BBO Discussion Forums: Stayman - BBO Discussion Forums

EBU Blue Book 4E2 said:

I haven't read the original version of the Stayman convention but I'm told that

• The 2♣ bidder showed at least one major; and
• Simple major replies denied a maximum with both majors.

Stayman has evolved and spawned variants over the years e.g. Garbage Stayman. I guess that few modern players play Stayman as originally formulated. By traditional criteria, Non-promissory Stayman is an oxymoron.

In the past this hasn't worried me. Recently, however, I've argued, at length, and in vain, in the "No Firm Agreement" topic, about how modern Bergen variants (among other things) should be disclosed. Hence, I wonder if there are people who would question the morality of announcing "Stayman" when their agreement is untrue to the original.

I hope you wouldn't question the morality of me saying I have Star Wars on DVD. (In fact I have something that's since been mucked about with by George Lucas, and not the original version in which [spoiler redacted] shot [spoiler redacted].)

The regulation doesn't say anything about whether your agreement conforms to the original Stayman. In fact, it very clearly says, in the last sentence quoted, that whether the Stayman bidder promises a 4-card major or not does not matter.

As long as it just asks opener to show a 4-card major, you announce it.

Similarly after 1nt we play that 2♠ is minor suit stayman but does not promise both minors, just asks and can be a 1 suited minor slam try. We disclose as such when asked.

Stayman has so many variants you no longer alert in acbl land and if there is a need to know, a question is asked and full and proper disclosure applies.

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-19, 14:37, said:

I would say that "Stayman" in this context doesn't mean "the original convention devised by George Rapee (among others) and popularized by Sam Stayman," or even "Stayman the way I (for any value of "I") play it with my partner". It means "a 2♣ bid in response to 1NT asking partner if he has a four card major". This is not a disclosure issue because the meaning is defined in the regulation, not dependent on outside factors like which variant a particular player plays.

blackshoe, on 2014-November-19, 16:09, said:

Yes. I just meant that if you need to know what or if a variant is in play you must ask as it only affects what the 2♣ bidder may have, not the response.

fwiw, 'Stayman' seems to have been first invented by Jack Marx. For myself, I'd prefer to announce 2♣ as "asks for a major" when that's what I'm playing, but if the powers that be tell me to announce "Stayman" instead, it has the advantage of brevity.

Aardv, on 2014-November-19, 20:16, said:

That's why I said "among others". Marx may have invented it first, but Stayman got it in print first — and he didn't invent it at all.

Announcing it as "stayman" has the advantage that you don't need to announce the 2d rebid because it is defined by the fact that you play stayman.

nige1, on 2014-November-19, 12:48, said:

The answer to this question is almost certainly yes, after all we live in a strange world where morality varies by country, faith, birth sign, and perhaps even by bridge club. Then we have the Internet which provides people as silly as me with the opportunity to respond to such questions.

Luckily the chance of you meeting such a moral person at an EBU event is negligible.

Aardv, on 2014-November-19, 20:16, said:

You're not allowed to make up your own announcements, AFAIK. If you're not playing the convention as described in the regulation, you alert it rather than announcing, and provide details if the opponents ask for an explanation. In general, announcements are only used for the common variants of common conventions, and they're intentionally brief.

As is true in all such cases, Announcements != agreements != full disclosure. Those that don't understand this have the obvious resulting problems (including the "I told you, it could be short" problem).

Playing a reasonably standard T-Walsh, for instance, 1♣ is Announced in the ACBL "could be short"; the agreement is "fairly standard T-Walsh" (which is 2 or 3 pages I'm not going to post here); full disclosure of the 1♣ bid is "11-21, clubs or any balanced outside NT range" (being prepared to explain what 1♦ opener shows if necessary).

If you agree Bergen Raises (which I would never do, for exactly Trinidad's reason in the other thread), then you have two paragraphs of agreements about the relevant calls and the relevant next round calls. If you agree Stayman - I hope you have agreements about not-Stayman and Stayman-and-bid. However, whether or not you play it 1940's Marx, 1960's Goren, EHAA Extended Stayman, whenever-they-learned-it "can't bid Stayman without a 4cM", or whatever, you *announce* (in the EBU) "Stayman". If asked for an explanation, of course, you give the correct full explanation (without explaining what opener is going to do, of course).

Announcements are just Alerts in a different cadence, which *usually* gives sufficient information to the opponents at least for now; and frequently are intended to take the overwhelmingly most common Alertable call out of "Alert", because everybody learns to ignore that, and then gets caught on the "real" Alerts.

nige1, on 2014-November-19, 12:48, said:

No, there aren't "people" who would question the morality of this, because the word "people" is plural. There is at most one person in the whole world who would do so.