[mikl_plkcc]

Assign the blame please

---

This post has been edited by mycroft: 2025-April-02, 17:36
Reason for edit: Remove non-OP user names

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-02, 17:26, said:

Assign the blame please

1!D is perfectly reasonable
1!S is OK, but I wouldn't quibble with pass and might even prefer it
2!C is OK, but I wouldn't argue with a 1NT bid given that clubs are likely to be sitting over you
Having bid 1!S you're stuck pattering out

I hate the 2NT bid and would happily pass. Even if partner has 4!H this should play reasonable well

[mycroft]

Hello OP: I'm not concerned, I'm sure this wasn't intended; but it is a general rule here that we don't release other players' nicks without their express or obvious consent. That especially applies to any post that includes the word "blame" (even though "assign the blame" is a standard framing in bridge, and we aren't in fact "blaming" anyone under that framing).

Re: the actual hand: You have a 12-count. You showed "all" your 12 count when you opened 1♦. You should be looking for a chance to get out of the auction.

I like 1♠. Yes, it's minimal, but we have both majors and an ace, and many hands even with the double will make 4 of the major fit (and definitely will win the board in 3).

1♠ isn't a chance to pass, I agree; and *my style* is to avoid rebidding 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit. If your partnership is in my camp, then 2♣ is pretty automatic (if it's not, then 1NT is probably better, because it limits your hand. You'll know which camp you're in when partner rebids 2♠ on 5 or a poor 6, expecting 2).

Partner's 2♥ is automatic, given they decided to bid in the first place. This hand plays in a major.

2♥ *maybe* is. Many partnerships, the 1♠ bidder is limited by failure to redouble. Some will bid when "bidding looks right" even with a strong hand (basically, "we're not getting this enough, even if they play in one of my suits"), and will be disappointed when they're +170 or +200. And of course, the mantra is "responder's new suit is forcing". Discuss with partner :-).

I really don't like 2NT. "in competition, 2NT is a convention, not a contract", and "misfits do not play well in NT". If you don't believe you can pass 2♥, I'd really like to bid a suit (whether it be 3♦, 3♣ or 3♥). But if partner expects 2NT as "best lie" with this hand, then you have to make it.

I can see partner "getting out while the getting's good", but again, "misfits don't play well in 2NT", and I can show 5-5. But if she was sure that 2♥ was passable and showed a weaker hand than an immediate redouble, she's looking at 1255 in your hand too.

So - you 25%, partner 25%, system discussion 50%?

[smerriman]

hrothgar, on 2025-April-02, 17:44, said:

I hate the 2NT bid and would happily pass.

mycroft, on 2025-April-02, 17:52, said:

Partner's 2♥ is automatic, given they decided to bid in the first place. This hand plays in a major.

You don't play 2♥ as FSF here?

[jillybean]

EW's First 2 bids are fine
I prefer 1nt to 2♣, this is a weak nt hand
2♥ is 4sf, when I decided to show the spades, I gave up on the hearts.

[mw64ahw]

So you're stuffed playing a standard approach. Historically, I've not taken 2♥ as 4.s.f., but a Major suit choice. Nowadays, with a pick-up partner, if undiscussed, I would make a call and just shrug if it was the incorrect one.

How many here have an approach that gets to play in 2♥?

[mycroft]

I would argue that a) the fact that she didn't redouble and b) that she passed 2NT are good reasons to think that she didn't think 2♥ was 4SF :-).

I think if you have enough strength for game and can't redouble, you have to tell me where we're playing round 2. I'll never play you for that otherwise. I know there are several players whose skill I trust who would disagree, but it's where I live.

[smerriman]

mycroft, on 2025-April-02, 22:35, said:

I would argue that a) the fact that she didn't redouble and b) that she passed 2NT are good reasons to think that she didn't think 2♥ was 4SF :-).
I think if you have enough strength for game and can't redouble, you have to tell me where we're playing round 2. I'll never play you for that otherwise. I know there are several players whose skill I trust who would disagree, but it's where I live.

True on pass of 2NT from West's side, though the 2NT bid and the subject line is also a good reason that the OP thought it was.

"Standard" advice - at least that I've read - when playing xx = a generic 10+ is that you shouldn't redouble with a decent 5 card major, or you'll never be able to show it later. So 2♥ seems like the only way forward in the common situation where I'm looking for 3 card support or a heart stopper - even more important given South's double. How am I meant to tell you where we're playing at round 2 if I can't find either of those out?

[helene_t]

The blame goes to lack of discussion of what 2h means.

Assuming 2h is fsf, which is normal in modern English style, west must either pass , bid 2d or 2sp. Or not bid in the first place but I think thatfarfetched.

Personally I prefer 1nt with the East hand which would have worked o this deal. There's a case for agreeing to bid 1nt when 1d was doubled even if one doesn't do it in uncontested auctions. But 2cl is normal.

[shyams]

helene_t, on 2025-April-02, 23:21, said:

The blame goes to lack of discussion of what 2h means.

Assuming 2h is fsf, which is normal in modern English style, west must either pass , bid 2d or 2sp. Or not bid in the first place but I think thatfarfetched.

