Responding to Stayman with 4-4 majors

[Trinidad]

No insult intended - I thought the context made this clear - and I apologise if I've offended you.

 

Of course, if your starting point is that the 2♠ rebid with 4 ♥s is indeed unexpected. I've been trying to pursue the possibility that it ain't necessarily so, but it's clearly time to stop.

The criterion is whether it is unexpected for the opponents. I have told you for a fact that I have never seen a 2♠ response to Stayman that could contain both majors, despite that fact that I have seen a reasonable amount of 2♠ responses - with different meanings- to Stayman. So, if I am your opponent, you alert.

 

You think that it is quite normal that a 2♠ response to Stayman can contain both majors. So, if you are your opponent, you don't alert.

 

Rik

[c_corgi]

This makes no sense to me. What almost everyone does defines what is expected; if you do something different, then it's obviously unexpected (except to you, of course). It has nothing to do with WHY the common method has been chosen.

 

It's not really practical to tailor the alert rules to the specific players involved; you can't read their minds and determine what they consider expected. RAs generally define expected/unexpected with reference to the context of the event, not the players. So the alert rules in that country would probably be different from those in countries where strong club is a minority practice.

 

I said county not country. But I am probably assuming greater familiarity with the UK than I should. A county is a bit like a US state only much smaller and less autonomous.

[campboy]

I have told you for a fact that I have never seen a 2♠ response to Stayman that could contain both majors, despite that fact that I have seen a reasonable amount of 2♠ responses - with different meanings- to Stayman.

I don't understand how you can possibly know this for a fact unless you currently ask every time whether 2♠ denies four hearts (and if you do then you don't really need an alert).

 

I suspect there are plenty of people out there who are equally unaware that some play 2♠ as denying four hearts -- and how are they ever going to find out?

[barmar]

The criterion is whether it is unexpected for the opponents.

Where is this criterion specified? Alert rules that depend on who your opponents are seem unworkable to me.

 

The Orange Book makes numerous references to "potentially unexpected" meanings, but doesn't say whose expectation this is -- bridge players in general or just the opponents on that hand.

 

ACBL's Alert Procedures says:

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

I've never really understood what they meant by "historical usage" -- I'm pretty sure Culbertson's historical use of 4NT would be considered unusual these days. But it seems to be saying that we should be using uniform expectations across ACBL, not tailoring them to the specific location or opponents.

[Vampyr]

I suspect there are plenty of people out there who are equally unaware that some play 2♠ as denying four hearts -- and how are they ever going to find out?

 

You should be reassured -- I am certain that your suspicion is unfounded.

 

By the way, gnasher is a top player, and probably familiarises himself with the opponents' methods far more than you or I do. So if he thinks that a 2♠ rebid with both majors is highly unusual, I suggest that we take his word for it.

 

Speaking of top players, MickyB knows that his method is unusual, or wherefore the OP?

[JLOGIC]

I think 2s with both majors is highly unusual also. I have never seen anyone do it. I'm from the us.

[campboy]

You should be reassured -- I am certain that your suspicion is unfounded.

 

By the way, gnasher is a top player, and probably familiarises himself with the opponents' methods far more than you or I do. So if he thinks that a 2♠ rebid with both majors is highly unusual, I suggest that we take his word for it.

 

Speaking of top players, MickyB knows that his method is unusual, or wherefore the OP?

I have no doubt that always bidding 2♠ with both is highly unusual. The question is how unusual it is for 2♠ not to deny four hearts, either because a pair has an agreement they may bid either major with both or because they have no agreement on what to do with both.

 

My point is that very few of us have any idea (and I certainly do not). We tend to assume people bid the same way as us until we see evidence to the contrary, and to do that you have to sit down opposite a pair who could bid either major on a board where one of them opens 1NT with both majors, the other bids Stayman, and opener chooses spades rather than hearts. I don't even have any idea how many times, if any, that has happened to me since I might not have noticed or (before this thread) I might have noticed but thought nothing of it.

 

It is certainly true that being able to bid either major with both is almost unheard of among people I know well, but that is not surprising since promissory Stayman is also almost unheard of in that group.

[PeterAlan]

It is certainly true that being able to bid either major with both is almost unheard of among people I know well, but that is not surprising since promissory Stayman is also almost unheard of in that group.

