Help
Anyway, gib hand doesn't look anything like the description.
Page 1 of 1
Questionable 5club bid Not even close to matching description
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 770
- Joined: 2011-September-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bellevue, WA
Posted 2012-April-26, 14:53
6♣ was probably a bad call, but I was doing poorly in the tourny and needed a swing. I also played poorly, but at this point I didn't care.
Anyway, gib hand doesn't look anything like the description.
Anyway, gib hand doesn't look anything like the description.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,542
- Joined: 2010-February-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posted 2012-April-26, 18:36
A hand matching the description provided for 5♣ would have bid 2♣ over 1♣, not 1♦.
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 770
- Joined: 2011-September-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bellevue, WA
Posted 2012-April-27, 04:09
Bbradley62, on 2012-April-26, 18:36, said:
A hand matching the description provided for 5♣ would have bid 2♣ over 1♣, not 1♦.
So the description is a logical impossibility? Should be fixed I think.
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 284
- Joined: 2011-December-15
Posted 2012-April-28, 01:17
It is logically possible though. 5+♣ 4+♦ does not necessarily mean more clubs than diamonds, so imagine a hand that had 5 clubs and 6 diamonds, then it would fit that description, but that's still not what it had.
#5
- Group: Yellows
- Posts: 1,317
- Joined: 2007-December-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bulgaria
Posted 2012-April-28, 03:57
With 5+♣ and unbalanced hand and 14+ TP GIB would bid splinter ( also with 1165 ) , and with 2245 would start with 2♣, so looks like impossible sequence to happened.
It will be investigated for fix.
It will be investigated for fix.
Page 1 of 1