[Bbradley62]

Yeah, I probably should have bid 2♠ over 1NT, but...

---

Given the similarity of the descriptions of the 1N and 4♦ bids, as well as the description of the 3♦ bid, it appears that 3♦ was forcing. Does anyone really play it that way? This is clearly not the same as the description of this auction in the "BBO Advanced" convention card, which I think is more common.

[menggq]

I dont think 3D forcing which shows D6+ and extra hcp 16 around but not forcing.2S sd be forcing but u haven't enough hcp.

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2011-September-28, 16:03, said:

Yeah, I probably should have bid 2♠ over 1NT, but...

---

Given the similarity of the descriptions of the 1N and 4♦ bids, as well as the description of the 3♦ bid, it appears that 3♦ was forcing. Does anyone really play it that way? This is clearly not the same as the description of this auction in the "BBO Advanced" convention card, which I think is more common.

On the other hand, North does have a bit more than a minimum 1NT overcall, whether it should pushing on to 5D or trying for 3NT is better logic call. If the K♦ was onside and not too well defended then 3NT was reasonable contract.

[georgi]

Sitting as North, what would be the difference between 2♦ and 3♦ rebid by your partner-South?

If both are supposedly none-forcing and forcing North to pass for sure, why do we need them.

3♦ is looking like game-invitational bid, and North having 9HCP, and nearly TP, 18(promised by South as minimum) + 9 looking good enough as game attempt.

With no stopper in majors 4♦ is looking normal, isn't it?

Do you think North should ignore these values as bad and pass or aim to 3NT?

[Bbradley62]

georgi, on 2011-September-29, 05:44, said:

Sitting as North, what would be the difference between 2♦ and 3♦ rebid by your partner-South?

If both are supposedly none-forcing and forcing North to pass for sure, why do we need them.

I think most people play something like:
1♦-1N-2♦ is 12-15 total points, intended as "to play", but
1♦-1N-3♦ is 16-18 total points, invitational to game.
Certainly, neither is "forcing North to pass for sure".
I am surprised that GIB's definition of 3♦ is minimum 18 total points.

georgi, on 2011-September-29, 05:44, said:

3♦ is looking like game-invitational bid, and North having 9HCP, and nearly TP, 18(promised by South as minimum) + 9 looking good enough as game attempt.

With no stopper in majors 4♦ is looking normal, isn't it?

Do you think North should ignore these values as bad and pass or aim to 3NT?

I am not complaining about actions that North took; I'm complaining about the descriptions of the actions that North took. North's two bids have the same description (except that the 3 4♦ bid excludes the very rare case where he has no 4-card major and a diamond void). If 3♦ is not forcing, then North's 4♦ bid should show something more than the 1NT bid did, since a minimum hand could have passed.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2011-October-03, 09:49

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2011-September-29, 22:04, said:

I think most people play something like:
1♦-1N-2♦ is 12-15 total points, intended as "to play", but
1♦-1N-3♦ is 16-18 total points, invitational to game.

I would assume something more like 12-15 HCP / 16-18 HCP, which translates to about 12-17 TP / 18-21 TP.

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2011-October-03, 09:23, said:

I would assume something more like 12-15 HCP / 16-18 HCP, which translates to about 12-17 TP / 18-21 TP.

So, are you calling 1♦-1N-3♦ invitational or forcing? If it's invitational, is there a possibility that responder passes with a minimum? If so, should the minimum strength for 4♦ be shown as higher than the minimum strength for 1N?

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-03, 10:02, said:

So, are you calling 1♦-1N-3♦ invitational or forcing?

Invitational.

Quote

If it's invitational, is there a possibility that responder passes with a minimum? If so, should the minimum strength for 4♦ be shown as higher than the minimum strength for 1N?

Yes, of course.

Unfortunately, I suspect that GIB doesn't realise that you sometimes actually need 25 HCP to make game, not just 25 TP.

[semeai]

Bbradley62, on 2011-September-28, 16:03, said:

the similarity of the descriptions of the 1N and 4♦ bids, as well as the description of the 3♦ bid

mgoetze, on 2011-October-04, 07:59, said:

Unfortunately, I suspect that GIB doesn't realise that you sometimes actually need 25 HCP to make game, not just 25 TP.

