[mr1303]

---

5D X went 1 down, which wasn't a very good score. Who's to blame?

[Hanoi5]

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.

[Bbradley62]

100% partnership understanding. You must agree as to whether 2♠ is natural or artificial.

[aguahombre]

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.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-June-08, 18:41

[nigel_k]

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.

[Bbradley62]

Hanoi5, on 2011-June-08, 18:18, said:

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.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2011-June-08, 21:59

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-08, 18:49, said:

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.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-08, 20:57, said:

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-08, 18:49, said:

Hanoi5, on 2011-June-08, 18:18, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-08, 21:13, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[Lurpoa]

mr1303, on 2011-June-08, 18:10, said:

---

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.

[P_Marlowe]

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 regards
Marlowe

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-08, 18:33, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2011-June-09, 02:21, said:

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.

[mike777]

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.

[han]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-08, 18:27, said:

100% partnership understanding. You must agree as to whether 2♠ is natural or artificial.

Yup.

[xxhong]

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.

[the hog]

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.

[1eyedjack]

Deleted