Another clearcut bidding hole

[smerriman]

[hv=sn=smerriman&s=SK2HK94DAK84CJ987&nn=Robot&n=SJ97HJ7DJ5CAKQT32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2C(Forcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%2011+%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)P3C(Raise%20of%20minor%20--%204+%20%21C%3B%204+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%203-card%20%21D%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)PPP]450|300[/hv]

 

Perhaps 2NT would have been a better choice than 3♣, but 3♣ must be forcing regardless.

[Bbradley62]

The GIB System Notes say that opposite 1♦ opening, 2♣ response is forcing for one round, but not game force. The explanation provided at the table should match.

[1eyedjack]

Agreed. Apart from the fact that in real life no power on earth would persuade me, holding the North cards, to pass a non forcing 3C, the non forcing 3C should at least deny 21 HCP and 22TP.

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally it is not clear to me whether North would bidagain over 2N. He may retreat to NF 3C which at least gives you another bid as South. Perhaps the rrecommended rebid is 2H.

 

The whole system is inadequate in this area, has been for as long as GIB has been available, and is well documented as such in these forums going back over the ages.

 

But complicated to correct due to the knock on consequences and large number of sequences affected. So probably a low priority. And rightly so while it continues to fail to double 6N on lead with AK in a suit which it then fails to lead (justifying the non double)

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally1D-2C is quite a frequent sequence. For as long as we are stuck with the meaning as truly interpreted by GIB, then for all that there is some documentation out there confirming this, I suggest that correcting the in-line explanations here should be fairly simple an a high priority.

[lycier]

The GIB System Notes say that opposite 1♦ opening, 2♣ response is forcing for one round, but not game force. The explanation provided at the table should match.

 

 

Your ideas may be right in theory.

 

Now I would better make a similar hand to show the truth.

 

 

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Robot&s=SK2HK94DAK84CJ987&wn=Robot&w=SAQ84HA62D962C654&nn=Robot&n=SJ97HJ7DJ5CAKQT32&en=Robot&e=ST653HQT853DQT73C&d=e&v=o&b=14&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2C(Forcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%2011+%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)P3C(Raise%20of%20minor%20--%204+%20%21C%3B%204+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%203-card%20%21D%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)PPP&p=S3SKSAS7SQS9S5S2C4C2H3C9C8C5C3H5C7C6CTS6DJDQDAD2DKD6D5D3D4D9CQD7H7HTHKHAH6HJHQH9H8H4H2CKSJSTD8S8CADTCJS4]400|300[/hv]

 

Note the definitions on both of 2♣ and 3♣.

However, both of 2♣ and 3♣ say " Forcing to 3N" !

Who is lying in fact ?

My conclusion : Obviously this is a bug.