Responding to Stayman with 4-4 majors

[gnasher]

It is a nuisance when playing abroad, though. Who would know that WJS and NFB are alertable in EBU. Who would know that weak two openings are alertable in DBV. In such situations it would be nice to have more technocratic rules. My Dutch partner, when playing in EBU, basically alerts everyting (OK, not everything, but lots of completely obvious thing, like WJO over a Precision 1♣ opening for example) just in case it is deemed "unexpected" in EBU. It appears to be a slight nuisance some opps. But what else can he do. When a doubt, alert. No?

Are you trying to invoke Nigel?

 

I think your partner's approach is fine, as long as he's made some effort to understand the rules. In fact, that would place him ahead of at least half the players in this country.

[barmar]

Right now, in the ACBL, the better pairs seem to be better at active disclosure; and those who don't understand what is unexpected are the ones we have to protect ourselves against.

Which is, I think, the principle behind their policy "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." If an experienced pair in an open event hears the auction 1NT-2♦-2♥ with no announcement, they should know that it's probably a transfer and the opponents simply didn't realize they need to announce it.

[aguahombre]

If an experienced pair in an open event hears the auction 1NT-2♦-2♥ with no announcement, they should know that it's probably a transfer and the opponents simply didn't realize they need to announce it.

The point at which it is too late for 4th chair to have done something different over 2♦.

[f0rdy]

Incidentally, this thread shows exactly why alert regulations of type 2 do not work. They give a false sense of security. In principle it should be very simple. MickyB asked a question: Is this meaning for this call alertabl?. One would think that an experienced player like MickyB would be able to find the answer in the regulation, but evidently he can't. There have been 191 replies with opinions and views. I may have overlooked something, but I don't remember one single one unambiguously saying: "OB paragraph x.y.z says it is alertable. End of story." or "OB paragraph x.y.z says it is not alertable. End of story."

 

Alert regulations of type 1 handle this much better, as long as the players are made aware that they have full disclosure obligations. The answer to Micky's question is simple: "If you play against Trinidad, you alert. If you play against PeterAlan, you don't alert. If you don't know who you are playing against, you alert to err on the side of caution. You encourage the opponents to ask something that may turn out to be obvious to them. End of story."

 

Rik

 

This is my biggest issue with type 2 regulations as well. If my partner (perhaps experienced, but only recently arrived in the UK) would like to know which natural meanings for the following calls are not alertable:

1. 1♣ - P - 2♥
   
2. 1♣ - X - 2♥
   
3. 1♣ - P - 3♣
   
4. 1♣ - X - 3♣
   

how might she go about finding out?

 

As far as I understand it, she needs to somehow determine what 'the normal meanings' for these 4 calls are. From this discussion, she would be led to believe that determining what everyone at the local club plays in these situations is of no help, because they might not be representative of English norms (indeed, I would expect this not to work for these particular auctions). Unfortunately, the Orange Book has no helpful appendix defining even these simple auctions, so there is no definitive answer to her questions.

 

Of course, where she would naturally start would be to ask me if our agreements in these auctions are alertable. Unfortunately, in several years of playing bridge in the UK, I've also never found definitive answers to these questions, so I tell her what I think is true; the uncertainty continues to propagate.

 

(As an aside to my point, my guesses are:

1. Natural (4+ suit), GF
   
2. Natural (4+ suit), GF?? I have little idea
   
3. Invitational raise, or GF raise?
   
4. Invitational raise?
   

)

 

Peter

[Zelandakh]

1. 1♣ - P - 2♥
   
2. 1♣ - X - 2♥
   
3. 1♣ - P - 3♣
   
4. 1♣ - X - 3♣
   

I have not played in England for a while but I would guess that "normal" for these would be:

1. SJS, nat and GF

2. DNE for 90% of club players; for those where it does: WJS, nat and NF

3. nat and INV

4. nat and weak

 

For an experienced player arriving in England and wanting to know what they should alert, the best place to start would be the Tangerine Book. For more details, progress on to the Orange Book. Additional questions probably need to be addressed to one of the club's TDs or, if they do not know, then asking David or Frances here is probably as good as anything else.

