manudude03 Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=manudude03&s=S9762H2DAK2CA9632&wn=Robot&w=SAK54HKQ84DT97CJ7&nn=Robot&n=SHA9763DQ43CKT854&en=Robot&e=SQJT83HJT5DJ865CQ&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)1H(One-level%20overcall%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%208-17%20HCP%3B%209-19%20total%20points)1S(Free%20bid%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%206+%20total%20points%3B%20forcing)D(2-%20%21H%3B%2013+%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21S)2S(3+%20%21D%3B%202+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)3C(4+%20%21C%3B%205+%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2017-%20HCP%3B%2010-19%20total%20points)3S(The%20Law%3A%209%20trump%20-%3E%203%20level%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%206+%20total%20points)4C(4+%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21H%3B%2013+%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21S)PPP&p=CQC2C7CKC4S3CACJD2D7DQD8D3D6DAD9H2H4HAH5H6HTC3H8S2SKC5S8H9HJC6HQS9S4C8SQH7SJC9HKS7S5CTSTH3D5S6DTD4DJDKSA]399|300[/hv] I was trying to work out the best way to investigate slam and saw the description for 4C say 13+ HCP with no upper limit mentioned, so I figured It must be forcing in the gib system. I was disappointed to see partner pass with 6C being a very good contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iandayre Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Sometimes you just have to play bridge. 4C sounds invitational or competitive, not forcing. I'm not at all surprised GIB took it so. Especially since you can bid game (5C) or try for slam (4S) in other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Sometimes you just have to play bridge. 4C sounds invitational or competitive, not forcing. I'm not at all surprised GIB took it so. Especially since you can bid game (5C) or try for slam (4S) in other ways. I had hovered over 4S, but it mentioned something about being forcing to 5H, so that was out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'd be interested to know how the panel thinks that South's X of 1S should be defined. Everything else hinges on that, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 imo, it should be clubs with some heart tolerance. I might have bid 2C myself, but the suit seemed a bit shoddy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 It is a recurring issue that bids that are described as unlimited are not forcing. This has been reported many times, but the developers don't seem to think it's worth making a universal review to fix this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 There is a world of a difference between Clubs with Heart tolerance (preferred) and Spades with Heart short (GIB). That said, for as long as we have to live with X showing Spades with Heart shortage I suppose we have to consider the continuations in that context. On this hand I expect that GIB North calculated that if South is minimum in context then 4C is plenty (not convinced about that but happy to accept it), and while South might have more the likelihood did not justify the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 While the description of double is 13+ HCP (13? :blink: ) with biddable spades ( :blink: ), it's not really unlimited. A little Walter the Walrus analysis shows that Opener has 11-12+, responder has 5-6+, overcaller has exactly 9. Advancer has a likely 15 maximum so unlimited really isn't that unlimited, and overcaller has 8+. How can 4♣ be forcing to game? Answer - It can't so you have to bid something other than 4♣ if you want to force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Agree with Manudude03 and BBradley62 that Gib should treat "unlimited" bids as "forcing". In general, it should define calls more accurately, even when that would entail specifying different ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iandayre Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I agree with the consensus that unlimited bids should be forcing. The problem here is the description of the bid being unlimited, not the fact that it is non-forcing. A further problem is the cuebid as showing a H rather than a C fit - that is clearly nonsense in light of the original double. I also play the double as showing the unbid suit with typically a doubleton in overcaller's suit. I will make an exception here to the general rule that GIB doesn't need more conventions, and suggest that advancer's double in situations such as this be so defined. This used to be called "Snapdragon". 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.