[Free]

Me and partner had a big disagreement on this hand. We were playing precision, we open pretty much all 11-counts in 1st and 2nd seat, in 3rd seat we may be light (1M always shows 5+M, it's never done with 4).

---

2♥-2 was obviously a bottom, please give comments on the auction and ATB.

EDIT: for clarification to hog, we play weak two's, usually with 6 card suit, and we're not crazy when vul.

[the hog]

I would open 1S. As a passed hand I would bid bid 2H. Passing 2H is a very deep view, especially if you play weak 2s and even if you don't.

[whereagles]

Both had the chance to do different choices (e.g. pull 2♥ to 2♠, bid 1NT instead of 2♥), but I think the actual actions are reasonable. I'd say no blame.

[Hanoi5]

East is a passed hand, what could partner do over 1NT that wouldn't allow him to find the heart fit (in case there's one)? Of course West could/should bid over 2♥ since he could have only a 5-1 fit but then again what if East has 6+ ugly hearts and rebids them over 2♠ (or worse, s/he passes 2♠and they end up in a 5-1 fit when they were in a 6-1!).

So I voted mainly East.

[MrAce]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-25, 04:56, said:

East is a passed hand, what could partner do over 1NT that wouldn't allow him to find the heart fit (in case there's one)? Of course West could/should bid over 2♥ since he could have only a 5-1 fit but then again what if East has 6+ ugly hearts and rebids them over 2♠ (or worse, s/he passes 2♠and they end up in a 5-1 fit when they were in a 6-1!).

So I voted mainly East.

U can bid ♥ after 1 NT of course, but this is not the same thing as bidding direct 2♥. East doesnt know pd opened weak yet and i think 2♥ is pretty normal, at least for me. He has the maximum of a passed hand and 5 card ♥ and tolerance to 2♠.

For example;

x
KJTxx
xx
Jxxxx

x
JTxxxx
xx
Kxxx

I'd bid 1 NT and bid 2♥ if pd rebids 2♦.

[Mbodell]

I'm in the no blame camp. 1♠ is obvious, and 2♥ is reasonable (and what I'd likely do at the table), and pass is reasonable (and likely what I'd do at the table - although the one I feel least good about). You've swung the board, now hope they had something like +110 or +100 and you are only down 1 (or on a really lucky day make).

[Free]

I was East, since I get most blame there must be something wrong with my reasoning. Let me explain what I was thinking.

I didn't open 2♥, so I can't have a decent hand with a good 6 card suit. With a weak hand and 6♥ I bid 1NT followed by 2♥ (showing the weakness). Therefore 2♥, being constructive, should be a good 5 card suit or a poor 6 card suit (in both cases opener better rebids 2♠ with his current hand). Is there any reason to bid 2♥ instead of 1NT? Imo yes, opener can easily have 13-15HCP with a 5=3=4=1 or 5=3=1=4 distribution. If I bid 1NT, opener would rebid 2m and I'll correct to 2♠. We may have an easy 4♥ when partner has the singleton ♦ (although unlikely, opps will probably interfere) or 3♥ may be a better contract when partner has the singleton ♣.

Where did I go wrong?

[whereagles]

You did nothing wrong. Bidding isn't an exact science. The best actions will lead to bad results occasionally.

[wank]

i blame west - he's got a decent spade suit but might not have any entries to make any tricks in a heart contract. better to make spades trumps. of course that might end up reversing the problem and getting cut off from dummy's hearts tricks, but we haven't seen dummy yet.

[ArtK78]

The 1♠ opening and the 2♥ response are normal.

The pass of 2♥ is not unreasonable, but it is the only call that is open to question. West might bid 2♠ over 2♥. So, if there is any blame to assign on this hand, it is to West.

But seriously, if one agrees that passing 2♥ is a reasonable action, then we are assigning blame based solely on the result, not on the merits of the action. So I would say that neither East nor West is to blame.

Sometimes you are the windshield, and sometimes you are the bug.

[jmcw]

I would not bid 2♥.....ever!, therefore I blame West 100%.

Opposite a third seat opener, I think 1NT should be automatic with ♠ tolerance. Since you didn't open 2♦, or 2♥ in 1st seat then bidding 2 of a red suit is virtually impossible!

