[BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Mon Apr 23 17:09:02 CEST 2012

Le 23/04/2012 5:45, Jerry Fusselman a écrit :
> Richard Hills wrote:
>> ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences:
>> Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels,
>> Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable
>> explanation. There are many variations of
>> most conventions, and a more specific
>> explanation is normally required.
> In my experience, small and incomplete though it is, this reg is
> usually ignored by national ACBL directors.  I have several times
> attempted to get more than just the name, and such requests by me or
> my partner have generally been refused and overruled by national ACBL
> directors.

In my country, there is a difference : a bunch of standard conventions 
are described in a booklet, and if you play them without change, you may 
name them. Stayman is one of them, of course. Having to describe in 
detail a well-known convention to knowledgeable players would be a waste 
of time.

So you may answer "Multi" if your convention includes classical weak 
twos in both majors and some very strong hands, and they may ask for 
more information if they want to. In some partnerships, describing all 
parameters of the strong version would be painful (and usually irrelevant).

Seems like the right compromise.

Best regards


> Jerry Fusselman
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list