BunnyGo Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3r77bcc Problem 1: Why not just bid 2♠? Problem 2: I played this during an ACBL match. I immediately created the link from the "Results" column. I delayed posting it here because I realized other people were playing the same hand right now. However, this seems to be a problem in security that people can easily discuss and export the hands with a DD solver while the event is still going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgi Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/3r77bcc Problem 1: Why not just bid 2♠? ♠953 ♥Q87 ♦KT942 ♣92 has 6TP 1♠ - 2♠ - is 7-12TP while 1NT is 6-12. That 1TP made GIB to seed as 1NT and then to return back to 2♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 ♠953 ♥Q87 ♦KT942 ♣92 has 6TP 1♠ - 2♠ - is 7-12TP while 1NT is 6-12. That 1TP made GIB to seed as 1NT and then to return back to 2♠. Ok, so not a bug. Maybe worth considering changing the definition of 2♠ to go as low as 1NT goes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 This is a pretty standard sequence. It's more common with partnerships that play constructive raises, but even with normal raises this is how one shows a really minimum 3-card raise. I've also seen GIB do this with 3-4 HCP and 4-card support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.