[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-September-20, 11:32, said:

I don't see how answering a straightforward question is "going beyond disclosure". East's actual answer sounds to me like he is clarifying that the name "non-forcing Stayman" isn't to be taken literally.

I think you missed what I was responding to. Going beyond disclosure would be saying, "However, I could on occasion pass 2c".

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 13:21, said:

I think you missed what I was responding to. Going beyond disclosure would be saying, "However, I could on occasion pass 2c".

That just seems to me to be normal disclosure when your opponent asks you if 2♣ is non-forcing.

[olegru]

I have a problem with East-West action here.
East first explanation was unclear. It looks like irregularity for me.
Was there any damage because of this irregularity? I think so.
If North would receive a clear explanation of 2 clubs bid she would probably pass in tempo. (I did not say it is a good bid, but looks like she would do it.) Would East take a risk to pass on not game forcing Stayman if North would pass in tempo? I don’t know, but I believe it is harder compare with what happened on the table and law forces me to give benefit of doubts to innocent side.
Giving unclear explanation East basically forced North to give away (by hesitation and additional questions) information about her hand and her bidding plans. Then he used this information to his benefit.
I don’t think we can let East-West to keep gains received with use of irregularity. I know it is a little harsh to punish EW, but if pair play unusual methods they needs to be extremely careful to explain they methods in a not ambiguous way.

It is harder for North-South because pass by North is a very close to wild or gambling action.

[FrancesHinden]

Given that West could, I assume, have a 4360 shape for the 2C bid, planning to pass any response, it looks to me as if East just worked out from the table action that passing was correct.
I've not seen a pass of Stayman before, but I've certainly seen a pass of a multi after RHO spent about 5 minutes counting their points.

If North was done because East picked his strong hand, then bad luck.
If North was done because EW had discussed passing a 2C response before they played, then North has been damaged.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2013-September-19, 17:15, said:

I see nothing wrong with this auction. 2♣ asked partner to bid a 4-card major, or 2♦ without one, and denied an absolute game force. It didn't promise a 4-card major. It didn't promise any strength. It's a conventional response, sure, but it's not illegal to play Stayman could have that hand, and I'm not sure that there was any extra misexplanation given that is their agreement (trust me, it's mine too, even if my partner doesn't know it yet! *)

If the general expectation of Stayman is that it either has a four-card major, or has values, then 2C is a psyche. True, one might when desperate bid it on a 3-3-5-2 Yarborough, but being 2-3 in the majors would be unexpected. If the CC does not indicate that Stayman can be bid on such hands, I think it is a psyche and we rule accordingly. I do not agree with the rule prohibiting the psyching of Stayman, but do agree that if it is there it should be enforced. And I agree that Pass is SeWoG on the North hand, but is it unrelated to the infraction?

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 15:07, said:

If the general expectation of Stayman is that it either has a four-card major, or has values, then 2C is a psyche.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Sorry for shouting, but the conclusion does not follow from the premise. And there are so many people who don't understand that, that it's imperative to kill it dead.

It could be misexplanation to call it "Stayman" - especially if general expectation is there. I have certainly ragged on people who play something vaguely affiliated with Flannery who describe it as "Flannery" without explaining their deviations (but that's more because Flannery was invented to handle one, specific, insanely difficult hand to handle without it in standard systems. Bidding it when you don't have that problem (whether because of rebiddable hearts, or you can bid spades first, or ...) will misinform people who know what it means, if you're not clear. Stayman is - stayman). I happen to believe that it's not misinformation - that anybody who thinks so, who would have the same issue if we used a 2♣ start as our way to get to 3♦ with a bad hand with diamonds, or would do it with a 3=3=4=3 0 count because it's harder to double a suit, or ... but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I will admit that part of my problem with treating it as misinformation is that playing with some random person I had agreed to play EHAA with 2-way Stayman over our 10-12 NTs, if I had this hand, and the auction went 1NT-P, I'd almost certainly put 2♣ on the table; and my partner would explain it as "Stayman, less than an absolute GF".

It could be an illegal agreement that 2♣ with this hand is the right bid (it isn't in the ACBL - any system of responses to natural NT openings is legal).

It could be a psychic - if it's a gross and deliberate misstatement of *their agreement* as to what 2♣ means after 1NT. But not because it's not what you would bid, or even not what you'd expect.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2013-September-20, 17:08, said:

It could be a psychic - if it's a gross and deliberate misstatement of *their agreement* as to what 2♣ means after 1NT.