[gnasher]

This is my biggest issue with type 2 regulations as well. If my partner (perhaps experienced, but only recently arrived in the UK) would like to know which natural meanings for the following calls are not alertable:

1. 1♣ - P - 2♥
2. 1♣ - X - 2♥
3. 1♣ - P - 3♣
4. 1♣ - X - 3♣

how might she go about finding out?

By reading the regulations. All of these are covered by Orange Book 5G2 and 5G3

 

The answers are:

1. Forcing.

2. All.

3. Non-forcing, not preemptive.

4. Non-forcing.

 

In 3 it's unclear whether a mixed raise is alertable, but it seems to me that generally the EBU regulations deal with this problem quite well.

Edited December 4, 2012 by gnasher

[MickyB]

1♣ - X - 2♥

 

By reading the regulations. All of these are covered by Orange Book 5G2 and 5G3

 

The answers are:

2. All.

 

I found a reg that referred to non-jumps, but nothing about jumps in this situation.

[RMB1]

I found a reg that referred to non-jumps, but nothing about jumps in this situation.

 

OB 5G2(c)4(d)

[MickyB]

OB 5G2(c)4(d)

 

Thanks, I had understood this as referring only to non-jumps but 5G2c4a makes it clear that's not the case.

[f0rdy]

By reading the regulations. All of these are covered by Orange Book 5G2 and 5G3

 

The answers are:

1. Forcing.

2. All.

3. Non-forcing, not preemptive.

4. Non-forcing.

 

In 3 it's unclear whether a mixed raise is alertable, but it seems to me that generally the EBU regulations deal with this problem quite well.

Huh. OK, I thought I'd read the Orange book quite carefully a few years ago, but apparently I've forgotten relevant bits. I think I'm being confused by a disputed ruling about 1C p 3C a few years back, but presumably the debate was about what "not pre-emptive" meant, rather than what the regulations said.

I apologise for maligning the EBU regulations! I feel the problem (there being no definitive source) still exists in principle, but I'd have to trawl my memory + crosscheck OB sections to find the non-silly examples.

 

While I have such a well-informed audience, could I check an ACBL equivalent?

What meanings aren't alertable in (first two bids natural) 1♥ P 2♥ P 2♠ ? I was bemused by most aspects of the bridge* during my summer in Bermuda, but being gently chastised for not alerting a long-suit trial bid surprised me somewhat.

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

*The most confusing thing being a social stalemate, rather than strictly a regulations issue: Whenever I was about to declare a hand, my opponents would wait until "the auction was over" before leading, and I would wait until they led before removing my bidding cards...

[gnasher]

Huh. OK, I thought I'd read the Orange book quite carefully a few years ago, but apparently I've forgotten relevant bits. I think I'm being confused by a disputed ruling about 1C p 3C a few years back, but presumably the debate was about what "not pre-emptive" meant, rather than what the regulations said.

I apologise for maligning the EBU regulations! I feel the problem (there being no definitive source) still exists in principle, but I'd have to trawl my memory + crosscheck OB sections to find the non-silly examples.

Although the regulations cover most of the common situations, it's not particularly easy to find the information for a specific sequence. I think this part of the Orange Book would be better presented as a table, with three columns:

- sequence

- alertable meanings

- non-alertable meanings

 

While I have such a well-informed audience, could I check an ACBL equivalent?What meanings aren't alertable in (first two bids natural) 1♥ P 2♥ P 2♠ ? I was bemused by most aspects of the bridge* during my summer in Bermuda, but being gently chastised for not alerting a long-suit trial bid surprised me somewhat.

It's easier to be well-informed about EBU regulations than about ACBL regulations. In this case, however, the ACBL Alert Chart is clear: you alert "Game tries that, by agreement, may have fewer than three cards in the suit bid". Presumably, therefore, you don't alert game tries that promise length.

[blackshoe]

The most confusing thing being a social stalemate, rather than strictly a regulations issue: Whenever I was about to declare a hand, my opponents would wait until "the auction was over" before leading, and I would wait until they led before removing my bidding cards...

At the club yesterday, RHO deals: (1NT)-P-(3NT)-P-(starts to pick up bidding cards, pauses, looks at me: "are you passing?") Me: "I don't know; are you?" :lol:

[barmar]

While I have such a well-informed audience, could I check an ACBL equivalent?

What meanings aren't alertable in (first two bids natural) 1♥ P 2♥ P 2♠ ? I was bemused by most aspects of the bridge* during my summer in Bermuda, but being gently chastised for not alerting a long-suit trial bid surprised me somewhat.

