[lalldonn]

jallerton, on 2012-October-30, 17:37, said:

Are you saying that, where you play, there are many people who respond 2♥ to Stayman with 4-4 in the majors and many othes who respond 2♠ on the same hand type?

I reread my post and I did not say anything that could possibly be construed as that. If that was your way of asking me what I think people do in response to stayman with 4-4 in the majors, I think the vast majority of bridge players either don't know what they do, choose a major at random, or bid the better suit. I also know several who over at least some notrump openings play a bid of either major denies the other, and bid something else like 2NT with both. I do not think a major suit bid playing any of these styles is or should be alertable. The only assumption the opponents should be making if you bid a major is that you have 4 or perhaps 5 of that major.

[barmar]

It's hard to remember, but I think when I first learned bridge about 25 years ago, I was taught to respond 2♠ with both majors. But that was before I was taught fancy gadgets like transfers. And definitely before I started playing conventions that took away the natural 2NT invite, so my Staymans became non-promissory. But I'm not sure why 2♠ was the preferred response with both -- it's been a long time and I don't remember if anyone ever explained the logic.

I suspect that most players who have no systemic requirement bid 2♥ just out of a general "up the line" philosophy. But that doesn't make 2♠ so unexpected that it should be alerted.

[bluejak]

I fancy the logic for 2♠ was the opposite to up-the-line: if you are going to bid both suits you do not bid up the line. Compare a response to 1♦ with equal length majors: you respond 1♥ with 4-4, and never mention the spades unless partner bids them. But with 5-5 you bid 1♠ intending to bid hearts next.

Following this 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3NT - 4♥ seems logical. Yes, I know you can bid 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3NT - 4♠ but I presume it felt wrong.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 13:50, said:

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.

David, do you and I play in the same country? In London it is very unusual for opener to respond 2♠; playing standard methods, he has to respond 2♥ so that 2♠ is available for partner to show an invitational hand with four spades.

This is not as necessary when playing, say, that 2♣ promises a 4-card major, but still the same logic applies as you cannot play in 2♠ with an invitational hand opposite a minimum if responder has already bid 3♠. So I would find a 2♠ bid with both majors very unusual, as would, I suspect, most of my peers.

David, your examples always seem to involve clueless people, who have no agreement about pretty much any sequence, and who have not considered, individually or as a partnership, the consequences or implications of various treatments, or how different sequences might show different hands; who, in short, bid pretty much at random. I refuse to believe that this is a fair characterisation of Midlands bridge.

If you think that having a little logic behind the bids one makes makes one "scientific", then so be it. In this case I think that there are far more "scientific" players than you think there are.

Also, a player who uses a standard CC provided by the club is not necessarily "scientific", even if the methods on the card dictate that he must bid hearts first.

[paulg]

If a style is popular, or undefined, in clubs but highly unusual in the expert community that is playing in the English Premier League, does that make it non-alertable in the club but alertable in the EPL?

I must admit that I'd expect someone in the EPL to protect themselves in this instance, especially as screens are in use.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2012-November-01, 03:50, said:

If a style is popular, or undefined, in clubs but highly unusual in the expert community that is playing in the English Premier League, does that make it non-alertable in the club but alertable in the EPL?

I must admit that I'd expect someone in the EPL to protect themselves in this instance, especially as screens are in use.

I was thinking more the reverse. I'd expect 2♠ on 4-4 to be desperately unusual in a club and hence alertable there, but possibly not in a national event.

I think this is a question that should be clarified, is it intended that the same bid is alertable/non alertable in different events ?

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-01, 04:20, said:

I think this is a question that should be clarified, is it intended that the same bid is alertable/non alertable in different events ?

The Premier League uses WBF alerting rules. These are different from the normal EBU alerting rules, so a natural consequence is that some bids will be alertable in one but not in the other.

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 04:57, said:

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

This is the question I was asking, but as much as anything because the "I queried this with <name of director> and he told me it wasn't alertable" response is not uncommon, and if the director was quizzed at a national event, should he add "but I'd alert it in a club setting" where necessary.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 04:57, said:

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

And we have already seen that you should alert, or not, 1NT-2♣-2♠ depending on whether Vampyr or Bluejak is at the table. And, if they were playing together, they would probably not alert consistently as a partnership (which is interesting rather than wrong).

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 04:57, said:

The Premier League uses WBF alerting rules. These are different from the normal EBU alerting rules, so a natural consequence is that some bids will be alertable in one but not in the other.

Within the set of events which use EBU alerting rules, should your alerts vary according to who the opponents are? I think so, because whether a bid "has a potentially unexpected meaning" depends on the opponent.

I know a player here for whom every bid has a potentially unexpected meaning. Yet if you alert, he just ignores it. Why? He devotes so much of his available brain power to deciding what to bid with the cards he can see that he has none to spare for thinking about what the opponents — or his partner! — are bidding with their cards.

