BBO Discussion Forums: Responding to Stayman with 4-4 majors - BBO Discussion Forums

mgoetze, on 2012-November-20, 03:31, said:

Yes thanks, I did read the other thread. I agree that the WBF definition, like a lot of bridge Laws wording, is not very clear to the average player. However, I would rather have this as my alerting guideline than "unexpected" which is just nonsense.
cheers

well the wbf definition of "artificial" is worse because it defines "artificial" as meaning "unexpected" but it is very obscure and leaves a lot of readers with the impression that wbf actually tries to define "artificial" in such a way that it roughly coincides what people normaly understand by "artificial".

It would be much better if WBF used one of these preambles:

Alternative 1: "WARNING: The below definition of 'artificial' bears no resemblance whatsoever to the normal use of the word 'artificial'. When reading this definition, it is best to imagine 'artificial' as a concept in some foreign language which, completely coincidentally, happens to sound similarly to the English word 'artificial'.

Alternative 2: "WARNING: The below definition needs rewording and should therefore not be taken too seriously. The intention is to define 'artificial' in such a way that it mimics the word's meaning in English. If any part of the definition conflicts with that aim, common sense should prevail."

That said I don't think it is an easy task to provide a definition which is concise and agrees with common sense.

This has to be the answer...

If partner did stayman with a 3 card major, idk, maybe trying to see if partner has a suit for their singleton. (not so good methods)...

Then partner can correct to their hopefully 4/3 fit at the 4 level?

Nothing else makes sense to reasoning of always bidding 2S, so...this is what I think.

:-/

paua, on 2012-November-20, 04:10, said:

Are you calling me an average player?

mgoetze, on 2012-November-20, 06:52, said:

No disrespect was intended. I am only considering how the average or majority of bridge players are to understand when to alert, particularly when playing outside of their normal club session.

Fluffy, on 2012-November-16, 07:37, said:

mgoetze, on 2012-November-19, 13:44, said:

Is Madrid in France now?

mgoetze, on 2012-November-20, 06:52, said:

My regular partner and I play all around the world and have won a number of tournaments. But the most deflating remark we have had was from a pair of very nice middle-aged opponents in Dundalk, Republic of Ireland, who asked us at the end of the round very nicely:

"Are you from the local club?"

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

You are simply wrong. It is unusual, although I have seen it happen once, but that was Zia.

It just occurred to me how totally silly this whole thread is.

If 2C is not promissory, the opponents are bidding ♥ first. We don't need the disclosure at this time, but will be alerted if the 2NT rebid denies 4S/2H and will be alerted bif 2S/2H shows 4 and an invite. We will also be alerted at 2NT/2S if it might or might not contain hearts.

If 2C is promissory, we will know about the other suit when they don't have a fit in the major opener bids; and we can ask about the other one if we want, later.

In all auctions which go on to game, we either will discover the agreement via the auction, or if responder just had a minor suit slam try, we can ask later.

The fact that neither of us bid on the first round means nothing to the choice by opener with both majors in response to Stayman...if we need to know if 2C was promissory before we waltzed in at fourth chair, we would ask.

In summary: at the point where opener bids 2H or 2S, we just plain don't care whether he could have the other major.

I don't think this is silly at all.

What about an auction like:
1NT-2♣
2♠-4♠

Aren't the defenders allowed to know that declarer could have four hearts? If responding 2♠ with both majors is indeed unusual, then defenders will not know to ask.

And in a similar way:
1NT-2♣
2♥-4♥

Aren't the defenders allowed to know that declarer can not have four spades? Here, though, defenders might know to ask, since some play other responses (e.g. 2NT) to show both majors. Nevertheless, think of all the UI generated when a defender does ask.

"Could you please explain the auction to me?"
- "Well, err, 1NT was 15-17, 2♣ was Stayman, 2♥ shows four and responder wants to play 4♥."
"What more do you know about opener's hand?"
- "Gee, balanced, still 15-17 and he could have 5 hearts, but we often open those hands with 1♥, so it is rare."
Eventually: "Can he have four spades?"
- "Yes, of course."

And finally, even if this would be silly, that would not be a good reason to break fundamental rules of the game: You just have to fully disclose your agreements, period. "Buckle up, it's the law."

Rik

No need to know at the point one major is bid whether the other major is denied. At the end of the auction, an inquiry about the partnership's rules for responding with both majors is easy enough to word.

Whether it is alertable is the issue at hand; we are debating whether it is alertable. A lesson on not breaking the rules doesn't add much to that debate.

aguahombre, on 2012-November-30, 03:44, said:

How does one do that without putting some focus on the other major? It is easy enough against people who bid 2♠ with both majors. They will explain right away. But people who don't bid 2♠ with both majors will not explain that they are denying four hearts, since to them this is obvious. You will pretty much have to ask specifically: "Does 2♠ deny four hearts?".

