"Stayman Alternative"

[Stefan_O]

Precisely. I recall someone writing that the 3NT response to 2NT showing 5♠-4♥ is known as the beer convention in Holland for just this reason.

 

Some players have solved this, for example, by staring into the ceiling with open mouth for a minute, then burying their face in their hands before placing such bid, to alert pd something is going on.

 

They have lower beer accounts.

May have other issues, though.

[kenberg]

I bid 2♣ instead of 3♣.

 

This was in response to: If 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one major, what does responder do when holding both majors. And of course this is exactly right. But something came to mind.

 

Suppose I am on lead, the auction has gone 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. Suppose I am considering a lead from my four card major. I might naively think that while dummy is about to come down with a four card major, maybe I should lead my own major anyway, hoping that dummy's major will be the other major. No, maybe not. If Lho has game forcing values and only one major, he would have, or at least might have, started with 3C. Even if 4-2 in the majors he might have done so, taking advantage of being able to bid 1NT-3C-3D-3M, showing the OM w/o causing opener to divulge whether he does or does not have four cards in M. All in all, it seems dummy is coming down with four cards in both majors, so perhaps the minor suit lead would be better if I have, say, four hearts and four diamonds of more or less equal strength. You know that declarer has at least seven cards in the minors and so at least one is at least four cards. But if you know dummy has four cards in both majors then...

 

This seems right, but it had not occurred to me before reading this thread.

[Stefan_O]

This was in response to: If 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one major, what does responder do when holding both majors. And of course this is exactly right. But something came to mind.

 

Suppose I am on lead, the auction has gone 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. Suppose I am considering a lead from my four card major. I might naively think that while dummy is about to come down with a four card major, maybe I should lead my own major anyway, hoping that dummy's major will be the other major. No, maybe not. If Lho has game forcing values and only one major, he would have, or at least might have, started with 3C. Even if 4-2 in the majors he might have done so, taking advantage of being able to bid 1NT-3C-3D-3M, showing the OM w/o causing opener to divulge whether he does or does not have four cards in M. All in all, it seems dummy is coming down with four cards in both majors, so perhaps the minor suit lead would be better if I have, say, four hearts and four diamonds of more or less equal strength. You know that declarer has at least seven cards in the minors and so at least one is at least four cards. But if you know dummy has four cards in both majors then...

 

This seems right, but it had not occurred to me before reading this thread.

 

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.

Leading your best minor, you might in the most favorable case, hit declarer's minor doubleton, where they likely have 2-2 or 3-2.

Such weakness can never be found with a major lead on this auction.

[kenberg]

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.

Leading your best minor, you might in the most favorable case, hit declarer's minor doubleton, where they likely have 2-2 or 3-2.

Such weakness can never be found with a major lead on this auction.

 

Well, not quite. You mean dummy not declarer will have the minor doubleton, but he won't be 2-2 in the minors. With 5/4=2=2 he would Smolen over 2D. But he might well be, more often than not, 3-2 in the minors.

 

It's possible that declarer is 5/4 in the minors, this can happen, but 2-2 and 5/4 is less common than 3/2 or 3/3 in the majors and a three card minor.

 

I may try this out a bit. I am far to lazy to do a simulation, for me it would take a lot of effort to do a well designed one, but it seems logical. The next time I hear 1NT-2C-2D-3NT I am going to check their card before I lead to see if 3C would have been Puppet. If so. I would place a decent bet that dummy will hit with 4-4 in the majors.

[Stefan_O]

Well, not quite. You mean dummy not declarer will have the minor doubleton, but he won't be 2-2 in the minors. With 5/4=2=2 he would Smolen over 2D. But he might well be, more often than not, 3-2 in the minors.

 

It's possible that declarer is 5/4 in the minors, this can happen, but 2-2 and 5/4 is less common than 3/2 or 3/3 in the majors and a three card minor.

