Rebid after double

[1eyedjack]

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SA2HAKJ8DK3CAJT82&wn=Robot&w=S653HQ975DT75CK75&nn=Robot&n=SJT874H42DJ62C963&en=Robot&e=SKQ9HT63DAQ984CQ4&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B)P1S(4+%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points)P2N(2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2021-23%20HC)P4S(6+%20%21S%3B%203+%20HCP%3B%204%20total%20points)PPP&p=CQCAC7C3SAS3S4S9S2S5SJSQDAD3D5D2D4DKDTD6C2CKC6C4D7DJDQH8D9C8H9S7STSKHJS6D8CTH5S8H2HTHKHQHAH7H4H6CJC5C9H3]400|300[/hv]

 

MP, Instant, ver 33

 

I am not too comfortable with the 4S bid, although that is not the point of the post. Incidentally, neither should GIB be too comfortable, given that the explanation shows a third HCP and a 6th Spade, both of which are lacking.

 

Main point of the post is that at my (South's) second opportunity to call, I moused over 1NT expecting it to be somewhere close to a description of my cards, only to read "3-5 ♣; 2- ♦; 3-4 ♥; 3-4 ♠; 12+ total points".

 

A better description would be "2-5 ♣; 2-5 ♦; 2-5 ♥; 1-3 ♠; 18-20 HCP"

 

I would be happy with some variation close to this.

[steve2005]

The description of 1N is something like it would be if Gib was playing minimum off-shape takeout doubles, which is not checked on it's convention card and I believe Gib does not play. Of course then it should say 2-3 ♠. If Gib has the hand described by 1N it should pass and accept 1♠ as a reasonable place to play.

 

Minimum off-shape take-out doubles are an abomination and should be wiped from the planet. Much better for 1N rebid to show a hand too good to overcall 1N, like 18-19. 19-20 or 18-20 depending on your system.

 

 

 

[Bbradley62]

This is from one of the older version tables, showing 19-20:

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|mikey244,~~M45551,~~M45549,~~M45550|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S2AH8JKAD3KC28TJA%2CS356H579QD57TC57K%2CS478TJH24D26JC369%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%201%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2019-20%20HC%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7C]360|270[/hv]

 

and this shows a different strong balanced rebid. It would be nice if these were done/explained to be distinct from each other.

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|sonoscarsa,~~M45614,~~M45612,~~M45613|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S2AH8JKAD3KC28TJA%2CS356H579QD57TC57K%2CS478TJH24D26JC369%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%201%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7C2-4%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2018%2B%20tota%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203H%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS3%7C]360|270[/hv]

[1eyedjack]

I am not convinced that 1S should promise 4+ Spades. What would North bid with a 3-2-5-3 Yarborough?

[Bbradley62]

...

[Bbradley62]

Lycier just posted this similar current auction, showing the full explanation of the cuebid:

[hv=d=s&v=n&b=31&a=P1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%202-%20%21C%3B%203-5%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2012+%20total%20points)P1S(4+%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points)P2C(2-4%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2018+%20total%20points%3B%20at%20best%20stop%20in%20%21C%3B%20forcing%20to%203H)P2S(rebiddable%20%21S%3B%202-9%20total%20points%3B%20forcing)P3S(2-4%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2020-22%20total%20points%3B%20at%20best%20stop%20in%20%21C)PPP]800|150[/hv]

[Stephen Tu]

I am not convinced that 1S should promise 4+ Spades. What would North bid with a 3-2-5-3 Yarborough?

 

I think for practical purposes the bid should be assumed to be 4+ spades for partner's continuation, simulation purposes. GIB is often allowed to be off one card in its bidding and bidding on 3 is just one of those cases.

 

But the NT rebids by the doubler should definitely deny 4 support IMO.

[iandayre]

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SA2HAKJ8DK3CAJT82&wn=Robot&w=S653HQ975DT75CK75&nn=Robot&n=SJT874H42DJ62C963&en=Robot&e=SKQ9HT63DAQ984CQ4&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B)P1S(4+%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points)P2N(2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2021-23%20HC)P4S(6+%20%21S%3B%203+%20HCP%3B%204%20total%20points)PPP&p=CQCAC7C3SAS3S4S9S2S5SJSQDAD3D5D2D4DKDTD6C2CKC6C4D7DJDQH8D9C8H9S7STSKHJS6D8CTH5S8H2HTHKHQHAH7H4H6CJC5C9H3]400|300[/hv]

 

MP, Instant, ver 33

 

I am not too comfortable with the 4S bid, although that is not the point of the post. Incidentally, neither should GIB be too comfortable, given that the explanation shows a third HCP and a 6th Spade, both of which are lacking.

