[uva72uva72]

My link

Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual

I find several aspects of this auction puzzling, namely:

1. Why doesn't North raise 2NT directly to 3NT? We're forced to that level, North has a weak hand with a lousy ♠ suit and stoppers in the unbids. Where is it trying to go with its 3♦ bid? A precisely bid 4♦ contract that will get us a 0?

2. Why does my 3♠ bid show 3-card support at this point in the auction? Shouldn't there be a mechanism for showing strong doubleton support at this point? I could have showed 3 card support in a number of ways over North's 2♠ rebid (e.g., raising to 3 or 4 or splintering).

3. Why does North cue bid with its terrible, terrible hand? Surely this is the point where North must bid 3NT. With all this bidding, shouldn't South now expect North to have a very good hand?

4. Why does North "correct" to 6♠? North knows that I have only 3♠s, but it also knows that I have 4♦, and on this auction it should sound to North like it will be necessary to rough at least 1 ♣ in South. Holding ♠9xxxx North has to know that even if I have ♠AKQ this will promote a trump trick for East-West. It should also know that a 4-4 fit almost always plays a trick better than a 5-3 fit, particularly when the contract is a close one. Isn't simming supposed to figure these things out?

[Bbradley62]

Nitpicky, but...
2♥ description includes "12+ HCP". 2N description includes "13-18 HCP". So, would 3N instead of 2N have shown exactly 12 HPC, and balanced 19+ HCP hands would have done something different?

[Bbradley62]

uva72uva72, on 2015-April-25, 14:02, said:

1. Why doesn't North raise 2NT directly to 3NT? We're forced to that level, North has a weak hand with a lousy ♠ suit and stoppers in the unbids. Where is it trying to go with its 3♦ bid? A precisely bid 4♦ contract that will get us a 0?

Maybe he's not willing to give up on slam in diamonds. Is it not possible that you hold x, AKxxx, QJxx, KQx, which is only 15 HCP on your 13-18 range?

uva72uva72, on 2015-April-25, 14:02, said:

2. Why does my 3♠ bid show 3-card support at this point in the auction? Shouldn't there be a mechanism for showing strong doubleton support at this point? I could have showed 3 card support in a number of ways over North's 2♠ rebid (e.g., raising to 3 or 4 or splintering).

I agree that 2N should deny three spades. I'm not at all sure what I think 3♠ should be.

uva72uva72, on 2015-April-25, 14:02, said:

3. Why does North cue bid with its terrible, terrible hand? Surely this is the point where North must bid 3NT. With all this bidding, shouldn't South now expect North to have a very good hand?

See the description of 3♠, which includes 16+ total points and 3 spades. GIB still has some reasonable hope of slam, based on this misunderstanding.

uva72uva72, on 2015-April-25, 14:02, said:

4. Why does North "correct" to 6♠? North knows that I have only 3♠s, but it also knows that I have 4♦, and on this auction it should sound to North like it will be necessary to rough at least 1 ♣ in South. Holding ♠9xxxx North has to know that even if I have ♠AKQ this will promote a trump trick for East-West. It should also know that a 4-4 fit almost always plays a trick better than a 5-3 fit, particularly when the contract is a close one. Isn't simming supposed to figure these things out?

Once GIB thinks you've agreed spades, he's never going to agree to play diamonds. This is an often-discussed issue. Simming must have given GIB a headache, since he thinks you have 8+ cards in the majors, precisely QJTx in diamonds to be "biddable" without having been bid earlier, and a stopper in clubs without holding the A.

[steve2005]

3♠ by responder is like 99.9% 2♠ in my opinion otherwise using 2♠ as potentially 5-card minimum is unplayable. (responder with 3♠ has to raise rd 2.)

My pet peave Gib is using pts for it's ♥ singleton in your suit (not that useful) to scounge up enough to make 14+ pts and a 4♦ cuebid. The Walrus would be proud.

[lycier]

Generally speaking,3♠ by responder usually shows doubleton support with one top card in it.
I think here its explanation is wrong.