mr1303 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sk72haq8dat83c985&w=saj95hkt42djckjt7&n=sqt8643hj53d2c642&e=sh976dkq97654caq3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1dp1hp2sp3sp3np4sd5ddppp]399|300[/hv] 5D X went 1 down, which wasn't a very good score. Who's to blame? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Unless there's some kind of convention for 2♠ that I'm not aware of, I blame East 100%. 1♠ is enough for a forcing 4th suit and 3♦ might also be a possibility but 2♠ I just don't get. West thought he had a fit and supported in spades and maybe he could have smelled a rat at the 3NT and pass (NOT!) but I bet s/he was surprised at the 2♠ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 100% partnership understanding. You must agree as to whether 2♠ is natural or artificial. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) I don't think this is a "blame" question, unless we want to blame East for using a rebid which only he understood. Another thread recently touched on the difference between 4th-suit 1♠ and 4th-suit 2♠. Not everyone agreed. Edit: My personal opinion is that if one of them is totally artificial, it should be the cheaper one. Edited June 9, 2011 by aguahombre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 You need an agreement about fourth suit forcing in this situation. Some people play that 1♠ is FSF and others play that 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is FSF. East's 2♠ suggests the latter approach and West's pull of 3NT the former. So it looks like a system misunderstanding. With no agreement, East has a very difficult problem and an undiscussed 2♠ is acceptable only because there are few decent alternatives other than 1♠ which could equally be misunderstood. I wouldn't pull 3NT with West on the given auction unless I was certain that 2♠ had been agreed as natural. However I don't think there is a lot of blame since 5♦ is not that inferior to 3NT and it's hard to stop in a partscore. What blame there is I would attribute mostly to West and a small share to East for not having a clear agreement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Unless there's some kind of convention for 2♠ that I'm not aware of, I blame East 100%. 1♠ is enough for a forcing 4th suit and 3♦ might also be a possibility but 2♠ I just don't get. West thought he had a fit and supported in spades and maybe he could have smelled a rat at the 3NT and pass (NOT!) but I bet s/he was surprised at the 2♠ bid.In BBO-2/1, after 1♣-1♦-1♥, 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is fourth suit artificial and forcing. Edit: This is also true in SAYC. Edited June 9, 2011 by Bbradley62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 In BBO-2/1, after 1♣-1♦-1♥, 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is fourth suit artificial and forcing.3♦ by East at his second turn is plenty. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Unless there's some kind of convention for 2♠ that I'm not aware of... In BBO-2/1, after 1♣-1♦-1♥, 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is fourth suit artificial and forcing.3♦ by East at his second turn is plenty.That certainly may be the case... I was trying to point out that there is "some kind of convention for 2♠" that players should be aware of. Even if 2♠ is a slight overbid by East, if West reads it as fsf then the auction ends at 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Even if 2♠ is a slight overbid by East, if West reads it as fsf then the auction ends at 3N. Much depends on whether the hand was played on BBO. If it was, and the players agreed to and posted a BBO 2/1 Convention Card, they should have known what they were doing; they can, after all, always check. I had thought that 2♠ was more than a "slight" overbid, but perhaps I am wrong, as I am not accustomed to thinking in terms of the sound opening style that a 2/1 GF system demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't think 2/1 G.F demands sounder opening bids. Maybe sounder than forcing club systems do, but it is the 2/1 response (or subsequent g.f action) that needs to be adjusted upward to accomodate lighter openings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 2♠ is unfortunate,. but its probably dictated by system, where 1♠ is natural and forcing, and 2♠ is artificial and GF. It may better to reverse these calls by the way. Even then, what is West doing with 4♠? This is a function of misunderstanding, not bad judgment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurpoa Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sk72haq8dat83c985&w=saj95hkt42djckjt7&n=sqt8643hj53d2c642&e=sh976dkq97654caq3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1dp1hp2sp3sp3np4sd5ddppp]399|300[/hv] 5D X went 1 down, which wasn't a very good score. Who's to blame? ♥ Playing SAYC or BWS2001 2/1, 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is 4SF. The partnership clearly had a misunderstanding about this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Hi, The partnership as a whole - they did not discuss, how to play FSF in this specific sequence. Also - East has a simple 3D bid instead of the 2S bid, espesically if you play, that 1H showes an unbal. hand, show where you live, I have 7 diamonds I show them, and having only 11HCP means, that I dont need to force to game. With kind regardsMarlowe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't think this is a "blame" question, unless we want to blame East for using a rebid which only he understood. Another thread recently touched on the difference between 4th-suit 1♠ and 4th-suit 2♠. Not everyone agreed. Edit: My personal opinion is that if one of them is totally artificial, it should be the cheaper one.I think it depends on whether you play Walsh or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I think it depends on whether you play Walsh or not.True. But even then, calling what we play "Walsh" does not mean we won't massage it a bit and reverse the meanings of these two rebids (or other bids) by responder if we think it best. I don't even remember all the agreements of the original Walsh (especially this one). So when asked about our overall style, we say "Walshish 2/1". We happen to like 1S to be the artificial one here. But that doesn't mean what we like is best or that our style is or is not Walsh-oriented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 east 90% East does not have a gf hand. btw since we are ATB it would be helpful if OP alerts her bids and does not make us guess. If no alerts then I think we posters must assume natural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 100% partnership understanding. You must agree as to whether 2♠ is natural or artificial. Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxhong Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 certainly west is quite clueless. West has pretty much shown his shape and partner has placed the contract, there is just no reason to pull 3NT to 4S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 No one is to blame. 5D is a better contract than 1NT and makes if the Ds split normally. I would want to be there. This is a very foolish double from Sth, by the way; just give partner J9 of Ds to see how foolish it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I assume that the default agreement would be 2♠ is 4SF. YMMV. I'd force to game with the E hand opposite an opener (especially a club opener, we could have a grand slam opposite a prime minimum if no wasteage in ♠) unless we had an ultra light style. YMMV. I give W 100% of the blame for the bidding misunderstanding but as someone said 5♦ isn't so bad a spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Both of them for not discussing their system obviously or one of them if it was discussed but forgotten. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedbid1 Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sk72haq8dat83c985&w=saj95hkt42djckjt7&n=sqt8643hj53d2c642&e=sh976dkq97654caq3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1dp1hp2sp3sp3np4sd5ddppp]399|300[/hv] 5D X went 1 down, which wasn't a very good score. Who's to blame? East's bid is a little pushy, i agree. But the blame must be placed with West. West should know they hav not discussed the sequence, so 2 sp might be a reverse, or it might not. It is game forcing for sure, so the obvious bid is 2nt, right siding the nt contract with all those tenaces, if that is the denomination they r going to eventually play. Don't forget, these sequences often end in slam of one sort or another. Pard will usually show di length next, so there will be time for spade support to be shown, if pr is looking for that. If West has not thot like this & insists on bidding 3 sp, i do not understand the 3nt pull at all. West has shown his hand with THREE bids & pard is in control. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 Certainly the system misunderstanding is an issue. However, I'd blame east for the aggressive game force. Once he forces game, where are you going to end up? 3NT seems worse than 5♦. East should be wondering where the spades are -- partner seems marked with spade length/values for the opponents not to be bidding and this is a very bad sign for a pushy game contract. A 3♦ rebid would've been enough, and avoids the systemic issue too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 Several people have called east's bid pushy, but to me the hand seems too strong to merely invite. I would certainly force to game. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.