Responding to Stayman with 4-4 majors

[Cyberyeti]

No, it is not alertable. One of the problems I see in answering questions in a magazine aimed at lesser players is the number of players who assume their way is the only way. I am continually fighting to get players to accept that their way does not make it standard and normal.

 

The norm in England is affected by the methods. If you play, as many do, that the only way to raise to 2NT is via Stayman, and that 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ shows a raise to 2NT with four spades, then you have to respond 2♥ to 2♣ with both majors. If you do not play this, which I suppose is true for 80% of English players, then there is no reason to respond with one major rather than the other. Of course individual pairs will make an arrangement for whatever reason, usually something really meaningful like John Collings told them it was correct.

 

So the norm in England generally is that there is no norm, unless you are playing the specific methods outlined above.

 

Of course, this depends somewhat on the class of player. In a higher class event then I expect a majority, perhaps a vast majority, to respond 2♥ with both. But I have no sympathy whatever for people at that level not allowing for players to play differently from them.

 

 

Yes, England.

This is just wrong IMO. I think I can say with a very high degree of confidence that everybody in Norfolk bids 2♥, I've certainly never noticed declarer hold a 4-4 having responded 2♠ anywhere in 40 years of bridge.

 

It doesn't matter what you use 2♠ for over 1N-2♣-2♥, we happen to use it as minor suit stayman, but if you have any use for it, you will respond 2♥, and most people are naturally inclined make the lower response.

[MickyB]

It doesn't matter what you use 2♠ for over 1N-2♣-2♥, we happen to use it as minor suit stayman, but if you have any use for it, you will respond 2♥

 

As I've already said in this thread, if you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite, then it's better to rebid 2S with 4-4 majors - you get the stronger hand playing it, you don't have an invitational auction that invites a double and you disclose less about suit lengths.

 

There are also methods that include second-round transfers by responder where it is beneficial for opener to show spades then hearts.

[MickyB]

Maybe it would be better if you left your partner to use his common sense? He's an intelligent man, so I expect he could follow the train of thought "We have an unusual agreement. The opponents don't know about it. I'd better tell them."

 

Sorry, I think you misread my post. I said that I'd told him that it wasn't alertable, not that I'd told him he mustn't disclose it. As for describing him as "an intelligent man" - counter-evidence, board 8 set 3 B-)

[Cyberyeti]

As I've already said in this thread, if you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite, then it's better to rebid 2S with 4-4 majors - you get the stronger hand playing it, you don't have an invitational auction that invites a double and you disclose less about suit lengths.

 

There are also methods that include second-round transfers by responder where it is beneficial for opener to show spades then hearts.

If you play a strong no trump maybe, but most people around here play weak and the two hands are much the same strength when responder invites.

 

Also nobody around here plays second round transfers.

 

I was thinking in the context of provincial club bridge where it wouldn't occur to any of the regulars that it was even a possibility that you'd respond 2♠ with 4-4.

[helene_t]

This simply is not true. I read this from a (very good) Swedish source about 10 years ago. It depends on other aspects of your system whether spades first makes sense. For the record, I would not expect spades first to be alerted but playing behind screens a short note to the effect would be proper.

Kleinman wrote the same in "The Notrump Zone".

 

I am not sure how far it goes that natural bids are alertable if they have a potentially unexpected meaning. I have been told by professional TDs to alert NFB and WJS. What about the dinosaurs that open 1♠ with 44M? I suppose those things are generally not explicitly stated, but a style that is a little bid unusual (say opening 1♣ with 44m) probably isn't alertable while 1♠ with 44M probably is.

 

So for the Stayman issue it could depend and local customs. I think I would try to explain it briefly on the front of the CC, but I would not alert it. If I became dummy I would volunteer it before the opening lead. I wouldn't do so as declarer because it feels wrong to alert opps to a potential surprise which isn't there, and it goes too far to disclose it only when I happen to have 44. But I would volunteer, as declarer, the explanation that my 2♥ bid denies spades.

[gnasher]

Sorry, I think you misread my post. I said that I'd told him that it wasn't alertable, not that I'd told him he mustn't disclose it.

Using screens, I can't see any effective difference between an alert and an unprompted explanation. Perhaps your partner is also unaware of any distinction.

 

Anyway, given the vagueness of the WBF's alerting rules it's hard to answer questions about whether a specific call is alertable. Also, half of the field has no idea that WBF alerting regulations apply, or what they are. I alert or explain anything that is conventional, anything that would be alertable under EBU rules, and anything that I think the opponents are unlikely to guess the meaning of.

[gnasher]

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules, 'normal' Stayman is alertable because it is an artificial bid.

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules but otherwise subject to EBU regulations, every call is alertable.

 

PL CoC 1.8 "Any interpretations of Law and any regulations published or adopted by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee or by the Union in general shall apply to this League unless they are in conflict with these Conditions of Contest, in which case these Conditions of Contest shall prevail."

 

PL CoC, Appendix D2: "The following classes of calls should be alerted: ...(ii) Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners."

