[1eyedjack]

MP, robot tourney, best hand South

---

Yes I know that I am 3 HCP shy of the requirements for a splinter, but North does not know that. Nor do I think that the odds are particularly good that I have the singleton ♠A or ♠K if I have the required 16 HCP. But I may be wrong about that, which might explain the 3N bid.

"partial stop in S" ! PARTIAL stop in S?? Opposite an announced singleton or void, I would have thought that he'd better bleeding have a full stop in S.

Of course I didn't help by bidding 3S, but I think that we were probably destined to go minus.

Part of the problem, that I think I have mentioned in another thread some time ago, is responder's first response of 2C. Reasonable alternatives are 1D and 2N, both of which fall within defined parameters. I do not object to 2C on hands of this shape where responder has enough to GF, but it is asking a bit much to bid 2C on an invite where there is as yet no certainty of a trump fit.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2013-October-06, 09:14, said:

"partial stop in S" ! PARTIAL stop in S?? Opposite an announced singleton or void, I would have thought that he'd better bleeding have a full stop in S.

Agreed.

1eyedjack, on 2013-October-06, 09:14, said:

Of course I didn't help by bidding 3S, but I think that we were probably destined to go minus.

Once you bid 3♠, North knows you have 5+ clubs, since you would have opened 1♦ with 1444, so he can/should bid 4♣ over 3♠. You would pass, having already overbid your hand, and you'd go plus.

1eyedjack, on 2013-October-06, 09:14, said:

Part of the problem, that I think I have mentioned in another thread some time ago, is responder's first response of 2C. Reasonable alternatives are 1D and 2N, both of which fall within defined parameters. I do not object to 2C on hands of this shape where responder has enough to GF, but it is asking a bit much to bid 2C on an invite where there is as yet no certainty of a trump fit.

I think 2♣ should show 5+ clubs, regardless of strength. With only 4, there is a more descriptive bid available.

[georgi]

Thanks for reporting.

Fixed in v28.

Also explanations are adjusted according to whether is diamond or club opening.

For clubs it would be 5+, while diamonds 4+ promised.

3NT now will be:
-- 4+ ♣; 3- ♥; 3- ♠; 10-14 HCP; stop in ♠
where the stopper would be certain, K,QJx, A, etc combinations

And even if GIB bids 4♣ it's not good to pass because you overbid as GIB could not be

4♣ is still forcing to game as per 3♠.

[Stephen Tu]

georgi, on 2013-October-11, 05:58, said:

3NT now will be:
-- 4+ ♣; 3- ♥; 3- ♠; 10-14 HCP; stop in ♠
where the stopper would be certain, K,QJx, A, etc combinations

In these splinter with minor fit hands, I would prefer that holding a stopper in the suit, that GIB simulate the relative success rate of 3nt vs. 5 of the minor on partner's minimum part of the range, and decide whether or not to bid 3nt on that basis, instead of just always bid 3nt with stopper. If it's just automatically bidding 3nt with Axx type of hands (as opposed to AQJ in the suit), that's not really great, because 5m could be better, and 6m might be on with 3nt discouraging partner.

[georgi]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-October-11, 08:55, said:

In these splinter with minor fit hands, I would prefer that holding a stopper in the suit, that GIB simulate the relative success rate of 3nt vs. 5 of the minor on partner's minimum part of the range, and decide whether or not to bid 3nt on that basis, instead of just always bid 3nt with stopper. If it's just automatically bidding 3nt with Axx type of hands (as opposed to AQJ in the suit), that's not really great, because 5m could be better, and 6m might be on with 3nt discouraging partner.

GIB will simulate, but when chooses 3NT would be with full stopper, wouldn't be able to pretend it has it.