A regular problem

[1eyedjack]

Here is something that has cropped up before. I don't mind repeating the report with frequency in proportion to its incidence ... it simply underlines the priority for a fix. Particularly since I am pretty sure that this was reported prior to the 9 month period in which the upgrade to version 35 was under development.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sk976ha3dj765ck85&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1c1hd2hpp3d]133|200[/hv]

 

I object to North's choice of 3D on this hand. The description is "4+D; 4S; 11+ total points".

 

First of all, it is clear that the bid is not meant to be forcing, if this hand is anything to go by. North is not a passed hand, so there should be an upper limit on strength in the description. But really my main objection is not to the description of the bid but rather the choice of bid.

 

GIB system is to open 1C with 3-3 or 2-3 in the minors, and to open 1D with 4-4 or 3-2 in the minors. Some of these holdings can be eliminated by the auction. South would bid 2S over 2H on pretty much any opener with 4 card Spade suit. So let us place South with at most 3 Spades. That eliminates any (balanced) opener with a doubleton in the other minor and only 3 cards in the minor opened.

 

It may be reasonable to assume that opener has at most 3 Hearts. In real life this is not guaranteed, and occasionally the Hearts may be 5-2-2-4 around the table despite the raise. In which case opener could theoretically be 3-4-3-3. But I don't insist on it and would be happy for GIB to conclude that South must by now have at least 4 Clubs.

 

Furthermore, if he also has 4 Diamonds then his Club suit must be at least a 5 card suit. Furthermore, he could well have a 5 card Club suit without the need for holding a 4 card Diamond suit.

 

All in all, Clubs rates to be at least as good a place to play as Diamonds. Sure, occasionally you would prefer to be in a 4-4 fit than a 5-3 fit, but it does not always provide an extra trick and the preference is overshadowed by the primary obligation to maximise your chances of playing in a fit rather than a misfit.

 

On a given day, 3C may not be significantly (if any) better spot than 3D. There may be no 8 card fit to be had. But in that case there will be a 7 card Spade fit to be had at a lower level

 

So, not that I advocate North bidding 3C, it would still have provided a long term gain over 3D.

 

However the simple fact remains that while South is now unlikely to have 4 card Spade support, there is nothing to prevent him having 3 card support, on which occasions it is entirely credible that Spades is as good a fit as any to be had, and has the advantage of being biddable at a lower level.

 

A balancing take-out double of 2H by North would have kept this option open, without closing the door on 3m should South not have 3 card Spade support.

 

To my mind, X by North instead of 3D is a clear winner.

[Stefan_O]

Good points.

 

Just wondering, since the negative X promises 4 spades,

should South use support-double over 2H when he has 3-card ♠ support?

Would make it a bit easier to find a 4-3 ♠ fit...

Plus we could then rule out a 4-3 ♠ fit, in the situation above?

 

Compare to:

 

W  N  E  S
     P  1C
1D 1S 2D X

[manudude03]

I think the OP hand has an obvious second double playing in a human partnership, hopefully it's not "biddable hearts" in the gib system.... If forced to choose between the minors, I agree that 3C is better.

 

I had a misunderstanding with a new partner last week over Stefan's comparison auction when I thought it was support while he thought he was showing hearts so it's a bit of a touchy subject for me right now.

[iandayre]

Good points.

 

Just wondering, since the negative X promises 4 spades,

should South use support-double over 2H when he has 3-card ♠ support?

Would make it a bit easier to find a 4-3 ♠ fit...

Plus we could then rule out a 4-3 ♠ fit, in the situation above?

 

Compare to:

 

W  N  E  S
     P  1C
1D 1S 2D X

 

An interesting thought, but I would say no. In support double situations, typically responder has shown 4+ rather than exactly 4. One big benefit is to allow responder to compete when holding decent values with a modest 5 card suit he wouldn't wish to freely rebid with no indication of support. Using it just to show a 4-3 isn't as valuable.

 

And of course Jack is completely correct, 3D is hopeless, double is the only sensible call. I can't count the times I have said that one of GIB's biggest problems is allowing bids on short suits that for any sensible human player would require 5-6 or more card length. In this hand, just about any conceivable action - pass, double, 2S, 2NT, even 3H - is better than 3D

[iandayre]

delete duplicate