[1eyedjack]

---

MP, Instant, 34

I believe that GIB plays fast arrival rebids by opener after transfer then new suit, so 4S shows a min. Granted that the 6th Heart is asystemic it is somewhat irrelevant to the issue. I had the values promised, and move one of my Hearts to Clubs, say, and if anything it makes the contract worse.

[Lovera]

I don't think this one is optimistic. We can lead on heart ruffing : if 3-3 are home otherwise become dummy reversal (with another heart to ruff). En passant :i don't like 1NT with 6(!) hearts, instead 1♥-1♠, 3♠-4NT, ..

[1eyedjack]

Lovera, on 2015-July-26, 01:01, said:

I don't think this one is optimistic. We can lead on heart ruffing : if 3-3 are home otherwise become dummy reversal (with another heart to ruff). En passant :i don't like 1NT with 6(!) hearts, instead 1♥-1♠, 3♠-4NT, ..

The analysis is flawed and the conclusions therefore suspect.

Hearts are indeed 3-3 and yet we are not "home" unless we get a heart lead away from the King.

The en passant comment is entirely predictable. If criticising the 6th Heart it behoves you I think to do so when its presence does not actually improve the prospects of a poor grand.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-26, 01:52, said:

The analysis is flawed and the conclusions therefore suspect.

Hearts are indeed 3-3 and yet we are not "home" unless we get a heart lead away from the King.

The en passant comment is entirely predictable. If criticising the 6th Heart it behoves you I think to do so when its presence does not actually improve the prospects of a poor grand.

The bidding is a bit optomistic but the limited definition of 3♦ is a problem- it should say 3 NT+ forcing i.e. can subside in 4♦ or 4♣ so 3♠ is straight out forcing. It really needs to have 6 spades (Dutch Texas Transfers should be extremely defined or expunged from GIB's conventions whereby 4D and 4H response to opening 1NT transfer to the next major) to continue- its hoping for either a good finesse in diamonds or some other extra tricks in other suits and good spades. North is a really powerful slam going hand- bidding 3S with south's hand is a better idea to allow North to describe his hand better- save 4S for even worse.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2015-July-26, 07:48, said:

... the limited definition of 3♦ is a problem- it should say 3 NT+ forcing ...

Although it is not explicitly stated, "forcing to 3NT" is clearly implied by showing 10+ total points opposite 15-17 HCP. GIB does not stop short of 3N with that combined holding, and expects partner to not stop either. The only question, which is not answered because human's bids are not explained, is whether 3♠ over 3♦ would be stronger than the jump to 4♠.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-26, 08:39, said:

The only question, which is not answered because human's bids are not explained, is whether 3♠ over 3♦ would be stronger than the jump to 4♠.

It is not explained in this thread, but unless a change has been slipped in on the sly, I can certainly confirm this to be the case.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-26, 09:26, said:

It is not explained in this thread, but unless a change has been slipped in on the sly, I can certainly confirm this to be the case.

Then there certainly is no need to encumber the 3♦ explanation with "forcing to 3N".

[Lovera]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-26, 01:52, said:

The analysis is flawed and the conclusions therefore suspect.

Hearts are indeed 3-3 and yet we are not "home" unless we get a heart lead away from the King.

The en passant comment is entirely predictable. If criticising the 6th Heart it behoves you I think to do so when its presence does not actually improve the prospects of a poor grand.

Hi, i want only to say that was not to criticaze anything but 1NT bidding that anyone chooses to use with a 5 card major suit (instead to limit it in a minor suit) and here are yet six cards, bye. En passant, is always riskyous to think at impasse to gain tricks. Instead needs to find a way to avoid this one solving in other way.

[1eyedjack]

Lovera, on 2015-July-26, 10:34, said:

Hi, i want only to say that was not to criticaze anything but 1NT bidding that anyone chooses to use with a 5 card major suit (instead to limit it in a minor suit) and here are yet six cards, bye. En passant, is always riskyous to think at impasse to gain tricks. Instead needs to find a way to avoid this one solving in other way.

bye

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-26, 09:26, said:

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-26, 08:39, said:

The only question, which is not answered because human's bids are not explained, is whether 3♠ over 3♦ would be stronger than the jump to 4♠.

It is not explained in this thread, but unless a change has been slipped in on the sly, I can certainly confirm this to be the case.

I just had this confirmed in "Just Play Bridge"... 3♠ would be support and max; 4♠ is support and less than max.

[steve2005]

This is very optimistic grand opposite the likely 15 hcp balanced hand opener has shown, yes might have 16 but even then. There are Kings missing so should know hook(s) will be needed for 7.

[iandayre]

It's well know that GIB is very weak in the grand slam zone, in particular in the use of 5NT. It is obvious from N's side that you should not be in 7 without the DK. Most would play that 6D over 6C asks for that card, but I don't believe that is part of GIB's programming. I would at least recommend that the program be adjusted to make GIB less aggressive in pursuing grand slams.

It's quite true that the extra ♥ instead of, say, a ♣ improves prospects. Even a small slam isn't great opposite 3523.