Did I get hosed by the director?

[blackshoe]

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

yes, and there are so many SEWoG rulings. <_<

[gordontd]

Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims.

On what basis might that ruling be made?

[mgoetze]

On what basis might that ruling be made?

I suspect Nigel is referring to the ACBL Alert Procedures which state,

Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

 

I would say that the fact that it says "have neglected" rather than "may have neglected" makes this inapplicable but as we all know ACBL Regulations are not meant to be used literally.

[nige1]

yes, and there are so many SEWoG rulings. <_<

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.

[nige1]

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

On what basis might that ruling be made?

I tried to explain why -- because of "Protect yourself" regulations -- but, of course, I would be delighted were my conclusion mistaken

[barmar]

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.

I have exactly the opposite opinion.

 

Most players who play 4-way transfers, which necessitate this style of bidding, are fairly experienced. They tend to know which of their bids are alertable.

 

The "protect yourself" clause in the alert procedures is intended for experienced players to protect themselves against the alerting mistakes that novices are likely to make. If you're playing in a high bracket, you don't expect to be playing against many novices, so this expectation is not usually applicable.

 

You can't have it both ways: if it's a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know, then it's also a high enough bracket that you should alert properly.

[Phil]

 

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.

 

 

Of course you can say the same thing about dummy's deportment.

 

Dummy is required to provide the alert that declarer didn't make when the auction is over. If the dummy is looking at, say, ♠xx or xxx, you might not make the post-alert, in fears of getting a spade lead. And if the director rolls it back to 3N going down, you haven't lost a thing.

[blackshoe]

Dummy is required to provide the alert that declarer didn't make when the auction is over. If the dummy is looking at, say, ♠xx or xxx, you might not make the post-alert, in fears of getting a spade lead. And if the director rolls it back to 3N going down, you haven't lost a thing.

Law 20F5{b}: The player [dummy in this case - ER] must [emphasis mine - ER] call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Introduction to the laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (es- tablishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).

Dummy loses however many match points are in the PP he gets. If dummy is a clueless newbie, that might be zero, but if he has any experience at all, it will be more than zero.

[Vampyr]

Maybe he wanted to avoid giving his partner UI that might prevent him from switching to spades later on?

 

Right. I find it slightly depressing that this does not appear to be a problem by a player in a "high-enough bracket". I guess defending this way makes it a lot easier to advance to the higher brackets.

[Zelandakh]

Where I come from, 2♣ itself is alertable if it does not promise a 4-card major. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Eeeeps, I just checked the alert regs and you are correct. I guess this means that my partner and I should alert our Stayman since in theory Responder could have a 5 card minor and no 4 card major (we are playing SA-like rather than my method) although it has not actually happened yet. Out of interest, what is the standard meaning for Stayman followed by bidding 3m in Germany? I suspect that many of the other pairs playing Stayman should theoretically be alerting their 2♣ response too!

 

As for it being reasonable, I am skeptical. Every original form of Stayman included a weak take-out of clubs. Many popular versions include slammy hands with a minor. And what if I decide to bid 2♣ with a weak 3=3=5=2 hand? On the other hand, there is only one version where 2♣ absolutely promises a 4 card major and this is extremely rarely played in my experience.

[blackshoe]

Every original form of Stayman included a weak take-out of clubs.

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-)

[pran]

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-)

I don't know if it was the "original" Stayman when I learned it in the late forties, but the signoff bids in minor after 1NT opening was then

(1NT - 2♣ - 2?? - ) 3♣/♦

[blackshoe]

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

[mgoetze]

Out of interest, what is the standard meaning for Stayman followed by bidding 3m in Germany?

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

[barmar]

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

That usually has at least one 4-card major, although I suppose one could do it with 3=3=6=1 as well (instead of transfering to 3♦).

[WellSpyder]

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

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".

[ArtK78]

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

If you are planning to pass any response to Stayman, that is not Garbage Stayman, that is tactics.

 

Garbage Stayman is where any rebid at the 2 level over opener's response to Stayman is to play, i.e., 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥*. In old-fashioned Stayman (prior to transfer bids), a 2M rebid over 2♦ would be showing 5 cards in the bid suit and invitational values, and it would not say anything about the holding in the other major. In Garbage Stayman, a 2♥ rebid shows at least 4 hearts and at least 4 spades, with hearts equal or longer, and less than invitational values; and a 2♠ rebid would show at least 4 hearts, at least 5 spades, longer spades than hearts and less than invitational values.

 

Therefore, in Garbage Stayman, any 2M rebid by responder is to play.

[barmar]

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

[paua]

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

 

Two types of Weak or Garbage Stayman.

