Announcements

Am4Fun

Blue Book 4E2 (last sentence) "Stayman is announced whether or not it shows a four-card major." I can say I have never announced nor heard this announced at the table. Yes, I have seen convention cards indicating promissory or non-promissory. I have been guilty of assuming if the announcement does not state "non-promissory" then it is obvious promissory.

Might I suggest the announcement be in the future be revised to:
a) Stayman; (this tends to be the normal method of a vast amount of partnerships) or
b) Stayman non-promissory
c) Alert for any other agreement

Senior_Kibitzer

I can understand the misunderstanding. The answer currently is your Option A. The announcement is "Stayman" and we announce "Stayman" whether or not it shows a four card major. If opponents want to know if there is an agreement either way of whether it does or doesn't necessarily show a four card major, opponents have to ask.

gordonrainsford

There certainly must be some confusion somewhere here because when you say "I have never announced nor heard this announced at the table" I would say "I usually hear this announced at the table".

Senior_Kibitzer

The confusion is in the words:

"Stayman is announced whether or not it shows a four-card major."

Maybe the context of 4E2 should make this last sentence clear but if these words are taken in isolation, they could be interpreted as saying that we announce

either "Stayman, showing a four card major"
or "Stayman, not necessarily showing a four card major"

This is what Am4fun has never heard at the table, and rightly not.

Should there be a comma after "announced"? Would that make it clearer? I don't know!

CMOT_Dibbler

I think you have to read 4E2 in full. The first part says that if it is after a 1NT opening and is asking if the opener has a four card major then it is anounced as "Stayman". The final sentence just clarifies that "Stayman" is announced whether or not it shows a four card major. Not sure why "shows" is in italics though. If you have a look at the Announcing table (also produced by the Regulating Authority) it shows "Stayman" for both promissory and non-promissory)

I may be wrong, memory isn't so strong these days, but prior to 2017(not sure when) I think the blue book said that non-promissory Stayman was alerted not announced. Hence the final sentence in 4E2.
CMOT

Jeremy69

It would be odd if non promissory Stayman were ever treated differently to the promissory type. I don't recall it being so in my time on the L&E but am open to correction if anyone has the appropriate Blue/Orange/Yellow or Green book. I've heard some complaining when the 2C bidder hasn't has a major but that's because they haven't grasped that Stayman asks whether partner has a 4 card major(or perhaps 5 these days) and makes no promise. After all even in days of yore when almost no-one would have played it as a raise to 2NT many would have played 1NT 2C 2X 3C as weak with clubs and thus not necessarily a major.

Am4Fun

@gordonrainsford said:
There certainly must be some confusion somewhere here because when you say "I have never announced nor heard this announced at the table" I would say "I usually hear this announced at the table".

I understand what you are saying, Gordon. I should have said the only thing I have heard is 'Stayman.' Sorry for the confusion.

Am4Fun

@Jeremy69 said:
It would be odd if non promissory Stayman were ever treated differently to the promissory type. I don't recall it being so in my time on the L&E but am open to correction if anyone has the appropriate Blue/Orange/Yellow or Green book. I've heard some complaining when the 2C bidder hasn't has a major but that's because they haven't grasped that Stayman asks whether partner has a 4 card major(or perhaps 5 these days) and makes no promise. After all even in days of yore when almost no-one would have played it as a raise to 2NT many would have played 1NT 2C 2X 3C as weak with clubs and thus not necessarily a major.

Jeremy, I brought this to light because while participating in a tournament the opposition played non-promissory (described by them as Garbage Stayman) whereby after a 2D reply by opener the responder passed or corrected to 3C.

JeremyChild

@Jeremy69 said:
After all even in days of yore when almost no-one would have played it as a raise to 2NT many would have played 1NT 2C 2X 3C as weak with clubs and thus not necessarily a major.

My understanding was that playing 1NT 2C 2X 3C as weak with clubs and thus not necessarily a major was still classified as promissory Stayman. The 2C is in principle promissory Stayman, it's only the later 3C that negates this. Just like a double of 1S guarantees an opening hand (12-15) and 4 hearts*, if it's then followed by 3D it shows a single suited hand with 16+ pts.

