[MickyB]

jallerton, on 2012-October-30, 14:26, said:

I think that if partner has announced the 2♣ bid as "Stayman", you are fairly safe alerting the 2♥/2♠ bids, as the opponents would expect partner to hold 4 cards in the major bid anyway.

If oppo did this, I would think it most likely they had mistakenly announced an alertable Stayman-like enquiry, unless I knew the oppo in question to be particularly well-versed in the alerting regs.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-October-30, 11:05, said:

I was talking about what you should do when using screens, because that's what I thought you'd asked.

If not using screens, I'd probably just tell them before they led. But I think you should definitely tell them at some point.


Maybe it would be better if you left your partner to use his common sense? He's an intelligent man, so I expect he could follow the train of thought "We have an unusual agreement. The opponents don't know about it. I'd better tell them."

This is all quite valid for MickyB and his partner, who are aware that the method is highly unexpected. For the rest of the population which might bid spades first with 4-4, it is highly doubtful that they have a clue that their method is strange. The last advocacy of spades-first in print was somewhere in the 1940's by Blackwood; since that time there have been numerous methods of continuation after Stayman invented which require opener to bid hearts first in order for them to work.

Micky and his partner might be the only pair to recognize that fact, choose Spades first anyway, and know it is unusual. We can't expect a pair without such awareness to know enough to alert.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-30, 18:06, said:

This is all quite valid for MickyB and his partner, who are aware that the method is highly unexpected. For the rest of the population which might bid spades first with 4-4, it is highly doubtful that they have a clue that their method is strange.

But who are these people? Where do they play?

[jallerton]

MickyB, on 2012-October-30, 17:58, said:

If oppo did this, I would think it most likely they had mistakenly announced an alertable Stayman-like enquiry, unless I knew the oppo in question to be particularly well-versed in the alerting regs.

Really? People get quite a lot of the alerting regulations wrong (e.g. doubles), but announcing Stayman after a 1NT opening is something that virtually everyone gets right.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-30, 18:06, said:

The last advocacy of spades-first in print was somewhere in the 1940's by Blackwood;

This simply is not true. I read this from a (very good) Swedish source about 10 years ago. It depends on other aspects of your system whether spades first makes sense. For the record, I would not expect spades first to be alerted but playing behind screens a short note to the effect would be proper.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2012-October-30, 08:00, said:

No, it is not alertable. One of the problems I see in answering questions in a magazine aimed at lesser players is the number of players who assume their way is the only way. I am continually fighting to get players to accept that their way does not make it standard and normal.

The norm in England is affected by the methods. If you play, as many do, that the only way to raise to 2NT is via Stayman, and that 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ shows a raise to 2NT with four spades, then you have to respond 2♥ to 2♣ with both majors. If you do not play this, which I suppose is true for 80% of English players, then there is no reason to respond with one major rather than the other. Of course individual pairs will make an arrangement for whatever reason, usually something really meaningful like John Collings told them it was correct.

So the norm in England generally is that there is no norm, unless you are playing the specific methods outlined above.

Of course, this depends somewhat on the class of player. In a higher class event then I expect a majority, perhaps a vast majority, to respond 2♥ with both. But I have no sympathy whatever for people at that level not allowing for players to play differently from them.


Yes, England.

This is just wrong IMO. I think I can say with a very high degree of confidence that everybody in Norfolk bids 2♥, I've certainly never noticed declarer hold a 4-4 having responded 2♠ anywhere in 40 years of bridge.

It doesn't matter what you use 2♠ for over 1N-2♣-2♥, we happen to use it as minor suit stayman, but if you have any use for it, you will respond 2♥, and most people are naturally inclined make the lower response.

[MickyB]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-31, 03:41, said:

It doesn't matter what you use 2♠ for over 1N-2♣-2♥, we happen to use it as minor suit stayman, but if you have any use for it, you will respond 2♥

As I've already said in this thread, if you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite, then it's better to rebid 2S with 4-4 majors - you get the stronger hand playing it, you don't have an invitational auction that invites a double and you disclose less about suit lengths.

There are also methods that include second-round transfers by responder where it is beneficial for opener to show spades then hearts.

[MickyB]

gnasher, on 2012-October-30, 11:05, said:

Maybe it would be better if you left your partner to use his common sense? He's an intelligent man, so I expect he could follow the train of thought "We have an unusual agreement. The opponents don't know about it. I'd better tell them."

Sorry, I think you misread my post. I said that I'd told him that it wasn't alertable, not that I'd told him he mustn't disclose it. As for describing him as "an intelligent man" - counter-evidence, board 8 set 3

[Cyberyeti]

MickyB, on 2012-October-31, 04:04, said:

As I've already said in this thread, if you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite, then it's better to rebid 2S with 4-4 majors - you get the stronger hand playing it, you don't have an invitational auction that invites a double and you disclose less about suit lengths.

There are also methods that include second-round transfers by responder where it is beneficial for opener to show spades then hearts.

If you play a strong no trump maybe, but most people around here play weak and the two hands are much the same strength when responder invites.

Also nobody around here plays second round transfers.

I was thinking in the context of provincial club bridge where it wouldn't occur to any of the regulars that it was even a possibility that you'd respond 2♠ with 4-4.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-31, 03:12, said:

This simply is not true. I read this from a (very good) Swedish source about 10 years ago. It depends on other aspects of your system whether spades first makes sense. For the record, I would not expect spades first to be alerted but playing behind screens a short note to the effect would be proper.

Kleinman wrote the same in "The Notrump Zone".

