[SimonFa]

EBU jurisdiction.

I turned up at the Bridge Club last week as a visitor and a partner was organised for me a few minutes before we sat down. We only had chance for a brief discussion to agree the basics. As part of that we agreed Stayman over 1NT and transfers.

Early on I opened 2NT and partner responded 3C which I didn't alert. When RHO asked the meaning of the bid I responded "not discussed" being very careful not give UI by saying what I was taking at as.

I then bid 3S and partner raised to game which made.

I've been feeling a bit guilty that maybe I should have declared that we were playing Stayman over 1NT even though we hadn't explicitly discussed the 2NT situation. Given our situation we were unlikely to be playing Puppet Stayman

What is the correct procedure in that situation? Should I have said what our agreements were at the end of the bidding?

I ask because I'm likely to be playing with a lot of pickup partners over the next few months.

Thanks in advance,

Simon

[nigel_k]

In general there is no requirement to alert or do anything else when you have no agreement.

But if you are both experienced and opponents are not, then effectively you have an implicit agreement to do things based on general bridge knowledge, but your opponents may not have that knowledge. So I would alert in that case and just explain there is no specific agreement but it's likely that 3♣ asks you to bid a major if you have one (carefully not mentioning whether you think it is Puppet or standard).

[SimonFa]

A good point but I wasn't even sure how good partner was at that stage so it would have been impossible to judge the competency of Opps.

[blackshoe]

nigel_k, on 2012-April-27, 15:00, said:

In general there is no requirement to alert or do anything else when you have no agreement.

But if you are both experienced and opponents are not, then effectively you have an implicit agreement to do things based on general bridge knowledge, but your opponents may not have that knowledge. So I would alert in that case and just explain there is no specific agreement but it's likely that 3♣ asks you to bid a major if you have one (carefully not mentioning whether you think it is Puppet or standard).

The relevant law is

Quote

Law 40B6{a}: When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

You have no special information from partnership agreement or experience about this particular call, but you do have an agreement about a similar call in an analogous auction (you agreed to play Stayman over 1NT). You should disclose that.

I disagree with Nigel on the "implicit agreement to do things based on general bridge knowledge". First, such an agreement, if it exists, is not dependent on the relative experience of one pair vs. another. Second, that "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" should create an implicit agreement, in the sense of Law 40, contradicts the law, which specifically excludes such knowledge and experience from the disclosure requirements of the rest of that law. Some will now argue that "Active Ethics" still requires its disclosure, but "Active Ethics" is outside the law. One could disclose, on this principle, that "nearly everybody" plays 3♣ in this auction as an ask about opener's major suit holdings, but that disclosure is specifically not required, so if you do it, you're not doing it to comply with the law, you're doing so you can feel good about yourself ("not that there's anything wrong with that", to quote Jerry Seinfeld ).

[AlexJonson]

I think you should have alerted the 3C bid as Stayman if you believed it was Stayman and planned to act on that belief.

[blackshoe]

AlexJonson, on 2012-April-27, 16:48, said:

I think you should have alerted the 3C bid as Stayman if you believed it was Stayman and planned to act on that belief.

According to which provision of law or regulation?

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-27, 17:05, said:

According to which provision of law or regulation?

There's Orange Book 5B10 (this being EBU) which you may or may not think is relevant:

OB5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

I would always alert something like this. There's no question in my mind that it _wouldn't_ be some form of Stayman, so I'll alert a bid which is clearly alertable, even if that's deduced from general bridge knowledge and not from an agreement per-se. Of course, when asked I'd always start with "We've not discussed this but..."

[blackshoe]

okay, fair enough. In the EBU, anyway.

[nige1]

If partner makes a call with no specific partnership agreement but partner is likely to to have intended the call to have an alertable meaning, then you should alert it. If an opponent asks then you admit to "no agreement". If, however, you can make a fair guess at the likely meaning of the call, then, I think that you should offer to do so. But you must not proceed with your speculation unless the opponent accepts that offer.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-April-27, 22:33, said:

If partner makes a call with no specific partnership agreement but partner is likely to to have intended the call to have an alertable meaning, then you should alert it. If an opponent aks then you say "no agreement". If, however, you can make a fair guess at the likely meaning of the call, then I think you should offer to speculate. But you must not proceed with you guess unless the opponent accepts that offer.

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.

[mgoetze]

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

[paulg]

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?

Presumably for the same reason that it will be alertable in the German Bridge Trophy next month - it is an artificial call.

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2012-April-28, 10:12, said:

Presumably for the same reason that it will be alertable in the German Bridge Trophy next month - it is an artificial call.

I'll be sure to keep a statistic of how many people actually alert Stayman in that event for you.

[gordontd]

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?

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.

[aguahombre]

paulg, on 2012-April-28, 10:12, said:

Presumably for the same reason that it will be alertable in the German Bridge Trophy next month - it is an artificial call.

Yes, they should follow that all the way through and alert takeout doubles of 1-bids.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-28, 11:10, said:

Yes, they should follow that all the way through and alert takeout doubles of 1-bids.

Those do tend to get alerted at the German Bridge Trophy, yes. In case you were too lazy to look it up, the entire event is played behind screens.

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-28, 13:06, said:

Those do tend to get alerted at the German Bridge Trophy, yes. In case you were too lazy to look it up, the entire event is played behind screens.

Like I cared enough to look it up. My post was agreeing with your comment about Stayman being alerted. Alerting takeout doubles of 1-bids is equally absurd.

[SimonFa]

AlexJonson, on 2012-April-27, 16:48, said:

I think you should have alerted the 3C bid as Stayman if you believed it was Stayman and planned to act on that belief.

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

[RMB1]

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

What about UI?

That's partner's problem. You should do your best to alert (as the regulations require) and to explain your understandings, if that generates UI that is not illegal.

[Vampyr]

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

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

How likely is this, really?