smerriman

Good point about a 3 card raise - though if partner did bid 3NT, what then? Must still be a decent chance of slam.

Those stats don't update until there is at least one reply. It's a forum bug.

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 4NT - 5♥ (2 without queen) - 5♠ seems like what I'd do.

Might not be appropriate humour given how you're feeling right now, but mildly "amusing" - if you only rebid 2♥, GIB bids 3♣ - cheaper minor :D Two common bugs in one hand.

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=smerriman&s=SK32HQDAQJ7653CA7&wn=Robot&w=SAQJT5H98DK92C985&nn=Robot&n=S76HAJT64D8CT6432&en=Robot&e=S984HK7532DT4CKQJ&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)1S(One-level%20overcall%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%208-17%20HCP%3B%209-19%20total%20points)D(Negative%20double%20--%204+%20%21H%3B%207+%20total%20points)2D(Good%20support%20in%20S%20--%203+%20%21S%3B%2010+%20total%20points)3N(3+%20%21D%3B%205-%20%21H%3B%205-%20%21S%3B%2020-21%20HCP%3B%2022-%20total%20points%3B%20likely%20stop%20in%20%21S)PPP&p=C5CTCJCAHQH9HAH2D8DTDJDKS5S6S8SKDAD9C2D4DQD2C3H3D7H8C4H7D6SAC6H5D5SQH4S9D3SJS7S4C7C9H6CKCQS2C8HTHKS3STHJ]400|300[/hv] At IMPs, GIB miraculously comes up with the best lead of a club, ensuring 3NT is going to go down 5 tricks. Sadly, once it gets in, it decides to try the only play guaranteed to let the contract make. Blah blah, GIB can't simulate due to impossible bidding, I know. Regardless of the excuse, this is pretty rubbish :) But this is how daylongs are designed to be won/lost. (This was only enough for 7th place sadly, due to one flat board I was dealt.)

Thanks - interesting results there so far too :) For some reason, I'm always surprised when there isn't a right answer! For reference (for replying to Jeff's comment later), here are all four hands.

Results need to be known for the seeding points, that's all. Congrats icycookie!

Yeah, and referred to a few times here - this particular case wasn't covered though.

Oh good, so I'm not totally insane :) I actually did pass, West stayed quiet, partner tried a daring takeout double, and I jumped to 4♥ - but that was where it ended. In retrospect, knowing partner probably didn't have short diamonds, I think I got lucky and should have overcalled.

Chances of what? Making 3NT? I find it hard to imagine an auction where a balanced hand with 4 HCP becomes declarer in 3NT..

No - if that were the case, someone could complete 8 boards, then sign in with a second account and guarantee first place. It does make comparisons rather arbitrary at times though - there's a lot of luck involved based on the hands you are dealt.

Yeah, my thread title was a poor choice. Was mainly just wanting confirmation 3♥ was a normal overcall here.

East's initial pass seems rather poor too :/

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=S87HKT986543DCKT6&n=SAT42HAJD875CAQ32&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3D]400|300[/hv] Any ideas how you're meant to bid this? As an aside, would you play for the drop or finesse? (I assume drop is obvious, but I'm never entirely sure how to weight the probabilities in this sort of situation).

See the first line of the OP.

Can I politely inquire why it has taken over 3 weeks (and counting) for you to complete two matches? Would be nice to get this over with so people can start thinking about the next one.

Yeah, I don't know why you'd call this the worst auction of all time. Especially considering you just commented on my thread where GIB ended in 7♥ missing all 4 aces and half the HCP. Everything looks perfectly normal except for 3♠. For some reason that's described as forcing, which can't make sense. But don't forget you're choosing to play with the version of GIB which bids solely on points and has the part which tries to figure out how well the hands fit together disabled. Based on points, each hand is getting overvalued, and it's not surprising GIB gets too high. Though give East the ace of clubs and a better spade split and you're probably making 5♦, so West is probably worth inviting something. But obviously, 3♠ is silly.

Ingberman specifically defines 2♥ in this sequence as the weakest bid you can make. Thanks all for the replies - for this specific auction, placing weak hands with 5 spades into the 2♥ response, since that's below 2♠, makes a lot of sense; opener can still find a 3-5 major fit by bidding 2♠ next. In fact, the primer mentioned that latter part, but I didn't grasp the effect that has on the 2♠ bid. Under that assumption, hands that would reject an invite like Stephen Tu mentioned can't exist, so spade raises would become forcing. In other sequences where 2NT would be the negative, having an invitational spade raise sounds fine. Of course, the best solution is just to make sure you agree something in advance, whatever that is :)

Oh, partner didn't have 6 points. Was just saying that my hand (a pretty minimum reverse) was good enough to bid game opposite what I would call a minimum. So it seemed odd having to make a non-forcing raise. (Which is why I thought it would make sense for 4♠ to show my hand, and 3♠ to show stronger ones - seems very rare you'd want the option to stop in 3♠.)

It's getting a bit confusing when you keep bringing up whether 2♠ is forcing or not, as that's not relevant to this thread. Assume 2♠ forcing is a given. If 2♠ therefore shows more than a minimum, why is the consensus that 3♠ is nonforcing?

For reference, here is my hand that prompted this discussion. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?pc=n&s=sa64h4dqj76cakqj6&d=e&a=p1cp1sp2dp2sp&v=n]200|300[/hv] I felt this would be making game opposite most minimums, and bid 4♠ - we ended up too high after partner played me for a stronger hand. I ran a sim afterwards and if North has exactly 6 HCP with at least 5 spades, game is making 51% of the time. If 3♠ is an invite, maybe the real question is, is this under the assumption North should accept with what I would consider 'minimums', due to people often responding much weaker? Or is this just a rare case where you have to risk missing out on a vulnerable game?

I would tend to open 1♦ with medium hands not quite strong enough to reverse, to prevent rebid issues after a 1♥ response. But fair point on the jump to game.

I think you might have misunderstood my question - wasn't asking whether 2♠ should be forcing or not, but whether 4♠ should be weaker than 3♠, since once I discover we have a major fit I'm probably always going to want to play game anyway.

Yep, agreed 2♠ is forcing. I just can't imagine many hands where I have a 5431, am strong enough to reverse, and still don't want to be in game opposite a hand that was good enough to respond 1♠ in the first place (and has 5 of them). Compared to the number of occasions when I'm interested in slam, but (other than an immediate Blackwood) really just have to jump to 4♠ and let responder be in control of getting there. This may be because people respond 1♠ with sub-minimums more regularly these days. I tend to expect the book definition of a 1♠ response.

Assuming you play Ingberman, after the sequence: 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ what are the standard meanings of 3♠ and 4♠? Have read the stickied primer, and one other thread on reverses, and this came up just a couple of times; a couple of people saying 3♠ should be forcing, and a couple saying it should be nonforcing. Which is more valuable - having 3♠ as a strong bid, allowing room for slam exploration and 4♠ as a signoff; or having 3♠ as an invitation, allowing you to stop short of game? (And when would responder pass?)