 

I may try this out a bit. I am far to lazy to do a simulation, for me it would take a lot of effort to do a well designed one, but it seems logical. The next time I hear 1NT-2C-2D-3NT I am going to check their card before I lead to see if 3C would have been Puppet. If so. I would place a decent bet that dummy will hit with 4-4 in the majors.

 

I meant that declarer (in most favourable case) may be 5-2 or 2-5 in the minors, and you hit his doubleton.

Dummy likely has 2 or 3 in the same suit (since 4441 and 4450 are low % patterns)

 

If you lead a major they will always have at least 4-2 in the suit.

[Stefan_O]

Leading a minor, you may also find declarer with 3 and dummy with 2 of course, which is probably a decent start, too.

So, yes, I think, overall, a best-minor lead is usually the better chance after this auction

(if you are looking for their weak spot, and not prefer to go entirely passive, of course)

[Zelandakh]

Yes Ken, that is indeed an interesting inference.

It is more than an interesting inference, it is something that I feel should be alerted. For 3NT to promise both majors here qualifies as unusual and I find it difficult to understand how any ethical bridge player could argue otherwise.

[Stefan_O]

I agree. Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted, if you also have the 3C puppet option available.

[Zelandakh]

I agree. Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted, if you also have the 3C puppet option available.

To what end? "Partner might have 0, 1 or 2 4 card majors but will not have exactly 1 major in a balanced, game-forcing hand"? Is that useful information? It is the 3NT rebid that actually conveys the unusual information in this sequence.

[mgoetze]

Would also suggest that 2C should be alerted

I would suggest you consult the regulations of the jurisdiction you are playing in, rather than making up your own alert rules.

[kenberg]

Whether or not call is alertable is certainly up to the people in charge. It is still posssible to have an opinion as to whether or not it should be alertable.

 

As for 2C, I think not. Some, actually many, people have an artificial meaning for 1NT-2NT and many, not all, of those then start an invitational hand with 2C whether or not they have a four card major (there are other methods, eg playing that 1NT-2S either shows clubs or invitational balanced). I believe that the 1NT-2C is not, in acbl land, alertable. But 1NT-2C-2D-2NT now gets an alert (may not have a major) as does 1NT-2C-2H-2NT (denies four spades) and 1NT-2C-2H-2S (shows four spades with invitational values, alertable since it is hardly obvious the length is only four). And 1NT-2C-2S-2NT (alertable as might or might not have four hearts). I am no expert on the laws, but I believe this is the acbl way. The 2C is not alertable but later calls are alerted to clarify.

 

Now 1NT-2C-2D-3NT has generally been thought to be non-alertable, the idea being that the 3NT call showed that the problem with the 2NT call being unavailable as an invite clearly did not arise on this hand, so the defense can trust that dummy will hit with at least one four card major. Now it would seem to be a consistent philosophy to say that, if the auction 1NT-2C-2D-3NT pretty much guarantees that dummy will hit woth both maors, then this gets an alert just as 1NT-2C-2H-2NT gets an alert if it denies four spades. But I don't think, at present, this is the way that it is.

 

This problem of secondary inference from the non-use of a convention often arises. Playing in the nationals last summer there was an auction where I am on lead against 3NT after 1H has been opened on my right. They then had some sort of relay auction that I forget the details of. Before leading, I checked their card and quietly noted that they were playing Flannery. Rho had not shown extra values nor a sixth heart. I defended on the assumption that Rho held at most three spades. Had partner made the same inference, we at least might have beaten the contract. Such things arise often.

 

I have only recently been playing that 1NT-3C is Puppet. With one partner we agree that the Puppeteer will have at most one four card major, with the other we do not have this agreement although I can't see why someone with both majors would not just bid 2C so it might come to the same thing. Even if 3C could in fact be with two four card majors, the odds still favor 1NT-2C-2D-3NT as implying both majors since, if responder is 4-3 in the majors he might well have Puppeted.

