[helene_t]

Dunno about Norfolk. Here in rural Yorkshire, where the local clubs barely have any regulars who ever play bridge outside our small town (except for cruises and the occasional 6th division county league match against the neighbourg village), I see garbage stayman used occasionaly but also sometimes people who pass 1NT or 2NT with an obvious garbage stayman hand. I can't imagine that anyone have agreed not to play garbage stayman, but probably many just never thought about it. I am pretty sure that less than 10% of the partnerships would know what
1NT-2♣
2♦-2M
means. OTOH, everyone plays that the auction
1NT-2♣
2NT
does not exist, so implicitly they do play garbage stayman in the sense that it is always safe to apply it even when playing with a pick-up partner.

BTW I don't think it's a great idea to play dbl as showing a penalty double of 1NT.

When responder has a weak hand he tends to be short in clubs so we often have a club fit. Playing the double as showing clubs is more helpful, then, than showing points.

Even if you have 15-16 points it is still possible that responder has invitational strength, in which case your double may help them scramble to a partscore which is better than 2NT (for example 2♣X !), not to mention that it helps them play the hand. It is not easy for partner to know if he should run from 2♣X with two or three clubs if your double says nothing about clubs.

Showing points may help partner decide to defend 2MX or bid 3NT but it's not like those decisions have a high accuracy rate. It is very difficult when you double the 1NT opening, and I don't think doubling Stayman is any easier. If only because those sequences are less frequent so you will have less familiarity with them and be less sure what different doubles and 2NT bids etc. mean.

Finally, the lead-directing double is very useful when they do end up in 3NT or maybe 4M.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2015-February-03, 17:06, said:

and in bridge forum circles, popularised by Cyberyeti.

I'd actually heard the phrase originated from Suffolk doctors rather than Norfolk ones. I probably should say that I'm not FROM Norfolk I just live here, but some would say I've gone native.

Here, I don't know anybody in club bridge playing weak NT (most of the room) who doesn't play garbage Stayman if they play Stayman (we have at least one Keri pair, not sure what there NT is).

[mgoetze]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-February-03, 03:17, said:

While I agree with your point as a matter of theory (for reasons discussed elsewhere in the past), it is not practical for most asking bids. The way I was originally taught Stayman (the 'standard English Acol' version if you like) was that it included:
- invitational or stronger hands with 1 or 2 4-card majors
- weak hands with both majors, or weak 3-suiters, or a weak hand with long clubs
- slam try with one or two four card minors, with or without a 4-card major
- game forcing hand with 5-5 in the majors

So you would either have to say all of that, which takes a long time and doesn't really help the opponents (because they won't be able to take it all in); or you say 'artificial, may be weak, invitational, game forcing or stronger' in which case the concept of an announcement makes no sense, and you should just go back to alerting it. The idea of announcements is that they are used for calls where there is no risk of passing UI, and where a short description tells the opponents sufficient to know what to do.

Also, the idea of 'what it shows' rather than what it asks for gets a bit silly with calls such as blackwood. 1S - 3S - 4NT (alerted). What does that show? It shows that partner wants to know how many keycards I've got. No, what does is _show_? It shows a hand that believes it can take control of the auction, that has at least interest in slam and is prepared to drive the 5-level. That isn't exactly helpful, is it?

The problem is that it's left up to the people giving the explanation to decide what is most helpful to their opponents. Say I play 2♣-2♦-2♥ as Kokish with relay breaks showing 6-card suits (2NT = clubs etc.). Would it be OK for me to describe this to my opponents as "Asking for 6 card suits" rather than "Hearts or Balanced"?

[FrancesHinden]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 12:18, said:

The problem is that it's left up to the people giving the explanation to decide what is most helpful to their opponents. Say I play 2♣-2♦-2♥ as Kokish with relay breaks showing 6-card suits (2NT = clubs etc.). Would it be OK for me to describe this to my opponents as "Asking for 6 card suits" rather than "Hearts or Balanced"?

No (and you knew that, anyway)
You are having fun with the idea of an 'asking bid'. You could describe all sorts of bids as 'asking bids' e.g.
1NT - 2D (transfer) "asks partner if he is max with 4 hearts, or not"
1S - 2S (Michaels) - "asks partner about his heart length"

[mgoetze]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-February-15, 09:12, said:

No (and you knew that, anyway)
You are having fun with the idea of an 'asking bid'. You could describe all sorts of bids as 'asking bids' e.g.
1NT - 2D (transfer) "asks partner if he is max with 4 hearts, or not"
1S - 2S (Michaels) - "asks partner about his heart length"

Right. So the question is, what's so special about Stayman that makes it OK to describe it this way?

[blackshoe]

Is there a general definition of the term "asking bid"?

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 12:18, said:

The problem is that it's left up to the people giving the explanation to decide what is most helpful to their opponents.

Why is that a problem? The people giving the explanation are bridge players, so they'll probably have a good idea of the best way to explain the call. And if you don't get the sort of answer you want, you're allowed to ask for clarification.

[wanoff]

gnasher, on 2015-February-15, 15:02, said:

Why is that a problem? The people giving the explanation are bridge players, so they'll probably have a good idea of the best way to explain the call. And if you don't get the sort of answer you want, you're allowed to ask for clarification.

Alternatively they may have a good idea of what understandings they can get away with omitting in particular, practices of the partnership.