[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs, ACBL robot individual

I don't mind missing the sub-30% ♦ slam, and I certainly don't mind missing the sub-15% ♣ slam (both made at every table where they were bid), but I do object to missing the excellent ♦ game. The culprit, in my opinion, is once again North's use of an ambiguous "limit raise or better" cue bid while suppressing two very important features of the hand - the excellent ♣ suit and the stiff ♠. North's subsequent 3♦ bid, promising exactly what the cue bid promised, is a grotesque underbid, leaving South to look at his/her unlovely hand and guess whether to pass, bid 3 NT (down off the top) or bid something else ("have you suppressed any singletons or semi-solid 6 card suits, partner?"). Note that if South bids 3♦ immediately over the double of 2♠, promising 12-13 total points and 3+♦ (not a bit more than what the 1♦ opening promised) North will drive the hand to game.

I have seen North use the "limit raise or better" cue bid twice recently - in the first instance it suppressed a good 5 card ♠ suit, and here it suppressed a great 6-card ♣ suit and a singleton in the opponents' suit. In my opinion, the robot's implementation of this convention needs attention.

[Bbradley62]

Looks to me like South is taking advantage of the extraneous "best hand South" information to pass an unlimited bid by partner.

[uva72uva72]

Actually no. I only use that information when I open a flat 11-count in 1st or 2nd seat, and I only open those hands out of frustration over the robot's refusal to protect with an 11-count in 3rd or 4th seat. Those hands come up too often to settle for 33% scores all the time.

Here, since passing 2♠ doubled was not a viable option, I assumed that North was showing the "limit raise" component of "limit raise or better" by making a minimum bid in the agreed upon suit. How else does North make a non-forcing bid without a ♠ stopper, holding, say ♠xx ♥xxx ♦AQxxx ♣Axx (a hand for which there is no other bid but 2♠)? Note that even 3♦ is in jeopardy with that hand. And why would North persist in hiding all the good features of its hand when so many descriptive and clearly-forcing bids were available?

[Stephen Tu]

Bbradley62, on 2014-October-01, 10:46, said:

Looks to me like South is taking advantage of the extraneous "best hand South" information to pass an unlimited bid by partner.

Kind of ridiculous that 3♦ is defined as unlimited.

[Bbradley62]

uva72uva72, on 2014-October-01, 11:58, said:

How else does North make a non-forcing bid without a ♠ stopper, holding, say ♠xx ♥xxx ♦AQxxx ♣Axx (a hand for which there is no other bid but 2♠)?

I wonder what a redouble by North would show.

Stephen Tu, on 2014-October-01, 12:24, said:

Kind of ridiculous that 3♦ is defined as unlimited.

We've had several posts recently (some by Helene, I think) pointing out situations where limited-sounding bids are explained as unlimited (and then sometimes passed by GIB anyway).