[jeffford76]

---

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.

If it matters, the ACBL has a general convention chart rule that forbids "[p]syching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings."

Anything to be concerned about?

[billw55]

West has clearly broken the GCC rule you cited. I'm not impressed with the original disclosure either, but that is a lesser quibble.

North's pass seems like a serious error subsequent to that infraction.

I assume it is ok for east to take inference from north's questions, and choose pass (not considering whether it is actually a good choice - just that it is not an an infraction).

Since west's psyche is illegal anyway, not sure if it matters whether this is a pattern than amounts to a CPU.

Not sure what this all adds up to in a ruling, either!

[pran]

From what has been said so far I would be tempted to adjust the result to 4♠N+2

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2013-September-19, 14:34, said:

West has clearly broken the GCC rule you cited. I'm not impressed with his original disclosure either, but that is a lesser quibble.

North's pass seems like a serious error subsequent to that infraction.

I assume it is ok for east to take inference from north's questions, and choose pass (not considering whether it is actually a good choice - just that it is not an an infraction).

Since west's psyche is illegal anyway, not sure if it matters whether this is a pattern than amounts to a CPU.

Not sure what this all adds up to in a ruling, either!

Not sure that 2♣ is a psyche.

Certainly in the UK (and I have no reason to believe it's different in the US) Stayman is defined as a 2♣ bid that requests partner to ..., it does not of itself promise anything, so how can it be a psyche ?

N has fixed his partner by the questions then pass and E knows this, hence his pass which is a gamble, but one he's perfectly entitled to take.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-19, 15:05, said:

Not sure that 2♣ is a psyche.

Certainly in the UK (and I have no reason to believe it's different in the US) Stayman is defined as a 2♣ bid that requests partner to ..., it does not of itself promise anything, so how can it be a psyche ?

N has fixed his partner by the questions then pass and E knows this, hence his pass which is a gamble, but one he's perfectly entitled to take.

Good job, from way over there. Over here, I really dislike the term "non-forcing Stayman"; but it is a naturally occuring way of describing 2C for pairs who have 2-way.

The CC checkbox under 2D uses "forcing Stayman", but non-forcing stayman is not referenced.

Some conscientious players when asked about 2C or 2D make it clear --- "We have two Stayman bids, this one is forcing (or not forcing) to game." Some really, really inexperienced players believe "non-forcing" means opener is not being asked to respond. This is not likely to be misunderstood after the first time.

[mycroft]

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! *)

With the same hand 4=4=3=2 nobody would quibble (or would they?). West was intending to pass anything that got bid and hopefully survive the double - if one came.

Given that it denies an absolute game force, passing Stayman with East's hand isn't unreasonable. With those clubs and no interest in playing anywhere else, even if partner has the standard "get-out-of-Dodge" Stayman hand, 2♣ is the best place; if he has a 5-card invite in a major, 2♣ is probably the best place.

I'm concerned that there's more than we know though, of partnership experience or extraneous information not from North.

What I do think happened is that this is the first time North has come across "alarm-bell Stayman", and next week they're going to hit "psychic Ogust" ("we're just asking partner, we don't guarantee any strength") and maybe even "psychic Blackwood" ("same thing, just raising to the 5 level").

(*) Well, I'm bidding 2♣, "transfer to diamonds [or various strong hands]". Okay, I'm a card short. Sue me. But if I was playing double-barrelled Stayman, I'm bidding 2♣.

[jeffford76]

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

I'm concerned that there's more than we know though, of partnership experience or extraneous information not from North.

Since I was at the table, I'm trying to avoid comment for a while, but I will say to avoid wasting time on this particular point that east/west were a 1st time partnership.

[akwoo]

I see nothing illegal per se.

But frankly, the explanation smacks of players taking advantage of opponents' inexperience against mini-NT. Anyone who has some experience playing or playing against mini-NT knows that a non-forcing Stayman is sometimes used as an all-purpose bailout bid. One might even say it is 'general bridge knowledge'. But it is such only to someone who has thought about it, and opps might very well be seeing mini-NT for only the 1st or 2nd time in their life.

When I play bridge, I want to win because I bid and played my cards better than other players, not because my opponents made mistakes due to unfamiliarity with my methods. (This doesn't mean I won't play unusual methods. But I will make extra disclosure when playing them.)

[RSClyde]

pran, on 2013-September-19, 14:50, said:

From what has been said so far I would be tempted to adjust the result to 4♠N+2

spades makes 7: east is squeezed in the minors

[ggwhiz]

I don't see any infraction. On this vul it's a clear cut emergency and just a toxic version of garbage stayman.

North drilled themselves and South has an easy 2♦ bid in pass out seat if not constrained by the table action. I would have allowed that bid if they chose it anyway.

[nige1]

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

---

On the facts above, No. West tried a cunning gambit (not a psych because Stayman makes no promises). North's pass wasn't a serious error (within the meaning of the law) but dithering was inadvisable. Especially when East sussed out why. South commendably lent over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-19, 18:59, said:

I don't see any infraction. On this vul it's a clear cut emergency and just a toxic version of garbage stayman.

North drilled themselves and South has an easy 2♦ bid in pass out seat if not constrained by the table action. I would have allowed that bid if they chose it anyway.

+ 1 Everything until that last sentence, where I am not so sure. Am not in vehement disagreement, however; but I think you maybe might find just enough pollees to make pass a LA.

