Stayman may or may not have 4cM
#1
Posted 2021-August-08, 14:36
Playing 4 way transfers after a 1nt opening, the balanced invitation goes via 2C stayman.
1NT 2C* Stayman or general invite
2x 2NT Invitational, may or may not have 4cM
Which bid should be alerted? 2C or 2NT
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#2
Posted 2021-August-08, 15:00
From the ACBL Alert Procedures:
Quote
After an Opening No Trump Sequence or a Natural No Trump Direct Overcall, a 2C bid over 1NT or a 3C bid over 2NT that asks about the No Trump bidder’s major suit holdings. Alert any follow-up bid that reveals that the 2C or 3C bidder may not (or did not) hold a major suit for the bid.
#3
Posted 2021-August-08, 15:15
#4
Posted 2021-August-08, 17:25
Pescetom, if you need to know in fourth seat, you can ask. But experience shows that you (in general) don't - but you do need to know for the defence.
#5
Posted 2021-August-08, 23:01
It is bit weird since people do alert Baron, which is similar in a way.
#6
Posted 2021-August-09, 01:34
helene_t, on 2021-August-08, 23:01, said:
It is bit weird since people do alert Baron, which is similar in a way.
That's weird, one of the directors at my club says the 2♣ should be alerted. I'm glad it is not just me who is confused.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#7
Posted 2021-August-09, 09:27
Having said that, the relevant regulation is the following (page D58 of the manual):
[these specific calls are considered self-Alerting]: "simple Stayman 2♣ responses to 1NT opening bids [and the "no major" 2♦ response] (alert all other uses [including natural])."
So the question becomes: is 'asking about a 4-card major, even if you don't have one, because you're using it as a puppet to show other sequences, "simple" Stayman?' And I don't know the answer, and I wouldn't guarantee anyone not on the committee does for certain either. These situations are the ones where "tribes" form of received wisdom that it either is or isn't, and they don't even know there's another tribe out there.
So, I think you have to contact NZB for a determination. I'm surprised I can't find one, it can't be the first time. However, given "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." (D56, from 29.1, Alerting Regulations, Introduction), I don't think you'll be *wrong* Alerting it, even if you'll be stared at and laughed at by people who think that's obvious ("the regulation is unclear, so we're going with full disclosure").
#8
Posted 2021-August-09, 10:02
mycroft, on 2021-August-08, 17:25, said:
Pescetom, if you need to know in fourth seat, you can ask. But experience shows that you (in general) don't - but you do need to know for the defence.
I would be unhappy to ask about any promise of a major or invitational strength (though I will) because that puts UI pressure on my partner: these are the precise situations that announcements are supposed to address.
Having said that, I concede that (at least for me) there is rarely any urgent need to know. But many players here (and even the regulations) seem to think differently, with responder not promising a major being seen as some kind of scandal (even though the majority play that way).
P.S. FWIW I'm in the tribe that sees NT invitations (or minor suit shows) that pass through Stayman as part of that Stayman.
#9
Posted 2021-August-09, 10:41
pescetom, on 2021-August-09, 10:02, said:
Having said that, I concede that (at least for me) there is rarely any urgent need to know. But many players here (and even the regulations) seem to think differently, with responder not promising a major being seen as some kind of scandal (even though the majority play that way).
Aren't these situations that CCs **address.
** #@?%^##ought to/#!%$@
#10
Posted 2021-August-09, 12:31
mycroft, on 2021-August-09, 09:27, said:
I agree, I was no wiser for reading the manual.
axman, on 2021-August-09, 10:41, said:
** #@?%^##ought to/#!%$@
Unfortunately, CCs are unheard of in NZ Club bridge, and not required by ACBL even at Tournament level.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#11
Posted 2021-August-09, 15:18
axman, on 2021-August-09, 10:41, said:
** #@?%^##ought to/#!%$@
Up to a point even then, at least with our (and some other) national formats.
The detail of a convention falls between the System Card and System Notes, which are even less likely to be accessible (and readable) in practice.
I just checked my own Card, which to my relief makes a reasonably honest attempt, given the space:
1NT-2♣ = "Stayman": 2♥ 2♠ = 5card; 2♦ = other
1NT-2♣-2♦: 2♥ = ♠ or INV; 2♠ = ♥; 2NT = 44
I hope one could figure out that Responder will not always have a 4 card major and might not be invitational either if full of diamonds.
There are several pages of follow-ups about 1NT Stayman in the System Notes, but only in English, not national language.
I certainly could do better, but most opponents do worse, and I risk more trouble by following the rules than I would by disobeying them.
As nige1 points out, some standard of markup language and internet accessibility would make the whole process a lot simpler to use and enforce.
#12
Posted 2021-August-09, 16:10
Cynicism off.
#13
Posted 2021-August-09, 17:02
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#14
Posted 2021-August-09, 21:14
blackshoe, on 2021-August-09, 17:02, said:
You say potatoe, I say potato
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#15
Posted 2021-August-10, 10:26
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#16
Posted 2021-August-10, 12:40
mycroft, on 2021-August-09, 09:27, said:
I did ask, and they don't know. I will go with the alert of 2NT until told otherwise.
blackshoe, on 2021-August-10, 10:26, said:
That would be super!
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#17
Posted 2021-August-10, 13:48
blackshoe, on 2021-August-10, 10:26, said:
But we are talking about regulations not laws, and sometimes even courageous directors need firmer regulations or at least sure support of the regulatory body and organisation.
I don't remember seeing any regulation that specified a precise penalty for a missing or inadequate card, for starters.
#18
Posted 2021-August-10, 15:07
mycroft, on 2021-August-09, 09:27, said:
pescetom, on 2021-August-10, 13:48, said:
- Delegation of key responsibilities to NBOs (creating a fragmented, over-sophisticated, incomprehensible Tower of Babel); and
- Empowering TDs (too often relying on their subjective judgement in preference to objective criteria).
#19
Posted 2021-August-10, 17:16
pescetom, on 2021-August-10, 13:48, said:
I don't remember seeing any regulation that specified a precise penalty for a missing or inadequate card, for starters.
Well, the ACBL regulation has its faults, but it's a good start. Or would be, if directors enforced it (NB: some do; the problem is that some don't).
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2021-August-11, 01:47
nige1, on 2021-August-10, 15:07, said:
- Delegation of key responsibilities to NBOs (creating a fragmented, over-sophisticated, incomprehensible Tower of Babel); and
- Empowering TDs (too often relying on their subjective judgement in preference to objective criteria).
Your first point is probably correct. But that’s not the WBFLC’s fault, but of the NBO’s who claim the right to make their own rules. I got the impression that the ACBL for one, is an organization that won’t compromise easily. Besides, what’s usual in one country, is sometimes highly unusual in another. And there are NBO’s that differentiate between players based on level, others don’t.
I think your second point is only half finished.