[barmar]

True, blackshoe, but the question in this thread isn't about whether it promises a 4-card major, it's whether it promises invitational values.

I don't think "drop-dead Stayman" (my favorite name for bidding Stayman when you plan on passing the response) requires an alert in ACBL -- it's "just bridge", not a special partnership agreement.

[brianshark]

Sorry if I skimmed the thread and repeating what someone already said, but you can't really say you are psyching stayman with a weak hand because more than likely, you have an implicit agreement with any regular partner that because he could be bidding garbage stayman, you can't do anything fancy like bidding 2NT with a max and both majors or anything like that. That would be fielding the psyche. So it's definitely an agreement.

As to whether we should alert a stayman that could have 0pts, that's an interesting question and the answer is probably that it depends on what the local regulations are. I have no idea what they are here.

[bid_em_up]

Stayman does not require an alert.

Garbage Stayman, Drop dead stayman, trash stayman or whatever other name you choose to call it by does not require an alert.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Nov 5 2007, 02:29 PM, said:

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...

Good point, though I'd argue that it's always the case.

I think "Stayman, asking about the majors, promises a minimum (X) points" is closer to Full Disclosure.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Nov 6 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

I don't think "drop-dead Stayman" (my favorite name for bidding Stayman when you plan on passing the response) requires an alert in ACBL

I don't either.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Nov 6 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 6 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

I don't think "drop-dead Stayman" (my favorite name for bidding Stayman when you plan on passing the response) requires an alert in ACBL

I don't either.

I was just discussing Stayman and alertability in another thread (in the context of Puppet Stayman), and I'm sure of it now. ACBL's alert regulation about Stayman is described in terms of what question it asks opener, not what kind of hand responder has. If it asks opener to show a 4-card major it's not alertable, if it asks something else (e.g. to show a 5-card major in Puppet Stayman) then it is. If a later bid by responder indicates that he might not have a 4-card major, THAT bid is alertable. They don't say anything about responder passing the response, but simple bridge logic tells you it shows, so it would be pretty silly to require an alert for this natural call.

While there is some silliness in the ACBL alert rules, I don't think it goes this far.

[the hog]

bid_em_up, on Nov 7 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

Stayman does not require an alert.

Garbage Stayman, Drop dead stayman, trash stayman or whatever other name you choose to call it by does not require an alert.

To the best of my knowledge Bridge is not played just in the US. The original poster did not say where or in what event he was playing. In Australia Stayman requires an alert.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Nov 8 2007, 12:45 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 7 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

Stayman does not require an alert.

Garbage Stayman, Drop dead stayman, trash stayman or whatever other name you choose to call it by does not require an alert.

To the best of my knowledge Bridge is not played just in the US. The original poster did not say where or in what event he was playing. In Australia Stayman requires an alert.

Wow.

So are there people in Australia that actually play 1N 2C as natural?

Wow.

(And since this is posted in the BBO Tournament forum, I will assume this question concerned a BBO tournament. To the best of my knowledge, australian alerting rules do not apply in them.)

[mycroft]

Well, there are a fairly large number who play 1NT-2C as a puppet to 2D to describe *their hand*, rather than allowing the opponents to play double-dummy...

Something about the prime exponent of the method being Australian, I would think.

Michael.

[the hog]

mycroft, on Nov 9 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

Well, there are a fairly large number who play 1NT-2C as a puppet to 2D to describe *their hand*, rather than allowing the opponents to play double-dummy...

Something about the prime exponent of the method being Australian, I would think.

Michael.

I don't think he's heard of Keri Mike, nor relays over 1NT, nor modified Gladiator etc etc.

[helene_t]

bid_em_up, on Nov 8 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 8 2007, 12:45 AM, said:

  In Australia Stayman requires an alert.

So are there people in Australia that actually play 1N 2C as natural?
(And since this is posted in the BBO Tournament forum, I will assume this question concerned a BBO tournament. To the best of my knowledge, australian alerting rules do not apply in them.)

The point is that 2♣ is artificial. Alerting 2♣ shows that it's an artificial bid, it does not suggest that it's based un an uncommon agreement. You may disapprove of that alerting philosophy, but at least it's practical for beginners who have no clue which of their bidding methods are standard and which are the teachers idiocyncracy (and for foreigners who have no clue what is common in Australia). Here in the Netherlands, Stayman is alertable in all situations except
1NT-(pass)-2♣
and
2NT-(pass)-3♣

and maybe also (depending on the meaning of the intial bids)
2♣-(pass)-2♦-(pass)
2NT-(pass)-3♣
and
2♦-(pass)-2♥-(pass)
2NT-(pass)-3♣

This may be close to the "alert calls based on uncommen/unexpected agreements", but almost all club players (and many TDs) are unaware of the details. In fact, I have no clue if multi-players have to alert
2♦-(pass)-2♠-(pass)
2NT-(pass)-3♣*
and there was a heated discussing on StepBridge forum about the alertability of
2♣-(2♠)-pass-(pass)
2NT-(pass)-3♣*

BTW, why do you think Australian alerting rules do not apply on BBO? A lot of TDs say that all artificial calls must be alerted. Australian alerting rules are not, of course, universal on BBO, but neither are the EBU rules, NBB rules etc.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Nov 8 2007, 09:12 PM, said:

mycroft, on Nov 9 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

Well, there are a fairly large number who play 1NT-2C as a puppet to 2D to describe *their hand*, rather than allowing the opponents to play double-dummy...

