[Stephen Tu]

Quote

That doesn't really change the fact that 2NT doesn't convey any new information (information other than was conveyed by 2♣).

I totally disagree with your premise here. The vast majority of the time 2c is bid, responder has a 4 cd major, enough that the rare exceptions should not at all affect whether or not the opponents bid. The 2nt rebid has raised the possibility of no 4 cd major substantially, to the point where it affects lead possibilities a lot. It's a good point in the auction to alert opponents to this, when the information has become relevant enough that it should affect their actions.

In a country where 2c stayman is not alerted normally, having everyone who plays an artificial 2nt alert it would be a pain, and make the alert of 2c ultra-common noise, and detract from the more important times 2c ought to be alerted, when it's not stayman at all. (Keri or something else weird?). The ACBL alert system is geared towards alerting things that are unusual & unexpected, hence no alert of stayman, plus announcements for the really common stuff.

Alerting *non-2nt* continuations is also silly, since the inferences are the same whether you are playing 2nt doesn't have to have a 4 cd major or not. The opponents don't really need to know at that point.

[barmar]

That's the point I was trying to make, but Stephen explained it much better.

[jdonn]

I think making the stayman bid announceable "may not have a 4 card major" is probably the best solution. The other announcements for things that are conventional but so common or irrelevent that alerting them is probably silly seem to have worked well.

[Stephen Tu]

I'd be fine with an announcement over 2c.


The stayman thing that really peeves me is puppet over 2nt. Strongly feel that the responses should be alerted, not the 3c bid itself.

[barmar]

Yes, it's similar to "could be short" announcements for minors.

Can someone do a simulation and find the percentage of Stayman hands that don't have a 4-card major?

[aguahombre]

who cares?.l.2c is stayman. It is only certain followups which either deny a major or might not have one. I think it is silly to announce "might not", then later alert "does not". The ACBL rules are just fine.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Jan 21 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

who cares?.l.2c is stayman. It is only certain followups which either deny a major or might not have one. I think it is silly to announce "might not", then later alert "does not". The ACBL rules are just fine.

Obviously if you make the rule you announce "might not" then that's it, no later alerts.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jan 21 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 21 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

who cares?.l.2c is stayman.  It is only certain followups which either deny a major or might not have one.  I think it is silly to announce "might not", then later alert "does not".  The ACBL rules are just fine.

Obviously if you make the rule you announce "might not" then that's it, no later alerts.

strange from an acbl person. when you later learn "does not", u must disclose.

[1eyedjack]

Barmar has a point. If you tell them the information at time t1 (ie 2N) when you might have told them it at an earlier time t0 (ie 2C) then the opponents are only damaged if they were considering some action in that intervening interval between t0 and t1 which depended on that information. You may judge that likelihood to be minimal although it will be finite and positive. In the interests of keeping the game moving you take a risk and conceal it until it is more convenient. Most of the time you will be safe. You just have to accept that you are at high risk of being ruled against when the lower frequency event arises. This is not a unique situation. I think in practice there are regular occasions when there is a potential for disclosure which could vary between a bridge lesson and a grunt. If you embark on a bridge lesson each time the game would crawl. So you take a risk and occasionally pay the price. Not ideal, but there is dinner waiting.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

you are at high risk of being ruled against

No, you are at zero risk of being ruled against, in the ACBL, because the rule is that you alert at the time 2nt is bid, not earlier. Lobowolf was arguing that the rule should be changed, barmar and I were arguing that his reasoning is faulty and the rule is better as is. Josh suggested announcement which would probably satisfy all.

The opponents knowing that 2c might not have a 4 cd major should have *zero* impact on their decision making between the time of the 2c bid and the 2nt bid, because of the extreme rarity of the event, and the uselessness of the information at the time. So 2c doesn't have to have a 4cd major. I am 4th chair and contemplating overcalling a major. It's still dangerous because both opps can have the major. Should the probability of RHO not having the major decreasing by some miniscule percentage change your action? Absolutely not, which is why the ACBL has sensibly IMO ruled that you alert 2nt not 2c.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Jan 22 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 21 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 21 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

who cares?.l.2c is stayman.  It is only certain followups which either deny a major or might not have one.   I think it is silly to announce "might not", then later alert "does not".   The ACBL rules are just fine.

Obviously if you make the rule you announce "might not" then that's it, no later alerts.

strange from an acbl person. when you later learn "does not", u must disclose.

Wtf we are talking about the SUGGESTION that an announcement would be better than an alert. How things possibly should be, not how they are. If it was ever implemented there would be no need for the alert. Pleeeeeeeeeeease try to keep up....

[1eyedjack]

Stephen Tu, on Jan 22 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

Quote

you are at high risk of being ruled against

No, you are at zero risk of being ruled against, in the ACBL, because the rule is that you alert at the time 2nt is bid, not earlier.

OK, but the OP did not mention ACBL jurisdiction. That said, I was trying to address a basic principle that is applicable across other situations as well.

