Blackwood

[Lord Molyb]

[hv=pc=n&n=skj8h84djt98754c4&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3d(%3F)p3n4cpp4sp4n(*)p5cp5dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

I held ♠Axxxxx ♥AKJx ♦Ax ♣T

I figured that if GIB had the 5+ 8421 points required for his 3♦ bid I could make 3NT if he had a club stopper or the opponents didn't lead clubs. (presumably he had at least KJ-7th)

LHO bid 4♣, p passed, RHO passed with ♠x ♥xxx ♦KQxx ♣Q98xx, and I decided to bid 4♠ instead of X (which I really hope partner wouldn't pull)

Now partner bids blackwood, unsurprisingly. But I mouse over the 4NT bid and it's apparently blackwood for diamonds! I mouse over the 4♠ bid I just made and the explanation is "cue bid". What.

[1eyedjack]

Even if 4♠ was a cue bid (gloss over the earlier 3N bid), how can North justify Bwood?

[Bbradley62]

The non-description-fitting preempt was reported last month, without a response from staff.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62902-too-weak-of-a-weak-3

[georgi]

Thanks for reporting.

 

4♠ really was described as cuebid and therefore 4NT comes as blackwood over diamonds. Come after simulation for sure, based on 3NT - 4♠ 25+ TP

 

Fixed in v29. So it shows now just spades. Plus the rest probability of cards where 2-4 cards in rest suits as 3NT denies singleton. 2- in opening, but other suits are 2+ cards.

 

Of course as bidding 3NT cannot shows more then 5, that's the limit of spades - five.

 

So if there is a blackwood after, it will be over spades.

 

So with the hand displayed for North, it will pass 4♠.

[Bbradley62]

Can we please address the part of the report (and the previous report cited above) about GIB opening 3♦ with J high when he says he has 5+ 8421HCP for that bid? I happen to like the bid on this trash, but either way GIB's action and the description he provides should be consistent.

[georgi]

Point taken, and it will be reviewed.

 

As there are also included rules where it opens following simply with losers -2/-3 based on vulnerability. So either explanation will be fixed in v29, or openings.

 

I will try to add more information once it's known which part is changed.

[georgi]

Some changes in forthcoming v29 about these openings:

 

3X will have the requirement of 3+ 8421 or QJ and better, so it won't be able to open with 10xxxxxx or Jxxxxxx in suit. Explanation is also tweaked about 10-HCP instead of current 9-HCP.

 

So an explanation of 3♦ would look like:

 

3♦ - Preempt -- 7+ ♦; 10- HCP; 3+ 8421 HCP in ♦; 6+ total points

 

Still preemptive logic about -2/-3 etc based on vulnerability will be followed. not just some 7th suit.

 

2X weak openings will be extended to 6-7 cards suit.

 

However they will be after 3X priorities so if a hand is good enough will open 3X, if not that type, but satisfying 2X openings such call will be given.

 

2X in v28 are limited to exactly 6 cards, and thus they are missing some of the hands which can't fit neither in 3X , or 1X openings and are passed at first round.