xeno123 Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Admittedly my 1♦ opening was very aggressive, but then things really get away from me with my partner GIB's exceedingly weird 3♦ bid, which according to the description means 4+♦ over W's 2♦ balance. In fact we both had only 3 cards in diamonds, and needless to say the resulting contract was dismal seeing West's 2♦ bid showed at least 5 cards in that suit. I knew we were headed for disaster, so figured I'd pass and hope we weren't doubled. http://tinyurl.com/6ls8fnh Surely my partner should pass over West's 2♦ bid, or at very least try 3♣ if GIB was determined to bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeno123 Posted May 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 FWIW, the two no-name viewgraph auctions both went:1♦=P=1NT=2♥=P=P=3♣ (both down 3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan2008 Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 because GIB only takes his own hand into account, he never checks opps' bidding i think:). Same case u will meet in the future. 1H(opp)-1nt(u)-pass-2D=(transfer H) :). then u have to play 2h against opps' 5-1 suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgi Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 because GIB only takes his own hand into account, he never checks opps' bidding i think:). Same case u will meet in the future. 1H(opp)-1nt(u)-pass-2D=(transfer H) :). then u have to play 2h against opps' 5-1 suit. For typical auctions GIB checks what opponent bid and the shown lengths. Vulnerability also matters for its pair, opponents etc. 3♦ is definitely bug. It will be checked for fix. 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.