Stayman Alert on Not

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

 

US -- ACBL

 

I use 4 suit transfers and have been told that if responder had bid

2 clubs, over my 1NT opener, that after the bidding and before the

opening lead opener has to state that "responder may or may not have

a four card major".

 

Other players have said that this isn't always required.

 

What exactly are the alert rules regarding the use of Stayman without

a 4+ card major? I read the alert rules chart and can't quite figure

out if there are any sequences where it wouldn't have to be alerted.

 

Jerryd

[sfi]

That depends on your jurisdiction. In Australia, for instance, a 2C response to an opening 1NT bid is never alertable. Other places have different rules.

[Cyberyeti]

In the UK it's just stayman if it has the standard responses, it asks, it doesn't say anything about your hand and you don't alert subsequent bids that may or may not have 4M.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

I guess I should have stated that I play in the US under ACBL rules.

 

Jerryd

[sacto123]

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

 

Partnerships do not need to Alert their Stayman bids in order to differentiate between

those that promise a four-card major and those that don’t. Opponents may assume that

an immediate bid of clubs over a natural notrump opening is conventional, asking

opener to bid a four-card major, with no guarantee that responder has a four-card major

suit.

However, when it becomes evident that the Stayman bidder either does not have or

tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time.

[blackshoe]

"Does not have or tends not to have" Interesting. Consider some possible auctions:

 

1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT. Playing four suit transfers, 2NT does not deny a four card major. Responder might have one (or two) or he might not. Does this qualify as "tends not to have". Apparently it must, since I'm told we have to alert this 2NT. But I don't buy it, unless the words "tends not to have" mean something other than my dictionary tells me they mean.

 

1NT-2♣-2♥-2NT. Okay. In the methods with which I'm familiar, 2NT here denies 4♠, and if responder had four hearts and an invitational hand he'd raise hearts. So I agree this 2NT should be alerted.

 

1NT-2♣-2♠-2NT. Opener has denied four hearts. Responder hasn't. Still, he might not have them. Same objection as in the first sequence.

 

I wonder, as I often do reading ACBL regulations, why they don't just say what they mean. If they mean "might not have a four card major" whyinhell don't they just say so?

[johnu]

I wonder, as I often do reading ACBL regulations, why they don't just say what they mean. If they mean "might not have a four card major" whyinhell don't they just say so?

 

A case of the procedures having different language than the alert chart. The alert chart says:

 

"Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which do not promise a major". I think it's clear from the alert chart that you need an alert for all 3 of your sample Stayman sequences.

[blackshoe]

Well, last time I asked which takes precedence I was told "neither - they're co-equal." "Even if they say different things?" says I. "They're not supposed to do that" says them.

 

Uh, huh.

[pescetom]

A case of the procedures having different language than the alert chart. The alert chart says:

 

"Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which do not promise a major". I think it's clear from the alert chart that you need an alert for all 3 of your sample Stayman sequences.

 

Still seems perversely illogical to me.

I don't need to alert 2♣ after 1NT when this bid is artificial and does not promise clubs, but I do need to alert 2NT after 1NT-2♣-2♥ when this bid is natural denying spades? :blink:

[weejonnie]

In the UK it's just stayman if it has the standard responses, it asks, it doesn't say anything about your hand and you don't alert subsequent bids that may or may not have 4M.

Actually not quite correct - But the exception is pretty rare.(EBU Blue Book 2017)

 

A Stayman 2♣ bid is announced, but only in response to a natural 1NT opening where there has been no intervention; and only where it is used to ask for a four card major. Opener says “Stayman”. After such a 2♣ response a standard 2♦ rebid by opener is not alerted. Unusual replies such as the opener bidding 2NT or higher or 2♠ showing spades but not denying hearts should be alerted. Stayman is announced whether or not it shows a four card major.

 

Simple rules for announcing

 

1) Never announce your own bids

2) When the auction is competitive no bids are announced.

3) Only a player's first bid will ever be announced.

[barmar]

Still seems perversely illogical to me.

I don't need to alert 2♣ after 1NT when this bid is artificial and does not promise clubs, but I do need to alert 2NT after 1NT-2♣-2♥ when this bid is natural denying spades? :blink:

In ACBL, alerts aren't based on natural vs. artificial, they're based on whether the call shows something the opponents are unlikely to expect. So we don't alert 3♣ when it's Stayman because nearly everyone plays that.

 

Traditionally you only used Stayman when you had at least one 4-card major, and the opponents are entitled to assume you're using Stayman in the "normal" way. So for most players, that sequence shows an invitational hand with 4 spades and <4 hearts. You alert the 2NT bid because it doesn't fit that description.

 

EBU used to have a simple "Alert anything that's artificial" rule, they replaced it with rules more like ACBL's (but less vaguely written).

[weejonnie]

In ACBL, alerts aren't based on natural vs. artificial, they're based on whether the call shows something the opponents are unlikely to expect. So we don't alert 3♣ when it's Stayman because nearly everyone plays that.

 

Traditionally you only used Stayman when you had at least one 4-card major, and the opponents are entitled to assume you're using Stayman in the "normal" way. So for most players, that sequence shows an invitational hand with 4 spades and <4 hearts. You alert the 2NT bid because it doesn't fit that description.

 

EBU used to have a simple "Alert anything that's artificial" rule, they replaced it with rules more like ACBL's (but less vaguely written).

 

I would beg to differ - the EBU's rules are basically anything that isn't natural - thus you would alert 2♣ over 1♣ and then explain (if asked). In the ACBL you would not alert because it is agreed that the bid is conventional - however to find out WHICH suit(s) it shows you have to ask. You can pick up some good scores by not having 1♣ - 2♣ as showing the majors.

