2C then jump rebid should be GF

[1eyedjack]

[hv=lin=pn|1eyedjack,~~M80538ir,~~M10923qe,~~M11343j1|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S5679JQKAH7ADKCKA%2CS4H6KD369QAC367TJ%2CS8H23459TD25TC289%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7CStrong%20two%20club%20--%2019%2B%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20po%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7C2D%20bid%20waiting%20--%20forcing%20to%202N%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7COpener%5C%27s%20suit%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2019%2B%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20tota%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHQ%7C]380|270[/hv]

 

MP Instant robot tourney, best hand South.

 

Scored 50% because half the room were bidding 6 going down, the other half in game. Just me languishing in partscore. But the other room was 4 years ago, mind.

 

Anyway, I took the explanation of 3♠ with a pinch of salt. Whatever it shows, the explanation seems inadequate, As I recall it provides precisely the same explanation for a 2♠ bid. But surely I would rebid 2♠ on any hand that was not worth GF?

[lycier]

2♣ then jump rebid should be GF,I agree.

Maybe the subsequent bidding sequences are very complex with the agreement,Robot is not easy to make decision to use those complex methods,it inculde many special gadgets,for example:

after 3M :

1- if pd held some specific king,it ask pd to rebid 3nt,then walsh ask bid,very complex.

2- if pd held some specific Ace,it ask pd to bid directly,and so on.

3- if pd's hand without any Ace or King,it ask pd to bid up to game directly.

[georgi]

For v29 it's expected a little boost after 2C opening so it would be improved for sure.

 

Currently it contains some disadvantages bothering continuations like second negative call after

 

2♣ - 2♦

2Major

 

and as here where 2M and 3M looking really similar for 2♦ responder.