 

Main point of the post is that at my (South's) second opportunity to call, I moused over 1NT expecting it to be somewhere close to a description of my cards, only to read "3-5 ♣; 2- ♦; 3-4 ♥; 3-4 ♠; 12+ total points".

 

A better description would be "2-5 ♣; 2-5 ♦; 2-5 ♥; 1-3 ♠; 18-20 HCP"

 

I would be happy with some variation close to this.

 

I am shocked that this change was made. What is wrong with them? This is crazy. Perhaps they got confused with the old description after an intervening double by the opponents in which a 1NT rebid showed 18-19, and they accidentally changed this auction as well. This must be fixed ASAP it is completely unplayable.

[Bbradley62]

Ian:

(1) Please learn how to put your comments outside of the quotation box when you reply to a post, so we can tell where the other person's comments end and yours begin.

(2) Did you take pissy pills this morning?

[georgi]

Thanks for reporting it.

 

1NT call fixed in v34.

 

It's back to lower range than 21-23. .

[lycier]

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SA2HAKJ8DK3CAJT82&wn=Robot&w=S653HQ975DT75CK75&nn=Robot&n=SJT874H42DJ62C963&en=Robot&e=SKQ9HT63DAQ984CQ4&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B)P1S(4+%20%21S%3B%209-%20total%20points)P2N(2-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-4%20%21H%3B%202-4%20%21S%3B%2021-23%20HC)P4S(6+%20%21S%3B%203+%20HCP%3B%204%20total%20points)PPP&p=CQCAC7C3SAS3S4S9S2S5SJSQDAD3D5D2D4DKDTD6C2CKC6C4D7DJDQH8D9C8H9S7STSKHJS6D8CTH5S8H2HTHKHQHAH7H4H6CJC5C9H3]400|300[/hv]

Thanks for reporting it.

 

1NT call fixed in v34.

 

It's back to lower range than 21-23. .

 

Georgi,beg your pardon.

I don't believe you can really solve the problem of this hand.

 

1- after 1♠,south rebid :

1nt showing 18-19hcp.

2nt showing 20-21hcp

Here there is no problem.

 

2- 4♠ is a overbid actually,3♠ should be a best spot.So here it is a problem on Gib CC - it can't be solved unless use modern 2/1 approach,Wolff signoff convention.

Its bidding sequences:

After 1♠,bidding 2nt,then 3♣ relay to 3♦,north bid 3♠ is signoff.

If you don't use it,no way to signoff at 3♠.

[Stephen Tu]

1- after 1♠,south rebid :

1nt showing 18-19hcp.

2nt showing 20-21hcp

Here there is no problem.

I think 1nt should be 18-20 and 2nt kept as it was, 21-23. I don't know think that range needs to be so tight for 1nt, and you stay lower by bidding 1nt on 20 when advancer doesn't have much.

 

 

2- 4♠ is a overbid actually,3♠ should be a best spot.So here it is a problem on Gib CC - it can't be solved unless use modern 2/1 approach,Wolff signoff convention.

Its bidding sequences:

After 1♠,bidding 2nt,then 3♣ relay to 3♦,north bid 3♠ is signoff.

If you don't use it,no way to signoff at 3♠.

Wolff is an unnecessary complication on this auction. 3♠ should be weak signoff. If advancer wants to check back for 3 cd spade support, he can simply cue bid 3♦. If he has 6+ spades and wants to be in game, 4♠ is fine. You don't need a forcing 3♠ here with strong hands, because 1♠ denied a strong hand from failure to jump or cue. This allows 3♣ to be NF, which is consistent with my preference to bid 1♠ on weak 4♠-6♣ hands.

 

This is quite different from a non-competitive sequence where Wolff traditionally applies. In that case the 1♠ call is unlimited, so there is much greater need to allocate calls towards stronger hands, and more willingness to give up say a minor partial to cater to those.