That would be the only basis on which I would class it as a psyche, and the explanation "Stayman, less than a game force" is not complete. If it could also be a weak hand with clubs or diamonds, one should say so. In the UK, one just says "Stayman", but one does not have the silly rule that Stayman cannot be psyched.

[blackshoe]

I should point out that in the ACBL, describing a call by naming a convention is specifically deprecated, so "Stayman" with or without amplification should not be the explanation. What hand types would bid 2♣? What hand types (in this case) would bid 2♦ instead?

"NT responses are invitational, except that 3NT, 6NT and 7NT are to play. Suit responses above 2♦ are signoffs, or preemptive, or to play in game or slam. 2♦ is any game force too strong to just bid game, or looking for a four card major, or possibly two suited. 2♣ is any other hand with or without a four card major, including weak to very weak hands looking for a bailout. It is not forcing." I think that covers it.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 13:21, said:

I think you missed what I was responding to. Going beyond disclosure would be saying, "However, I could on occasion pass 2c".

That's not going beyond disclosure, it's not stayman if you've discussed that you can pass it, stayman has specific responses defined, pass isn't one of them.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 15:07, said:

If the general expectation of Stayman is that it either has a four-card major, or has values, then 2C is a psyche. True, one might when desperate bid it on a 3-3-5-2 Yarborough, but being 2-3 in the majors would be unexpected. If the CC does not indicate that Stayman can be bid on such hands, I think it is a psyche and we rule accordingly. I do not agree with the rule prohibiting the psyching of Stayman, but do agree that if it is there it should be enforced. And I agree that Pass is SeWoG on the North hand, but is it unrelated to the infraction?

This seems more like something I'd expect myself to say, not you!

To the posters who say that they would bid 2♣ with that hand, could you please explain the logic? If you don't have a hand good enough to invite with 2NT, how can you make a bid that asks partner to bid their 4-card major if you don't have a hand that will play reasonably in that suit? You could get lucky and partner will bid hearts, so you're in a 4-3 fit. But isn't there a strong possibility you'll end up in a 4-2 spade fit (do mini-NT players open 1NT with 5 spades)? How can it be better to play in the opponents' suit (isn't there a bridge maxim about this)?

While Stayman doesn't show anything very specific, it implies a set of hand types. Weak 2=3=4=4 is not usually one of those types.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-September-21, 06:48, said:

This seems more like something I'd expect myself to say, not you!

To the posters who say that they would bid 2♣ with that hand, could you please explain the logic? If you don't have a hand good enough to invite with 2NT, how can you make a bid that asks partner to bid their 4-card major if you don't have a hand that will play reasonably in that suit? You could get lucky and partner will bid hearts, so you're in a 4-3 fit. But isn't there a strong possibility you'll end up in a 4-2 spade fit (do mini-NT players open 1NT with 5 spades)? How can it be better to play in the opponents' suit (isn't there a bridge maxim about this)?

While Stayman doesn't show anything very specific, it implies a set of hand types. Weak 2=3=4=4 is not usually one of those types.

The probable outcome if we pass, IMHO, is playing 1NTx on 10-12 opposite jack-squat. A 4-2 spade fit is unlikely to be worse than that, and 4-3 or 4-4 in a red suit would be even less disastrous if it came about. I probably wouldn't bid 2♣, but I don't think it's crazy.

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2013-September-21, 06:48, said:

To the posters who say that they would bid 2♣ with that hand, could you please explain the logic?

I played K/S for a year, not because I liked it but we had to play against it a lot with Montreal close by and I wanted to figure out how to play against it.

This was in the mid 80's and my biggest revelation was that 2♣ was often used as a run out in advance of the expected double. Not alertable or alerted as such then or I believe now. It's plain wrong imo but I don't make the rules.

[campboy]

GreenMan, on 2013-September-21, 08:25, said:

The probable outcome if we pass, IMHO, is playing 1NTx on 10-12 opposite jack-squat. A 4-2 spade fit is unlikely to be worse than that, and 4-3 or 4-4 in a red suit would be even less disastrous if it came about. I probably wouldn't bid 2♣, but I don't think it's crazy.