Customer: "Please tell me something about this car."
Car Salesman: "It's fantastic. It seats the whole family. It drives 150 mph."
"Interesting. What more can you tell me?"
- "It's got superior mileage, comes with ABS, cruise control, leather seats."
"More information?"
- "You can connect it to you Ipod, it has seven cup holders, a make-up mirror in the passenger seat, the back seats have built in child seats."

This conversation can go on for a while. Please note that the sales person will never tell you that it has four wheels or that it can't fly. These are obvious in a car, despite the fact that there are cars that can fly and those that have more or less than four wheels. If you want to know whether the car can fly, you will have to ask specifically.

To many players it is equally obvious that a 2♠ response to Stayman denies four hearts. Therefore, they will not explain this fact when asked in general.

Rik

PhilKing, on 2012-November-29, 21:14, said:

I resisted the temptation to reply when Vampyr wrote:

Vampyr, on 2012-November-07, 11:33, said:

but since you're doing essentially the same to bluejak I'll do so now.

If you can be bothered to read the earlier parts of the thread, you will see that I have never doubted the experiences of those who assert that bidding anything other than 2♥ would be extremely unusual where they play.

I wish you would extend the same courtesy when those of us with different experiences remark that this is not universal, especially when we have taken the trouble to give some evidence to back what we say.

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-30, 05:22, said:

"Not universal" hmm. I've no idea why that is relevant to my assertion that Bluejak was wrong.

He implied that is was normal to respond 2♠ with both majors in England. Given that I have played over quarter of a million hands and have seen it happen once, I beg to differ. Perhaps I should reread the entire thread, but since I am regretting opening it in the first place, that ain't gonna happen.

PhilKing, on 2012-November-30, 06:38, said:

Because you are denying his statement of his experience without any basis for doing so, beyond the fact that you don't share it. Others do, and that's relevant, and that was what I was saying when I remarked that Vampyr's experiences, like yours, were "not universal". You're just saying "Well I haven't seen it, so it can't happen anywhere", and when we say "Well we have" you respond "No, you haven't".

PhilKing, on 2012-November-30, 06:38, said:

No, he didn't. He said that neither it nor a number of alternative responses is "particularly unusual", which is not the same thing at all.

PhilKing, on 2012-November-30, 06:38, said:

That's your experience, and I'm not questioning it. It's evidently not his, and it's not mine. Please don't be so dismissive of experiences that don't wholly agree with yours, especially when you can't be bothered to read properly the posts that express them.

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-30, 07:18, said:

Yes he did. Have another look at posts 4, 12 and 19.

As Gordon points at, David completely contradicts himself in post 12, but when Gordon asked if there was a country where most respond 2♠ with both majors and David stated, without any justification whatsoever, that England is such a country.

I was replying to his post, not yours. Why you would think it discourteous that I have not waded through the entire thread is quite baffling.

Although a quick flick through did turn up one post with which I agree:

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-07, 08:47, said:

aguahombre, on 2012-November-29, 21:40, said:

None of these is alertable in England.

Trinidad, on 2012-November-30, 04:43, said:

You have identified the cause of the problem: people who assume their way is the only way. The solution is to persuade them against this unreasonable behaviour rather than to condone it and look for ways to work around it.

c_corgi, on 2012-November-30, 08:43, said:

Actually, no. It is not unreasonable to expect that an auction that a player has seen hundreds of times, which has always meant the same thing, suddenly means something else. For most people who rebid 2♥ with both majors, it is not, in their opinion, "their way". It is the way the convention Stayman is played.

And let us suppose, as some posters do, that, unlikely as it may be, most people have actually heard of the sequence in question. Without an alert, they would have to ask every time, "Does 2♥ deny 4 spades?" or "Can 2♠ include 4 hearts?" when, for most people, the answer will never be "yes" in their entire bridge-playing career. Is this, then, what you call reasonable?

I can see some reasons for not alerting it:
- it would be crying wolf.
- it may wake partner up.
- we will almost certainly be declaring and opps won't need the information during the auction.

But I can't see any reason for not volunteering the information prior to the opening lead. What's the cost?

Vampyr, on 2012-November-30, 09:18, said:

What I call reasonable is both sides trying to facilitate good disclosure: both in asking and telling. In this case, ideally the information would be volunteered at an opportune moment, but as has been pointed out upthread, this is not always practical. It is non-sensical to base an alert procedure around trying to guess what the opponents will expect. And it is not reasonable for the 2H bidders to expect others, who may have a different idea of what is standard, to work out what disclosure may be required, while at the same time absolving themselves of any reciprocal requirements because their way is "standard".