[Cyberyeti]

The regulations are pretty clear, but I was struck by an inconsistency, and looking for some advice.

Btw the EBU website link to the orange book wasn't working so I had to go by the less detailed tangerine one

First the easy one - 1N-2♦ needs to be announced if it shows 5 hearts, alerted otherwise so a Walsh relay where it's hearts or a slam try with a 6+ card suit needs to be alerted even if the only allowed response to 2♦ is 2♥.

Then assume you play that 1N-2♣-2♦/♥/♠-3♣ is your weak sign off in clubs. It looks to me that you announce 2♣ as Stayman and don't alert 3♣ (am I right that you don't alert 3♣ whether it's forcing, inv or to play so long as it shows clubs ?).

The inconsistency is in the way the rules are framed. Stayman is announced as such if you respond to it in a particular way, doesn't matter what the bid shows, transfers are announced as such if they show something in particular and it doesn't matter how you respond to them.

Do opps have a case for damage if they assume a 4 card major if you sign off in 3♣ after Stayman, and they feel a 4 card major is normal in this auction, so 3♣ without one is an "unexpected" meaning. Most people are used to a 2N follow up without a 4 card major, but 3♣ to play without one is more rarely seen.

[bluejak]

The trouble with comparing apples and oranges is that they are not the same.

A transfer shows something: in response to 1NT a transfer shows a five+ card specified suit. So, if you do not play this, you are not playing transfers, so you alert, not announce.

Stayman shows nothing except an ability to control the auction. So it does not matter what hands you use it on, if you play a 2♣ ask with responses 2♥ shows 4+ ♥s, 2♠ shows 4+ ♠s, 2♦ shows no major, that is Stayman, you announce it.

Players should learn what Stayman means: if they assume that a 3♣ rebid shows a four-card major, that is their own fault. It doesn't.

When a 2♣ response to 1NT was invented by George Rapee in the USA and Jack Marx in England and called Stayman it did not guarantee a major. It still doesn't even though some people think it does. Sure, you can play it as promising a major, but there is no reason why your opponents should.

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks for the reply, there is some confusion among club players between a transfer and a puppet, so I expect to be told to announce it in the club by the locals as 2♦ usually shows hearts and you reply to it by bidding 2♥.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-30, 11:26, said:

Do opps have a case for damage if they assume a 4 card major if you sign off in 3♣ after Stayman, and they feel a 4 card major is normal in this auction, so 3♣ without one is an "unexpected" meaning. Most people are used to a 2N follow up without a 4 card major, but 3♣ to play without one is more rarely seen.

The possible natural meanings of Stayman followed by 3♣ include: forcing without a major, forcing with a major, invitational without a major, invitational with a major, signoff without a major, and signoff with a major. Even if, in your area, one of these is much more common than the others, that doesn't make the others "unexpected", it just makes them less likely.

I think any opponent who assumed one meaning would deserve all he got. Why on earth wouldn't he just ask?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 02:13, said:

The possible natural meanings of Stayman followed by 3♣ include: forcing without a major, forcing with a major, invitational without a major, invitational with a major, signoff without a major, and signoff with a major. Even if, in your area, one of these is much more common than the others, that doesn't make the others "unexpected", it just makes them less likely.

I think any opponent who assumed one meaning would deserve all he got. Why on earth wouldn't he just ask?

Because I know I've never had signoff without a major used against me in nearly 40 years, signoff is rare these days in itself although with a major it is the old meaning of the bid and what I currently play.

Am I right that signoff/inv/forcing are all non alertable ?

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 03:43, said:

Because I know I've never had signoff without a major used against me in nearly 40 years, signoff is rare these days in itself although with a major it is the old meaning of the bid and what I currently play.

You do know that there's no penalty for asking questions about the opponents' methods, don't you?

Quote

Am I right that signoff/inv/forcing are all non alertable ?

Technically it's alertable if it does promise a 4-card major, because it fails the test "shows that suit and does not show any other suit".

The question of whether it's alertable because of strength depends on whether that constitutes a "potentially unexpected meaning". I would say it doesn't, regardless of strength, but that's a subjective opinion.

[TMorris]

none of them are alertable (and I play each of them with different partners)

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 05:40, said:

Technically it's alertable if it does promise a 4-card major, because it fails the test "shows that suit and does not show any other suit".

TMorris, on 2012-July-31, 05:41, said:

none of them are alertable (and I play each of them with different partners)

Can anyone resolve this difference of opinion?

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-31, 10:09, said:

Can anyone resolve this difference of opinion?

My suspicion is that it's technically alertable but not in any way unexpected so there would never be a ruling if you failed to alert it.