No it isn't. If you pass now the probable outcome is that 1NTx comes back round to you and then you run. And I would imagine this gives you a better chance of reaching a playable spot if you have reasonable methods.

[GreenMan]

campboy, on 2013-September-21, 12:13, said:

No it isn't. If you pass now the probable outcome is that 1NTx comes back round to you and then you run. And I would imagine this gives you a better chance of reaching a playable spot if you have reasonable methods.

True, but not everyone has the best methods. Also, if you wait and then run you're exposing your belly, and if you run immediately they may not figure out you're stealing in time.

I'm not saying it's the best way to go, just that it's not crazy. (Careless or inferior != irrational. )

[lamford]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 15:07, said:

If the general expectation of Stayman is that it either has a four-card major, or has values, then 2C is a psyche. True, one might when desperate bid it on a 3-3-5-2 Yarborough, but being 2-3 in the majors would be unexpected. If the CC does not indicate that Stayman can be bid on such hands, I think it is a psyche and we rule accordingly. I do not agree with the rule prohibiting the psyching of Stayman, but do agree that if it is there it should be enforced. And I agree that Pass is SeWoG on the North hand, but is it unrelated to the infraction?

barmar, on 2013-September-21, 06:48, said:

This seems more like something I'd expect myself to say, not you!

I must be learning from your erudite posts not to be passive-aggressive

[szgyula]

jeffford76, on 2013-September-19, 14:23, said:

North asked about the alert and was told "non-forcing Stayman". She then thought for 10-15 seconds and said "It's not forcing?" and got the answer, "Sorry, it's not game forcing. We play 2!D as game-forcing Stayman." She thought for a while longer before passing.

I would still consider MI in that case. When N asked "It's not forcing?", the opponent must answer. No matter how silly the question is. Thus, there must be a yes or no to THAT QUESTION. The answer given starts with "Sorry, etc.", which to me implies that the answer is "It is forcing but it is not game forcing". I would have interpreted the answer this way.

The next question: Is this Stayman not forcing? That depends on the partnership. It may very well be forcing. In that case, nothing illegal happened. The opps were given the corrent information. No player is forced to bid, even after a forcing bid from partner. The classic case: Is it legal to pass an absolute force 2C opening? We never did this but we had a 2C (abs. force) - 2D (0-3 HCP) - p sequence once.

Now if the agreement is actually "not forcing and not a game force", than the story looks different. Than there was MI and the player can argue that he was sure he would get a second chance to bid so there is damage...

[jeffford76]

Thanks for the responses. It's clear to me now that there are wildly varying expectations for what is "standard" for the range of hands a Stayman bidder can hold opposite a weak NT. Were I to bid Stayman with the hand in question it would definitely be a psyche because that's not one of the hand types we can have. If it is systemic to do so, I think a better explanation should have been given that included the possibility of a weak hand with any shape.

[barmar]

GreenMan, on 2013-September-21, 12:30, said:

True, but not everyone has the best methods.

My experience is that mini-NT is mostly played by relatively advanced players, and they have runout methods (not necessarily the "best", but reasonable). Casual partnerships and players who aren't willing to invest energy in this stick with strong NT.

[mycroft]

• The issue with "letting it be doubled" is that you'll be playing anything you run to doubled. If you bid 2♣ and pass any response, with confidence and no worries in the air, you *might*:
  
  • get 2♦.
    
  • find that unlike after 1NT gets doubled, they only have a "cards" double (or a takeout double!) and they can't leave it in (or make it).
    
  • pick off their suit, and manage to scavenge a decent score, even if doubled, or, if you caught a 4-card spade suit, redouble for rescue and beat their game.
  
  They might be able to double, sure; and we might go for a rounder zero than if I had let 1NT sit and run after. We might get the same horrible result we were booked for. But we might not.
  
• It's interesting that we had this discussion last week. In the Swiss, against the eventual winners, I pick up a 3=3=3=4 2-count third at unfavourable. 1NT (12-14)-p to me. I transferred to (2) diamonds, without even blinking. -460 was a loss, but it was better than our expected result!

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 11:47, said:

In the Swiss, against the eventual winners, I pick up a 3=3=3=4 2-count third at unfavourable. 1NT (12-14)-p to me. I transferred to (2) diamonds, without even blinking. -460 was a loss, but it was better than our expected result!

Out of curiosity, how do you explain your 2♣ response to 1NT?