[pescetom]

In ACBL, alerts aren't based on natural vs. artificial, they're based on whether the call shows something the opponents are unlikely to expect. So we don't alert 3♣ when it's Stayman because nearly everyone plays that.

 

Traditionally you only used Stayman when you had at least one 4-card major, and the opponents are entitled to assume you're using Stayman in the "normal" way. So for most players, that sequence shows an invitational hand with 4 spades and <4 hearts. You alert the 2NT bid because it doesn't fit that description.

 

EBU used to have a simple "Alert anything that's artificial" rule, they replaced it with rules more like ACBL's (but less vaguely written).

 

FIGB still have a simple "Alert anything that's artificial" rule, that's what I'm used to - simple but effective. I can see the case for not alerting the most popular conventions, although it could all so easily become an arbitrary and conservative mess.

In this case, it seems to me that the ACBL regulation is impractical and also endorses a rather antiquated concept of Stayman. I don't remember ever playing a version where I needed a 4-card major to bid it, as I was taught to use 2NT as transfer to diamonds and so all invitational hands must transit through Stayman. If the lack of a 4-card major is considered highly unusual, then surely the partner agreement that foresees this possibility should be alerted at the time of the 2♣ bid, rather than waiting until it is evident (to all) that it has actually happened? And a 2♣ that enquires for 5-card majors needs an alert? A simple announcement of the meaning of the reply to 2♣ ("has no 4-card major", "has 4-card hearts, may have 4-card spades", "has no 5-card or 4-card major" etc) looks like a cleaner and more flexible solution.

[barmar]

I would beg to differ - the EBU's rules are basically anything that isn't natural

Sorry, I was not quite right. EBU made the most common artificial bids (Stayman, transfers) announceable, they didn't go all the way to being silent about them as we do in ACBL.

 

But they don't require an alert for the artificial 2♦ rebid by opener after Stayman.

[TylerE]

When I've played 4 suit transfers, which is usual, the only sequence I've ever alerted is exactly 1N-2♣-2♦-2NT. I have never had any issue or complaint about this from either opponents or TDs.

[barmar]

In ACBL, 2NT in all these sequences should be alerted if you play 4-suit transfers and have to go through Stayman to invite with 2NT.

 

1N-2♣-2♦-2NT - explain "invitational, might not have a 4-card major"

1N-2♣-2♥-2NT - explain "invitational, denies a 4-card major" (assuming responder would have bid 2♠ instead of 2NT with an invitational hand with 4 spades, otherwise the same as above)

1N-2♣-2♠-2NT - explain "invitational, denies 4 spades, might not have 4 hearts"

[blackshoe]

Seems a good reason to play 2!S as a range inquiry, perhaps with additional meanings (e.g. long clubs).

[barmar]

Seems a good reason to play 2♠ as a range inquiry, perhaps with additional meanings (e.g. long clubs).

Yeah, I've started playing that in some partnerships.

[pescetom]

I wonder, as I often do reading ACBL regulations, why they don't just say what they mean. If they mean "might not have a four card major" whyinhell don't they just say so?

 

That's a problem with any regulations, of course.

The FIGB regulations say that 1NT does not need alert if the opener "proposes" to play in NT, whatever the hand shape. What they really mean is "prepared" (or at least "willing") to play in NT, which I could honestly say about all my NT openings. But as it is written this means I can open without alert a 1NT containing a singleton Ace but not a 1NT containing a 5-card major. One could even argue that if 1NT really "proposed" to play in NT then Stayman would not exist at all.

[WellSpyder]

One could even argue that if 1NT really "proposed" to play in NT then Stayman would not exist at all.

Or one could argue that any non-forcing 1NT bid "proposed" to play in NT....

[pescetom]

Or one could argue that any non-forcing 1NT bid "proposed" to play in NT....

 

That is implicitly the assumption of the regulations I cited. But would you buy that argument?

Proposal = a plan or suggestion.

Anyone who makes a non-forcing 1NT bid is prepared to play in NT, but that does not mean he suggests or plans to do so.

Quite often he is hoping (or at least willing) to play in a suit.

[barmar]

Any non-forcing bid is essentially a proposal to play in that contract, isn't it? That doesn't necessarily mean you think it's the best contract for the partnership, that depends on how much you know about partner's hand at that point in the auction.

[lamford]

Any non-forcing bid is essentially a proposal to play in that contract, isn't it? That doesn't necessarily mean you think it's the best contract for the partnership, that depends on how much you know about partner's hand at that point in the auction.

A non-forcing response of 2♦ to 2♣, where the latter is either strong or a weak two in diamonds, I believe requires an alert even though it is a proposal to play in that contract. Is that not the same worldwide? If not, I will take it up with all partners as oppo rarely ask about an alerted 2♣ and will just assume we forgot to alert 2♦.

[barmar]

A non-forcing response of 2♦ to 2♣, where the latter is either strong or a weak two in diamonds, I believe requires an alert even though it is a proposal to play in that contract. Is that not the same worldwide?

Are there jurisdictions where that meaning of 2♣ is allowed in the first place?

 

If so, 2♦ would be a kind of "pass or correct", and I think these are generally alerted. Where did you get the idea that it shouldn't? The FIGB regulation that was quoted was about not alerting 1NT bids that propose to play in NT, not all bids that propose to play in the contract named.

If not, I will take it up with all partners as oppo rarely ask about an alerted 2♣ and will just assume we forgot to alert 2[ci].

Aren't you supposed to announce a strong 2♣ in EBU, rather than just alert it? So if they alert, you should definitely ask, since it's not just a typical "strong 2♣".

[blackshoe]

In ACBL, that's a Mid-Chart convention with an approved defense (which must be provided to opponents in writing). Playing it, both 2♣ and 2♦ require an alert.