 

My philosophy is to try hard to be a straight arrow about divulging methods but I also try to avoid getting bogged down in legalities. I look to the director/rules to tell me what to do and then I try to follow the sometimes confusing rules. I had not, as I said, given a moment's thought to either the available inference or the alertability of 1NT-2C-2D-3NT before this thread came up. I will do whatever I am told when we have this auction, but I will start checking their card to see if 3C would have been Puppet when they have this auction.

[Zelandakh]

I think this was an excellent spot from you Ken and something that many pairs will not have thought about at all. It is a shame that Fred, Mike and Justin are not posting any more - it would be interesting to know how this is treated in high level events when it comes up. (OK, that is not the only reason it is a shame! ;) )

[Stefan_O]

I would suggest you consult the regulations of the jurisdiction you are playing in, rather than making up your own alert rules.

 

After checking with my lawyer --- yes, I agree --- that would be a really awesome suggestion B-)

[Stefan_O]

According to

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/AlertChart.pdf

 

2C

not alertable, since it's "Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major".

 

But

1NT-2C("puppet-excluded stayman")-2D-3NT("probably 4-4 majors")

would than be alertable(?), falling under "Other conventional responses"... or? ... what means "conventional" exactly? .... I just want to play in the contract I just bid... :blink:

 

Literally speaking, I also dont think it falls under "Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which guarantee a longer suit than that named" when 3NT shows 4-4 majors (NT not being a "suit") .... or... ?

 

Hmmm.... need to call my lawyer again... :unsure:

[Stefan_O]

To what end? "Partner might have 0, 1 or 2 4 card majors but will not have exactly 1 major in a balanced, game-forcing hand"? Is that useful information?

 

Irrelevant question -- dont make up your own rules -- just follow the regulations B-)

[kenberg]

According to

http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf

 

 

I had not seen this handy chart before. Of particular interest to me: For "Responses to NT Openings...", under "Not Alertable", we find:

 

"Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major"

Whew. Thus 2NT-3C (Puppet) is not alertable as I have always believed it should not be. Whether or not the acbl has always agreed I am not sure, I believe it has not, but from experience I am absolutely certain that directors have been inconsistent on this.

After 2NT-3C it is almost impossible to imagine a defender choosing one course of action if 3C is Puppet Stayman but a different course of action if it is standard Staymn. But it is not at all impossible to imagine the 3C bidder has forgotten that they are playing Puppet until the alert helpfully reminds him that they are, clarifying the upcoming response. Of course after 2NT-3C-3D (or 3H or 3S or 3NT) an alert is appropriate if it is Puppet. But if, say, 3D is alerted as showing at least one major and the 3D was intended as denying a major this will be clear, and can be sorted out.

 

This has come up repeatedly and I am really pleased to have this easy to read reference. Thank you.

[Stefan_O]

"Next higher level of clubs asking for a four-card or longer major"

 

Whew. Thus 2NT-3C (Puppet) is not alertable as I have always believed it should not be.

 

Hi Ken,

 

Nice you liked the chart :)

And -- you just might be right -- but (sorry if I somewhat disappoint you here...)

 

I would say this statement is actually ambiguous...

 

The part:

"...asking for a four-card or longer major"

-- if I really dig into it -- it might actually be understood as:

 

"... responder asking for a major that is at least 4-cards long"

 

or might be understood as:

 

"... responder asking for a 4-card major, or responder asking for a major of 5-cards" (I assume we can ignore 6+suits here)

 

You see what I mean?

 

It seems you now betted on the second meaning, but is that really what they meant?

 

If this is the reference they are using, I can understand why directors have been inconsistent! B-)

[kenberg]

I have re-written this. Same idea, but perhaps clearer, plus I have a re-think added.

 

 

Both standard Stayman and Puppet ask for a four card or longer major. The responses are different. In standard a response of 3H would simply shows four or possibly five hearts, in Puppet a response of 3H shows five, a response of 3D shows possession of at least one four card major. So in both cases the question is "Do you have a major with four or more cards in it and the response answers that question. The responses in Puppet are different, so these Puppet responses need an alert. But the question is the same: Do you have four or more cards in at least one major?

