[kenberg]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 10:32, said:

According to
http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf

I had not seen this handy chart before. Of particular interest to me: For "Responses to NT Openings...", under "Not Alertable", we find:

"Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major"

Whew. Thus 2NT-3C (Puppet) is not alertable as I have always believed it should not be. Whether or not the acbl has always agreed I am not sure, I believe it has not, but from experience I am absolutely certain that directors have been inconsistent on this.
After 2NT-3C it is almost impossible to imagine a defender choosing one course of action if 3C is Puppet Stayman but a different course of action if it is standard Staymn. But it is not at all impossible to imagine the 3C bidder has forgotten that they are playing Puppet until the alert helpfully reminds him that they are, clarifying the upcoming response. Of course after 2NT-3C-3D (or 3H or 3S or 3NT) an alert is appropriate if it is Puppet. But if, say, 3D is alerted as showing at least one major and the 3D was intended as denying a major this will be clear, and can be sorted out.


This has come up repeatedly and I am really pleased to have this easy to read reference. Thank you.

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-08, 12:59, said:

"Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major"

Whew. Thus 2NT-3C (Puppet) is not alertable as I have always believed it should not be.

Hi Ken,

Nice you liked the chart
And -- you just might be right -- but (sorry if I somewhat disappoint you here...)

I would say this statement is actually ambiguous...

The part:
"...asking for a four-card or longer major"
-- if I really dig into it -- it might actually be understood as:

"... responder asking for a major that is at least 4-cards long"

or might be understood as:

"... responder asking for a 4-card major, or responder asking for a major of 5-cards" (I assume we can ignore 6+suits here)

You see what I mean?

It seems you now betted on the second meaning, but is that really what they meant?

If this is the reference they are using, I can understand why directors have been inconsistent!

[kenberg]

I have re-written this. Same idea, but perhaps clearer, plus I have a re-think added.


Both standard Stayman and Puppet ask for a four card or longer major. The responses are different. In standard a response of 3H would simply shows four or possibly five hearts, in Puppet a response of 3H shows five, a response of 3D shows possession of at least one four card major. So in both cases the question is "Do you have a major with four or more cards in it and the response answers that question. The responses in Puppet are different, so these Puppet responses need an alert. But the question is the same: Do you have four or more cards in at least one major?

So there seems to be no reason to alert the question, and the chart is pretty clear that the question is not alertable.Responses that differ from standard Stayman are alertable. If for some reason the acbl wantedt the question alerted when the response structure is more detailed, then I would hope they would have said so. But I see no reason for alerting the same question simply because the response structure is different.

Ok. I can think of a counter-argument. If 2NT-3C is standard Staymn then the 3C bidder surely has at least one four card major (If the auction oges 2NT-3C(standard0-3H-3NT, opener with four spades will now bid four spades trusting that responder, who does not have hearts, must have spades). Otoh, playing Puppet, the 3C bidder need not have a four card major, the structure allows him the freedom to still call 3C.

Perhaps this should be clarified after the auction but I doubt it is reason for the 3C to be alerted as Puppet. This would be analogous to alerting, for those that play it this way, that 1NT-2C-2S-2NT might not be on four hearts in responder's hand. The alert is later, the 2C is not alerted. At any rate, it seems clear that the chart says that the Puppet 2NT-3C is not alertable.

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-08, 18:25, said:

Both standard Stayman and Puppet ask for a four card or longer major.

Well, I wont repeat it anymore than this -- I hope...
... but that actually is ambiguous.

Another person might claim that
"Yes, Stayman asks for a four card or longer major"
while
"No, Puppet asks for a five card major only." (thus, does not ask for "a four card or longer major")

And you would both be right, depending on how you resolve the ambiguity.

Human (so called "natural") language is a lot more ambiguous than most people realize.

This is stuff that -mostly- only people like linguists, lawyers, computer-programmers -muggins -
that need to understand instructions very exactly care about.

Unfortunately, the more the Bridge-authorities try to regulate-regulate-regulate everything -- which they now a days do -- they will dig themself into this same untasty legal-like sewage that lawyers routinely make a living of.

From what I understand by reading about it, ACBL for example, is now slowly -or not so slowly- creating a horrible mess with this.

I mean... who would think they could go wrong with such a "simple thing" like giving a workable definition of Stayman (which I would guess was their intention, but not 100% sure, since it ended up ambiguous...)

[kenberg]

I may be, gasp, wrong here. I took the highly clever step of looking on the acbl cc today and lo and behold, Puppet is in red.This is on the cc that I used as a scorecard at the club today. On the other hand, it is black on the cc I download. There are plenty of things in red on the cc I download, but not Puppet. But maybe that cc is not acbl approved. It is the one I usually look at.

[Added in later: Oops doubled. I was just on the acbl site and went to
http://web2.acbl.org...ventionCard.pdf
Puppet is in black!
I will do whatever they want me to do, but if they could make it clear what that is, it would be nice.]




I may write to the ruling the game column of the Bulletin. I don't care that much which way oit is, non-alertable seems right to me but I can live with alertable.

Today we had 1NT-3C(Puppet by pard, I did not alert)-3H(alerted, nobody asked) -4H. If I did wrong, I want to know. [Another edit: Yes, as Adam notes, this is clearly wrong. 1NT-3C(Puppet) is certainly alertable. I knoew thiai, I just erred. I imagine it is alertable if the 3C bid is anything other than clubs. This is totally different from 2NT-3C which, I now can say after Adam's post, is not alertable even if it is Puppet. I imagine it is alertable if it is anything other than some form of Stayman. ]
Last week a a player asked my advice on whether Puppet is alertable or not and I said it wasn't but the responses were. It's even more important to me to get back to her if I am wrong about this.


