[SimonFa]

gordontd, on 2012-April-28, 10:58, said:

It's not in response to an opening 1NT - it's announceable. It is alertable in response to an overcall, or to an opening 2NT, both of which are situations when ordinary Stayman is not universally played. But announcements are popular, and maybe in time they'll be extended to cover these situations.

Gordon,

It happened in your club on Tuesday evening when you were TD. I didn't think much about it at the time otherwise I would have asked your advice.

I'm not sure I know the correct now so maybe next time I'll call you.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-28, 08:14, said:

What is the basis of this likelihood that partner intended an alertable meaning? What is the basis of your "fair guess"?

It's not as simple as you seem to think.

I play with a great many people with very limited discussion of methods, but I would never expect this call to be anything other than an enquiry about major suit length. I would alert it as such, but state that we had no specific agreement about it or the continuations.

[gordontd]

SimonFa, on 2012-April-28, 14:00, said:

What about UI? Partner may have made a natural bid based on us not having discussed the situation.

In my experience, there are a few things you can be fairly safe assuming with any but the most inexperienced partner. They include Stayman over an opening 1NT (though not necessarily over an overcall, especially if you partner is a rubber bridge player), some sort of Stayman over an opening 2NT, and the Unusual NT.

When playing with inexperienced partners I always start by asking "transfers or no transfers?" If the answer is "no transfers" I ask "what about Stayman?"

To return to your question, we have the EBU regulation quoted above telling us to alert things that we intend to treat as alertable, even if not specifically agreed.

I often say something like "we have no specific agreement about this, but I think the usual treatment of this call would make it alertable", or "we haven't specifically agreed this, but I think it follows from our other agreements that it will have an alertable meaning".

[mgoetze]

gordontd, on 2012-April-29, 02:43, said:

When playing with inexperienced partners I always start by asking "transfers or no transfers?"

I might answer "of course we can play transfer advances of 1-level overcalls!"

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-April-29, 02:32, said:

I play with a great many people with very limited discussion of methods, but I would never expect this call to be anything other than an enquiry about major suit length. I would alert it as such, but state that we had no specific agreement about it or the continuations.

Okay, this experience is a reasonable basis. I guess I have in mind a novice partner with whom I played back in the late 90s, until she gave up the game. Something about not wanting to have to put up with the crap people gave us at the table. Anyway, she agreed to play Stayman, but she never did get it. She'd open 1NT, I'd bid 2♣, she'd invariably bid 3♣. Apparently, she never learned the convention when she was playing in college. Not quite the same situation as here, but I think you can see why I'm leery of the assumption that "everybody plays Stayman".

[gordontd]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-29, 05:58, said:

I might answer "of course we can play transfer advances of 1-level overcalls!"

I think I might not categorise you as inexperienced, Michael

[SimonFa]

gordontd, on 2012-April-29, 02:43, said:

I often say something like "we have no specific agreement about this, but I think the usual treatment of this call would make it alertable", or "we haven't specifically agreed this, but I think it follows from our other agreements that it will have an alertable meaning".

Thanks, I shall try to use that in future.

To everyone else, thanks for the thoughts and I'll try to be a better opponent in the future.

Simon

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2012-April-29, 02:43, said:

In my experience, there are a few things you can be fairly safe assuming with any but the most inexperienced partner. They include Stayman over an opening 1NT (though not necessarily over an overcall, especially if you partner is a rubber bridge player), some sort of Stayman over an opening 2NT, and the Unusual NT.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But I was playing in an online indy a 2 weeks ago (it was one of BBO's "Express" tourney, where there's no chat allowed and everyone is theoretically supposed to be playing 2/1). Partner passed my Unusual 2NT with a 5-card fit for one of my suits:

---

Luckily, -300 was still a 55% board, since the opponents can make 4♠.

[mycroft]

Yeah, I would Alert 3♣, and explain as "no agreement about any followups to 2NT; however, we agreed Stayman and transfers over 1NT." Which is what we did.

Depending on the area, and whether I know the local community, I might say that "common systems over 2NT around here are Stayman and Baron" - if, of course, they aren't from the local community (and were it true - it certainly isn't in my area; but my area doesn't Alert 3♣ unless it *doesn't* ask for major suit lengths).

Hmm. I wonder if Baron/2NT is Alertable here, and whether I should play it just for the amusement factor.

[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-28, 10:04, said:

The one question this thread raises in my mind is: why on earth is Stayman alertable in the EBU?

The problem with questions about alerting is that they usually are concerned with why one particular agreement is alertable, and do not consider the overall. The answer to your question is that what is alertable depends on the following factors:

• easy memorable rules
  
• history of bridge in the jurisidiction
  
• consistency between similar things, like treating artificial bids the same
  
• general knowledge of players
  
• rules to satisfy a variety of different player levels

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on 2012-May-02, 09:38, said:

The problem with questions about alerting is that they usually are concerned with why one particular agreement is alertable, and do not consider the overall.

When I tried to ponder the overall scheme of German alert regulations, my brain exploded. But of course the EBU regulations might be much more sensible in that regard.