 

So there seems to be no reason to alert the question, and the chart is pretty clear that the question is not alertable.Responses that differ from standard Stayman are alertable. If for some reason the acbl wantedt the question alerted when the response structure is more detailed, then I would hope they would have said so. But I see no reason for alerting the same question simply because the response structure is different.

 

Ok. I can think of a counter-argument. If 2NT-3C is standard Staymn then the 3C bidder surely has at least one four card major (If the auction oges 2NT-3C(standard0-3H-3NT, opener with four spades will now bid four spades trusting that responder, who does not have hearts, must have spades). Otoh, playing Puppet, the 3C bidder need not have a four card major, the structure allows him the freedom to still call 3C.

 

Perhaps this should be clarified after the auction but I doubt it is reason for the 3C to be alerted as Puppet. This would be analogous to alerting, for those that play it this way, that 1NT-2C-2S-2NT might not be on four hearts in responder's hand. The alert is later, the 2C is not alerted. At any rate, it seems clear that the chart says that the Puppet 2NT-3C is not alertable.

[Stefan_O]

Both standard Stayman and Puppet ask for a four card or longer major.

 

Well, I wont repeat it anymore than this -- I hope... :)

... but that actually is ambiguous.

 

Another person might claim that

"Yes, Stayman asks for a four card or longer major"

while

"No, Puppet asks for a five card major only." (thus, does not ask for "a four card or longer major")

 

And you would both be right, depending on how you resolve the ambiguity.

 

Human (so called "natural") language is a lot more ambiguous than most people realize.

 

This is stuff that -mostly- only people like linguists, lawyers, computer-programmers -muggins ;)-

that need to understand instructions very exactly care about.

 

Unfortunately, the more the Bridge-authorities try to regulate-regulate-regulate everything -- which they now a days do -- they will dig themself into this same untasty legal-like sewage that lawyers routinely make a living of.

 

From what I understand by reading about it, ACBL for example, is now slowly -or not so slowly- creating a horrible mess with this.

 

I mean... who would think they could go wrong with such a "simple thing" like giving a workable definition of Stayman :blink: :D (which I would guess was their intention, but not 100% sure, since it ended up ambiguous...)

[kenberg]

I may be, gasp, wrong here. I took the highly clever step of looking on the acbl cc today and lo and behold, Puppet is in red.This is on the cc that I used as a scorecard at the club today. On the other hand, it is black on the cc I download. There are plenty of things in red on the cc I download, but not Puppet. But maybe that cc is not acbl approved. It is the one I usually look at.

 

[Added in later: Oops doubled. I was just on the acbl site and went to

http://web2.acbl.org...ventionCard.pdf

Puppet is in black!

I will do whatever they want me to do, but if they could make it clear what that is, it would be nice.]

 

 

 

 

I may write to the ruling the game column of the Bulletin. I don't care that much which way oit is, non-alertable seems right to me but I can live with alertable.

 

Today we had 1NT-3C(Puppet by pard, I did not alert)-3H(alerted, nobody asked) -4H. If I did wrong, I want to know. [Another edit: Yes, as Adam notes, this is clearly wrong. 1NT-3C(Puppet) is certainly alertable. I knoew thiai, I just erred. I imagine it is alertable if the 3C bid is anything other than clubs. This is totally different from 2NT-3C which, I now can say after Adam's post, is not alertable even if it is Puppet. I imagine it is alertable if it is anything other than some form of Stayman. ]

Last week a a player asked my advice on whether Puppet is alertable or not and I said it wasn't but the responses were. It's even more important to me to get back to her if I am wrong about this.

 

 

I do think that if 2NT-3C (Puppet) is alertable then the chart you provided could be written more clearly, but that's their problem i just want to know what the powers that be stipulate.

[Stefan_O]

"... It's Red! ... It's Black! ... Red! ... No, it's Black!"

 

HA-HA, what a mess!! :D

 

 

I may write to the ruling the game column of the Bulletin.

 

Yes, seems very appropriate :)

Would love to hear the outcome of that!

[awm]

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough. It used to be that puppet stayman was alertable, but people pointed out that this helps responder know the meaning of opener's response, and very rarely makes a difference to the defending side. So they changed it, and now only the opener's response to puppet is alertable.

 

Of course, this only applies to 1NT-2♣ and 2NT-3♣; the usage of 1NT-3♣ as puppet remains an alert.

[kenberg]

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough. It used to be that puppet stayman was alertable, but people pointed out that this helps responder know the meaning of opener's response, and very rarely makes a difference to the defending side. So they changed it, and now only the opener's response to puppet is alertable.

 

Of course, this only applies to 1NT-2♣ and 2NT-3♣; the usage of 1NT-3♣ as puppet remains an alert.

 

Last sentence first: Yes. I above speak of not alerting the 1NT-3C. A clear error on my part, fortunately doing no harm on that deal. I corrected my comment.

 

Back to the main point: I am glad to hear it. The argument they accepted "three r four years ago" is the argument I made above and have been making for twenty plus years. I think at least some directors have always seen it this way.

 

I read the cited alert chart as saying that 2NT-3C is not alertable, but I do understand Stefan's argument.

 

This discussion of alertability began after I observed that if 1NT-3C is Puppet with at most one four card major, so that 3D then neither confirms nor denies a major,then 1NT-2C-2D-3NT is very apt to be on 4-4 in the majors.Even with a 4-2 responder would be apt to Puppet because he can check for the fit w/o opener revealing whether he has a four card major. I can see the logic of alerting the 3NT and explaining this inference, but as far as I know this is not required. I am ok with that, but I do think it is a gap.

 

Incidentally at http://web2.acbl.org...-2004-11-01.pdf

we see instructions about filling out the cc. We also find:

 

Puppet Stayman Many pairs use a 3C response to a 2NT opening as Stayman, asking if opener has a four-card major. A popular variation is to play puppet Stayman, wherein the 3C response asks if opener has a four- or five-card major.The advantage to this method is that it allows opener to open 2NT even if the hand contains a five-card major without worrying about missing a possible 5–3 major-suit trump fit.If you play puppet Stayman, check the RED box and Alert the opponents.

Many of us wish to do what is correct. But also, many of us do not read the minutes of the acbl board meetings. Maybe they could put a little more effort into clarity? When the channge was mad three or four years ago did it not cross someone's mind to change the information that is provided on their website?

[Stefan_O]

This was changed three or four years ago I think; you can probably find it in the board of directors minutes if you look hard enough.

 

Seems, then --from what I read here and elsewhere-- they are lacking an efficient way of making their conclusions/whims known :huh:

 

Are they expecting all players to regularly "deep-google"

to see what could the mighty powers in their ivory-towers have come up with this month, you think? B-)

[kenberg]

Seems, then --from what I read here and elsewhere-- they are lacking an efficient way of making their conclusions known :)

 

Are they expecting all players to regularly "deep-google"

to see what could the mighty powers in their ivory-towers have decided this month, you think?

 

This could be a long discussion! And not just about bridge. I am in generally good health but a couple of years ago I needed to understand some Medicare rules on an issue, so I called Medicare. Totally hopeless. I, and I expect you, could make a long list of such things. My wife signed up for an exercise and nutrition course and had to fill out a questionnaire. Question: Do you eat more when you are out with friends or do you eat more when you are by yourself. Possible answers: Often, sometimes rarely, never.

 

Anyway, I think many times rules are put forth that defy the best intentions of those who would like to follow the rules.

 

Probably I wander too far from the OP, thus breaking a rule. Mea culpa.

 

Best wishes.

Ken