As far as I can tell, the ACBL Alert Procedure says nothing about game try bids. The section titled "Opener's Rebids" only addresses 3 cases: 1NT is alertable if it shows a strong NT, Canapé suit rebids are alertable, and bidding a 3-card minor in response to forcing NT doesn't require an alert (nor does bidding a 2-card minor if your shape is 4=5=2=2).

 

So we fall back on the general "alert unusual and unexpected meanings" rule, as well as "most natural bids are not alerted". A trial bid whose meaning includes length in the suit bid (i.e. long suit and help suit) is not alerted, other trials (e.g. short suit, Kokish) are.

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure about HSGTs? If we systemically bid 3♣ with xxxxx/AKQJ/AK/xx, to take a bad example, should this not be alerted? Surely the "natural" call here would be 3♥ if you were going to make a game try.

[barmar]

I wouldn't consider bidding an xx suit as a HSGT. Do you really want partner to upgrade their hand because they hold QJx opposite it?

 

With your example hand, I would probably bid 3♠ as a general strength game try.

[Zelandakh]

Let's assume for the moment that you are playing 1-2-3 stop, so your only way of inviting is by making a HSGT.

[barmar]

Let's assume for the moment that you are playing 1-2-3 stop, so your only way of inviting is by making a HSGT.

Then no bid accurately describes your hand, and you have to pick the least lie.

[aguahombre]

In all this time, we have not used HSGT, as such, for the simple reason that we could never find an adequate standard definition of a help suit. Perhaps it would have been wise to research under the keyword "Stayman".

[blackshoe]

I prefer Klinger's approach: A long suit game try is made with a six loser hand and a long (usually 4+) side suit with 2 or 3 losers. A short suit game try is made with a six loser hand and a side shortage. You can set up two-way game tries by using 2♠ or 2NT as a relay. Klinger recommends showing the long suit try directly, and relaying to show the short suit try. Romex takes essentially the same approach, but flips the meaning of the relay and adds a "power game try" by doubling up on the direct 3♣ (or 2NT, over ♥) bid.

[Zelandakh]

An easy method over 1♠ - 2♠ is:

2NT = short suit try somewhere

... - 3♣ = accept clubs

... - 3♦ = decline clubs, accept diamonds

... - 3♥ = decline clubs and diamonds, accept hearts

... - 3♠ = decline all

3♣♦♥ = HSGTs

3♠ = trump try

 

Some think there is a theoretical advantage to playing the short suit game tries directly. *shrugs*

[barmar]

I've always liked the style advocated by Lawrence (and I think Cohen as well). It's a 3+ suit with 1 or 2 high honors, suggesting that partner upgrade his hand if he has fitting honors.

 

However, I know some people play it as any 3+ suit with 2+ losers, asking partner to upgrade his hand if he can cover the losers. The problem with this latter style is that sometimes shortness is helpful (if partner's suit is xxx), other times it isn't (if he has Kxx). Yes, the shortness will reduce losers, but because you have duplication it doesn't create winners.

 

But this is a laws forum, not the place to discuss good versus bad agreements. What both styles have in common is that the suit needing help should be at least 3 cards, so the bid is somewhat natural.

[gnasher]

If we systemically bid 3♣ with xxxxx/AKQJ/AK/xx, to take a bad example, should this not be alerted?

Yes, it should be alerted in the ACBL, where you alert "Game tries that, by agreement, may have fewer than three cards in the suit bid".

[nige1]

I don't think there's any good answer to this

A solution may be possible: Change the law book to stipulate "Unless opponents stop you, announce all your partner's calls, both natural and artificial. To keep down the noise, provide a card of common meanings.

[Zelandakh]

To keep down the noise, provide a card of common meanings.

That's a cool idea; we could call it something funky like a "Convention Card". I doubt it would ever catch on in America though. They would just use it as a scoresheet or to sit on or something.

[shintaro]

As anyone who watches the BBC Weather knows, the UK consists of London, the South-East, and suburbs of London, some of which may be north of Watford and without Tube stations. The BBC remains that biggest supporter of devolution in 2014 without even realising it.

 

 

Agreed Paul

 

Home Rule for Yorkshire I say :lol: