Overbid

[1eyedjack]

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SA8HKT5432DQT4CA6&wn=Robot&w=SKJT974HQ86D6CKQT&nn=Robot&n=S52HJ9DAJ9853C832&en=Robot&e=SQ63HA7DK72CJ9754&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=2D(Weak%20two%20diamond%20--%201-4%20C%3B%201-3%20H%3B%201-3%20S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20D%3B%209+%20total%20points)P2H(rebiddable%20H%3B%2014+%20total%20points%3B%20forcing)2S(Overcall%20--%204+%20S%3B%2013+%20total%20points)P2N(11-13%20HCP%3B%20stop%20in%20H)3D(2+%20D%3B%20rebiddable%20H%3B%2014-15%20total%20points)3S(6+%20S%3B%2013%20total%20points)PP4D(4+%20D%3B%20rebiddable%20H%3B%2014-15%20total%20points)4S(6+%20S%3B%2012+%20HCP%3B%2013%20total%20points)5D(1-4%20C%3B%201-3%20H%3B%201-3%20S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20D%3B%2011+%20total%20points)D(1+%20S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2011-%20total%20points%3B%20stop%20in%20H)PPP&p=S3SAS7S2DTD6D3DKC5CACTC2C6CQC3C7SKS5S6S8CKC8CJD4DQH6DAD2DJD7H2H8D9H7H3SJHJHAH4HQC9H5S9D5H9C4HKSTHTS4D8SQ]400|300[/hv]

MP, robot tourney, best hand South.

 

The par contract is 4♦X -1 by N/S, for 100 to E/W, who can make 3♠. Against the room, had we been allowed to play in 4♦, doubled or otherwise, it would have been a good score for N/S. Obviously defending 4♠ would have scored even better (for N/S).

 

What do all y'all think of the bidding on this one? My opinion is that it was fine up to but excluding the 4♠ bid, with 5♦ bid being the worse bid of the two.

West appears to be sacrificing at the 4 level against a partscore, which to me is a bit of a no-no. He can't be bidding it to make, because he has no more reason to expect it to make when bidding 4♠ as he had on the previous round of the bidding at which time he judged 3♠ to be sufficient. Actually, if West had chosen 4♠ on the previous round I would not have considered that unreasonable, despite its failure.

 

Apparently the route to get to 4♦ and then stop is for South to pass 2♦ and then back in with 4♦ when they get to 3♠ (and you escape undoubled for a bonus).

 

I don't think that South's 2♥ response is ludicrous, but I am happy to be corrected. Anyway, the bid is "forcing to 3♦". By implication, while it may be strong enough for game, it allows for the possibility of stopping short.

 

I don't know what North's pass of 2♠ means, given that we are forced to 3♦, and in particular how it might be distinguished from (say) 3♦ bid by North. However let us at least agree that North is minimum in context in every respect, and we assume that the pass is consistent with this.

 

South's 3♦ appears to be a limit bid, and non-forcing.

 

So, South has made a non-forcing bid, and North has (and we imagine has shown) a minimum opener.

 

I feel that armed with that preceding information and auction, South should be permitted to contest the partscore over 3♠ without being hung by North. If 3♦ is non-forcing then logically so must be 4♦, if in between these bids North has shown no encouragement. It may be that North would not have bid 5♦ had West passed 4♦. I have no way of knowing.

 

One of the improvements to GIB that I look forward to seeing in future releases is where GIB stops bidding one more for the road, having already fully described his hand in a non-forcing situation and is not in the pass-out seat.

[RSClyde]

4♠ is terrible, 5♦ is beyond terrible.

[Lord Molyb]

4♠ is terrible, 5♦ is beyond terrible.

you forgot 2NT