[pran]

I have documentation (1973) that the correct answer bid to Stayman 2♣ over a 1NT opening bid by a hand holding both major suits is 2♥.
A footnote states that Stayman originally had 2♠ as the correct answer with such a hand, but that this had been abandoned in Europe.

[paua]

 pran, on 2012-November-09, 12:57, said:

I have documentation (1973) that the correct answer bid to Stayman 2♣ over a 1NT opening bid by a hand holding both major suits is 2♥.
A footnote states that Stayman originally had 2♠ as the correct answer with such a hand, but that this had been abandoned in Europe.

How can there be a "correct answer" ? This is not mathematics. Players can choose their own methods, which are all valid. A 40-year-old quote about a misnamed convention from 70 years ago in another country is hardly grounds for defining expectations.

[pran]

 paua, on 2012-November-09, 15:15, said:

How can there be a "correct answer" ? This is not mathematics. Players can choose their own methods, which are all valid. A 40-year-old quote about a misnamed convention from 70 years ago in another country is hardly grounds for defining expectations.

"Correct" in the sense that it was how Stayman originally defined his convention, and "correct" in the sense how it was eventually unanimously changed, at least in Europe.

Players may certainly choose their own methods, but they should not use an already well defined name for them.

Ranik Halle sometimes said when he met players who claimed that their 2♣ opening bid was "Halle's" that it really was not; as originator of that convention he felt justified in claiming knowledge of what "Halle's" was and was not.

[campboy]

We know from old texts that "Stayman" has been consistently used to describe the convention whether 2♣ does or does not promise a 4-card major and whether the response with both majors is 2♥, 2♠, or could be either; it is wrong to say that the name "Stayman" means any of these things rather than any other.

For those of us in England, the regulations say that Stayman is to be announced "where it is used in the traditional manner to ask for a four-card major, ie with responses 2♦ with no major, and 2♥ and 2♠ to show that major." Consequently an announcement of "Stayman" is consistent with any of the specific agreements above.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2012-November-10, 00:10, said:

"Correct" in the sense that it was how Stayman originally defined his convention, and "correct" in the sense how it was eventually unanimously changed, at least in Europe.

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 09:56, said:

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

According to references I have available Stayman did not invent the convention but he was the one who published it.
My statement on the response when opener has both majors is a direct quotation from a Norwegian very reputed book in 1973.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 09:56, said:

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters

I think it does, given that Stayman was Rapee's partner.

One could even argue that Staymans's definition matters even more than Rapee's. After all, if Rapee would use Stayman, it would be Stayman who would be responding. And since this thread is about responses to Stayman, Stayman might know better than Rapee.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2012-November-12, 10:37, said:

I think it does, given that Stayman was Rapee's partner.

One could even argue that Staymans's definition matters even more than Rapee's. After all, if Rapee would use Stayman, it would be Stayman who would be responding. And since this thread is about responses to Stayman, Stayman might know better than Rapee.

Rik

If you are able to contact either one of them, please let me know; and ask them whether their views on the subject have changed, and whether the quality of Bridge is as good as I hope it will be where they are.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 09:56, said:

Since Stayman did not invent the convention [Marx in England and Rapee in the USA at a similar time] I am not sure that how Stayman originally defined it matters, and it certainly has not been unanimously changed [ask a couple of my partners].

But if you look at books on conventions, one of the problems with such books is that they tend to tell you how a method is played, when in fact many people play it differently. Similarly with books on systems. The authors find that giving options does not help, and they tend to say their way is the way.

The problem with most conventions is that a majority of people play them one particular way and assume that everyone else plays them that particular way as well. My experience over the years is that people play them in vastly different ways - just ask people who play Aspro, Astro, Asptro, Crowhurst and so forth.

Possibly modern American methods are better standardised because there are certain authorities that people follow, but even so if someone tells me something is a Bergen raise I reckon that covers at least four possibilities. One of my partners suggested we play Bergen, so I told her I would if she explained it to me. After saying things like "Of course you know it, David" and "Everyone plays it" she finally explained it. Certainly not what I would have understood!

