[Phil]

See question

[TylerE]

Only opener's rebids (and I don't feel strongly that 2N-3♣-3M is alertable). This is one of those currently required alerts that are more likely to benefit (an unethical) responder than opponents.

[FrancesHinden]

In what jurisdiction?

It's already alertable in the EBU.

[mtvesuvius]

It's alertable in ACBL also, however I think only opener's responses should be alertable.

[Apollo81]

Puppet Stayman and all followups should be delayed alerts, the same way that Kickback (if not a 4n bid) is a delayed alert. That way there are no ethical problems whatsoever.

[helene_t]

"Ordinary" stayman is used with all kinds of different hands depending on partnership agreements, and yet people tend not to alert them. So I see no reason to single out PS. If anything, opener's answers should be alerted. Unless, of course, Stayman is also alertable or anounceable.

[jdonn]

I do not think any of the bids should be alertable in puppet stayman. It's true it includes some artificial bids a defender might want to double, but I think it's a (far) bigger issue that an alert by either player reminds his partner that the alerter is playing puppet stayman, and creates terrible UI issues. And of course the negative inference applies as well to the alerting.

It's most terrible if 3♣ is alertable since the stayman bidder doesn't even need to have a clue what type of stayman he is playing. Just see if partner alerts or not, bid accordingly, and act like you always knew what you were playing. Just removing that alert would at least be a reasonable improvement. Kind of along the same lines that a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable whether it's ogust or feature or whatever as long as it's a constructive-style asking bid, but the rebid is alertable.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

I do not think any of the bids should be alertable in puppet stayman. It's true it includes some artificial bids a defender might want to double, but I think it's a (far) bigger issue that an alert by either player reminds his partner that the alerter is playing puppet stayman, and creates terrible UI issues. And of course the negative inference applies as well to the alerting.

It's most terrible if 3♣ is alertable since the stayman bidder doesn't even need to have a clue what type of stayman he is playing. Just see if partner alerts or not, bid accordingly, and act like you always knew what you were playing. Just removing that alert would at least be a reasonable improvement. Kind of along the same lines that a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable whether it's ogust or feature or whatever as long as it's a constructive-style asking bid, but the rebid is alertable.

I understand your point and when bridge mattered a great deal to me I would have argued the same way - but really, when you get down to it should a part of bridge scoring be a convention memory contest?

Don't want to argue with you - just bringing it up as a second opinion. For me, I really don't care if they get UI. If they have to cheat to win they haven't won anything of value.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

It's most terrible if 3♣ is alertable since the stayman bidder doesn't even need to have a clue what type of stayman he is playing. Just see if partner alerts or not, bid accordingly, and act like you always knew what you were playing. Just removing that alert would at least be a reasonable improvement.

Exactly. Instead of fumbling for their convention card, these players just alert their call to tell their partner how they are responding to 3♣. Hell, you'll never have a partnership misunderstanding if you just alert your partner's 3♣.

Despicable.

This post has been edited by Phil: 2009-January-16, 11:56

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 15 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

If they have to cheat to win they haven't won anything of value.

That seems like an argument for defenders simply looking at the convention card or asking what the bids mean and not taking advantage of that UI as much as it is an argument as that all the bids should be alertable. Quite honestly whatever is decided, it is what it is, I don't tie myself in knots about it.

[kfay]

I never really thought about it before, but you're absolutely right. Alerting is crazy.

[mtvesuvius]

kfay, on Jan 16 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Alerting is crazy.

LOL

[keylime]

I think Puppet is so mainstream now, that it should not require one.

[ggwhiz]

Checkback Stayman after a 2NT re-bid requires an alert therefore so does Puppet Stayman.

Wait a minute, they're both nuts!

We do have to protect C players in stratified fields but over alerting everything is more likely to confuse than help.

I once had an "A" pair demand an adjustment when pard forgot to alert checkback stayman and their reasoning for damage was ludicrous. These days, a similar incident involving Puppet would be too.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 15 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

In what jurisdiction?

It's already alertable in the EBU.

The question wasn't whether it IS alertable, but whether it SHOULD be. I.e. do you believe he ACBL and EBU regulations in this respect are appropriate?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Jan 15 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

I understand your point and when bridge mattered a great deal to me I would have argued the same way - but really, when you get down to it should a part of bridge scoring be a convention memory contest?

Yes. Bridge is an exercise of mental talents, and memory is part of that. Players need to adjust the complexity of their bidding systems to the capacity of their memory.

If we didn't want convention memory to be a part of the game, everyone could play complex relay systems with elaborate cheat sheets. But if we had that, why even bother with bids, you might as well just call out the meanings.

[Vilgan]

I'm a bit confused as to why it matters. At decent levels, who forgets they play puppet? Its not like a rare bid or one that might be ambiguous.

If a big could be a suit, or a special bid, or a cue bid... then an alert gives something away. But puppet is super easy and comes up enough that memory shouldn't be an issue. It just seems hard to imagine this actually being an issue in a place other than a club game... and UI is already crazy common there.

[barmar]

Vilgan, on Jan 16 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

I'm a bit confused as to why it matters. At decent levels, who forgets they play puppet? Its not like a rare bid or one that might be ambiguous.

Some people play with a variety of partners, and they play Puppet with some but not others. If you're switching partners frequently, it's not that hard to forget which mode you're in. The alert solves that.

[david_c]

barmar, on Jan 16 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 15 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

In what jurisdiction?

It's already alertable in the EBU.

The question wasn't whether it IS alertable, but whether it SHOULD be. I.e. do you believe he ACBL and EBU regulations in this respect are appropriate?

Oh, I think it is definitely right that Puppet Stayman should be alerted in the EBU. Mainly because ordinary Stayman is alerted as well.

I think if ordinary Stayman is not alerted, then there is a good case for not alerting Puppet. But it would be totally crazy not to alert [responder's] rebids.

This post has been edited by david_c: 2009-January-18, 14:14

[debrose]

I believe, ideally, only the responder's second bid of 3 of a major (showing the other major), should be alerted, so as to give the defender whose partner will be on lead a chance to double. It is extremely unlikely that the hand over the NT bidder needs to make a lead directing double of opener's bid, and the potential UI from responder's alert can help opener understand partner's next bid, without anyone even realizing they've used unauthorized information. On the other hand, opener alerting responder's second bid doesn't provide much useful UI. If responder had forgotten through this point that she were playing puppet Stayman, it seems unlikely she would have an easy way of taking advantage, at least without it being obvious she'd done so.

The alert of 3C can create a problem even for ethical players. Suppose responder isn't focused, at the moment they bid 3C, on the fact that they are playing puppet Stayman. However, they usually play it, and it's something like 90% that they would have realized it when partner responded, even without an alert of 3C. Do they now have to proceed as if their partner were responding to ordinary Stayman? I rarely play Puppet Stayman, but I've encountered comparable problems.

I have sympathy for the idea that having specifically responder's second bid of a major be alertable is too complicated, and I would greatly prefer no alerts in Puppet Stayman auctions to the way it is now, if those are the choices.

Of course everything that might be relevant to the defense should be alerted at the end of the auction, before the opening lead.