[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♣    2♥    2♠
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 5♥    5♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

I had a heated discussion with this partner (pickup) after the board
I think I am 100% correct of course . However, in his words I was out to lunch

[TimG]

North did a lot of bidding with just two trumps and a defensively oriented hand. I think double of 5♥ stands out; bidding 5♠ is crazy.

[BillHiggin]

I hope N had an enjoyable lunch!

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

I had a heated discussion with this partner (pickup) after the board
I think I am 100% correct of course . However, in his words I was out to lunch

Eh. North is wrong, but note the vulnerability. South has an absolute minimum (although nice controls), and yet 5 spades still isn't 0%. Sure, you can set 5 hearts 3 or 4 tricks, but down 3 is a good result for them.

So, yeah, North gets the blame, but I wouldn't have a heated discussion on it.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 7 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

I had a heated discussion with this partner (pickup) after the board
I think I am 100% correct of course  . However, in his words I was out to lunch

Eh. North is wrong, but note the vulnerability. South has an absolute minimum (although nice controls), and yet 5 spades still isn't 0%. Sure, you can set 5 hearts 3 or 4 tricks, but down 3 is a good result for them.

This is IMPs. The difference between +650 and +500 or +800 (when 5♠ is making) is not much relative to the difference between -100 and +500 or +800 when 5♠ is going down.

[jillybean]

Well the discussion became heated when my p told me that I must have a much better 6 card ♠ suit for my 2♠ bid and my only bid was pass after opening this c****.

When I said I thought 2♠ did not even promise 6 the discussion went further downhill, this is not the first time I have had partners who expect a good 6 card suit.

[goobers]

2S really should promise 6, if you have a minimum with 5, then you've basically already bid your hand, partner is still there

[han]

2S does show 6+ spades. 1S-2C-2S may not necessarily show 6, depending on your agreements. 1S-2C-(2H)-2S always shows 6+.

I do agree with 2S on this hand and gave north 100% of the blame.

[helene_t]

North can't seriously mean that your suit is not good enough. He just made it up because he desperately needed a reason for blaming his own absurd bidding on you.

Even if he'd passed 5♥ and you then bid 5♠, he would still get his 100%. He must tell you that he has a strong preference for defending and the only way to do that is by X'ing.

But when you said that 2♠ doesn't even promise 6, you were wrong as well. Han said it.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 7 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

This is IMPs. The difference between +650 and +500 or +800 (when 5♠ is making) is not much relative to the difference between -100 and +500 or +800 when 5♠ is going down.

True. I agree it's a bad bid. It's just not as awful as some of the bids I've seen here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Norths bidding was perfect, until the 5S bid,
he should double.

Pass would be forcing, but the hand screams
defence.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

Well the discussion became heated when my p told me that I must have a much better 6 card ♠ suit for my 2♠ bid and my only bid was pass after opening this c****.

When I said I thought 2♠ did not even promise 6 the discussion went further downhill, this is not the first time I have had partners who expect a good 6 card suit.

Pass, would be forcing, 2S says, you have
no interest in defending, it does not even
promise a 6 card suit, it simply shows no
interest in 2HX.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

To the '2♠ promises 6' bidders: given the same auction holding 5242 do you then pass after ops intervene with 2♥? And is pass forcing?

Seems like we have 2 schools of thought 2♠ promising 5 or 6

[the hog]

Well I would bid 2S too, and don't know of anyone who wouldn't. I would definitely double 5H with the Nth hand.
Yes, Kathryn, 2S promises 6. With a weakish 5242 I woul definitely pass. If 2C is a gf, then pass is definitely forcing. Even if 2C isn't a gf, many play that 2C is forcing to at least 2NT or to 3 of responder's minor.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

To the '2♠ promises 6' bidders: given the same auction holding 5242 do you then pass after ops intervene with 2♥? And is pass forcing?

Seems like we have 2 schools of thought 2♠ promising 5 or 6

A free 2♠ when you have the alternative of passing should show 6.

Yes, with 5242 you pass, forcing, you want to give partner the opportunity to double 2H for penalty if he wants. Having fewer spades is a plus factor for defending, more likely to be able to cash 2 spades + possibly a spade ruff. Partner can easily have 4 hearts on the auction, opps could be in big trouble, don't let them off hook.

Bidding 2♠ just because say you have a heart stiff/void to me is inefficient use of space if you don't have 6+ sp. You can send that message by bidding your side suit or passing then pulling to your side suit.

[jillybean]

So...

1♠:2♣ 2♠ can be 5
1♠:2♣ (2x) 2♠ promises 6


ps I dont play 2♣ is GF here

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

To the '2♠ promises 6' bidders: given the same auction holding 5242 do you then pass after ops intervene with 2♥?  And is pass forcing?

Seems like we have 2 schools of thought 2♠ promising 5 or 6

Hi,

the 5242 shape is not the one to worry about,
but the 5143.

If you pass, and partner reopens with a double,
which is not a pure penalty and you now bid 2S,
this would show a strong hand.
Of course you can pass, but partner will also
reopen with just 2 hearts, ... and the partner of
the 2 overcaller is not (!) required to raise with
4 card support, he also heard the bidding, i.e. you
may try to beat 2H, when they have a 6-4 fit, ...
good luck.
A 2S bid shows either a 6 card suit or a single / void
in hearts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Jul 8 2007, 06:41 AM, said:

So...

1♠:2♣ 2♠ can be 5
1♠:2♣ (2x) 2♠ promises 6


ps I dont play 2♣ is GF here

The first one is based on the theory that
1♠-2♣
3♣
and
1♠-2♣
2N
both show extras so the way to show a minium with a 5332 or with club support is to start with 2♠. FWIW I don't like that agreement, I would rather rebid 2♦ on a fake suit, but I know some play it that way. Especially in France where a 1NT opening denies a 5-card major so that a 2N rebid would show 15-17 and hence the 12-14 balanced goes via 2♠.

In any case,
1♠-2♦
3♣
shows extras, so here opener could rebid spades with a ♠/♣ hand and minimum.

As for the second one, it's not a question of agreement, it's just bridge logic: 2♠ is a voluntary bid. You don't need 2♠ as a catch-all bid since the natural catch-all bid is pass.

[jillybean]

How about this hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♣)
?

---

Is pass now forcing, what do you bid?