This is the key point. To choose another simple example, Vampyr and Trinidad would probably also almost never encounter in their circles a response of 5♠ to 4NT by a hand with 3 Aces, because everyone plays Keycard. But that's not true in every club. So that should be alertable too [were bids above 3NT to be so]? The parallel, including the anachronism, is almost exact.

[JLOGIC]

Lol at that example. In USA promissory stayman is by far the norm and even the few good players that do not play it that I know don't play 1n 2c 2h 2s as in with 4 so it is not relevant. And still I have never seen anyone bid 2s with 44. Maybe it is much different in england but isn't it at least possible that you guys are wrong that all these beginners in England bridge clubs are bidding 2s on 44?

[PeterAlan]

Lol at that example. In USA promissory stayman is by far the norm and even the few good players that do not play it that I know don't play 1n 2c 2h 2s as in with 4 so it is not relevant. And still I have never seen anyone bid 2s with 44. Maybe it is much different in england but isn't it at least possible that you guys are wrong that all these beginners in England bridge clubs are bidding 2s on 44?

I don't think they are any more, Justin - the EBU's standard beginners course has teachers telling them to bid 2♥ with 4-4. It's the older, long-established players who play what they always have that may bid 2♠.

[Vampyr]

It's the older, long-established players who play what they always have that may bid 2♠.

 

Do you know any of these players personally, or are you just speculating?

[Vampyr]

Of course, if your starting point is that the 2♠ rebid with 4 ♥s is indeed unexpected. I've been trying to pursue the possibility that it ain't necessarily so, but it's clearly time to stop.

 

Not so clear, then.

[mycroft]

It was 10 years ago, and another world, and we were (sort-of) juniors, but I played for many years better major with both over both 2♣ NGF and 2♦ GF Stayman. In context, it was perfectly reasonable. In the context of a 2M rebid by responder being INV, or even F1 and INV, it's also reasonable.

 

Maybe nobody plays any of that any more, but it's not *bad*; other ways are just better/more standard, so more explanations are made of it and more bidding theory work is done with it, making it better.

[bluejak]

Who are these 2♠ bidders who don't know that their methods are very different from standard in most places? The OP isn't one of them. Yes, I can understand inexperienced players who were taught to bid 2♠ with 4-4 will not know that their methods are unusual, but perhaps it would be helpful to limit the discussion to experienced players.

Why? Is not alerting used by and for the benefit of lesser players?

 

Do you know any of these players personally, or are you just speculating?

Sure: some of my partners.

[PeterAlan]

Do you know any of these players personally, or are you just speculating?

Yes, I do - for example, the first person I happened to ask at the club last night. He said "I've played it that way for 30 years", which is exactly the sort of circumstance in which this happens. I asked a few others - a totally unscientific but not specially-selected sample - and there were another newly-formed pair who had decided to play 2♥ together but who had both played 2♠ in their previous partnerships, and 3 other pairs playing 2♥. One said 2NT, and one 2♦ (I'm sure this pair would announce 2♣ as "Extended Stayman" and I would expect them to alert the response).

 

This was a competition night at at club that has considerably more player sessions each year than Young Chelsea. I'm sure that if I were selective, I could find more 2♠ bidders by focusing on those whose methods haven't changed for years. I suspect - speculating - that I could find even more at some other clubs I occasionally play at. And it wouldn't occur to any of these people to alert it as "highly unexpected".

 

By the way, to add to the commonly-read but older books I cited earlier, Iain Macleod's Bridge Is An Easy Game also says to bid 2♠ with both. And it might interest you that even last year's new (7th) edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge still includes the remark "The authorities are divided on the correct rebid for the opener holding both majors", though it qualifies this with "In this treatment, opener must bid 2♥ with both majors" when discussing what it labels as the "weak / modern" treatment of the 2major response, which you would presumably regard as universal practice now.