 

OB 10E1: "The EBU defines all agreements that it regulates as ‘special partnership understandings’." As I understand it, the EBU regulates all agreements.

[paulg]

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules but otherwise subject to EBU regulations, every call is alertable.

To be fair, our team, including mickyb, probably gets closer to meeting this requirement than any other.

[blackshoe]

For the record, I would not expect spades first to be alerted but playing behind screens a short note to the effect would be proper.

Does this come from a TO or RA regulation, or is it just your idea of what's proper?

[Trinidad]

My apologies for a slight hijack, but I am curious:

If you bid 2♠ with both majors, how is responder going to invite with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

 

Of those who bid 2♥ with both majors, many would use responder's 2♠ rebid as an invitation with 4 spades and not 4 hearts. After a 2♠ rebid by opener, you are not allowed to bid 2♠ anymore. ;)

 

Or do you just forget about the invitational hands with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

 

Rik

[MickyB]

If you bid 2♠ with both majors, how is responder going to invite with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

 

1N:2C, 2S:2N shows four hearts, the same way that 1N:2C, 2H:2N does for many people. Invites without a four-card major don't start with Stayman.

[NickRW]

I am not sure how far it goes that natural bids are alertable if they have a potentially unexpected meaning. I have been told by professional TDs to alert NFB and WJS. What about the dinosaurs that open 1♠ with 44M? I suppose those things are generally not explicitly stated, but a style that is a little bid unusual (say opening 1♣ with 44m) probably isn't alertable while 1♠ with 44M probably is.

 

I have one partner who likes playing the Blue Club. It is fairly routine in that system to open 1♠ with 44M. My understanding of the OB is that it is alertable - but only because of the possible canape - not because of the 44M possibility.

 

I have another partner with whom the agreement is 1♣ with 44m. As far as I understand it definitely isn't alertable. Indeed, as a 3 card club opener isn't alertable in the 4cM land we have here, alerting a 1♣ opener that could be 4 and just happens to have 4♦ as well, would seem perverse.

[Zelandakh]

Does this come from a TO or RA regulation, or is it just your idea of what's proper?

It is my idea of what is proper :ph34r: . Nonetheless it does seem to be covered by "based on or lead to special understandings" in combination with "spirit of the Policy as well as the letter" (WB XIX, pg 219).

[Trinidad]

1N:2C, 2S:2N shows four hearts, the same way that 1N:2C, 2H:2N does for many people. Invites without a four-card major don't start with Stayman.

Thanks. Big blind spot, right in front of me.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

The basic problem seems to me that the scientific sort of player expects to have various agreements in all sequences, and forgets that not everyone is like him. When I play in clubs many people do not have agreements as to the meaning of the sequence 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ and thus have no particular reason to respond one major rather than the other. But some of those people will have an agreement, not usually based on logic, but on something they have heard, or been told.

 

When playing in England generally, if the sequence goes 1NT 2♣ 2major, it is normal and not therefore surprising that a pair

• responds 2♥ with both majors
  
• responds 2♠ with both majors
  
• responds at random with both majors
  
• responds on some other basis with both majors, eg bids the stronger suit
  

None of these are particularly unusual, so none is alertable under EBU regulations.

 

:ph34r:

 

It is unfortunate that many players, with the best will in the world, assume that you should alert something if you have an agreement. The alerting rules do not say that, and people who do this alert too often, and tend to denigrate [completely unintentionally] the alerting system. Fortunately there are not too many of them.

 

Of course, this is behind screens. Writing things down when playing behind screens in excess of what you would normally alert does little harm.

[lalldonn]

Are you saying that, where you play, there are many people who respond 2♥ to Stayman with 4-4 in the majors and many othes who respond 2♠ on the same hand type?

I reread my post and I did not say anything that could possibly be construed as that. If that was your way of asking me what I think people do in response to stayman with 4-4 in the majors, I think the vast majority of bridge players either don't know what they do, choose a major at random, or bid the better suit. I also know several who over at least some notrump openings play a bid of either major denies the other, and bid something else like 2NT with both. I do not think a major suit bid playing any of these styles is or should be alertable. The only assumption the opponents should be making if you bid a major is that you have 4 or perhaps 5 of that major.

[barmar]

It's hard to remember, but I think when I first learned bridge about 25 years ago, I was taught to respond 2♠ with both majors. But that was before I was taught fancy gadgets like transfers. :) And definitely before I started playing conventions that took away the natural 2NT invite, so my Staymans became non-promissory. But I'm not sure why 2♠ was the preferred response with both -- it's been a long time and I don't remember if anyone ever explained the logic.

 

I suspect that most players who have no systemic requirement bid 2♥ just out of a general "up the line" philosophy. But that doesn't make 2♠ so unexpected that it should be alerted.

[bluejak]

I fancy the logic for 2♠ was the opposite to up-the-line: if you are going to bid both suits you do not bid up the line. Compare a response to 1♦ with equal length majors: you respond 1♥ with 4-4, and never mention the spades unless partner bids them. But with 5-5 you bid 1♠ intending to bid hearts next.

