O-oo-O-oo I should have known better with a GIB like you

[virgosrock]

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn%7CHUMAN%2Cvirgosrock%2CRobotN%2CRobotE%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C4S569H26TJQADTC37J%2CSJHKD34679JC2489T%2CS24QAH578D25KC5QK%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard+6%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor+suit+opening+--+5%2B+%21S%3B+11-21+HCP%3B+12-22+total+points+%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7CTwo-level+overcall+--+5%2B+%21H%3B+10%2B+HCP%3B+11%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CNegative+double+--+4%2B+%21C%3B+4%2B+%21D%3B+9%2B+tota%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CGood+support+in+H+--+3%2B+%21H%3B+11%2B+total+points+%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7C5%2B+%21H%3B+10%2B+HCP%3B+11-13+total+points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C3%2B+%21H%3B+13%2B+HCP%3B+14-19+total+points+%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4N%7Can%7C4%2B+%21C%3B+4%2B+%21D%3B+9%2B+total+points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH5%7C%0A%0A]399|300[/hv]

 

hopefully some of you know the Beatles song.

 

vrock

[The_Badger]

My personal view. West is trying too hard here. I'm not even negative doubling on first round, even non-vulnerable. Great shape, but no support for partner, and no honour tricks, ♥K looks useless. Best to pass.

 

As for 4NT vulnerable against non-vulnerable, that's throwing yourself to the wolves...off a high cliff!

[Stephen Tu]

The phantom sac was a poor decision, with spade shortness and a decent chance of scoring HK, plus unfavorable vul and only one hcp in the suits. 6-5 come alive sure, but have to draw the line somewhere and this is pretty far below.

 

But still, definition of 4nt has to be adjusted to show 5+/5+ and East simply can't pass 4nt. Those are clear bugs no matter how crazy the human is being.

[steve2005]

I guess Gib prefers playing in a possible 22 pt 4NT undoubled with maybe no ♥ stopper to

playing in a possible 4-3 fit at 5-level doubled and vulnerable

who am I to argue?:rolleyes:

[smerriman]

4NT is undefined, as can be seen by the fact it doesn't provide any new information from your previous bid. Making an undefined bid will always get you a pass, but that was predictable in advance by looking at the definitions.

[virgosrock]

I guess Gib prefers playing in a possible 22 pt 4NT undoubled with maybe no ♥ stopper to

playing in a possible 4-3 fit at 5-level doubled and vulnerable

who am I to argue?:rolleyes:

 

To all responders thus far. My focus is GIBBO's pass of 4 NT, not my double not my 4 NT.

 

vrock

[The_Badger]

To all responders thus far. My focus is GIBBO's pass of 4 NT, not my double not my 4 NT.

 

vrock

 

Agreed its pass of 4NT is ludicrous. Any half-decent human player would bid 5♦ with the East hand.

[virgosrock]

Agreed its pass of 4NT is ludicrous. Any half-decent human player would bid 5♦ with the East hand.

It has occurred with frightening regularity Badger. No fix. And if you bid 5D you end up in 6 or GIBBBO doubles their cold contract.

 

vrock

[steve2005]

:rolleyes:

=humour

[zhasbeen]

It has occurred with frightening regularity Badger. No fix. And if you bid 5D you end up in 6 or GIBBBO doubles their cold contract.

 

vrock

 

I just had another one this morning when GIB passed when he didn't know what else to do. This is high up on the list of needed fixes.

 

I will post it in a few minutes. It will be something like "GIB passes again"

[virgosrock]

4NT is undefined, as can be seen by the fact it doesn't provide any new information from your previous bid. Making an undefined bid will always get you a pass, but that was predictable in advance by looking at the definitions.

 

You have said similar before smerriman. So the Rule is if last bid and current bid are both 4+ 4+ GIBBO will pass because undefined. Pathetic!!!!

 

vrock

[Stephen Tu]

It is kind of unsurprising to find this undefined. It could be argued that any hand worth forcing to the 5 level was supposed to bid 3d followed by 5c, rather than doubling and risking partner sitting for 2H on some 54xx type hand. double followed by double seems way more plausible than double followed by 4nt.

 

Basically it's not quite as egregious as some of the other gaps we've been discussing.

[virgosrock]

It is kind of unsurprising to find this undefined. It could be argued that any hand worth forcing to the 5 level was supposed to bid 3d followed by 5c, rather than doubling and risking partner sitting for 2H on some 54xx type hand. double followed by double seems way more plausible than double followed by 4nt.

 

Basically it's not quite as egregious as some of the other gaps we've been discussing.

 

Excellent, Stephen. Particularly:

1. what if pd passes 2Hx

2. Hand intending to bid 5C may as well bid 3D.

 

No excuse for passing 4NT. This part is egregious because happens too often.

 

vrock.