[jillybean]

I've stolen this from a NZ discussion where they do alert non promissory stayman;


Imagine your opponent is sitting in 4th position non-vulnerable vs vulnerable with the following hand with North the dealer opening a weak 1NT (12 - 14 HCP):



S AQxxxxxx

H xx

D xx

C x



The bidding goes:



N E S W

1NT - 2C ?



If the 2C response is unalerted and so should by the definition of simple Stayman contain a 4 card major then there is '0%' chance South has 4 spades if the 1NT opening is balanced by partnership agreement and so, therefore, South must have 4H. This 'knowledge' may influence West's decision to pass, bid 2S, 3S, 4S or even consider bidding 2H as a psyche bid.


However, if the 2C response is alerted that it may not contain a 4 card major if it is balanced and invitational West may bid differently if there is more uncertainty about the heart position.

By not alerting the 2C response you and your partner would unfairly share information that your opponent's don't have and which may disadvantage them if they were to act on the 'knowledge' the 2C bidder has a 4 card major.

============
Talking after a game today with a partner who plays a lot more club and tournament bridge than I do says some people are alerting 2C, some alert the subsequent bid, some don't alert at all. Whatever I think is the best appraoch isn't going to make the slightest difference to what people do : )

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-February-12, 20:26, said:

I've stolen this from a NZ discussion where they do alert non promissory stayman;


Imagine your opponent is sitting in 4th position non-vulnerable vs vulnerable with the following hand with North the dealer opening a weak 1NT (12 - 14 HCP):



S AQxxxxxx

H xx

D xx

C x



The bidding goes:



N E S W

1NT - 2C ?



If the 2C response is unalerted and so should by the definition of simple Stayman contain a 4 card major then there is '0%' chance South has 4 spades if the 1NT opening is balanced by partnership agreement and so, therefore, South must have 4H. This 'knowledge' may influence West's decision to pass, bid 2S, 3S, 4S or even consider bidding 2H as a psyche bid.


However, if the 2C response is alerted that it may not contain a 4 card major if it is balanced and invitational West may bid differently if there is more uncertainty about the heart position.

By not alerting the 2C response you and your partner would unfairly share information that your opponent's don't have and which may disadvantage them if they were to act on the 'knowledge' the 2C bidder has a 4 card major.

Thanks, but FWIW I find it a rather feeble argument. South can never have 4 card spades if North is balanced, whatever the agreement. And whether South must have 4 card hearts or merely may have 4 card hearts is surely not decisive, otherwise the author would have had the courage to explain how and why. In any case in such an extreme situation one can always ask.

(Director: "Did you draw any inferences from your partner asking about 2♣?". East: "Not really, I just imagined he was wondering whether to psyche the other major again").

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-February-12, 20:26, said:

============
Talking after a game today with a partner who plays a lot more club and tournament bridge than I do says some people are alerting 2C, some alert the subsequent bid, some don't alert at all.

That's pretty much the situation here too, thanks to this awful decision. And what really bugs me is that the confusion about alerting 2C (almost all of our Stayman conventions are non-promissory, although they vary significantly from one to another in other ways) both fosters disregard of the Alert/Announcements Policy in general and creates confusion about the much more important regulation that the subsequent bid shall be announced, not alerted or left in silence. To give an example, in my relatively small club a 2♦ response could be any of "has no 4cM", "has no 4cM and is minimum", "has no 5cM but one or both 4cM", "has no 5cM". Opponents have a right to hear this announced, not to ask and exchange UI or receive explanations like "Stayman". Of course everyone is convinced that they do not need explain anything because they play the only possible Stayman.

jillybean, on 2026-February-12, 20:26, said:

Whatever I think is the best appraoch isn't going to make the slightest difference to what people do : )

We are about to update the regulations and so I will have my say, as always. Then one can only hope.

But yes, seeking meaningful f2f bridge is a losing battle.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2026-February-11, 16:50, said:

When I play 4 way transfer I may not be asking about NT bidder's major suit holdings, it's simply a relay to let responder show an invitational hand.

