[1eyedjack]

---

MP, best hand South, pro GIB 30.

Marginally(??) surprised that GIB would choose 4C over 3S, I came to realise that Clubs is the only making slam. Sadly I was not up to bidding it.

Note that some who bid just 2S in response to 2D were left to play there. The explanation of 2S shows no upper limit on strength, although 3S does show a stronger hand. Even, so, perhaps North is worth popping 2S up to 3S? I don't feel too strongly about that.

[Bbradley62]

I would not want to encourage GIB to bid his 4card minors before bidding his 5card major, despite the convenient potential result on this hand.

The explanation of 4♠ is weird... 4-♠ and 3-4♥? I hope this bid is natural, and shows 4♠, not 4-, and that it denies 4♥.

If South bids 2♠ over 2♦, I think North is worth a raise to 4♠, never mind 3♠.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2014-September-21, 07:19, said:

If South bids 2♠ over 2♦, I think North is worth a raise to 4♠, never mind 3♠.

The way I was brought up, 2D promises another bid by North. "Forcing to suit agreement" I think is the expression. And express agreement at that (ie not agreement by passing).

If as North I have a limit bid in Spades that cannot afford the 3 level, just jump to 2S over the double (or transfer there if playing that, which GIB of course does not).

There is a bad hand for this method, namely one that has 4-4 in the majors and values for a limit jump to 2M opposite a hand that may have a double fit in the majors but also may have 4 in just one of them. It would be nice to land in the 4-4 fit where doubler is minimum, and the cue achieves this provided that cue bidder is not obliged to bid again. However on balance that is a price that I would be prepared to pay. Mind you, I would prefer transfers, which re-creates this problem hand, but that ain't gonna happen.

[steve2005]

not to insult Gib, but with all that cuebidding your looking for a fit at 4-level. This doesn't help if trying for slam. What if Gib has 3♠-5♥-1♦-4♣? Isn't that a disastrous 4♣ bid then?

IMHO Gib's bid in response to double should be 4♠, Gib has clear preference and game going values counting ♦ shortness. If Double was based on a big hand partner can bid slam.

[uva72uva72]

It's no surprise that the robot bid 4♣ rather than 3♠. While it will introduce 3-card ♠ suits willingly at high levels, it not infrequently has difficulty with longer ♠ suits in competitive auctions. For example:

1. Holding 5-0-3-5, when South opens 1♣ and West overcalls 1♥, North bids 2♥ instead of 1♠(which works out well only because West leads the stiff ♠K against 5♣.)
2. East opens 2♥, South doubles, West raises to 3♥, North makes a responsive double holding 5 ♠ and a game-forcing hand.
3. North surpresses an 8-card ♠ suit and bids NT at its first opportunity in a competitive auction.

While individual sequences may be addressed, the problem seems to pop up in new guises.

Generally, the GIB use of cue bids in response to a take-out double is poor. Doubler must often guess both the right strain and level immediately, because the cue-bidder does not promise another bid and does not necessarily correct from a bad spot to a good one. Re-cueing does not always work out - witness the display hand where North bid its ♣s instead of its ♠s. My experience has been that if South held both majors in this sequence and guessed to bid 4♥, North would pass. It's also been my experience that if South ever tried to cue bid ♦s again (say, if South held the singleton) at any point in an effort to get to slam, North would pass that as well and South would play the 2-1 fit. These sequences need attention, in my opinion.