[WellSpyder]

paua, on 2013-February-05, 04:10, said:

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

Except that in England, where I play, this is a rare exception to the general rule you state. Stayman is announced with the single word "Stayman", provided that opener is always expected to bid 2M with a major or 2♦ without one.

[barmar]

paua, on 2013-February-05, 04:10, said:

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

I know that most RAs have that rule when explaining a bid, but I didn't realize this also applied to listing what you play on the convention card.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-February-05, 11:38, said:

I know that most RAs have that rule when explaining a bid, but I didn't realize this also applied to listing what you play on the convention card.

Did someone suggest it did? Guess I missed a post.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-05, 12:30, said:

Did someone suggest it did? Guess I missed a post.

You replied to (and quoted) a post that said our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)". I thought that was what you were referring to.

[paua]

barmar, on 2013-February-06, 13:39, said:

You replied to (and quoted) a post that said our system card says "Stayman(with 4-card M, unless followed by 3m)". I thought that was what you were referring to.

That wasn't the entire sentence. It referred initially to what was *said*.
But I'm not really sure we should be writing "Stayman" on a systems card either.

rgds

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-06, 21:23, said:

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else.

Yes, but it doesn't change anything with respect to verbal disclosure when asked (no names). Similarly, something in black on the ACBL card might well still be alertable if the way we use it makes it so.

[blackshoe]

Of course.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-06, 21:23, said:

In the ACBL, we don't need to write "Stayman" on our system cards - it's already printed there, with a checkbox. The rest of the line says "Puppet" with another checkbox. There's no room for anything else.

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-February-07, 10:42, said:

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

Yep, that seems to be what that red line is to be used for, resulting in 3 choices for 2c: regular Stayman, Puppet, and "other". People who use Puppet but have different continuations could use that line also.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-February-07, 10:42, said:

There's a line after those two checkboxes, which seems to be connected to 2♣. At least that's where I put *my* meaning for 2♣ with the two checkboxes clear :-)

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 10:48, said:

Yep, that seems to be what that red line is to be used for, resulting in 3 choices for 2c: regular Stayman, Puppet, and "other". People who use Puppet but have different continuations could use that line also.

Fair enough, I missed that somehow.

[mgoetze]

paua, on 2013-February-05, 04:10, said:

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

What should we say then? Describe what the 2♣ bid shows. Avoid using the word "asks" or "asking".

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2013-February-07, 18:07, said:

What should we say then? Describe what the 2♣ bid shows. Avoid using the word "asks" or "asking".

Actually "asking about my..." isn't really violating the concept to which you allude, since the explainer won't be broadcasting what she is going to do. But your point is a good one, in general.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 19:10, said:

Actually "asking about my..." isn't really violating the concept to which you allude, since the explainer won't be broadcasting what she is going to do. But your point is a good one, in general.

Not such a good one in the opinion of those who feel that this "concept" is absolute bollocks.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-07, 19:18, said:

Not such a good one in the opinion of those who feel that this "concept" is absolute bollocks.

Maybe not. But, clearly Michael understands players should not be disclosing what they are going to do...merely what their partner's call means. Anyone who thinks that idea is bollocks is not thinking.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 19:29, said:

Maybe not. But, clearly Michael understands players should not be disclosing what they are going to do...merely what their partner's call means. Anyone who thinks that idea is bollocks is not thinking.

Here we go again. My convention card is properly filled out, and includes the response structure to, eg, Ogust. I am at a disadvantage to those who have not included such responses if I am not permitted to ask them (once the auction has begun). Sorry, this is not right.

Also I do not understand the idea that I am not, during the auction period, entitled to information that would have been freely and fully available before the auction had begun.

I will not comment on who I believe is not thinking.

[aguahombre]

Anyone who thinks they are entitled to know what an opponent will do in the future is truly an "entitlement" person. They are entitled to know what is being asked and that the question requires a bid (not a pass). They are not entitled to know what the answers will mean.

Simplest of examples: 4NT asks about my key cards for spades. 1/4 or 0/3 is an answer if the next player wants to know what 5C meant, but 1430 is not an answer to "what is 4nt?"

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 19:41, said:

Anyone who thinks they are entitled to know what an opponent will do in the future is truly an "entitlement" person. They are entitled to know what is being asked and that the question requires a bid (not a pass). They are not entitled to know what the answers will mean.

Can we please not have this debate again? We've been through it dozens of times, and never reached a concensus. It's a religious debate, you will never convince each other, and you're just going to repeat all the same arguments.

What do they say a definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 19:41, said:

They are entitled to know what is being asked

Actually, I am entitled to know what is being shown. Unfortunately it is very rare that someone will actually be able to tell me what their 2♣ bid shows.

Here is an example of what a 2♣ bid might show. See if you can guess the rest of the NT response structure.

(a) A weak hand with short clubs e.g. 4351 OR
(b) a weak hand with both majors OR
© an invitational hand with at least one 4-card major OR
(d) an invitational hand with 5 spades OR
(e) a game-forcing hand with 4-4, 4-5 or 5-4 in the majors OR
(f) a game-forcing hand with a 4-card major and a 5+ card minor.

Of course if you put it this way it is pretty obvious that the "Stayman" exemption had better be pretty broad if you don't want this bid to be banned in most regulations. Could be weak, no anchor suit... impossible to defend obviously.

[barmar]

Please, I beg of you, STOP!

I just realized that I may be suffering from insanity as well: thinking I can keep people from having this debate just by repeatedly asking them to stop.