As regards the Stayman 2C, there are many pairs who play 2C as promisery but whose overall 1NT response structures otherwise differ so significantly that the hand types contained within the 2C response vary despite that 2C promises a 4 card major, and the same applies among the subset of Stayman users who play it as non-promisery. A complete definition of the 2C response, in either case, would require the explainer to run through all of the other possible responses to 1NT that the 2C bidder has denied, and whether or not a 4 card major is assured is just one factor in that explanation. To focus on that aspect as something worthy of particular regulation, seems somewhat arbitrary. Arguably, of more interest to me is what weak options are contained in the 2C response.

[helene_t]

Hey guys the OP was about whether 2♣ and/or 2NT should be alerted when playing online.

But OK, since it is pretty obvious that it should be alerted online, but less obvious whether it should be alerted IRL, I suppose it makes the thread more interesting to change the topic.

FWIW I don't know what opps at my local club will expect when we bid
1NT-2♣
2♥-2NT
Probably most will expect that responder has four spades, but that begs the question what 2♠ would have shown. This 2NT bid shows four spades with some of my partners and denies four spades with others. Maybe I ought to alert in both cases, just to be safe. I chose not to, though. I like an alert to show something more unusual or more artificial, like 2NT being a puppet to 3♣ or such. Dunno what the Orange book says about it.

BTW does the 2♥ bid deny four spades? For some it does, but people don't alert either treatment. Playing online against opps from a country in which everyone plays it as not denying four spades, I think it ought to be alerted if it does. Again, I wouldn't alert this IRL. We have one pair at the club who play condensed transfers. They alert it, of course.

[TylerE]

As yet a furthur twist, with one partner I played the following stayman rebids over opener's response

2M - 4M, minimum invite to 3N
2N - May or may not have 4M, "good" invite to 3N.

Range on 1N was 12-15, being able to invite at 2 different levels was helpful.

[jillybean]

ArtK78, on Jan 20 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

Since, on BBO, partner is not notified if I alert a call that I make, it is best to alert any call that may contain some information that the opponents may not be aware of. The only danger in making an alert is that it could convey UI to partner. This is not possible on BBO.

I would alert the 2NT call on BBO whether or not any governing organization requires that I do so.

This not completely correct, when using the BBO CC your partner does indeed see the explanation. UI is conveyed with every bid this way.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2010, 01:15 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 22 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 21 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 21 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

who cares?.l.2c is stayman.  It is only certain followups which either deny a major or might not have one.   I think it is silly to announce "might not", then later alert "does not".   The ACBL rules are just fine.

Obviously if you make the rule you announce "might not" then that's it, no later alerts.

strange from an acbl person. when you later learn "does not", u must disclose.

Wtf we are talking about the SUGGESTION that an announcement would be better than an alert. How things possibly should be, not how they are. If it was ever implemented there would be no need for the alert. Pleeeeeeeeeeease try to keep up....

I know you were suggesting a change, which might be a very good change: making 2C (might or might not) an announcement. I thought I was keeping up, though because I know you are an advocate of complete disclosure.

When you say that the proposed announcement would preclude any alert of 2NT, that is where we depart. I was saying that if a later bid changes "might not" to "does not", then the later disclosure would still be necessary. This would only happen if the resp to stayman were 2H, and 2NT then denied spades.

Would the second disclosure also be an announcement, or would it have to be an alert?

[bid_em_up]

Stephen Tu, on Jan 21 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

The stayman thing that really peeves me is puppet over 2nt.  Strongly feel that the responses should be alerted, not the 3c bid itself.

Even though the 3C bidder may not have a 4 card major and is simply checking to see if opener has a five card major? And I believe that the responses to puppet are already alertable, but I could be mistaken.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Jan 22 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Would the second disclosure also be an announcement, or would it have to be an alert?

There wouldn't be one. The announcement covers you and if the opponents want to know after the auction (or during if it matters to them at any particular point) they can just ask. Usually they probably won't care since dummy will come down anyway. There would be no point to announcing if you have to alert later anyway, the point is to avoid the problems of when and whether to alert.

[ArtK78]

jillybean, on Jan 22 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 20 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

Since, on BBO, partner is not notified if I alert a call that I make, it is best to alert any call that may contain some information that the opponents may not be aware of.  The only danger in making an alert is that it could convey UI to partner.  This is not possible on BBO.

I would alert the 2NT call on BBO whether or not any governing organization requires that I do so.

This not completely correct, when using the BBO CC your partner does indeed see the explanation. UI is conveyed with every bid this way.

I have not played much on BBO in several months (except in Robot individuals). This must be something new. And it is NOT GOOD.

There is NO REASON why any information about a bid that a player makes should be conveyed his partner. If the system automatically shows the agreed upon meaning of the bid to the partner of the bidder, that should be fixed so that it does not show.

I know that in the Robot games I can click on a bid that my Robot partner makes to find out what it means. And I can put my mouse pointer on a bid that I am considering to find out what it means in the Robot system. That makes sense in the Robot games, since the Robot system is not something that players are familiar with. And the same inforamation is available to all of the human players in the event.

But in "real" games with a human partner, one is not supposed to be able to be able to see the meaning of a bid according to one's own agreements. One is supposed to remember one's own agreements.

[barmar]

jillybean, on Jan 22 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

This not completely correct, when using the BBO CC your partner does indeed see the explanation. UI is conveyed with every bid this way.

I think you're talking about Full Disclosure CC, not about alerts and explanations.