1. Drop-Dead Stayman where you intend passing any response.

2. Crawling or Creeping Stayman, where you pass a major but bid a 5cM over 2D, to play.

[GreenMan]

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

 

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

[Zelandakh]

When I wrote "a weak take-out of clubs" I was meaning a weak hand with long clubs; but we have had that thread here already so I can understand the confusion. On the nomenclature, when Responder bids Stayman intending to pass any response then I always refer to this as Exit Stayman. I also am fond of the term Crawling Stayman although technically this convention also includes the related "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid. Certainly, if I do use the term Garbage Stayman I always mean "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = weak with both majors" and I do not think it should ever be used for Exit Stayman, even though this is often seen/heard.

 

Similarly, once I have seen my partner bid 2♣ a few times with 3=3=5=2, 3=3=6=1, or whatever, do I not have an implicit understanding that this is acceptable? And if that is the case then 2♣ is now alertable under the DBV rules, no? Similarly, say I have a slammy hand with a 5 card minor and no 4 card major. How is this bid in standard German methods (Forum D or whatever)? For example, I am looking at Dr Kaiser's online summary and it seems that 1NT - 2♣; 2NT - 3m would be natural and forcing. If that is correct then I cannot see any way for an enterprising Responder to get into trouble by using Stayman on such a hand. How many times does it have to be done before you have a CPU, regardless of what the system notes say?

 

Notice that sequence too. It seems to be very popular in Germany to play a 2NT response to Stayman as showing both majors. To my mind this is no longer normal Stayman at all and I would like to know about it since it affects the hands that Responder can hold. In other words, it seems like I need to ask about an unalerted 2♣ response but not about an alerted one most of the time. This seems completey daft to me, and not for the first time. The DBV regs certainly take some getting used to!

[Fluffy]

I haven't played much offline bridge in the last 20 years, so the current ACBL alert standards are a bit foreign to me. Nevertheless I have been able to fake my way through and I try to be as ethical as possible. Then this came up yesterday in a regional knockout match:

 

Me Partner

1NT 2C

2H 2NT

3NT P

 

With the opps passing, we had this vanilla auction, a club was led, and we made 4. After the hand the opponents claimed that they should have been alerted that partner might not have 4 spades and if they had, a spade lead would have resulted in down 2. The director agreed and changed the result from +630 to -200. She claimed that because we play 4 way transfers we must alert 2NT on this auction.

 

My position: since the day I learned bridge, standard stayman stipulates that with 8-9 points and 4 spades, you bid 2S over 2H on the above auction. 2NT categorically denies 4S in standard stayman, which is what we play. At least that's how I learned it. 4way transfers doesn't have anything to do with it because 2S is a standard bid with or without 4way transfers. Therefore responder can never have 4 spades on this auction.

 

I wasn't trying to hide info, I just thought this was normal bidding. It never even occurred to me that I would have to alert my opponents to this. Is it my fault the opponents don't know standard bidding and failed to ask?

 

Thanks for any feedback. I was going to appeal this decision, but the margin of victory made this swing irrelevant so we dropped it. However I'd very much like to hear some educated opinions on the subject.

 

Many people have responded about legality, so all I cannsay is this: take a look at your LHO's hand, look at his spades and his clubs and think yourself: why didn't this guy lead a spade when it is so obvious?

[blackshoe]

When I wrote "a weak take-out of clubs" I was meaning a weak hand with long clubs; but we have had that thread here already so I can understand the confusion. On the nomenclature, when Responder bids Stayman intending to pass any response then I always refer to this as Exit Stayman. I also am fond of the term Crawling Stayman although technically this convention also includes the related "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid. Certainly, if I do use the term Garbage Stayman I always mean "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = weak with both majors" and I do not think it should ever be used for Exit Stayman, even though this is often seen/heard.

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.

 

I've also never heard of your "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid.

 

I don't know about German alerting regs, but in the ACBL Alert Procedure, simply naming a convention is specified to be insufficient disclosure: "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." Since the regulation uses the word "must", failure to give the full explanation required, or simply naming the convention, is "a serious matter indeed" and IMO almost always rates a PP (possibly a warning, for a first offense). In addition, it should result in a ruling on the basis of MI.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

I think Zelandakh is attempting to make a distinction between the form of Stayman that is weak with both majors and that which is weak and three-suited. I think that they are often just the same thing; normally the former but sometimes responder passes 2♦.

[blackshoe]

I think Zelandakh is attempting to make a distinction between the form of Stayman that is weak with both majors and that which is weak and three-suited. I think that they are often just the same thing; normally the former but sometimes responder passes 2♦.

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