If West bids 1NT then East should pass and go from there.

[vianu2]

I blame W for the reason he opened.

It is a very bad hand being vulnerable with a passed partner.I think that if LHO will pass too.the result will be at least 40% for E-W.
Strictly in this board, 2♠ is -1 , so 2sp rebid is not a big deal.
True, E-W make 8 trics in NT, but what if N has the 10♠ or even the 8♠?
If spades don't run , with a club lead N-S make +200.
But N-S has nothing to play!

[MrAce]

jmcw, on 2011-July-28, 09:23, said:

I would not bid 2♥.....ever!, therefore I blame West 100%.

Opposite a third seat opener, I think 1NT should be automatic with ♠ tolerance. Since you didn't open 2♦, or 2♥ in 1st seat then bidding 2 of a red suit is virtually impossible!

If West bids 1NT then East should pass and go from there.

West did not bid 2♥.

But anyway, you should not bid with paranoia of pd opening light in 3rd seat, just because he may once in a while. Unless he has the habbit of opening light in 3rd seat, just for the sake of opening light frequently. He may have a decent hand and u may be giving him comfort by 2♥ bid in another hand, besides you are kinda protected with your initial pass.

[nige1]

IMO West 5%. Bad luck 95%.
1♠ and 2♥ seem reasonable. As a passed hand, when would you bid 2♥, if you don't with ♠ xx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ Jxx ♣ AQx
Opposite a typical ♠ Axxxx ♥ QJx ♦ xx ♣ Kxx, ♥ plays better than no-trump.
Opposite as little as ♠ AKxxx ♥ QJx ♦ xx ♣ Kxx game is reasonable.
West gets 5% for his failure to remove partner from a likely 5-1 fit. Although I confess I would pass, too.

[aguahombre]

Whatever inferences East thinks his partner has from the failure to open 1 or 2H originally do not really excuse bidding 2H/1S with a mediocre five-bagger.

If East were not a passed hand, he could not bid 2H/1S because he lacks the power to do so. He would have bid 1NT...forcing or semi forcing or whatever. I see no reason to do something different on this hand, especially if third seat can be really light.

"But I Was a Passed Hand" should be the title of someone's book including a string of disasters with that theme.

[vianu2]

nige1, on 2011-July-28, 20:04, said:

IMO West 5%. Bad luck 95%.
1♠ and 2♥ seem reasonable.

Move the ace♣ (or even the queen) to the south's hand and leave E with q9x♣.
p-p-1♠-p
p-X- p- p
And 1♠ means "Stop! -800".

[Free]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-28, 20:36, said:

If East were not a passed hand, he could not bid 2H/1S because he lacks the power to do so. He would have bid 1NT...forcing or semi forcing or whatever. I see no reason to do something different on this hand, especially if third seat can be really light.

So according to you, if you play basic 2/1 GF, you can never bid a 2/1 with a passed hand because you lack the power you need after a 1st/2nd seat opening?

Systems change according to seat, 1♠-2♥ is GF, but Pass-1♠-2♥ shows a maximum passed hand (you can't be much stronger than that anyway). There's no need to have no meaning for this auction because you can't have the values.

[aguahombre]

Not at all. There are passed hands with could bid 2H/1S. But, the given hand isn't one of them. It has 2-card spade tolerance, and the bid takes up a lot of room.

Actually, for people who open weak two's at every opportunity with little concern about suit quality and honor cards scattered over the rest of their hand --probably there aren't any hands which should bid 2/1 as a passed hand.

X QXXXXXX AXX KX comes to mind, unless I am one of those who believe in jerking partner around with a 3-bid in first seat.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-28, 20:36, said:

If East were not a passed hand, he could not bid 2H/1S because he lacks the power to do so. He would have bid 1NT...forcing or semi forcing or whatever. I see no reason to do something different on this hand, especially if third seat can be really light.

Why isn't the fact that 1NT is no longer forcing or semi-forcing a reason to do something different?

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2011-July-29, 03:31, said:

Why isn't the fact that 1NT is no longer forcing or semi-forcing a reason to do something different?

Should still be at least semi-forcing, IMO.