Did I get hosed by the director?

[barmar]

Bergen calls it "crawling Stayman" and so that's what I've always called it.

If Bergen jumped off a roof....? :)

[barmar]

I've read many authors who call 2♣ on xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-x "Garbage Stayman". I've never heard of "Exit Stayman". I think that's your own invention..

Another term I've heard is "Drop dead Stayman".

[richlp]

Thanks for the feedback all .. the ruling seems as clear as possible and had the TD made it this clear on the spot I would not have made a fuss.

 

 

 

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

 

That makes me wonder ... once I failed to alert did he deliberately not ask, to game the system? Lead a club and if it beats the contract, great. But if a spade lead would have beaten it call the TD to get it via ruling. Best of both worlds?

 

I have no idea if this is what was happening, and furthermore if such gamesmanship is unethical or not. It just makes me say hmmmmmm :P

 

"Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades"

 

I'm unlikely to be in this bracket, but count me as one who would never ask.

 

When I ask I get "promises 4S" with the occasional "We'ld have alerted if it didn't." Dummy puts down 8xxx of spades. Partner gets in and successfully decides to play on Spades. Declarer correctly calls the director and points out that my question passed UI that I have spades and that partner had other (less successful) logical alternatives and is prohibited from choosing spades due to the UI.

 

Especially in a high bracket I assume that my opponents will alert clearly alertable calls.

[GreenMan]

If Bergen jumped off a roof....? :)

 

There'd be an opening for a Bulletin columnist! B-)

[aguahombre]

AFAIK, "weak with both majors" is "Crawling Stayman," because the auction may well crawl 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠.

I am not sure it matters, unless we are using names instead of real discussion when getting pard to agree on bidding style. But, my understanding is that:

 

--"Drop Dead" Stayman is the one where we have crap and short clubs.

--"Garbage Stayman" was originally used synonymously with Drop Dead, but now encompasses all Stayman bids with garbage values.

--"Crawling" Stayman is a convention involving follow-ups by responder if opener bids 2D.

[bluejak]

No "Protect yourself" and "SEWOG" rules are effective :(

For example. ordinary players sometimes make serious errors, especially when flustered by opponents' suspected infractions. And SEWOG rulings are often suggested in these fora. In practice, however, SEWOG rulings are rare, because we are unlikely to call the director, just to be humiliated and deprived of much of our redress.

That's very silly. Ordinary players have never heard of SEWoG. Ordinary players just do not call the TD enough but not because of being humiliated, which as you know perfectly well does not happen.

[bluejak]

Interesting assertion. AFAIK, there were two original forms of Stayman, Rapee's and Marx's, and neither of them included this option. I think it was an addition, albeit perhaps a very early one. But I'm from Missouri — show me the evidence. B-)

Marx included a 3♣ rebid as signoff.

 

 

I believe it is the same as everywhere else, a GF+ hand with 5+m4M.

It isn't that as standard here.

[Vampyr]

I guess that is standard. With my regular partner, though, it is a GF+ hand with 5+ (probably 6+) minor, but not necessarily a major at all. (A direct 3m bid over 1N is invitational.) So our 2♣ response certainly doesn't promise a major.

 

Despite this, however, if the Stayman bidder follows up with 2N (or 3N) then the bid does indeed promise (or at least show) 4M, so in the sense in which it is normally used here I would regard our Stayman as "promissary".

 

I am sure you are incorrect and should not write or explain it as such.

[WellSpyder]

I guess that is standard. With my regular partner, though, it is a GF+ hand with 5+ (probably 6+) minor, but not necessarily a major at all. (A direct 3m bid over 1N is invitational.) So our 2♣ response certainly doesn't promise a major.

 

Despite this, however, if the Stayman bidder follows up with 2N (or 3N) then the bid does indeed promise (or at least show) 4M, so in the sense in which it is normally used here I would regard our Stayman as "promissary".

I am sure you are incorrect and should not write or explain it as such.

Thanks for responding to this point, Vampyr. I think in practice I never use the words promissary or non-promissary, and on checking I see our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)", so hopefully we are not misleading anyone.

[paua]

Thanks for responding to this point, Vampyr. I think in practice I never use the words promissary or non-promissary, and on checking I see our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)", so hopefully we are not misleading anyone.

 

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.

[WellSpyder]

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.

Except that in England, where I play, this is a rare exception to the general rule you state. Stayman is announced with the single word "Stayman", provided that opener is always expected to bid 2M with a major or 2♦ without one.

[barmar]

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.

I know that most RAs have that rule when explaining a bid, but I didn't realize this also applied to listing what you play on the convention card.

[aguahombre]

I know that most RAs have that rule when explaining a bid, but I didn't realize this also applied to listing what you play on the convention card.

Did someone suggest it did? Guess I missed a post.

[barmar]

Did someone suggest it did? Guess I missed a post.

You replied to (and quoted) a post that said our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)". I thought that was what you were referring to.

[paua]

You replied to (and quoted) a post that said our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)". I thought that was what you were referring to.

 

That wasn't the entire sentence. It referred initially to what was *said*.

But I'm not really sure we should be writing "Stayman" on a systems card either.

 

rgds

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else. :ph34r:

[aguahombre]

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else. :ph34r:

Yes, but it doesn't change anything with respect to verbal disclosure when asked (no names). Similarly, something in black on the ACBL card might well still be alertable if the way we use it makes it so.

[blackshoe]

Of course.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else. :ph34r:

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

[aguahombre]

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

Yep, that seems to be what that red line is to be used for, resulting in 3 choices for 2c: regular Stayman, Puppet, and "other". People who use Puppet but have different continuations could use that line also.

[blackshoe]

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

 

 

Yep, that seems to be what that red line is to be used for, resulting in 3 choices for 2c: regular Stayman, Puppet, and "other". People who use Puppet but have different continuations could use that line also.

Fair enough, I missed that somehow.

[mgoetze]

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.

What should we say then? Describe what the 2♣ bid shows. Avoid using the word "asks" or "asking". ;)

[aguahombre]

What should we say then? Describe what the 2♣ bid shows. Avoid using the word "asks" or "asking". ;)

Actually "asking about my..." isn't really violating the concept to which you allude, since the explainer won't be broadcasting what she is going to do. But your point is a good one, in general.

[Vampyr]

Actually "asking about my..." isn't really violating the concept to which you allude, since the explainer won't be broadcasting what she is going to do. But your point is a good one, in general.

 

Not such a good one in the opinion of those who feel that this "concept" is absolute bollocks.

[aguahombre]

Not such a good one in the opinion of those who feel that this "concept" is absolute bollocks.

Maybe not. But, clearly Michael understands players should not be disclosing what they are going to do...merely what their partner's call means. Anyone who thinks that idea is bollocks is not thinking.