You might not be interested in the answer, but you're still asking that question and they're going to answer it.

Maybe the word that's causing trouble is "asking", since that often suggests asking for information you need. A better description of the Stayman bid might be "Partner, tell me if you have a 4-card major." What you'll do with that information is not yet known.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-February-13, 11:28, said:

Maybe the word that's causing trouble is "asking", since that often suggests asking for information you need. A better description of the Stayman bid might be "Partner, tell me if you have a 4-card major." What you'll do with that information is not yet known.

On the contrary, I think the word "asking" is one of the few hopes of reducing the trouble here, because it is a common denominator of all the 2C conventions people play over NT, and a substitute for the name "Stayman" which identifies different agreements to different players (each certain that theirs is the only one).
And over here at least, you stopped being able to assume that the initial ask was "tell me if you have a 4 card major" several years ago, nowadays it could be asking for 4 card or for 5 card or for either.
Our regulations only refer to 2C "asking" without mentioning Stayman and I think that was a wise step in the right direction.

[I do of course agree with your first point that the fact one asks does not mean one is asking merely or primarily to know the answer. NT agreements are complex and have developments, even the choice of opening 1NT does not certify that we wish to play in NT, come to that.]

[mycroft]

One of the keys here is not to hide the pair who plays 2♣ as "bid 2♦ so I can show my hand" and the Alert of 2♦ which is "13 cards".

Or the pair (also from NZ, IIRC) who are still in their beginning lessons for which 2♣ is "5+ clubs, to play".

Somehow I think the pair that plays against us and complains when, after 1NT-2♣!; 2♦!-p; dummy hits with a 1=3=6=3 2-count, with 4♠ on their way, that they assumed it was just "Puppet Stayman/no 5cM" and didn't ask, and is told that "they Alerted, you didn't ask, Not My Problem" - might be more upset than the player with ♠AKTxxxxx into "doesn't promise a 4-card major".

There's no good solution; Announcements might be best, but it's more clutter; pick the one that works most of the time.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-February-13, 14:35, said:

There's no good solution; Announcements might be best, but it's more clutter; pick the one that works most of the time.

Perhaps if we brought back, and shared with our opponents, our convention card.

[blackshoe]

"Asking" by itself is never adequate disclosure.

[jillybean]

Local customs become laws, I can see “asking” becoming a cool alert.
Latest trend around here is for opening leader to look at opponent and say “May I” ? Before facing lead. This is being taught as a law to less experienced players.

[blackshoe]

Then the people teaching that should be corrected and if necessary censured.

[pescetom]

--

[mycroft]

jillybean, on 2026-February-13, 15:21, said:

Perhaps if we brought back, and shared with our opponents, our convention card.

Perhaps. Oddly enough, though, on neither card would it show what version of Stayman it was (okay, it would differentiate between different versions of Alertable 2♣, were "asks, doesn't promise" Alertable. Now, let's go for the other 1000 "need to ask about the Alert"s). You might be able to work it out from context though (is there an immediate BAL INV call? Does there seem to be no way to show an invitational/game forcing 3m bid? ...?) - but should that be the opponents' requirement?

But more particularly, if 4 9s of 1NT-2♣ "Alert!"s are "may not have a 4-card Major", I guarantee you that nobody will pull out the card to check if you're the one in the country for whom it isn't, even if they do have it. At which point, when the DIrector gets called because they're on lead to 2♦ with 4♠ on and claim "I just assumed the Alert was 'may be a BAL INV', Just Like Everyone Else Who Alerts This" - "oh well, so sad, you should have asked or checked, even though you have never and will never run into this again?"

The Alert Procedure makes it clear that if a call is Alerted, it's reasonable to ask. If not (and Artificial), it shouldn't matter to you almost always(*). If you find situations where that does not apply, lobby for a change, or commit to asking 100% of the time (and have that recorded somewhere), so suggestions of passing/using UI can be countered. Unfortunately, even then, you're on shakier ground with 73E2.