Stayman was the first to publicize the convention. Presumably what he wrote up is what Rapee defined, since they were partners at the time. OTOH, I agree it probably doesn't matter much.

In the ACBL, at least, whether a call requires an alert on the grounds it is "highly unusual and unexpected" is supposed to be based on "historical usage" (whatever that means) rather than on "nobody around here plays it that way".

I would not say that methods are better standardized in NA than elsewhere. Americans in particular are prone to do things their own way, while claiming what they do is "standard".

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-12, 11:27, said:

I would not say that methods are better standardized in NA than elsewhere. Americans in particular are prone to do things their own way, while claiming what they do is "standard".

That explains a lot: London area bridge is becoming more Americanised than the rest of the British Isles,so perhaps the views on standard are too.

[jallerton]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-November-07, 21:42, said:

I think 2s with both majors is highly unusual also. I have never seen anyone do it. I'm from the us.

Interesting. Perhaps you need to talk to:

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-31, 14:19, said:

I reread my post and I did not say anything that could possibly be construed as that. If that was your way of asking me what I think people do in response to stayman with 4-4 in the majors, I think the vast majority of bridge players either don't know what they do, choose a major at random, or bid the better suit. I also know several who over at least some notrump openings play a bid of either major denies the other, and bid something else like 2NT with both. I do not think a major suit bid playing any of these styles is or should be alertable. The only assumption the opponents should be making if you bid a major is that you have 4 or perhaps 5 of that major.

[JLOGIC]

How about this, I will give lalldonn a 3 year time period. If he sees anyone bid 2S against him with 4-4 in the majors I'll give him 20 bucks. I'm really confident I will not have to pay 20 bucks.

Also, since he doesn't play as much as me I will also watch and report back if I ever see anyone bid 2S with 4-4 in the majors. It won't happen.

[MickyB]

But surely now that I've pointed out that it's the right thing to do, everyone will start doing it?

Failing that - Josh, I'm looking for opps for later, fancy it?

[Zelandakh]

How about this pair? Unfortunately I cannot remember where the Swedish article is any more. I think it was also from an international player/pair.

[bluejak]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-November-15, 00:39, said:

How about this, I will give lalldonn a 3 year time period. If he sees anyone bid 2S against him with 4-4 in the majors I'll give him 20 bucks. I'm really confident I will not have to pay 20 bucks.

Also, since he doesn't play as much as me I will also watch and report back if I ever see anyone bid 2S with 4-4 in the majors. It won't happen.

Don't play against me then.

[Fluffy]

I don't remember ever seeeing a 2♠ response with 44 majors, but it is worh noting that in Madrid area it was popular to answer 2NT to stayman with both majors and then use some transfer at the 3 level, in Barcelona area things where worse when 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ were allowed as responses.

[mgoetze]

 Fluffy, on 2012-November-16, 07:37, said:

I don't remember ever seeeing a 2♠ response with 44 majors, but it is worh noting that in Madrid area it was popular to answer 2NT to stayman with both majors

...hardly surprising given that this is part of Standard French.

[mgoetze]

 paua, on 2012-November-04, 13:21, said:

The mistake in the alert system, IMHO, is in allowing Stayman, an artificial bid, to remain unalerted. I know this is the historical default, but for a new player trying to understand the alert rules, the obvious and simplest default is : if it's artificial it should be alerted.

Easy enough to say but it gets quite hideous if you try to write it down properly, see http://www.bridgebas...rtificial-call/

[paua]

 mgoetze, on 2012-November-19, 13:45, said:

Easy enough to say but it gets quite hideous if you try to write it down properly, see http://www.bridgebas...rtificial-call/

I think the definition of "artificial" is far simpler and less ambiguous than the current situation where we alert an "unexpected" call. This requires mind-reading.

[mgoetze]

 paua, on 2012-November-19, 19:32, said:

I think the definition of "artificial" is far simpler and less ambiguous

Which definition? The WBF one? Did you read the thread I linked to at all?