After South's double of 1♦, all bids by West show limited HCP, and/or are aimed at scrambling to a better contract than 1♦x.

East would have disliked playing 1♠ and it is reasonable to bid 2♣. When West bid 2♥ next, both partners know that this is a mad scramble on a potential misfit.

Despite the absence of a prior agreement or discussion, I believe it is correct for East to pass 2♥.

[DavidKok]

 shyams, on 2025-April-03, 00:11, said:

After South's double of 1♦, all bids by West show limited HCP, and/or are aimed at scrambling to a better contract than 1♦x.

This is one possible way to play the continuations. It is not my favourite, and not particularly common here either. I'm not aware of local preferences, but I consider this an old-fashioned and not very effective set of agreements.

[mw64ahw]

The suprise to me is North failing to bid. With values in the opponents 2 bid suits opposite a X 1N seems feasible.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-April-03, 00:17, said:

This is one possible way to play the continuations. It is not my favourite, and not particularly common here either. I'm not aware of local preferences, but I consider this an old-fashioned and not very effective set of agreements.

I think the basic robot on BBO takes this approach and it seems sensible. This is probably why I historically took 2♥ as a choice of Majors rather than 4sf.

Overall I think the auction is a mess; I'd comfortably get to 2♥ as EW playing an unbalanced ♦ or 2N as NS playing X as Power.

[Cyberyeti]

smerriman, on 2025-April-02, 17:56, said:

You don't play 2♥ as FSF here?

If I was going to FSF I'd have redoubled most of the time

I'd also have doubled 1♠ as N, many pepople play this as showing 4♠ and some values.

[smerriman]

 mw64ahw, on 2025-April-03, 01:56, said:

I think the basic robot on BBO takes this approach and it seems sensible. This is probably why I historically took 2♥ as a choice of Majors rather than 4sf.

Nope, robot plays 4sf here; a 2/1 weak, but 1/1 unlimited, as per Larry Cohen and several other online references.

[mikl_plkcc]

When I play with my regular partner, we have an agreement that we ignore all doubles in the bidding, and after intervening bids, all systems are off, so in that case will treat 2♥ as FSF and bid 2NT.

However, this was not a regular partnership and I had no idea what it mean, but the general principle that any new suit bid by an unpassed responder is forcing (unless the partner has made a limit bid), so I had to bid something, and I couldn't bid 3♥ because the responder might have only 4.

This still doesn't solve the problem of this hand though, when the bidding starts with 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-03, 03:28, said:

When I play with my regular partner, we have an agreement that we ignore all doubles in the bidding, and after intervening bids, all systems are off, so in that case will treat 2♥ as FSF and bid 2NT.

However, this was not a regular partnership and I had no idea what it mean, but the general principle that any new suit bid by an unpassed responder is forcing (unless the partner has made a limit bid), so I had to bid something, and I couldn't bid 3♥ because the responder might have only 4.

This still doesn't solve the problem of this hand though, when the bidding starts with 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣.

This hand is a problem, how much are you going to enjoy it after 1♦-x-p-p ? Admittedly opps may and arguably should rescue you by bidding rather than passing the double. Once you're in this auction, just be glad to be out of it undoubled, it's a horrendous misfit.

Even on an auction like 1♦-x-1♠-x-p-p-2♥-p-p-x on a trump lead you have an awful lot of losers and go for more than 300.

[helene_t]

smerriman, on 2025-April-03, 03:28, said:

Nope, robot plays 4sf here; a 2/1 weak, but 1/1 unlimited, as per Larry Cohen and several other online references.

Yes, that is what I have always played, it really surprises me that anyone born after WWII would assume 1♠ to be nonforcing, but maybe I am too narrow-minded.

Maybe the most risk-averse thing to do as East, given that 2♥ is undiscussed, is to rebid 3♥. That also has the advantage that it means more or less the same regardless of the meaning of 2♥ so partner won't have much meaningful UI from the alert (or non-alert) of 2♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

unless you play a non standard menaning, the reason you ended up in 2NT was 2H,
which is FSF.

As it is, 2NT showed a heart stopper, and given responders min., there is a case to
be made, that responder should bid hearts over 2NT.

In the end this is an old problem pair, that is the only donwside of playing FSF.

If you care about this, you could play some kind of stuff, you could play 2H as both
majors, I blieve, I have seen something like this "reverse flannery".

The truth is, it usually does not matter, so this nothing to worry about.
Responder should show pref., ... if I recall it correctly, a reommendation by Jeff Rubens
was to pick the suit with max. min length, which would be diamonds, diamonds should be 5.

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2025-April-03, 01:34, said:

The suprise to me is North failing to bid. With values in the opponents 2 bid suits opposite a X 1N seems feasible.

I would not consider passing with the north hand. My reflex action would be to double, especially if I knew that west's 1♠ could be four small ("ignore the double"). It is completely wrong to call this penalty. It says maybe we should declare spades after, not if, opener bids.

But maybe the diamond holding argues against. 1NT would show partner the values without exciting them.