 

I'm with you in reckoning that 2♥ would be nearly universal in what you might label the modern game, but there are plenty of clubs and people out there where it just isn't. The EBU alerting rules apply just as much in those parts as they do elsewhere, and what you would label "experienced" players are perhaps 10-20% of EBU's total active membership. Those players are also more likely to be attuned to the alert rules, and to be more active alerters. Yes, if I'd played 2♠ against you in the Autumn Congress without alerts, I'd understand it if you got upset through relying on what proved to be an unwarranted assumption - I might even take your side. But don't expect that to apply in much of the club bridge in this country, and don't expect "that's what experienced players would do" to cut much ice.

[pran]

I have documentation (1973) that the correct answer bid to Stayman 2♣ over a 1NT opening bid by a hand holding both major suits is 2♥.

A footnote states that Stayman originally had 2♠ as the correct answer with such a hand, but that this had been abandoned in Europe.

[paua]

I have documentation (1973) that the correct answer bid to Stayman 2♣ over a 1NT opening bid by a hand holding both major suits is 2♥.

A footnote states that Stayman originally had 2♠ as the correct answer with such a hand, but that this had been abandoned in Europe.

 

How can there be a "correct answer" ? This is not mathematics. Players can choose their own methods, which are all valid. A 40-year-old quote about a misnamed convention from 70 years ago in another country is hardly grounds for defining expectations.

[pran]

How can there be a "correct answer" ? This is not mathematics. Players can choose their own methods, which are all valid. A 40-year-old quote about a misnamed convention from 70 years ago in another country is hardly grounds for defining expectations.

"Correct" in the sense that it was how Stayman originally defined his convention, and "correct" in the sense how it was eventually unanimously changed, at least in Europe.

 

Players may certainly choose their own methods, but they should not use an already well defined name for them.

 

Ranik Halle sometimes said when he met players who claimed that their 2♣ opening bid was "Halle's" that it really was not; as originator of that convention he felt justified in claiming knowledge of what "Halle's" was and was not.

[campboy]

We know from old texts that "Stayman" has been consistently used to describe the convention whether 2♣ does or does not promise a 4-card major and whether the response with both majors is 2♥, 2♠, or could be either; it is wrong to say that the name "Stayman" means any of these things rather than any other.

 

For those of us in England, the regulations say that Stayman is to be announced "where it is used in the traditional manner to ask for a four-card major, ie with responses 2♦ with no major, and 2♥ and 2♠ to show that major." Consequently an announcement of "Stayman" is consistent with any of the specific agreements above.

[bluejak]

"Correct" in the sense that it was how Stayman originally defined his convention, and "correct" in the sense how it was eventually unanimously changed, at least in Europe.

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

 

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

 

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

 

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

[pran]

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

 

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

 

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

 

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

According to references I have available Stayman did not invent the convention but he was the one who published it.

My statement on the response when opener has both majors is a direct quotation from a Norwegian very reputed book in 1973.

[Trinidad]

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters

I think it does, given that Stayman was Rapee's partner.

 

One could even argue that Staymans's definition matters even more than Rapee's. After all, if Rapee would use Stayman, it would be Stayman who would be responding. And since this thread is about responses to Stayman, Stayman might know better than Rapee. ;)

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

I think it does, given that Stayman was Rapee's partner.

 

One could even argue that Staymans's definition matters even more than Rapee's. After all, if Rapee would use Stayman, it would be Stayman who would be responding. And since this thread is about responses to Stayman, Stayman might know better than Rapee. ;)

 

Rik

If you are able to contact either one of them, please let me know; and ask them whether their views on the subject have changed, and whether the quality of Bridge is as good as I hope it will be where they are.

[blackshoe]

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

 

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

 

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

 

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

Stayman was the first to publicize the convention. Presumably what he wrote up is what Rapee defined, since they were partners at the time. OTOH, I agree it probably doesn't matter much.

 

In the ACBL, at least, whether a call requires an alert on the grounds it is "highly unusual and unexpected" is supposed to be based on "historical usage" (whatever that means) rather than on "nobody around here plays it that way".

 

I would not say that methods are better standardized in NA than elsewhere. Americans in particular are prone to do things their own way, while claiming what they do is "standard".

[bluejak]

I would not say that methods are better standardized in NA than elsewhere. Americans in particular are prone to do things their own way, while claiming what they do is "standard".

That explains a lot: London area bridge is becoming more Americanised than the rest of the British Isles,so perhaps the views on standard are too. :)