I will admit to being biased: I have lived in a world where a significant enough fraction play both "doesn't guarantee" and "does guarantee" that you had to expect it, and a world where the regulators have decided that "neither is Alertable, but rebids that 'may not have' are", almost all my bridge-playing life (frankly, as long as 12-14 NT had to be Announced (great!) and a year more than 15-17 NT had to be Announced (just as great for those of you who play that, trust me)). I have never cared one way or the other before the (lack of) Alert happened. I'm sure hands where it matters do exist, but I haven't had one. So I Just Don't See the Point of changing this back to the pre-1997 days, where it was definitely a pollution of the Alert space (OTOH, the "Alert, denies a game-forcing hand" and "Alert, does not guarantee invitational values" bits of pollution were much more common then than now. I think the few nutcases who play Keri or 2♣ To Play (esp. with the end of the Endicott Fudge in the ACBL) can be ignored here :-).

(*)barring the cases where "no strength is Alertable" or "no meaning is Alertable" - where, again, you're expected to know you have to ask (because it's common, or because you know you're playing something non-Standard and have therefore read the Procedure and seen opponents' (lack of) obligation, respectively).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-February-14, 14:35, said:

Perhaps. Oddly enough, though, on neither card would it show what version of Stayman it was (okay, it would differentiate between different versions of Alertable 2♣, were "asks, doesn't promise" Alertable. Now, let's go for the other 1000 "need to ask about the Alert"s). You might be able to work it out from context though (is there an immediate BAL INV call? Does there seem to be no way to show an invitational/game forcing 3m bid? ...?) - but should that be the opponents' requirement?

But more particularly, if 4 9s of 1NT-2♣ "Alert!"s are "may not have a 4-card Major", I guarantee you that nobody will pull out the card to check if you're the one in the country for whom it isn't, even if they do have it. At which point, when the DIrector gets called because they're on lead to 2♦ with 4♠ on and claim "I just assumed the Alert was 'may be a BAL INV', Just Like Everyone Else Who Alerts This" - "oh well, so sad, you should have asked or checked, even though you have never and will never run into this again?"

The Alert Procedure makes it clear that if a call is Alerted, it's reasonable to ask.
....

I agree with you that the card cannot be the only solution to the f2f disclosure problem (although if I was offered card + hyperlinked system notes in alternative to Alert/Announce, I would vote yes, Taliban that I am).
I don't agree that one can omit a high level description of ones Stayman major ask on a system card, even if the card format was designed by a committee.
Ours has a large text box saying "Interference over strong NT" which leaves no alibi to to the reticent (in a weak NT world the card could be better, but there is also a large space for "Special Interference and agreements").

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-February-14, 14:35, said:

Perhaps. Oddly enough, though, on neither card would it show what version of Stayman it was (okay, it would differentiate between different versions of Alertable 2♣, were "asks, doesn't promise" Alertable. Now, let's go for the other 1000 "need to ask about the Alert"s). You might be able to work it out from context though (is there an immediate BAL INV call? Does there seem to be no way to show an invitational/game forcing 3m bid? ...?) - but should that be the opponents' requirement?

But more particularly, if 4 9s of 1NT-2♣ "Alert!"s are "may not have a 4-card Major", I guarantee you that nobody will pull out the card to check if you're the one in the country for whom it isn't, even if they do have it. At which point, when the DIrector gets called because they're on lead to 2♦ with 4♠ on and claim "I just assumed the Alert was 'may be a BAL INV', Just Like Everyone Else Who Alerts This" - "oh well, so sad, you should have asked or checked, even though you have never and will never run into this again?"

The Alert Procedure makes it clear that if a call is Alerted, it's reasonable to ask.
....

I agree with you that the card cannot be the only solution to the f2f disclosure problem, but I think it could resolve much of the problem.
I don't agree that one can ethically omit a high level description of ones Stayman major ask on a system card, even if the card format was designed by a committee.