

[blackshoe]

I missed this earlier.

In the ACBL, 2♣ Stayman does not require an alert if it doesn't promise a 4 card major. However, if responder then rebids 2NT and might not have a 4 card major, that is alertable.