I do think that if 2NT-3C (Puppet) is alertable then the chart you provided could be written more clearly, but that's their problem i just want to know what the powers that be stipulate.

[Stefan_O]

"... It's Red! ... It's Black! ... Red! ... No, it's Black!"

HA-HA, what a mess!!

kenberg, on 2016-September-09, 16:41, said:

I may write to the ruling the game column of the Bulletin.

Yes, seems very appropriate
Would love to hear the outcome of that!

[awm]

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough. It used to be that puppet stayman was alertable, but people pointed out that this helps responder know the meaning of opener's response, and very rarely makes a difference to the defending side. So they changed it, and now only the opener's response to puppet is alertable.

Of course, this only applies to 1NT-2♣ and 2NT-3♣; the usage of 1NT-3♣ as puppet remains an alert.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-September-09, 20:21, said:

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough. It used to be that puppet stayman was alertable, but people pointed out that this helps responder know the meaning of opener's response, and very rarely makes a difference to the defending side. So they changed it, and now only the opener's response to puppet is alertable.

Of course, this only applies to 1NT-2♣ and 2NT-3♣; the usage of 1NT-3♣ as puppet remains an alert.

Last sentence first: Yes. I above speak of not alerting the 1NT-3C. A clear error on my part, fortunately doing no harm on that deal. I corrected my comment.

Back to the main point: I am glad to hear it. The argument they accepted "three r four years ago" is the argument I made above and have been making for twenty plus years. I think at least some directors have always seen it this way.

I read the cited alert chart as saying that 2NT-3C is not alertable, but I do understand Stefan's argument.

This discussion of alertability began after I observed that if 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one four card major, so that 3D then neither confirms nor denies a major,then 1NT-2C-2D-3NT is very apt to be on 4-4 in the majors.Even with a 4-2 responder would be apt to Puppet because he can check for the fit w/o opener revealing whether he has a four card major. I can see the logic of alerting the 3NT and explaining this inference, but as far as I know this is not required. I am ok with that, but I do think it is a gap.

Incidentally at http://web2.acbl.org...-2004-11-01.pdf
we see instructions about filling out the cc. We also find:

Quote

Puppet Stayman Many pairs use a 3C response to a 2NT opening as Stayman, asking if opener has a four-card major. A popular variation is to play puppet Stayman, wherein the 3C response asks if opener has a four- or five-card major.The advantage to this method is that it allows opener to open 2NT even if the hand contains a five-card major without worrying about missing a possible 5–3 major-suit trump fit.If you play puppet Stayman, check the RED box and Alert the opponents.

Many of us wish to do what is correct. But also, many of us do not read the minutes of the acbl board meetings. Maybe they could put a little more effort into clarity? When the channge was mad three or four years ago did it not cross someone's mind to change the information that is provided on their website?

[Stefan_O]

kenberg, on 2016-September-10, 04:51, said:

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough.

Seems, then --from what I read here and elsewhere-- they are lacking an efficient way of making their conclusions/whims known

Are they expecting all players to regularly "deep-google"
to see what could the mighty powers in their ivory-towers have come up with this month, you think?

[kenberg]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-10, 07:10, said:

Seems, then --from what I read here and elsewhere-- they are lacking an efficient way of making their conclusions known

Are they expecting all players to regularly "deep-google"
to see what could the mighty powers in their ivory-towers have decided this month, you think?

This could be a long discussion! And not just about bridge. I am in generally good health but a couple of years ago I needed to understand some Medicare rules on an issue, so I called Medicare. Totally hopeless. I, and I expect you, could make a long list of such things. My wife signed up for an exercise and nutrition course and had to fill out a questionnaire. Question: Do you eat more when you are out with friends or do you eat more when you are by yourself. Possible answers: Often, sometimes rarely, never.

Anyway, I think many times rules are put forth that defy the best intentions of those who would like to follow the rules.

Probably I wander too far from the OP, thus breaking a rule. Mea culpa.

Best wishes.
Ken

[Stefan_O]

Right, Ken,

Personally, I just do not think Bridge neither needs nor gains from these lawyer-cultish believers' dabblings.

I played in 1970/80'ies when there was the Bridge Laws, and not much more, and it generally worked just fine -- I dont think they have improved the game at all by all this current craze of regulating.

Some people will always find reasons to quibble and be obnoxoius about this and that, of course -- regulations, or not.

[Stefan_O]

In short, they seem to have completely forgotten --- IT'S JUST A DARN GAME, DUDES!!! SOMETHING WE DO BECAUSE IT'S FUN!!!

[Stefan_O]

And only while I'm at it, sorry.... we also have this ridiculous change they did years ago on the price of going down non-vulnerable....

How did that originate?
I can envision one director telling the others in one of their secret meetings...

"You know, last week we bid this beautiful grand, that I sure would have made on a triple-squeeze!
And what happened? They SACRIFICED! And it ONLY COST 1100!!
We didn't even beat those who played the small slam!!

That's waaay to cheap! Let's change The Law, shall we?"

[kvmann]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-05, 03:58, said:

You might also consider the ETM Weak NT structure, which has similar properties of asking for a specific major. Interestingly, traditional Puppet Stayman (2♣ over 1NT) also has this property with the hand in question being bid 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥; 2NT - 3NT. Of course, to counter the benefits of Opener not showing hearts, 4th seat has had the opportunity to double artificial calls in both rounded suits. As always, there are some hands where you win and others where you lose. Focusing on the one without reference to the other is typical of many bridge authors but not particular helpful.

The document was unreadable for me so I translated it:
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing