GIB finds a Spade among his Clubs

[SimonFa]

You might not agree with my bidding, I'm not sure I agree with my second bid but I wanted to get strength across and assumed 2S was forcing, anyway that's another debate I'm going to put in the A/I forum, but for now .....

 

Look at GIBs explanation of 1NT and 4S - http://tinyurl.com/crn5n9n

 

I've come across a similar problem before with GIBs 1NT but the 4S bid and explanation floored me.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[HighLow21]

Wouldn't 2♠ be forcing given that it's a reverse? Or is this some weird aspect of 2/1 that I don't fully understand yet?

[SimonFa]

Wouldn't 2♠ be forcing given that it's a reverse? Or is this some weird aspect of 2/1 that I don't fully understand yet?

 

AFAIAC it is forcing but I was catering for the odd person who comes along and says that it isn't forcing if partner denies 4 spades.

 

And I mean odd in both senses of the word: weird as well numerically small ie one

 

Simon

[Bbradley62]

The situation where GIB has a 3-card limit raise of pard's hearts, in addition to having four spades, is a recently-reported problem... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52068-gid-didnt-show-spades/page__p__623844__hl__%2Blimit+%2Braise__fromsearch__1#entry623844

[barmar]

2♠ is definitely forcing, since it's a reverse. But if opener doesn't have a hand that can make a jump shift, it's the only forcing bid he has. It's unusual for responder to raise it, because 1NT usually denies 4 ♠, but it might get raised either because he has a hand like this, or because he has some other reason to be scared of NT.

[Bbradley62]

Other than the fact that the "3-S" is a questionable part of the descriptions, didn't this auction go exactly the way it should have?

[pigpenz]

Other than the fact that the "3-S" is a questionable part of the descriptions, didn't this auction go exactly the way it should have?

yes i didnt see anything wrong, lots of times GIB doesnt bid spades over heart opening especially when doing delayed limit raise with 3 card support.

[barmar]

Here are the relevant responses, in order of priority (highest to lowest):

 

1NT with 3-card limit raise

1♠ with 5+ ♠

2♥ with single raise, 3♥ with 4+ limit raise

1♠ with 4 ♠

 

Simulations aren't allowed to override these rules.

[Bbradley62]

Here are the relevant responses, in order of priority (highest to lowest):

 

1NT with 3-card limit raise

1♠ with 5+ ♠

2♥ with single raise, 3♥ with 4+ limit raise

1♠ with 4 ♠

 

Simulations aren't allowed to override these rules.

Excellent. So, changing "3-S" in the 1NT description to "4-S" is on the To Do list?

[barmar]

Excellent. So, changing "3-S" in the 1NT description to "4-S" is on the To Do list?

Probably not. Sometimes it's better to leave unusual cases out of the descriptions, and just show what you're most likely to have. It's similar to the reason why 1m-1M-2M shows 4-card support, even though there are cases where it will raise with only 3.

 

The only time it matters is with this particular combination of hands, and as you can see we still manage to get to the right place. Is there any other hand opener could have where he could make use of the possibility that responder might have 4+ ♠?

[Bbradley62]

The only time it matters is with this particular combination of hands, and as you can see we still manage to get to the right place. Is there any other hand opener could have where he could make use of the possibility that responder might have 4+ ♠?

Suppose opener is 4531 and is not strong enough to reverse, so the auction goes: 1♥-1N-2♦-3H... If opener thinks he is strong enough to bid game and thinks there is a possibility that responser has 4S, he might bid 3♠ to give responder a choice of game. If opener has been told that it is not possible that responder has 4S, he's more likely to simply bid 4♥ to avoid giving opps info to help their defense.

[Bbradley62]

Here are the relevant responses, in order of priority (highest to lowest):

 

1NT with 3-card limit raise

1♠ with 5+ ♠

2♥ with single raise, 3♥ with 4+ limit raise

1♠ with 4 ♠

 

Simulations aren't allowed to override these rules.

Does this mean that GIB will bypass a FIVE card spade suit to bid 1NT with a 3-card limit raise?

[Stephen Tu]

Hmm, does that also mean it prefers bidding a 5+ spade to a single raise? I think that's regarded as pretty non-std, at least with 5 spades. Once you start talking 6, 7 cd suits, judgment definitely comes into play.

 

I've always thought the standard priority was:

1. jump raise with limit 4+

2. single raise with 3cd, 6-9 support

3. 1s with 4+ spades (with perhaps an exception for 4-6 or 4-7+ spade/minor, 5-8 hcp or so, planning to bid minor)

4. 1nt with 3cd limit raise.

 

At least that's what I've always done. Perhaps there are some cases where it's right to conceal 4 cd spade with a 3 cd limit raise, a very good player once told me his thinking process on this, but unfortunately I've forgotten his reasoning.

[barmar]

I think Stephen's style matches my own. I'm not sure how much of this is what's "best" versus just common fashion, so I don't know how much difference it really makes.

 

Some of this does seem illogical, though. It will bypass 5+ ♠ to show a 3-card limit raise, but not a 4-card limit raise. And the suit quality is ignored.

 

I'll ask Fred whether he thinks it's important to rearrange the priorities.

[Bbradley62]

Did you get around to asking Fred about this? As it is now, GIB would bypass a 10-card spade suit to bid 1NT on the way to showing a 3-card limit raise? (I know, bad South for passing forcing NT here...)

[hv=lin=pn|bbradley62,~~M25519,~~M25517,~~M25518|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S3JH357TQD5KAC38J%2CSAH89D3679TQC259A%2CS245TQKH46AD28C67%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7CForcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%206%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC7%7C]360|270[/hv]

[Bbradley62]

I asked Fred about this by email. His response:

Hi Bill,

 

I am fairly sure that Barmar did ask me about this a few months ago.

 

My own preferred style in this area is similar to that which Stephen Tu expressed in his post toward the end of the thread.

 

Fred