steve2005

Agreed, 3♦ could just be looking for the best strain. Gib hasn't denied 4♦. Also, could have poor club stopper and hoping Gib can bid 3N so don't have to pick between 3N and 4♠. Also, I don't see why total points is brought into the decision process, no fit has been found this should be mostly a HCP decision, besides how useful is the likely ♠ shortness anyways.

According to documentation Gib does play fit-jumps by passed hand. As for figuring out suggestion when to bid 1♠ with constructive I'm not much help. Since Bergen raises showed up have rarely used constructive raises. Don't really understand how Gib deals with possible 3-4 card delayed raise after 1♥-1N-2m-2♥ or 1♥-1N-2♥ which is essentially the same problem your going to have to cover.

It's Saturday seems to have same hands as last week on free weekly. not 100% sure but sure looked the same. so didn't reset fri.

While I commend the result. I don't condone Gib's methods. If opener's diamonds and spades are reversed it isn't such a cold slam and bidding would have gone the same. I still would like to see a 4♦ cuebid out of Gib in such a situation (but I have a long wait) and let the big hand take control. Is better slam prospects if you can diagnose the secondary ♠ fit early, but I wouldn't be thinking 6-4 ever.

From a bridge standpoint I would consider hand worth limit raise and bid 1♠ followed by 3♥ if 2 of a minor rebid, but like Lycier says Gib doesn't count this way. From a programing standpoint, I'm concerned there may be no hand with 3♥ and a constructive raise where Gib will bid 1♠. The extreme case being xxxxxxxxxx, xxx, void, void and the honors such that it would have constructive values by Gib's counting methods.

Question: When does the weekly free tournament reset? Great idea by the way. It says you can play as often as you want but my memory is still good enough it would feel like cheating. Maybe in a few more years will try more often lol.

Can we play Gib at the money table? Nice balance! I'm a pretty crazy balancer and it wouldn't even occur to me.

well, in the case GIB has no feature to show so reverts to a min.. Not surprising with you having 3 Kings. Don't think your being pessimistic if Gib lacks a top honor probably only making 3. In some partnerships I play a 3N response to show this type of hand. Other I've shown Q♠ as a feature but I usually get yelled at lol. Maybe opener should simply bid 4♥ on assumption your inviting in hearts and am a max.

Chase: The advantages you listed for Mex are present in Transfer Walsh (which Big Bang uses something similar) without using a precious 2-bid. Now your point is valid about being able to play in 2♠ under GCC but is offset by hands where you open a minor and partner passes with weak hand an tolerance. No your not buying for 1 minor likely but now u know they have some of your minor and being able to compete more intelligently. Mexican starts higher but has compensation of ability to use transfers under GCC. BW hand of death, yes that is good. There are other solutions (besides TW) under GCC for example artificial reverses but whenever u add artificiality it causes other problems or just play Precision. Preempts are problem to all hands. A hand with same strength but 3-4-1-5 or 4-3-1-5 would have same problem. If pre-emption of balanced hands is your concern a lot of people include 19 or at least good 19's in 2N. A 19-20 range is not unheard of (Meckwell,have seen in some people playing Acol) Also, some people include 18 or at least bad 18's in their 1N. So could cover the Mexican bid range at cost of stretching your NT openings and you still have a free 2 bid. It comes down to a tradeoff. Are your pluses from Mex 2♣ then what you were going to use the 2-bid for? Personally, I wouldn't use Mexican or Flannery.

any system with Mexican 2♦ 18-19 bal even if using 2♣ is flawed. this type of hand just isn't a problem hand. using a 2 bid for even (ugh) Flannery is a better use, Precision 2♦ covers a hole as does Blue team 2♦.

I see your point, but playing constructive raises there is always the possibility of a raise containing primary support. Also the presence of J♠ makes the spade suit much more interesting.

hand Ok, yes I probably should bid 2♠(or however u show long spades with 2-way game tries) just in case Gib has 4♠ to find better 4-4 ♠ fit. However at mp my instinct is to not give info away and bid best likely game. Not that Gib makes leads using this info. Gib showed constructive ♥ raise so 7-10 support pts. Gib has 9 hcp and 3 tens not that matters, nice 6-card ♠ suit and a singleton with Qxx trump support. And this is a constructive raise?! If I had that hand I'm thinking game and starting with 1♠.

Traditional puppet has the 5♠4♥ problem. However, there are other versions which avoid this problem. There are many here's one: 3♦: denies a 5-card major and 4-card ♥ suit but may have 4-card ♠ suit 3♥: 4 or 5 ♥ not 4♠ - other option 4♥ 3♠: 5♠ 3N: 4-4 in majors - other option 5♥ now after 2N-3♣-3♦ - 3♥: 4♠ 3♠: 5♠4♥ ------------------------------------------ Minor Suit Stayman belongs at 3♠ if only for the possibility of playing in 3N if opener has majors well stopped. One possibility for clubs is to use 4♠ as a slam try in ♣. Can stop in 4N or 5♣ if no slam. 4♣ is transfer to ♦. Another possibility is to use 3N as a transfer to ♣. Of course this has the problems associated with having to use puppet on all hands wanting to play 3N. Perhaps using 3♠ as a puppet to 3N then showing a minor 1 suiter or 2 suiter is the best compromise.One variation I've seen you rebid 4♣ with ♦ and 4♦ with ♣ to right-side things.

I pass. maybe opp can make 5♣ or 3N, good luck to them. I and my partners have been known to bid 3♦ on 6 cards so see no point in raising the pre-empt.

What did 1♠ opener and 4♠ responder have?

1♣ -(1♦) This is the most advantageous use of transfers as hard to get 4-4 in majors to make perfect double so often double made on 4-3. Also, if your used to transfer Walsh you can use those continuations. double=4+hearts 1♥=4+spades 1♠=good club raise 2♣=normal club raise I've looked at other possible auctions and it seems you have to give up to much to use transfers. For example 1♦-(1♠) do you give up useful takeout double or natural1N to start transfers. One other possibility is to start transfers at 2♣ but then to show clubs your doing it a 3-level. Another possibility is to start transfers at 2N which is less useful as a natural bid. This is workable but because of the level doesn't take full advantage of transfers. Remember, answers must conform to ACBL GCC which states allowed:, "TRANSFER RESPONSES (responses after overcalls) where the call shows length or values in the suit of the transfer." I'm looking to see if anyone has useful methods with transfers after overcalls in other bidding sequences.

Probably not, they will be in 11-15 pt range which % wise is the most common range for standard 12-21.

can be anything obviously overstating but in addition to the normal distributional raise in standard responder can have a very good defensive hand with no slam ambition planning on making 4♠. So when you bid 5♦ you could go for a number.

I think cat out of bag- time bid number of hears willing to compete to.

Imps/Mp?

Partner is unlimted both in hcp and shape. So could save day if weak by rebidding ♠ or showing a second suit. But Gib has to have a [hearts ]stopper to bid 1N, how is it gonna stop a running heart suit? With harsh words?

Gib actually has it's 16 points need to make second X by Gib's system. But how can it be a takeout double, only one unbid suit. If Gib wants to play in ♥ should just bid 4♥ but Gib probably needs 30 pts to make such a crazy bid but takeout double is safe according to Gib.

Why did Gib even bid 5N? Apparently it doesn't need a King so why not just bid 7♠ over 4N KC response?

Even more extreme example ♠KJ1086543 ♥K2 ♦K2 ♣2 - still would open 1♠. My partners won't look for slam over my 4♠ pre-empt with 3 Aces and no ruffing potential. Will yours?

The description of 6N includes 16-18 hcp, not even close to Gib's 13 hcp hand. If Gib had it's bid you would be claiming.