Maybe at this point GIB simulates instead of relying on point count? That would explain the similarity of the descriptions (GIB wouldn't know what hands would bid on over 3♦ without running a meta-simulation).

Aside: Certainly 3♦ is/should be invitational.

[xxhong]

The current gib system is quite unplayable. 1x 1N 3x is defined to be about 16 to 19 HCP, from invitational to gf.
Certainly, an improvement is to make 3D as pure invitational from good 16 HCP to bad 18 HCP. with good 18 to 19 HCP, gib can splinter a major suit at
3 level or bid 3NT without major suit singleton.

Also, after 1x 1y, the system has no gf bids for one suiter. So 3NT should be reserved for that purpose as a simple fix.

To play 1x 1y 3x as invitation to gf is just very bad bridge IMO.

Bbradley62, on 2011-September-28, 16:03, said:

Yeah, I probably should have bid 2♠ over 1NT, but...

---

Given the similarity of the descriptions of the 1N and 4♦ bids, as well as the description of the 3♦ bid, it appears that 3♦ was forcing. Does anyone really play it that way? This is clearly not the same as the description of this auction in the "BBO Advanced" convention card, which I think is more common.

[georgi]

xxhong, on 2011-October-04, 10:44, said:

The current gib system is quite unplayable. 1x 1N 3x is defined to be about 16 to 19 HCP, from invitational to gf.
Certainly, an improvement is to make 3D as pure invitational from good 16 HCP to bad 18 HCP. with good 18 to 19 HCP, gib can splinter a major suit at
3 level or bid 3NT without major suit singleton.

Also, after 1x 1y, the system has no gf bids for one suiter. So 3NT should be reserved for that purpose as a simple fix.

To play 1x 1y 3x as invitation to gf is just very bad bridge IMO.

Why the sequence 1x 1y should need a rebid of artificial game forcing bid. If you had the feeling you can claim a game could open 2♣. Otherwise you can always force naturally or by using no trump call expressing your opening values. Using 3NT as rebid is already game where your partner is cornered toward.


Regarding 3♦:
The call already forced North. Despite the 1♥/♠ - 1NT - 3♥/♠ which do not.

So that is the hole in that sequence.
3♦ - 21- HCP; strong rebiddable ♦; 18-22 total points; forcing to 3N

That should be corrected, and make it similar to major behavior

[xxhong]

This is what you play, not what gib plays. Gib bids 1H 1S 3H with both 16 HCP hands and 19 HCP hands, which is just bad bridge because holding 6 or bad 7 HCP, you have to pass and miss game facing 19.
Also, gib has no idea to make a "natural forcing bid" to show gf one suiter.

If 1D 1N 3D also shows 16-19 HCP, and if you make it nonforcing, you miss a lot of games when you hold 19 HCP.
If you bid 3D to show 18-22 total points and make it forcing to 3NT, you will overbid a lot of bad 3NT, because Axx x AKJxxx KJx justifies a 3D bid and you are nowhere close to a good 3NT facing something like: KQx Jxx xx xxxxx, your opps simply cash the first 6 to 7 tricks.

It's a huge nonsense to put both invitational and gameforcing hands together with the same bid. This happens in a lot of
places in gib's system. For now, sequence after 1C 2C, 1D 2D are the same. For example: 1C 2C 2N shows 12-19 HCPs and is nonforcing!

georgi, on 2011-October-04, 11:57, said:

Why the sequence 1x 1y should need a rebid of artificial game forcing bid. If you had the feeling you can claim a game could open 2♣. Otherwise you can always force naturally or by using no trump call expressing your opening values. Using 3NT as rebid is already game where your partner is cornered toward.


Regarding 3♦:
The call already forced North. Despite the 1♥/♠ - 1NT - 3♥/♠ which do not.

So that is the hole in that sequence.
3♦ - 21- HCP; strong rebiddable ♦; 18-22 total points; forcing to 3N

That should be corrected, and make it similar to major behavior

[georgi]

xxhong, on 2011-October-04, 17:11, said:

It's a huge nonsense to put both invitational and gameforcing hands together with the same bid. This happens in a lot of
places in gib's system. For now, sequence after 1C 2C, 1D 2D are the same. For example: 1C 2C 2N shows 12-19 HCPs and is nonforcing!

That's fixed in the coming release. It will be limited to 11-14.