will never be repeated to anyone involved. I just want to try to get some other perspectives after seeing something that seems wrong to me. Caveat #2: There's a story here and I've tried to tell it briefly but not leave out details in case they are of value to anyone who wishes to answer the questions I pose below. I apologise in advance if it's too long. And thanks in advance to those who read through. 2NT was opened in first seat (20-21 HCP balanced is the nearly- universal meaning in the field in question, and turned out to be the case here, although there are probably some there who would open 2NT with a stiff Ace or semi-balanced hand with guarded doubletons). Responder raised to 3NT, and that was the contract. Responder tabled the following dummy xxxx xxx QJTx Kx (All x's were small. Spades were something like 8532 or 8743 IIRC) 3NT made on the nose. Opener had AKJx in spades. Not that it matters when playing the hand, but in hindsight the pairs in the club that evening were evenly divided between 4S down one and 3NT making. Opener proceeded to take responder to task for not using Stayman as this was the only right bid with a four-card major. Responder pointed out reasons for not bidding Stayman: the flat shape, the slow honours, the poor majors, and that their partnership had no specific agreement to always use Stayman with every hand that has a four card major, regardless of any other attributes. Opener says that responder _should_ have bid 3C and after the 3S response, if responder then decided he didn't like spades he could then bid 3NT so that opener would have more information about the hand. That last bit blew my mind (not that that's hard, I admit). How could responder have decided to change horses after a 3S response without leaving the door open to an accusation of using UI? As a developing player, I would be quite grateful if you could help to improve my understanding of the issue. Here are the questions I ask: - Supposing that no actual agreement was violated, do you think that the responder exercised reasonable or poor judgment in this case? Responder stated his case. If you think responder's judgment was poor, what would be your case against it? - Wouldn't the auction suggested by opener at least have strongly implied that responder did not have four spades and instead had four hearts? Wouldn't that make things less clear? (Note: I know that you can bid Stayman with no four card major, but I thought that is generally done in specific situations that do not appear to be covered by opener's asserted correct auction.) - Is it at all common among [reasonably good North American] players to agree to never forego Stayman holding any four-card major in any hand that has invitational or game-signoff values, if not playing a convention that makes it technically impossible to do otherwise? Thanks for your input, -- - Jon Campbell Ottawa Canada Other posts:
• NEC tournament starts tomorrow
• Bid After 1S Response • suspecious bidding by top cheating pair on Okbridge • Save yourself! • Minimum requirements for an opening bid. • More questions on NT bidding "judgment" • Another ruling • XYZ invitational sequences • Difficult auction • Natural 55 2-suiters as 2-bids • Pusillanimous? |