Something about the prime exponent of the method being Australian, I would think.

Michael.

I don't think he's heard of Keri Mike, nor relays over 1NT, nor modified Gladiator etc etc.

Wow.

So all of those are "stayman"? Plain old, vanilla, whats your major Stayman?

Of course not.

You implied that 2C plain old vanilla stayman required an alert (in australia). That may be true.

In all the rest of the bs you're insinuating, the 2C bid has some other meaning than stayman (the normal expected meaning of 2C) so of course they would require an alert. But that still didnt address the question of

Do people actually play 1N 2C as natural in australia?

If Australia requires an alert of all 2C bids, so be it. Its just dumb to require one unless 2C has some meaning other than normal stayman.

[bid_em_up]

helene_t, on Nov 9 2007, 03:38 AM, said:

BTW, why do you think Australian alerting rules do not apply on BBO? A lot of TDs say that all artificial calls must be alerted. Australian alerting rules are not, of course, universal on BBO, but neither are the EBU rules, NBB rules etc.

Because nobody, I repeat nobody, plays 1N 2C as natural.

If 2C has some meaning other than stayman, then alert it. Otherwise it is silly to attempt to force/require an alert of it.

[helene_t]

Your line of argumentation seems to be: bid_em_up thinks that Australian alerting rules are silly, therefore Australian alerting rules do not apply on BBO. But some BBO TDs specify rules that are concidered silly by some players.

If no rules are specified, I would not expect opps to alert
1NT-(pass)-2♣
Even in situations like
1NT-(dbl)-2♣
and many others, it's not a big deal since most opps would consider the possibility that it's Stayman even if unalerted. But in principle, such a call should be alerted IMHO (I suppose some would say it should be alerted if it's natural).

[bid_em_up]

helene_t, on Nov 9 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

Your line of argumentation seems to be: bid_em_up thinks that Australian alerting rules are silly, therefore Australian alerting rules do not apply on BBO. But some BBO TDs specify rules that are concidered silly by some players.

If no rules are specified, I would not expect opps to alert
1NT-(pass)-2♣
Even in situations like
1NT-(dbl)-2♣
and many others, it's not a big deal since most opps would consider the possibility that it's Stayman even if unalerted. But in principle, such a call should be alerted IMHO (I suppose some might say it should be alerted if it's natural).

Helene, I'm sorry but all of this really has nothing to do with the original questions.

Which were,

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

- Is need generally speaking alert stayman?

The answer is no, generally speaking, it does not require an alert. Stayman does not "generally speaking" require an alert. Period. End of story. (Of course your NBO is dumb enough to require one, then follow the rules of whatever your particular NBO says, but they still do not apply in a BBO tournament, unless specifically specified), and under BBO guidlines, one can infer that the rules that apply are those of the ACBL (or the WBF, I suppose) unless stated otherwise, whether you (or Ron) like it or not. Since the OP did not state what you are claiming to be the actual case, I will stand by my assertion that it does not require an alert.

AND

- 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?

Note that now the OP has now stated that Stayman is NOT alertable in the contest. Problem solved. Since its clear that Stayman IS NOT alertable in the contest, all the other bs about how its alertable "here, there, yada yada, under these conditions" is meaningless. It is just Ron being a jerk with me, as usual.

The answer to the second question is that garbage stayman is not alertable.

[helene_t]

As already stated, I agree with you (your answer is almost identical to what I wrote in the beginning of the thread).

It's new to me that it can be inferred from BBO guidelines that ACBL alert rules apply. I may have missed something.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Nov 9 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

As already stated, I agree with you (your answer is almost identical to what I wrote in the beginning of the thread).

It's new to me that it can be inferred from BBO guidelines that ACBL alert rules apply. I may have missed something.

I offer Charles a 5:1 bet that it can't be inferred (and I haven't looked up the guidelines). It would just make no sense for BBO to say so.

[the hog]

I've looked them up and it can't be inferred. The only one jerking himself around here is B_E_U.

[han]

I did not vote for Bid_Em-Up.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Nov 9 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

I've looked them up and it can't be inferred. The only one jerking himself around here is B_E_U.

How about posting an ID that you actually play on? The one you use here has never had any played hands listed (that I have seen). I'm sure you have nothing to hide if you are as good as you seem to think you are.

Otherwise, stfu.