• Yes I know not every one plays this, it's an example!

Senior_Kibitzer

@Am4Fun said:
.... while participating in a tournament the opposition played non-promissory (described by them as Garbage Stayman) whereby after a 2D reply by opener the responder passed or corrected to 3C.

These are different concepts. "Garbage Stayman" is when a player bids Stayman with a weak hand intending to pass opener's re-bid, or else correct to another suit at the 2-level (or 3C) intending opener to pass

"Garbage Stayman" can apply whether one is playing promissory or non-promissory Stayman. Some play that one must have at least invitational values to start Stayman. Such players are not playing "Garbage Stayman"

Senior_Kibitzer

@JeremyChild said:
The 2C is in principle promissory Stayman, it's only the later 3C that negates this.

That makes the 2C Non-promissory in principle! :))

JeremyChild

@Senior_Kibitzer said:

@JeremyChild said:
The 2C is in principle promissory Stayman, it's only the later 3C that negates this.

That makes the 2C Non-promissory in principle! :))

Can you direct me to a definition of non-promissory that states this?

I ask because the only things I can find say nothing about using Stayman as a weak takeout in clubs.

My understanding of the difference between promissory and non-promissory is that after the sequence:
1NT - 2C - 2H - 3NT, opener will bid 4S under promissory Stayman (because responder MUST have 4 Spades), and will Pass under non-promissory (becaue they might not).

Robin_BarkerTD

There are different opinions about what promissory/non-promissory mean. That is part of the reason that these terms are not used in announcements - or anywhere in the Blue Book.

JeremyChild

@Robin_BarkerTD said:
There are different opinions about what promissory/non-promissory mean. That is part of the reason that these terms are not used in announcements - or anywhere in the Blue Book.

So "promissory" or "non-promissory" are insufficient desciptions because they are not well defined?

CMOT_Dibbler

I have been doing a bit of research. Specifically on promissory and non promissory and found an article by David Stevenson in the magazine "Mr Bridge" an issue prior to August 2006. (hope this link works https://mrbridge.co.uk/assets/docs/library/articles/general/Announcements.pdf)
David says "Now we consider the responses to natural 1NT openings. A response of 2♣ is usually Stayman: if it is, then it is not alerted, but announced: “Stayman”. Does it matter whether it guarantees a four-card major or not? No, not at all, it is still Stayman: if an opponent needs to know whether a four card major is guaranteed or not, he can ask or look at your convention card."

So it would seem that promissory and non-promissory have been around for ages and that the expectation was that somehow or other opponents were made aware of the difference, possibly on the then "convention" card. I know that around that time we were playing a pair that used non-promissory and they always "informed" opponents that it was such, one of them was the director at the club so I always "bowed" to their superior knowledge.

We probably should delete that last sentence on 4 E2

CMOT

Jeremy69

I think the bit about promissory i.e. whether 2C promises a 4 card major usually applies to hands where there is a raise to 2NT. It is typically the case that if you bid Stayman with the values for game you will have a major or else why bother? 1NT 2C 2H 3NT thus invites 4S (or a cue bid) with a fit. I play that as denying 4S with one partner and thus alert it as it would (IMO) be unexpected to most opponents. I completely agree with the Stevenson quote above. The auction 1NT 2C 2H 2NT; does this deny 4S or promise 4S. You might, if on lead want to know that.
I would have thought promissory and non promissory are clear and well understood i.e. does or does not promise one or more 4 card majors. You could refine the definition by suggesting that the terms only apply to hands with the values for 2NT but frankly who cares? Why does it matter? If you end up on lead you may, of course, choose to enquire as the promise of 4S or 4H in the dummy may affect your lead.
My experience of most people who ask is not that they wish to acquire knowledge to decide whether to bid or what to lead but to seek to score a point about their (wrong) idea of what constitutes Stayman!

JeremyChild

@Jeremy69 said:
My experience of most people who ask is not that they wish to acquire knowledge to decide whether to bid or what to lead but to seek to score a point about their (wrong) idea of what constitutes Stayman!

Lot of truth in that...