[blackshoe]

If it's not Stayman when opener shows the bid balanced hand, what is it?

[jdonn]

I think 6NT is the only LA since it's obvious (from the 3NT bid, not from the comment!) that partner has a 2NT opening bid. I do believe the comment demonstrably suggests 6NT, but there are no other LAs anyway IMO.

So since I believe the comment didn't suggest 4NT (over 6NT anyway), and that your chosen bid wasn't logical, and that the opponents weren't damaged, no adjustment.

[hotShot]

So your alert and opponents question made your partner notice the misbid.

This creates the problem that this information is UI.

But (without any evidence from the actual hand) I don't think there is an alternative to 3NT.

Now thanks to her remark the information that she is stronger is UI to you, but fortunately after her 3NT bid that information is legally available too.

So I guess, I would let the score stand.

[gordontd]

mr1303, on Nov 25 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

We don't have an agreement that this is Stayman since in the analogous sequence 2D 2H 2NT responder has denied a 4 card heart suit (else 2S or higher).

What about in the analogous sequence 2C-2D-2NT?

[mrdct]

If I was EW, I would be focussing on North's actions for potential redress. NS must surely have some ascribed meaning for a 3♣ bid after 2♣:2♦:2NT or 2♦:2♥:2NT and if North has by-passed a normal response to 3♣ of 3♦, 3♥ or 3♠ I think NS might be in trouble.

Say, for example, North bids 3♦ over 3♣ South will now have to devine which misbid or engineering exercise North has perpetrated. The error could be that North thought 2NT was a preempt in either minor, or perhaps North is irrationally deciding to introduce a side suit. Now pass or 3NT become potential logical alternatives for South.

Given North's inappropriate verbal announcement to the table that she misbid, I am inclined to give EW a fair chuck of the benefit of the doubt and probably come down hard on NS if North happened to have a 4-card Major that she has failed to show with either 3♦ if they play puppet stayman in the comparable sequence or 3M if they play normal stayman. I think opposite a non-3NT response to 3♣ South must surely have 3NT as a logical alternative as it is quite plausible that either North has a ♦ pre-empt or a 7-4 that she's decided to upgrade.

[greenender]

pran, on Nov 25 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

A pair using multi usually shows either a weak (11-) or a strong (15+) hand, and at least 5 cards in each minor suit with the 2NT opening bid.
Responder bids either 3♣ or 3♦ as suit preference.

If the opener has a weak hand he now passes for play, with a strong hand he now makes a cue bid in his shortest major suit. 3NT in this position is meaningless.

Therefore the sequence 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT for a pair using multi implies that the opener has forgotten the system and probably has 20-21 balanced. (His correct opening bid should then have been 2♦ with a rebid of 2NT after partner's expected bid in 2♥ or 2♠)

As it happens, I do play a 2NT opening as a weak minor two-suiter (not a split-range one, of which, like Andy, I have never heard), and only because I play a strong club as well as a Multi. But the consequences of partner having forgotten a different artificial use of an opening 2NT are similar to the consequences of Mark's partner in the OP having forgotten their particular brand of artificial 2NT.

Assessing what 3NT means in the context of a natural 2NT opening for a pair who do not play a natural 2NT opening depends on the meanings in comparable sequences. In England comparable sequences include 2♣-2♦-2NT, and for 80%+ of people who play a Multi, as well as the legions of Benji players, 2♦-2♥-2NT.

It seems that Mark and his partner play some relatively non-standard methods (quite apart from the 2NT opening). It is really helpful to TDs if such pairs can remember their methods, as - quite apart from giving us a quiet life (to which I am sure Blackshoe will remind me we are not entitled!) it does make the assessment of comparable auctions a tad difficult.

[mycroft]

[edit by Mycroft: deleted, I can't read]

[bluejak]

I do not understand some of these poss.

I have never heard of a pair which plays different methods after different strong 2NT bids, so if they are going to convince me of this amazing possibility, they will need written evidence. In the lack of such evidence it is bewilderingly easy: you assume they play the same responses to 2NT as they play in other strong 2NT situations. Since everyone does, they are not going to get away with that.

Actually, there is one exception I have heard of. Some people [one of my clients used to require it] play 2NT in some situations as showing a 5-card major, in others as denying it. But even then they play Stayman with one, 5-card Stayman with the other, and neither includes a 3NT response.

After a 3♣ response plus UI to 2NT, a player is required by Law to take no advantage. He has taken advantage if he bids 3NT and his hand does not conform to a normal 3NT response to 3♣ in his system.

It is not normal to play a split range 2NT showing the minor if you play multi: it is one of a vast variety of possibilities.

[nige1]

shyams, on Nov 24 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

If partner saw your alert and then changed his response to show genuine 2NT (i.e. 20-21 bal) hand, I think your side is already in trouble.  I think partner needs to assume 3♣ to be Stayman!
If you are playing online (self-alerting) or behind screens, I think you are permitted to re-evaluate partner's 3NT to mean 2NT was natural and partner forgot. Now a 6NT bid would be acceptable

I think shyams is right. If partner has a big balanced hand, then his 3N is suspect unless, with his hand-shape, 3N is the systemic response after, say, 2♦ - 2♥ -;2N - 3♣ -; ??

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Nov 26 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

I have never heard of a pair which plays different methods after different strong 2NT bids, so if they are going to convince me of this amazing possibility, they will need written evidence. In the lack of such evidence it is bewilderingly easy: you assume they play the same responses to 2NT as they play in other strong 2NT situations. Since everyone does, they are not going to get away with that.

The OP has explained why they play 2D - 2H - 2NT - 3C differently, because they ALWAYS respond non-2H to the multi with 4 hearts, so there is no need for opener to show a heart suit.

But 2C - 2D - 2NT - 3C is likely to be comparable.

Anyway I think we all agree on the principle: if 3NT is the 'correct' rebid by opener over an artificial 3C, then no problem. Personally I play 2NT - 3C - 3NT as showing five hearts, so (if we played this 2NT kit) you should probably adjust my result to 6H making some number of tricks.

Anyway, table result stands, and EW may get a PP if the 3NT bid is not systemic.