Yu18772 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/cdw77bj By definition:"biddable5+ cards, or 4 cards + 3 of 5 honors or more than 4 8421 pointsrebiddablebiddable + 1 card" So as I understand - rebiddable is 5+ cards - not 4....http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 "2+D" is also a crappy description as part of the explanation of 2♦. If you have at most 6 cards in the majors, and you're supporting D over C, you should have 4+D, not 2+D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yu18772 Posted September 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Frankly I am a bit less concerned about the explanation of 2♦ - it was probably mirrored from explanation of correcting to the first suit and not individually addressed. Explanation of 3♣ matches what I would expect in natural system - 5-5....but bots hand does not.... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 But if 2♦ is defined more properly, North has no reason to bid over it and mislead you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgi Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 biddable, rebiddable, twice rebiddable, strong rebiddable, solid, etc are terms usually coming to say this suit has specific quality along the length. otherwise the length will be given directly with X+. But running from 2♦ and explanation of 2♦ will be reviewed 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.