BBO Discussion Forums: A Gib hand with wrong explanations - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A Gib hand with wrong explanations

#1 User is offline   lycier 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,612
  • Joined: 2009-September-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:China

Posted 2014-June-05, 00:49



6♥ was alerted as " odd number of keycards,Void above ♥ -- 1+♣,4+♥,1+♠,NO ♣A,♦A,NO ♠A,12+total points ".

"Void above ♥" have shown void in ♠,so "1+♠ " is impossible.
0

#2 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2014-June-05, 10:21

The "1+♠" was inherited from the 4♦ bid, which should(?) deny first-round control of spades.
0

#3 User is offline   lycier 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,612
  • Joined: 2009-September-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:China

Posted 2014-June-05, 11:17

View PostBbradley62, on 2014-June-05, 10:21, said:

The "1+♠" was inherited from the 4♦ bid, which should(?) deny first-round control of spades.


There are two kinds of controls in the first round : Ace and void,4♦ showed first control in ♠ -- maybe ♠A, or voidness,so "1+♠ " is unnecessary after 6♥ with zero card ♠ showing.
0

#4 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2014-June-05, 13:12

View Postlycier, on 2014-June-05, 11:17, said:

4♦ showed first control in ♠ -- maybe ♠A, or voidness,

No. 4♦ did not SHOW first round-control in spades, it DENIED first-round control in spades, just like it denied first-round control in clubs. Note that the 4♦ description also says "1+♣" and "no ♣A"; as you correctly point out, both conditions are necessary to deny first-round control. The error in this auction is that North should have bid 3♠, not 4♦, over 3♦.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users