I am not sure how far it goes that natural bids are alertable if they have a potentially unexpected meaning. I have been told by professional TDs to alert NFB and WJS. What about the dinosaurs that open 1♠ with 44M? I suppose those things are generally not explicitly stated, but a style that is a little bid unusual (say opening 1♣ with 44m) probably isn't alertable while 1♠ with 44M probably is.

So for the Stayman issue it could depend and local customs. I think I would try to explain it briefly on the front of the CC, but I would not alert it. If I became dummy I would volunteer it before the opening lead. I wouldn't do so as declarer because it feels wrong to alert opps to a potential surprise which isn't there, and it goes too far to disclose it only when I happen to have 44. But I would volunteer, as declarer, the explanation that my 2♥ bid denies spades.

[gnasher]

MickyB, on 2012-October-31, 04:07, said:

Sorry, I think you misread my post. I said that I'd told him that it wasn't alertable, not that I'd told him he mustn't disclose it.

Using screens, I can't see any effective difference between an alert and an unprompted explanation. Perhaps your partner is also unaware of any distinction.

Anyway, given the vagueness of the WBF's alerting rules it's hard to answer questions about whether a specific call is alertable. Also, half of the field has no idea that WBF alerting regulations apply, or what they are. I alert or explain anything that is conventional, anything that would be alertable under EBU rules, and anything that I think the opponents are unlikely to guess the meaning of.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2012-October-30, 04:48, said:

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules, 'normal' Stayman is alertable because it is an artificial bid.

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules but otherwise subject to EBU regulations, every call is alertable.

PL CoC 1.8 "Any interpretations of Law and any regulations published or adopted by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee or by the Union in general shall apply to this League unless they are in conflict with these Conditions of Contest, in which case these Conditions of Contest shall prevail."

PL CoC, Appendix D2: "The following classes of calls should be alerted: ...(ii) Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners."

OB 10E1: "The EBU defines all agreements that it regulates as ‘special partnership understandings’." As I understand it, the EBU regulates all agreements.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2012-October-31, 06:11, said:

In the Premier League, which is played with screens and WBF alerting rules but otherwise subject to EBU regulations, every call is alertable.

To be fair, our team, including mickyb, probably gets closer to meeting this requirement than any other.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-31, 03:12, said:

For the record, I would not expect spades first to be alerted but playing behind screens a short note to the effect would be proper.

Does this come from a TO or RA regulation, or is it just your idea of what's proper?

[Trinidad]

My apologies for a slight hijack, but I am curious:
If you bid 2♠ with both majors, how is responder going to invite with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

Of those who bid 2♥ with both majors, many would use responder's 2♠ rebid as an invitation with 4 spades and not 4 hearts. After a 2♠ rebid by opener, you are not allowed to bid 2♠ anymore.

Or do you just forget about the invitational hands with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

Rik

[MickyB]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 08:08, said:

If you bid 2♠ with both majors, how is responder going to invite with 4 hearts, and not 4 spades?

1N:2C, 2S:2N shows four hearts, the same way that 1N:2C, 2H:2N does for many people. Invites without a four-card major don't start with Stayman.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on 2012-October-31, 05:25, said:

I am not sure how far it goes that natural bids are alertable if they have a potentially unexpected meaning. I have been told by professional TDs to alert NFB and WJS. What about the dinosaurs that open 1♠ with 44M? I suppose those things are generally not explicitly stated, but a style that is a little bid unusual (say opening 1♣ with 44m) probably isn't alertable while 1♠ with 44M probably is.

I have one partner who likes playing the Blue Club. It is fairly routine in that system to open 1♠ with 44M. My understanding of the OB is that it is alertable - but only because of the possible canape - not because of the 44M possibility.

I have another partner with whom the agreement is 1♣ with 44m. As far as I understand it definitely isn't alertable. Indeed, as a 3 card club opener isn't alertable in the 4cM land we have here, alerting a 1♣ opener that could be 4 and just happens to have 4♦ as well, would seem perverse.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-31, 07:07, said:

Does this come from a TO or RA regulation, or is it just your idea of what's proper?

It is my idea of what is proper . Nonetheless it does seem to be covered by "based on or lead to special understandings" in combination with "spirit of the Policy as well as the letter" (WB XIX, pg 219).

[Trinidad]

MickyB, on 2012-October-31, 08:12, said:

1N:2C, 2S:2N shows four hearts, the same way that 1N:2C, 2H:2N does for many people. Invites without a four-card major don't start with Stayman.

Thanks. Big blind spot, right in front of me.

Rik

[bluejak]

The basic problem seems to me that the scientific sort of player expects to have various agreements in all sequences, and forgets that not everyone is like him. When I play in clubs many people do not have agreements as to the meaning of the sequence 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ and thus have no particular reason to respond one major rather than the other. But some of those people will have an agreement, not usually based on logic, but on something they have heard, or been told.

When playing in England generally, if the sequence goes 1NT 2♣ 2major, it is normal and not therefore surprising that a pair

• responds 2♥ with both majors
  
• responds 2♠ with both majors
  
• responds at random with both majors
  
• responds on some other basis with both majors, eg bids the stronger suit

None of these are particularly unusual, so none is alertable under EBU regulations.



It is unfortunate that many players, with the best will in the world, assume that you should alert something if you have an agreement. The alerting rules do not say that, and people who do this alert too often, and tend to denigrate [completely unintentionally] the alerting system. Fortunately there are not too many of them.

Of course, this is behind screens. Writing things down when playing behind screens in excess of what you would normally alert does little harm.