 

Following this 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3NT - 4♥ seems logical. Yes, I know you can bid 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3NT - 4♠ but I presume it felt wrong.

[Vampyr]

The basic problem seems to me that the scientific sort of player expects to have various agreements in all sequences, and forgets that not everyone is like him. When I play in clubs many people do not have agreements as to the meaning of the sequence 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ and thus have no particular reason to respond one major rather than the other. But some of those people will have an agreement, not usually based on logic, but on something they have heard, or been told.

 

When playing in England generally, if the sequence goes 1NT 2♣ 2major, it is normal and not therefore surprising that a pair

• responds 2♥ with both majors
  
• responds 2♠ with both majors
  
• responds at random with both majors
  
• responds on some other basis with both majors, eg bids the stronger suit
  

None of these are particularly unusual, so none is alertable under EBU regulations.

 

:ph34r:

 

It is unfortunate that many players, with the best will in the world, assume that you should alert something if you have an agreement. The alerting rules do not say that, and people who do this alert too often, and tend to denigrate [completely unintentionally] the alerting system. Fortunately there are not too many of them.

 

Of course, this is behind screens. Writing things down when playing behind screens in excess of what you would normally alert does little harm.

 

David, do you and I play in the same country? In London it is very unusual for opener to respond 2♠; playing standard methods, he has to respond 2♥ so that 2♠ is available for partner to show an invitational hand with four spades.

 

This is not as necessary when playing, say, that 2♣ promises a 4-card major, but still the same logic applies as you cannot play in 2♠ with an invitational hand opposite a minimum if responder has already bid 3♠. So I would find a 2♠ bid with both majors very unusual, as would, I suspect, most of my peers.

 

David, your examples always seem to involve clueless people, who have no agreement about pretty much any sequence, and who have not considered, individually or as a partnership, the consequences or implications of various treatments, or how different sequences might show different hands; who, in short, bid pretty much at random. I refuse to believe that this is a fair characterisation of Midlands bridge.

 

If you think that having a little logic behind the bids one makes makes one "scientific", then so be it. In this case I think that there are far more "scientific" players than you think there are.

 

Also, a player who uses a standard CC provided by the club is not necessarily "scientific", even if the methods on the card dictate that he must bid hearts first.

[paulg]

If a style is popular, or undefined, in clubs but highly unusual in the expert community that is playing in the English Premier League, does that make it non-alertable in the club but alertable in the EPL?

 

I must admit that I'd expect someone in the EPL to protect themselves in this instance, especially as screens are in use.

[Cyberyeti]

If a style is popular, or undefined, in clubs but highly unusual in the expert community that is playing in the English Premier League, does that make it non-alertable in the club but alertable in the EPL?

 

I must admit that I'd expect someone in the EPL to protect themselves in this instance, especially as screens are in use.

I was thinking more the reverse. I'd expect 2♠ on 4-4 to be desperately unusual in a club and hence alertable there, but possibly not in a national event.

 

I think this is a question that should be clarified, is it intended that the same bid is alertable/non alertable in different events ?

[gnasher]

I think this is a question that should be clarified, is it intended that the same bid is alertable/non alertable in different events ?

The Premier League uses WBF alerting rules. These are different from the normal EBU alerting rules, so a natural consequence is that some bids will be alertable in one but not in the other.

 

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

[Cyberyeti]

 

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

This is the question I was asking, but as much as anything because the "I queried this with <name of director> and he told me it wasn't alertable" response is not uncommon, and if the director was quizzed at a national event, should he add "but I'd alert it in a club setting" where necessary.

[paulg]

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

And we have already seen that you should alert, or not, 1NT-2♣-2♠ depending on whether Vampyr or Bluejak is at the table. And, if they were playing together, they would probably not alert consistently as a partnership (which is interesting rather than wrong).

[blackshoe]

The Premier League uses WBF alerting rules. These are different from the normal EBU alerting rules, so a natural consequence is that some bids will be alertable in one but not in the other.

 

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

I know a player here for whom every bid has a potentially unexpected meaning. Yet if you alert, he just ignores it. Why? He devotes so much of his available brain power to deciding what to bid with the cards he can see that he has none to spare for thinking about what the opponents — or his partner! — are bidding with their cards.

 

In a small community, where you know all the other players well, you may know who needs an alert on a particular call, given your taken on "potentially unexpected". If you don't know the players well, what do you do? "This guy looks intelligent, so I probably don't have to alert much". "This guy looks like a dumbass, I better alert everything". No. "potentially unexpected" has to have some other, objective criterion. In the ACBL, it's explicitly stated to be "historical usage". So, in general, if Goren taught it, it doesn't require an alert. An example: 1♥-(P)-4♥, playing SA or 2/1. Around here (and in most of NA) today, this shows usually 5 trumps and a side shortage, and always a weak hand. If the bid shows either that hand or game values and a fit, no alert is required. Why? "Because 'game values and a fit' was pretty much 'standard' thirty years ago". I guess players are expected to know that even if they weren't playing bridge thirty years ago. :blink: