[WellSpyder]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 11:38, said:

I believe it is the same as everywhere else, a GF+ hand with 5+m4M.

I guess that is standard. With my regular partner, though, it is a GF+ hand with 5+ (probably 6+) minor, but not necessarily a major at all. (A direct 3m bid over 1N is invitational.) So our 2♣ response certainly doesn't promise a major.

Despite this, however, if the Stayman bidder follows up with 2N (or 3N) then the bid does indeed promise (or at least show) 4M, so in the sense in which it is normally used here I would regard our Stayman as "promissary".

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:52, said:

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

If you are planning to pass any response to Stayman, that is not Garbage Stayman, that is tactics.

Garbage Stayman is where any rebid at the 2 level over opener's response to Stayman is to play, i.e., 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥*. In old-fashioned Stayman (prior to transfer bids), a 2M rebid over 2♦ would be showing 5 cards in the bid suit and invitational values, and it would not say anything about the holding in the other major. In Garbage Stayman, a 2♥ rebid shows at least 4 hearts and at least 4 spades, with hearts equal or longer, and less than invitational values; and a 2♠ rebid would show at least 4 hearts, at least 5 spades, longer spades than hearts and less than invitational values.

Therefore, in Garbage Stayman, any 2M rebid by responder is to play.

[barmar]

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

[paua]

barmar, on 2013-January-22, 11:54, said:

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

Two types of Weak or Garbage Stayman.
1. Drop-Dead Stayman where you intend passing any response.
2. Crawling or Creeping Stayman, where you pass a major but bid a 5cM over 2D, to play.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-January-22, 11:54, said:

I've always preferred the names "Creeping Stayman" or "Crawling Stayman" for those sequences. Many people mistakenly use the name "Garbage Stayman" to refer to the tactic of passing any response, because it's done with weak (i.e. garbage) hands. "Creeping" and "crawling" are more evocative of the stepping nature of those sequences.

Bergen calls it "crawling Stayman" and so that's what I've always called it.

[Zelandakh]

When I wrote "a weak take-out of clubs" I was meaning a weak hand with long clubs; but we have had that thread here already so I can understand the confusion. On the nomenclature, when Responder bids Stayman intending to pass any response then I always refer to this as Exit Stayman. I also am fond of the term Crawling Stayman although technically this convention also includes the related "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid. Certainly, if I do use the term Garbage Stayman I always mean "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = weak with both majors" and I do not think it should ever be used for Exit Stayman, even though this is often seen/heard.

Similarly, once I have seen my partner bid 2♣ a few times with 3=3=5=2, 3=3=6=1, or whatever, do I not have an implicit understanding that this is acceptable? And if that is the case then 2♣ is now alertable under the DBV rules, no? Similarly, say I have a slammy hand with a 5 card minor and no 4 card major. How is this bid in standard German methods (Forum D or whatever)? For example, I am looking at Dr Kaiser's online summary and it seems that 1NT - 2♣; 2NT - 3m would be natural and forcing. If that is correct then I cannot see any way for an enterprising Responder to get into trouble by using Stayman on such a hand. How many times does it have to be done before you have a CPU, regardless of what the system notes say?

Notice that sequence too. It seems to be very popular in Germany to play a 2NT response to Stayman as showing both majors. To my mind this is no longer normal Stayman at all and I would like to know about it since it affects the hands that Responder can hold. In other words, it seems like I need to ask about an unalerted 2♣ response but not about an alerted one most of the time. This seems completey daft to me, and not for the first time. The DBV regs certainly take some getting used to!

[Fluffy]

the_dude, on 2013-January-03, 08:53, said:

I haven't played much offline bridge in the last 20 years, so the current ACBL alert standards are a bit foreign to me. Nevertheless I have been able to fake my way through and I try to be as ethical as possible. Then this came up yesterday in a regional knockout match:

Me Partner
1NT 2C
2H 2NT
3NT P

With the opps passing, we had this vanilla auction, a club was led, and we made 4. After the hand the opponents claimed that they should have been alerted that partner might not have 4 spades and if they had, a spade lead would have resulted in down 2. The director agreed and changed the result from +630 to -200. She claimed that because we play 4 way transfers we must alert 2NT on this auction.

My position: since the day I learned bridge, standard stayman stipulates that with 8-9 points and 4 spades, you bid 2S over 2H on the above auction. 2NT categorically denies 4S in standard stayman, which is what we play. At least that's how I learned it. 4way transfers doesn't have anything to do with it because 2S is a standard bid with or without 4way transfers. Therefore responder can never have 4 spades on this auction.

I wasn't trying to hide info, I just thought this was normal bidding. It never even occurred to me that I would have to alert my opponents to this. Is it my fault the opponents don't know standard bidding and failed to ask?

Thanks for any feedback. I was going to appeal this decision, but the margin of victory made this swing irrelevant so we dropped it. However I'd very much like to hear some educated opinions on the subject.

Many people have responded about legality, so all I cannsay is this: take a look at your LHO's hand, look at his spades and his clubs and think yourself: why didn't this guy lead a spade when it is so obvious?

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-23, 04:38, said:

When I wrote "a weak take-out of clubs" I was meaning a weak hand with long clubs; but we have had that thread here already so I can understand the confusion. On the nomenclature, when Responder bids Stayman intending to pass any response then I always refer to this as Exit Stayman. I also am fond of the term Crawling Stayman although technically this convention also includes the related "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid. Certainly, if I do use the term Garbage Stayman I always mean "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥ = weak with both majors" and I do not think it should ever be used for Exit Stayman, even though this is often seen/heard.

I've read many authors who call 2♣ on xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-x "Garbage Stayman". I've never heard of "Exit Stayman". I think that's your own invention.

I've also never heard of your "1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ = weak with spades and clubs" bid.

I don't know about German alerting regs, but in the ACBL Alert Procedure, simply naming a convention is specified to be insufficient disclosure: "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." Since the regulation uses the word "must", failure to give the full explanation required, or simply naming the convention, is "a serious matter indeed" and IMO almost always rates a PP (possibly a warning, for a first offense). In addition, it should result in a ruling on the basis of MI.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 08:18, said:

I've read many authors who call 2♣ on xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-x "Garbage Stayman". I've never heard of "Exit Stayman". I think that's your own invention.

I think Zelandakh is attempting to make a distinction between the form of Stayman that is weak with both majors and that which is weak and three-suited. I think that they are often just the same thing; normally the former but sometimes responder passes 2♦.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-23, 08:58, said:

I think Zelandakh is attempting to make a distinction between the form of Stayman that is weak with both majors and that which is weak and three-suited. I think that they are often just the same thing; normally the former but sometimes responder passes 2♦.

AFAIK, "weak with both majors" is "Crawling Stayman," because the auction may well crawl 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠.

[barmar]

GreenMan, on 2013-January-22, 15:58, said:

Bergen calls it "crawling Stayman" and so that's what I've always called it.

If Bergen jumped off a roof....?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 08:18, said:

I've read many authors who call 2♣ on xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-x "Garbage Stayman". I've never heard of "Exit Stayman". I think that's your own invention..

Another term I've heard is "Drop dead Stayman".

[richlp]

the_dude, on 2013-January-04, 18:11, said:

Thanks for the feedback all .. the ruling seems as clear as possible and had the TD made it this clear on the spot I would not have made a fuss.



You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

That makes me wonder ... once I failed to alert did he deliberately not ask, to game the system? Lead a club and if it beats the contract, great. But if a spade lead would have beaten it call the TD to get it via ruling. Best of both worlds?

I have no idea if this is what was happening, and furthermore if such gamesmanship is unethical or not. It just makes me say hmmmmmm

"Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades"

I'm unlikely to be in this bracket, but count me as one who would never ask.

When I ask I get "promises 4S" with the occasional "We'ld have alerted if it didn't." Dummy puts down 8xxx of spades. Partner gets in and successfully decides to play on Spades. Declarer correctly calls the director and points out that my question passed UI that I have spades and that partner had other (less successful) logical alternatives and is prohibited from choosing spades due to the UI.

Especially in a high bracket I assume that my opponents will alert clearly alertable calls.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-January-23, 09:42, said:

If Bergen jumped off a roof....?

There'd be an opening for a Bulletin columnist!

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 09:26, said:

AFAIK, "weak with both majors" is "Crawling Stayman," because the auction may well crawl 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠.

I am not sure it matters, unless we are using names instead of real discussion when getting pard to agree on bidding style. But, my understanding is that:

--"Drop Dead" Stayman is the one where we have crap and short clubs.
--"Garbage Stayman" was originally used synonymously with Drop Dead, but now encompasses all Stayman bids with garbage values.
--"Crawling" Stayman is a convention involving follow-ups by responder if opener bids 2D.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2013-January-05, 09:03, said:

No "Protect yourself" and "SEWOG" rules are effective
For example. ordinary players sometimes make serious errors, especially when flustered by opponents' suspected infractions. And SEWOG rulings are often suggested in these fora. In practice, however, SEWOG rulings are rare, because we are unlikely to call the director, just to be humiliated and deprived of much of our redress.

That's very silly. Ordinary players have never heard of SEWoG. Ordinary players just do not call the TD enough but not because of being humiliated, which as you know perfectly well does not happen.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:38, said:

Interesting assertion. AFAIK, there were two original forms of Stayman, Rapee's and Marx's, and neither of them included this option. I think it was an addition, albeit perhaps a very early one. But I'm from Missouri — show me the evidence.

Marx included a 3♣ rebid as signoff.

mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 11:38, said:

I believe it is the same as everywhere else, a GF+ hand with 5+m4M.

It isn't that as standard here.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-22, 11:48, said:

I guess that is standard. With my regular partner, though, it is a GF+ hand with 5+ (probably 6+) minor, but not necessarily a major at all. (A direct 3m bid over 1N is invitational.) So our 2♣ response certainly doesn't promise a major.

Despite this, however, if the Stayman bidder follows up with 2N (or 3N) then the bid does indeed promise (or at least show) 4M, so in the sense in which it is normally used here I would regard our Stayman as "promissary".

I am sure you are incorrect and should not write or explain it as such.

[WellSpyder]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-22, 11:48, said:

I guess that is standard. With my regular partner, though, it is a GF+ hand with 5+ (probably 6+) minor, but not necessarily a major at all. (A direct 3m bid over 1N is invitational.) So our 2♣ response certainly doesn't promise a major.

Despite this, however, if the Stayman bidder follows up with 2N (or 3N) then the bid does indeed promise (or at least show) 4M, so in the sense in which it is normally used here I would regard our Stayman as "promissary".

Vampyr, on 2013-February-04, 18:18, said:

I am sure you are incorrect and should not write or explain it as such.

Thanks for responding to this point, Vampyr. I think in practice I never use the words promissary or non-promissary, and on checking I see our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)", so hopefully we are not misleading anyone.

[paua]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-05, 04:05, said:

Thanks for responding to this point, Vampyr. I think in practice I never use the words promissary or non-promissary, and on checking I see our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)", so hopefully we are not misleading anyone.

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.