Bbradley62 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 From Bridge Solitaire: http://tinyurl.com/mu5426j 3S should not be described as a limit raise; it is simply showing a preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Actually, I think given the description of GIB's 3♥, I would disagree. We are in a GF auction (19 + 6 minimum). The "preference" hand can just bid 4♠. 3♠ leaves the door open for cuebidding so should be stronger, given that we are in a GF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Actually, I think given the description of GIB's 3♥, I would disagree. We are in a GF auction (19 + 6 minimum). The "preference" hand can just bid 4♠. 3♠ leaves the door open for cuebidding so should be stronger, given that we are in a GF. No, this is not right. Why would you want to play 4♠ in a 5-2 fit? Some people perhaps lump both the preference hand and the limit hand into 3S but I've never heard of taking preference at the 4 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 GIB's correct bid is 3NT- given the poor conventional 1NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 it is masterminding a bit(/lot?) but it is not hard to construct hands where game in Sp or Di is better than 3N, despite having only a 7 card Sp fit. Is this one of those times where Gib++ goes into simulation overdrive? 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.