[campboy]

If it is the 2♣ bid, rather than the 3♣ bid, which shows a 4-card major then certainly 3♣ is natural.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 10:14, said:

My suspicion is that it's technically alertable but not in any way unexpected so there would never be a ruling if you failed to alert it.

That's not the relevant test. The question of whether it's unexpected matters only if it's a "natural" bid. The rules for suit bids can be summarised as:

Not natural: alertable
Natural but with a potentially unexpected meaning: alertable
Natural, otherwise: not alertable

The definition of natural is "shows that suit and does not show any other suit".

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2012-July-31, 10:40, said:

If it is the 2♣ bid, rather than the 3♣ bid, which shows a 4-card major then certainly 3♣ is natural.

I think this is right. If we play that Stayman promises a major, then 3♣ with 4M-6♣ is not alertable; if we play that Stayman doesn't promise a major (perhaps because it could be a 3352 0-count) the 3♣ becomes alertable.

This is all irrelevant to real life, of course: almost everyone will ask what 3♣ means, regardless of what alerts have occurred. Cyberyeti may choose not to ask, but he can't infer anything useful from a non-alert, because he doesn't know what 2♣ promised.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 11:51, said:

I think this is right. If we play that Stayman promises a major, then 3♣ with 4M-6♣ is not alertable; if we play that Stayman doesn't promise a major (perhaps because it could be a 3352 0-count) the 3♣ becomes alertable.

This is all irrelevant to real life, of course: almost everyone will ask what 3♣ means, regardless of what alerts have occurred. Cyberyeti may choose not to ask, but he can't infer anything useful from a non-alert, because he doesn't know what 2♣ promised.

You're looking at the wrong person, I ask, I'm considering playing 2♣-2suit-3♣ as the only weak bid with clubs and checking the alerting/announcing procedures. I know people ask less than 50% of the time as is, we currently play 3♣ after Stayman as signoff with a 4M/6♣.

Our Stayman is up to this point 99% promissory (there are basically a couple of very rare slamgoing hand types that use Stayman without a 4 card major) and we explain this if asked. We don't currently alert 3♣ in the Stayman auction and nobody's said anything about this.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 12:24, said:

You're looking at the wrong person, I ask, I'm considering playing 2♣-2suit-3♣ as the only weak bid with clubs and checking the alerting/announcing procedures. I know people ask less than 50% of the time as is, we currently play 3♣ after Stayman as signoff with a 4M/6♣.

Our Stayman is up to this point 99% promissory (there are basically a couple of very rare slamgoing hand types that use Stayman without a 4 card major) and we explain this if asked. We don't currently alert 3♣ in the Stayman auction and nobody's said anything about this.

If you find that people aren't asking, and are making incorrect assumptions about what it means, then alert it. Sometimes you have to save the opponents from their own stupidity, even if that means ignoring the nitty-gritty of the rules.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-July-31, 13:03

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 13:01, said:

If you find that people aren't asking, and are making incorrect assumptions about what it means, then alert it. Sometimes you have to save the opponents from their own stupidity, even if that means ignoring the nitty-gritty of the rules.

I think at the moment they're making the right assumption that it has 4M included, the major point of this question was because of that if I was going to make the switch whether we should be alerting.

I think the thread indicates that 3♣ will not be alertable, but we need to clearly state on the convention card that "2♣ is Stayman, and guarantees a 4 card major in all auctions except ..." to cover ourselves.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 13:14, said:

I think at the moment they're making the right assumption that it has 4M included, the major point of this question was because of that if I was going to make the switch whether we should be alerting.

I think the thread indicates that 3♣ will not be alertable, but we need to clearly state on the convention card that "2♣ is Stayman, and guarantees a 4 card major in all auctions except ..." to cover ourselves.

As I understand it:
- You intend to play 3♣ as not showing a major.
- You intend not to alert it.
- You believe that a number of your opponents will assume 3♣ shows a major.

Are you really happy with that situation?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 13:24, said:

As I understand it:
- You intend to play 3♣ as not showing a major.
- You intend not to alert it.
- You believe that a number of your opponents will assume 3♣ shows a major.

Are you really happy with that situation?

No, but the assumption is that if 2♣ is non promissory, then you don't alert 3♣ unless it does show a 4 card major.

I really think that an addition to the announcement for Stayman (as we do with our potentially short wide range weak 2s) as to whether it's promissory should be normal, but atm it isn't. It could clear up this issue, particularly if it was made clear what alerts of the follow up bids mean.

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-30, 11:26, said:

Btw the EBU website link to the orange book wasn't working so I had to go by the less detailed tangerine one

The link works for me.

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

Are you really happy with that situation?

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 14:28, said:

No ...

So don't allow it to occur.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 16:30, said:

So don't allow it to occur.

But if I make a technically incorrect alert and they don't ask, I open myself up to being ruled against.