3D or pass?

[billw55]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk7432hqdkqj95ca8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

OK, playing 2/1, uncontested bidding goes:

 

1♠ - 1NT (f1)

2♦ - 2♥

?

 

I chose 3♦ which was passed out. Afterward my partner told me that 2♥ promised six and a weak hand and that I should pass. Is it that simple?

[rogerclee]

Agree with pass.

[kfay]

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ K7432 ♥ Q ♦ KQJ95 ♣ A8

 

OK, playing 2/1, uncontested bidding goes:

 

1♠ - 1NT (f1)

2♦ - 2♥

?

 

I chose 3♦ which was passed out.  Afterward my partner told me that 2♥ promised six and a weak hand and that I should pass.  Is it that simple?

Don't necessarily agree with 'weak.' While you usually DO have a weak hand, there are some hands that must bid this way because there is no other bid. Not any more than mildly constructive hands, though, that have no fit.

 

I do agree with pass, though.

[Siegmund]

Yes, pass. Partner DOES show six, and you'd rather the weaker hand's long suit be trump.

[PhantomSac]

I don't think partner promises 6 hearts, for instance 1525 would bid 2H, and I can think of many 1534s that I would bid 2H with rather than pass in the interest of keeping the auction open and playing a major suit at MP etc. Heck I would bid 2H with xx AKJ9x xx xxxx rather than 2S, that hand plays ok even opposite a stiff.

 

Your partner also doesn't promise a weak hand, I think it could be up to 10 with a 5 card suit (if it's not good enough to bid 2N), many 10s can bid 2N though but certainly 9 is possible.

 

All that said, you should pass. 3D shows extras, and while you have 15 it's not great, for 15 to bid again you'd want like AKxxx x AKJxx xx. Stiff Q is a fine holding for partner, and you don't really have game interest anymore.

[the hog]

Partner does not necessarily show 6 cf post above. Having said this, I would pass this hand. After all, you do have the H Queen.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Yes, 2H in this seq. showes a weak hand and a 6 card suit,

it will also deny 2 spades and 3 diamonds.

 

Hence you should pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: There are certainly some 5521 hands, which would bid 2H,

but it is not a good idea, to play p for the worst case scenario,

he promises 6 cards, I will play him for 6 cards.

Depending on the meaning of a jump to 3H after a 1S opening,

p can or cant have a certain hand strength anymore, if you play 3H

as inv. most hands with 6 hearts and 10HCP would qualify, alos

some hands with 9HCP.

If you play 3H as weak, than the expected strength for a hand that

bids 2H goes up.

[Free]

Partner does not necessarily show 6 cf post above. Having said this, I would pass this hand. After all, you do have the H Queen.

Agree completely

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk7432hqdkqj95ca8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

OK, playing 2/1, uncontested bidding goes:

 

1♠ - 1NT (f1)

2♦ - 2♥

?

 

I chose 3♦ which was passed out. Afterward my partner told me that 2♥ promised six and a weak hand and that I should pass. Is it that simple?

Pretty much that simple. Need to evaluate your hand in context of playing in ♥. IMV that means passing 2♥

[kenrexford]

As a perhaps bizarre, but related, aside...

 

One idea that I tossed around a bit was to have a 2♦ opening show a weak opening (10-13 or so) with five spades and 4-5 diamonds. There are some subtle reasons why this makes sense. As a general observation, many diamond-focused auctions become problematic, such that punting the weak ones out immediately helps the cause.

 

This method also allows for a 2♦ rebid by Opener to show a better hand, compensating for the inability to use Gazilli or Bart in 2♦ rebid scenarios.

 

However, I muddied this up by using this approach to have 2♦ show EITHER a hand with spades and diamonds and a better hand OR a very weak opening (again 10-13 or so) with both majors, such that a 2♥ rebid instead would also show a better hand, because I felt that distinguishing major-oriented hands for weak or strong was more important in that sequence.

 

Even with this slight imperfection as to diamonds, however, Responder would be better placed in this sequence, to some degree. The problem, though, would be that Opener would be forced to bid 2♠ now simply to clarify pattern, which has the cost of forcing a higher level.

 

What one does, however, is to decide the answer to this very questiopn posted in this thread immediately. If you would pass here, then you should open 2♦ in my alternative method.

[billw55]

Interesting, ok. I think on this one I got ahead of myself a bit. Picked up my hand, and thought np, bid spades then diamonds twice. Then forgot to leave my brain on.

 

Also now thinking about it, at matchpoints especially hearts is superior to diamonds.

[the hog]

Interesting, ok. I think on this one I got ahead of myself a bit. Picked up my hand, and thought np, bid spades then diamonds twice. Then forgot to leave my brain on.

 

Also now thinking about it, at matchpoints especially hearts is superior to diamonds.

Bill, MPs Imps whatever has nothing to do with it. This is a pass in any form of the game.

[neilkaz]

I pass. This seems to be a missfit, keep things one trick lower.

[helene_t]

Also now thinking about it, at matchpoints especially hearts is superior to diamonds.

2♥= is the same as 3♦=. So the scoring only matters if you can make an overtrick. This could certainly happen.

 

Anyway, 3♦ would not be a sign-off, partner is allowed to bid game over it. So the consideration should be whether we want to be in game if p has a maximum. Since we are nonvulnerable, scoring doesn't matter much.

[billw55]

2♥= is the same as 3♦=. So the scoring only matters if you can make an overtrick. This could certainly happen.

 

Anyway, 3♦ would not be a sign-off, partner is allowed to bid game over it. So the consideration should be whether we want to be in game if p has a maximum. Since we are nonvulnerable, scoring doesn't matter much.

I was making the crude assumption that hearts or diamonds would make the same number of tricks. As it happens this was true on the actual deal: 8 tricks either way, lol.

 

And yes I knew 3♦ was not a signoff. I did have a little extra after all, just not enough for a bid. From the comments I gather that 2♥ is not an absolute signoff either - just that pass is right with this hand.