wyman

Indeed. As I understood it, this forum is about illustrating places where GIB's judgment has gone awry, so that we aren't stuck with it forever :)

I get it. But not being able to play in a suit we've agreed is just bad. GIB should not bid 4H in the first place with this hand, which drove the rest of the problem. Appreciate it. However, dissecting my bids is missing the point of this forum entirely.

1) Description of GIB hand doesn't match GIB hand 2) The double is ill-advised anyway. Presumably 2 is because GIB assumes i have a monster over here, but even then, his hand is a king in a suit where he has concealed length and we have a fit, which is bad for D. http://bit.ly/2g9p9tX

http://bit.ly/2w8nWXJ Two main beefs here: 1) When GIB bids 4H, he promises 3 but only has 2. I get that you have to fudge sometimes but we have suit agreement already in diamonds. 2) Seems terrible that we can't play diamonds after 4N, but this mostly goes back to the idea that GIB decided to fabricate a double fit and eschew the fit we've established.

In real time, the explanation showed 2 lines, not the truncated explanation shown in the viewer. Specifically noted 29-30 points. I do forget if it specified HCP or total points. I assume that the programmers can recreate.

5D probably shouldnt show 29-30 points. http://bit.ly/2vgzu9Y

What I'm seeing in this thread is that I should be expecting p to remove this X with poor hands way less frequently than I thought when I dbled. Jdonn: I would have expected partner to pull for example with qxxxxxx and out, so while yes that's obviously a hand type he can hold, I didn't fail to dbl based on it. Same, honestly with Mike's example 5053 4/5-count, on the theory that holding that hand, only I really know about my lack of defense and double fit, where partner has only partial info and should be expecting fewer spades and something more defensive (than zero defense) on average. Based on partner not bidding 4D to help out the cause, I'd be expecting a shape more like 5035, and Qxxxx / void / Kxx / Axxxx makes more sense for a 4S bid than a random 4-count with that shape. What this fails to do is thinking hard about hands the opps can hold, but I think some are consistent enough, e.g., x / KQJxx / x / KQJxxx and xxx/Axxx/QJxxx/x Maybe both are a little more balanced since rho dbled instead of 2n but you get the idea.(and these seem like pretty much the nuts, I think they can hold worse cards/shape)

You've way more experience than I in these spots Mike, but won't partner bid 5 spades with Qxxxx void Kxxxx xxx? I'm just now returning after a bit of a hiatus, but can't partner just have a good invite here? I don't think he's forced to bid 4-other with a hand without SI, right?

I'll rip it. I've been wrong before. I've got more than I've shown and 4 trumps. Obviously I'd like to switch my major suits, but I'm not going to let this float.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq52hkj9754da54c&n=shaqt632dkj72caq6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1hp3s(4%2B!h%2C%200-1!s)5c6cp6hppp]266|200[/hv]

It is correct. I almost altered the bidding so that the given hand was dealer, but I thought I'd accurately report the hand as bid. This is an erratic home rubber-bridge game. Partner is not strong, so the nuances of the bidding from here on out will be lost on him, but I thought it was an interesting spot. I reached out to a couple of my regular partners who bid 5D and 6C, so I brought the problem to the masses :)

rubber, no legs :) [hv=pc=n&s=saq52hkj9754da54c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1hp3s(4%2B!H%2C%200-1!s)5c]133|200[/hv] The discussion I've had so far is on the relative merits of 5♦ vs 6♣, but all comments are welcome.

I'd bid 4N. 6N is just too much imo, and I think 4C is really overstating the club situation. Agree with 3C -- how else will you ever find 6C?

4S. I'm never bidding 2S, and the 7-4 + w/r IMP bumps this to a 4S for me.

Just got to LV. I am playing with a very good partner, and we're looking for good teammates (and teammates who are good) for Thu-Fri KOs (if you respond quickly!) or Fri-Sat KOs or the Swiss. LMK.