[blackshoe]

IMO, the best way to describe Two-Way Stayman is "2♣ and 2♦ both ask partner if he has a four card major. 2♦ is FG, 2♣ is anything weaker, including possibly a bailout with nothing". That said, the odds of getting that explanation at the table are vanishingly small. People don't know how to disclose, they don't think about how to disclose except possibly rarely, and if they do think about it and come up with a good answer, they forget about it five minutes later. That's life. I don't think it's reasonable to rely on the TD to bail you out if you don't keep asking questions until you're sure you happy with the answer, or that you aren't going to get full disclosure. Note: I'm not suggesting anybody did that here, I'm just saying that players have some responsibility to make sure they understand the auction.

Assuming EW have agreed to bid 2♣ on this hand, there has been no psych. There has been no violation of convention regulations either. The only question seems to be whether East's explanations constitute MI. I don't think so. So I see no basis in law for any score adjustment or penalties.

[campboy]

I would not be happy about East's response when specifically asked whether 2♣ was forcing. It sounds like it is a consequence of these methods that it can be passed, albeit not very often, and East did in fact pass it. So why does the answer not confirm that it is non-forcing?

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-19, 15:05, said:

Not sure that 2♣ is a psyche.

Certainly in the UK (and I have no reason to believe it's different in the US) Stayman is defined as a 2♣ bid that requests partner to ..., it does not of itself promise anything, so how can it be a psyche ?

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! *)

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-19, 18:59, said:

I don't see any infraction. On this vul it's a clear cut emergency and just a toxic version of garbage stayman.

If this hand is included in the agreements for a 2♣ bid, fine. But shouldn't this be disclosed? Is it really so common that you just expect everyone to know this? By these arguments, it seems 2♣ could be bid on any hand whatsoever - without disclosure of this fact?

[VixTD]

akwoo, on 2013-September-19, 17:45, said:

Anyone who has some experience playing or playing against mini-NT knows that a non-forcing Stayman is sometimes used as an all-purpose bailout bid. One might even say it is 'general bridge knowledge'.

I've played a mini-no trump and I'm not aware of this use of Stayman (although it doesn't surprise me, and I wouldn't have fallen for it). I agree with Billw55 that if East has a reasonable expectation that the bid will be made with this sort of hand it should form part of the disclosure.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-September-20, 06:16, said:

I would not be happy about East's response when specifically asked whether 2♣ was forcing. It sounds like it is a consequence of these methods that it can be passed, albeit not very often, and East did in fact pass it. So why does the answer not confirm that it is non-forcing?

If you think East (eventually) answered in such a way which suggested 2C could sometimes be passed, why would you be unhappy about it? If you think it is just a logical inference from the fact that 2C is not game-forcing that East might sometimes pass 2C, and that East should have confirmed that because of North's tells while asking the question ---you have a point; but I think that would be going beyond disclosure.

In other words, I don't know from the way you worded your post which way you meant your question. East, however, can (at his own risk) use the tells provided by North to make his decision whether to respond to Stayman. If you think East first got the tells, and then used them to alter his explanation in such a way to indicate he would not be passing ---you have introduced a whole new can of worms which should be addressed.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2013-September-20, 06:19, said:

If this hand is included in the agreements for a 2♣ bid, fine. But shouldn't this be disclosed? Is it really so common that you just expect everyone to know this? By these arguments, it seems 2♣ could be bid on any hand whatsoever - without disclosure of this fact?

Well, if it were me, I wouldn't disclose this "fact", because it isn't true. And anyone who spends half a second thinking about it should know it isn't true, since there are surely other bids that could be made over 1NT.

The fact that opener passed 2♣ is certainly evidence that they may have an agreement to do so - it is also most certainly not conclusive evidence.

[mycroft]

I really think thinking that this hand "can't" bid Stayman is "assumed knowledge" because "everybody plays it this way" (and opposite a 15-17 NT, why would you ever try to bail from 1NT when you could end up playing a 4-2 fit?) But Stayman has never (well, okay, never since 1960) promised anything except that partner wants to hear about majors, and may have something more to say afterward. In my "double-barrelled Stayman, 10-12 NT NV" partnership, if I had had *East's* hand, and partner opened 1NT, I'm bidding 2♣ (and rebidding 3♣ over any response). I'd bid 2♣ with the black suits reversed (and bid 3♠ over any red suit response, probably game over 2♠). Got a problem with that? Again, do the people who have a problem with 2♣ on this hand have a problem with the same hand with all suits reversed, so 4=4=3=2 (or 4=3=4=2) 1-count? If not, remember there was a time before you learned that you can sometimes use Stayman to just "get to a better suit contract". If so, now you know.

I am told that E/W is a first time partnership. I bet they know each other, though, and have partners in common (who else would agree to play Kamikaze NT as a first-time partnership?) I'm also concerned about West's tells, and East being able to read them (again, from "know each other") as well as guessing from North's tells. But I doubt I'd find there an issue.

But "congratulations, you now know more about bridge than you did 10 minutes ago, and you Won't Get Fooled Again, will you?" is likely my response. In addition to "for it to be a psychic, it has to be a gross and deliberate misstatement of *their methods*, not *the way you play the same call*." This last seems to be a common misunderstanding.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-20, 07:09, said:

If you think East (eventually) answered in such a way which suggested 2C could sometimes be passed, why would you be unhappy about it? If you think it is just a logical inference from the fact that 2C is not game-forcing that East might sometimes pass 2C, and that East should have confirmed that because of North's tells while asking the question ---you have a point; but I think that would be going beyond disclosure.

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.