Yes, even I agree that after the positive response to a reverse, given that it is known to be a positive response, then 4
is not passable. But, imo, even of 3
was not a positive response then, after 3
-3
-3NT, if that's how it went, then 4
should be forcing. If, after 3
, I was going to pull a 3NT response to 3
, the I would not bid 3
in the first place unless I was making a slam try. As general agreement it seems that if you make a bid at the 3 level that suggests to partner that he might want to bid 3NT, and then when he does bid 3NT, you pull it, I think partner needs to re-evaluate the meaning of that 3 level bid you made. It may have sounded at first like a try for 3NT, but when he accepted and then you pulled, it hardly could have been a try to get to 3NT.
If the 3
over the 2
could have been on a 6 count then I think a direct raise to 4
should indeed be passable.but 3
- 3NT - 4
should not be passable. With the hand you have, you probably are up for game against almost any hand that could scrape up a response to 1
. But with a lesser hand, and if 3
does not show, or deny, extra values, I can imagine that an invitational 4
, bid directly over 3
, might be just what the doctor ordered. Best to be playing Leb!
I am not sure how many agree with this, and of course maybe there could somewhere be an exception, but generally this seems logical.
But, playing without detailed agreements, I completely understand the problem. It's frequent.