pran, on 2012-March-28, 07:53, said:
If I understand the situation correct then opponents received the correct information (and you were at least as surprised as your opponents)?
Another example along a similar line (It is trivial these days, but was very ingenious when first used):
1NT - pass - 2♣ (Stayman) - pass -
2♦ (No major suit with 4 cards) - pass - pass(!?!?!) - pass
It turns out that opener's partner held xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - x
That (Garbage Stayman) is a very good example. Now, think of the first time Garbage Stayman was used. Responder figured out a smart way to get out of a bad 1NT contract, because he made clever use of the response structure. Up to then, nobody realized that responder could pass 2♦
(or 2M for that matter).
Keep in mind that there are, and certainly were, different response structures to 2♣
. In many cases, you couldn't use Garbage Stayman since opener might rebid 2NT or something at the three level. Garbage Stayman is only possible if you have the explicit agreement that opener will never rebid higher than 2♠
The responder could invent Garbage Stayman, because he knew that the rebid structure would allow him to use it.
Now suppose the guy in second seat holds ♣
AKQJxxx and out. He passes 1NT because that will go down. He passes 2♦
because he thinks he will have another shot and they might get to 2NT or 3NT. Fine, tough luck. But now suppose that this guy is even smarter and more creative than responder: If he would have known this pair's responses to Stayman, he would have figured out that responder might pass 2♦
and he would have come in with 3♣
. It is even possible that this guy had already invented Garbage Stayman himself, but that it hadn't come up yet. Don't you feel that he is entitled to know that a Garbage Stayman hand is possible for responder?
In a way, we have been explaining future bids for ages. It is very common to explain whether a bid is forcing or not. In many jurisdictions you even need to alert opponents based on whether a bid is forcing or not (e.g. negative free bids). That is a simple example of explaining the bid that just had been made by saying how you are systemically expected/allowed to continue the auction.
So, explaining a bid by explaining how the auction might continue is nothing new and in some cases even prescribed the RA.
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.