In a small community, where you know all the other players well, you may know who needs an alert on a particular call, given your taken on "potentially unexpected". If you don't know the players well, what do you do? "This guy looks intelligent, so I probably don't have to alert much". "This guy looks like a dumbass, I better alert everything". No. "potentially unexpected" has to have some other, objective criterion. In the ACBL, it's explicitly stated to be "historical usage". So, in general, if Goren taught it, it doesn't require an alert. An example: 1♥-(P)-4♥, playing SA or 2/1. Around here (and in most of NA) today, this shows usually 5 trumps and a side shortage, and always a weak hand. If the bid shows either that hand or game values and a fit, no alert is required. Why? "Because 'game values and a fit' was pretty much 'standard' thirty years ago". I guess players are expected to know that even if they weren't playing bridge thirty years ago.

[gnasher]

Given how detailed the EBU alerting rules are, we're only talking about variations at the margins.

Here's an example of a bid where my alerting might vary with the opponents:

1♦ pass 1♠ 2♣
3♠

I usually play that a raise based on high cards would bid 3♣ or 2NT, so 3♠ is semi-preemptive. Arguably this is not alertable, because you don't alert a bid where "the partnership has an agreement over alternative possible calls
that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable category." However, the qualification "unless it is in another alertable category" might mean that it is alertable, because the meaning is "potentially unexpected".

Most strong British players would be aware of the likely meaning of 3♠, so I tend to alert only against lesser players, overseas visitors, and people I don't know.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 07:01, said:

Most strong British players would be aware of the likely meaning of 3♠, so I tend to alert only against lesser players, overseas visitors, and people I don't know.

Strong players, IMO, are the ones most likely to appreciate and understand these alerts. Being aware of a certain possible "unexpected" inference does not mean awareness that YOU are using that method. The "lesser" players (your words), AKA, less experienced/sophisticated players are also less likely to be able to make any use of the disclosure. So, we will alert in those grey areas "when in doubt" ---the doubt is not about our agreements or about the wording of the alert procedures; the doubt is about whether the opponents might need to know.

[bluejak]

Certainly we are in different countries: you are in the London area, which is more scientific and Americanised than the rest of the country. As I have said, if you play a specific continuation then you respond hearts first: I doubt one in 20 plays anything like that around here.

As for the Midlands, I would guess they are more like my area than yours, but why would I know? Why the Midlands?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-01, 04:20, said:

I was thinking more the reverse. I'd expect 2♠ on 4-4 to be desperately unusual in a club and hence alertable there, but possibly not in a national event.

I think this is a question that should be clarified, is it intended that the same bid is alertable/non alertable in different events ?

I agree that you would be much more likely to find this agreement at a national event than at a club (apart from bluejak's club). I do think that it would be unusual and unexpected in any English event, and think it should be alerted, and to your question I feel that the answer is "no", but I could possibly be convinced otherwise if shown good examples.

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 08:56, said:

Strong players, IMO, are the ones most likely to appreciate and understand these alerts. Being aware of a certain possible "unexpected" inference does not mean awareness that YOU are using that method. The "lesser" players (your words), AKA, less experienced/sophisticated players are also less likely to be able to make any use of the disclosure. So, we will alert in those grey areas "when in doubt" ---the doubt is not about our agreements or about the wording of the alert procedures; the doubt is about whether the opponents might need to know.

Well put.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-November-01, 09:48, said:

As for the Midlands, I would guess they are more like my area than yours, but why would I know? Why the Midlands?

I am ashamed to say that my knowledge of English regions and terminology is very poor. I thought Merseyside was part of the Midlands.

[helene_t]

I was surprised when I learned that the London-Midlands service connects London to Liverpool.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 08:56, said:

Strong players, IMO, are the ones most likely to appreciate and understand these alerts. Being aware of a certain possible "unexpected" inference does not mean awareness that YOU are using that method. The "lesser" players (your words), AKA, less experienced/sophisticated players are also less likely to be able to make any use of the disclosure. So, we will alert in those grey areas "when in doubt" ---the doubt is not about our agreements or about the wording of the alert procedures; the doubt is about whether the opponents might need to know.

On the other hand, strong players may be less likely to assume that their way is the only way. So they'll know that there's a wide variety of ways that a convention is played, and can ask questions if they need to know which variant is in use by the opps. Weak players need everything spoon-fed to them, because they don't know that they don't know; they might not be able to make effective use of the information, but that's not your problem.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 09:51, said:

I am ashamed to say that my knowledge of English regions and terminology is very poor. I thought Merseyside was part of the Midlands.

Eeek!

Scotland
North [including Merseyside]
Midlands
South
English Channel

helene_t, on 2012-November-01, 09:52, said:

I was surprised when I learned that the London-Midlands service connects London to Liverpool.

London Midlands is a train service that runs in the Midlands with some trains feeding out of the Midlands towards various other places, eg Liverpool, London, Wales. One service a day connects London with Liverpool, true, but no-one would travel on it for that reason, it is just designed to connect various cities en route.

[aguahombre]

And on those trainrides, you have time to discuss Stayman?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 09:51, said:

I am ashamed to say that my knowledge of English regions and terminology is very poor. I thought Merseyside was part of the Midlands.

bluejak, on 2012-November-01, 17:15, said:

Eeek!

Scotland
North [including Merseyside]
Midlands
South
English Channel

I think the Eeek! you will get from the Scots for describing their country as part of England will be much louder and angrier than that provoked in you by suggesting that Liverpool is in the Midlands!