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

helene_t, on 2012-December-03, 06:58, said:

Are you trying to invoke Nigel?

I think your partner's approach is fine, as long as he's made some effort to understand the rules. In fact, that would place him ahead of at least half the players in this country.

aguahombre, on 2012-December-03, 10:29, said:

Which is, I think, the principle behind their policy "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." If an experienced pair in an open event hears the auction 1NT-2♦-2♥ with no announcement, they should know that it's probably a transfer and the opponents simply didn't realize they need to announce it.

barmar, on 2012-December-03, 10:53, said:

The point at which it is too late for 4th chair to have done something different over 2♦.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-02, 14:28, said:

This is my biggest issue with type 2 regulations as well. If my partner (perhaps experienced, but only recently arrived in the UK) would like to know which natural meanings for the following calls are not alertable:

• 1♣ - P - 2♥
  
• 1♣ - X - 2♥
  
• 1♣ - P - 3♣
  
• 1♣ - X - 3♣

how might she go about finding out?

As far as I understand it, she needs to somehow determine what 'the normal meanings' for these 4 calls are. From this discussion, she would be led to believe that determining what everyone at the local club plays in these situations is of no help, because they might not be representative of English norms (indeed, I would expect this not to work for these particular auctions). Unfortunately, the Orange Book has no helpful appendix defining even these simple auctions, so there is no definitive answer to her questions.

Of course, where she would naturally start would be to ask me if our agreements in these auctions are alertable. Unfortunately, in several years of playing bridge in the UK, I've also never found definitive answers to these questions, so I tell her what I think is true; the uncertainty continues to propagate.

(As an aside to my point, my guesses are:

• Natural (4+ suit), GF
  
• Natural (4+ suit), GF?? I have little idea
  
• Invitational raise, or GF raise?
  
• Invitational raise?

)

Peter

f0rdy, on 2012-December-03, 15:47, said:

I have not played in England for a while but I would guess that "normal" for these would be:
1. SJS, nat and GF
2. DNE for 90% of club players; for those where it does: WJS, nat and NF
3. nat and INV
4. nat and weak

For an experienced player arriving in England and wanting to know what they should alert, the best place to start would be the Tangerine Book. For more details, progress on to the Orange Book. Additional questions probably need to be addressed to one of the club's TDs or, if they do not know, then asking David or Frances here is probably as good as anything else.

f0rdy, on 2012-December-03, 15:47, said:

By reading the regulations. All of these are covered by Orange Book 5G2 and 5G3

The answers are:
1. Forcing.
2. All.
3. Non-forcing, not preemptive.
4. Non-forcing.

In 3 it's unclear whether a mixed raise is alertable, but it seems to me that generally the EBU regulations deal with this problem quite well.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-December-04, 03:49

f0rdy, on 2012-December-03, 15:47, said:

gnasher, on 2012-December-04, 03:41, said:

I found a reg that referred to non-jumps, but nothing about jumps in this situation.

MickyB, on 2012-December-04, 05:23, said:

OB 5G2(c)4(d)

RMB1, on 2012-December-04, 05:52, said:

Thanks, I had understood this as referring only to non-jumps but 5G2c4a makes it clear that's not the case.

gnasher, on 2012-December-04, 03:41, said:

Huh. OK, I thought I'd read the Orange book quite carefully a few years ago, but apparently I've forgotten relevant bits. I think I'm being confused by a disputed ruling about 1C p 3C a few years back, but presumably the debate was about what "not pre-emptive" meant, rather than what the regulations said.
I apologise for maligning the EBU regulations! I feel the problem (there being no definitive source) still exists in principle, but I'd have to trawl my memory + crosscheck OB sections to find the non-silly examples.

While I have such a well-informed audience, could I check an ACBL equivalent?
What meanings aren't alertable in (first two bids natural) 1♥ P 2♥ P 2♠ ? I was bemused by most aspects of the bridge* during my summer in Bermuda, but being gently chastised for not alerting a long-suit trial bid surprised me somewhat.

Thanks,
Peter

*The most confusing thing being a social stalemate, rather than strictly a regulations issue: Whenever I was about to declare a hand, my opponents would wait until "the auction was over" before leading, and I would wait until they led before removing my bidding cards...

f0rdy, on 2012-December-04, 06:21, said:

Although the regulations cover most of the common situations, it's not particularly easy to find the information for a specific sequence. I think this part of the Orange Book would be better presented as a table, with three columns:
- sequence
- alertable meanings
- non-alertable meanings

Quote

It's easier to be well-informed about EBU regulations than about ACBL regulations. In this case, however, the ACBL Alert Chart is clear: you alert "Game tries that, by agreement, may have fewer than three cards in the suit bid". Presumably, therefore, you don't alert game tries that promise length.

f0rdy, on 2012-December-04, 06:21, said:

At the club yesterday, RHO deals: (1NT)-P-(3NT)-P-(starts to pick up bidding cards, pauses, looks at me: "are you passing?") Me: "I don't know; are you?"

f0rdy, on 2012-December-04, 06:21, said:

As far as I can tell, the ACBL Alert Procedure says nothing about game try bids. The section titled "Opener's Rebids" only addresses 3 cases: 1NT is alertable if it shows a strong NT, Canapé suit rebids are alertable, and bidding a 3-card minor in response to forcing NT doesn't require an alert (nor does bidding a 2-card minor if your shape is 4=5=2=2).

So we fall back on the general "alert unusual and unexpected meanings" rule, as well as "most natural bids are not alerted". A trial bid whose meaning includes length in the suit bid (i.e. long suit and help suit) is not alerted, other trials (e.g. short suit, Kokish) are.

Are you sure about HSGTs? If we systemically bid 3♣ with xxxxx/AKQJ/AK/xx, to take a bad example, should this not be alerted? Surely the "natural" call here would be 3♥ if you were going to make a game try.

I wouldn't consider bidding an xx suit as a HSGT. Do you really want partner to upgrade their hand because they hold QJx opposite it?

With your example hand, I would probably bid 3♠ as a general strength game try.

Let's assume for the moment that you are playing 1-2-3 stop, so your only way of inviting is by making a HSGT.

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-05, 08:28, said:

Then no bid accurately describes your hand, and you have to pick the least lie.

In all this time, we have not used HSGT, as such, for the simple reason that we could never find an adequate standard definition of a help suit. Perhaps it would have been wise to research under the keyword "Stayman".

I prefer Klinger's approach: A long suit game try is made with a six loser hand and a long (usually 4+) side suit with 2 or 3 losers. A short suit game try is made with a six loser hand and a side shortage. You can set up two-way game tries by using 2♠ or 2NT as a relay. Klinger recommends showing the long suit try directly, and relaying to show the short suit try. Romex takes essentially the same approach, but flips the meaning of the relay and adds a "power game try" by doubling up on the direct 3♣ (or 2NT, over ♥) bid.

An easy method over 1♠ - 2♠ is:
2NT = short suit try somewhere
... - 3♣ = accept clubs
... - 3♦ = decline clubs, accept diamonds
... - 3♥ = decline clubs and diamonds, accept hearts
... - 3♠ = decline all
3♣♦♥ = HSGTs
3♠ = trump try

Some think there is a theoretical advantage to playing the short suit game tries directly. *shrugs*