[Bbradley62]

In what way, if any, does 3♠ clarify North's hand that wasn't already shown by 2♥?

---

PS: 2♣ shows 4+♣, not GIB's definition of "biddable" (five of them or four good ones). On this particular hand, South had 3334 with 17HCP, including ♣8532.

[iandayre]

There is no other bid in the GIB system - or most forms of 2/1 - other than 2C for the example hand, so that bid can't be criticized. There is now no great rebid by opener. I suppose I would have chosen 3C but that is probably supposed to show 3 of them. 3S is presumably stronger than 4S so that's accurate, and 3NT is not a sensible option (though I am sure many would bid it).

I used to play full Bergen Raises where 4C over 1M shows 3 trumps, 4333 shape and 16+ HCP. Worked pretty well.

[Bbradley62]

 iandayre, on 2014-December-29, 11:54, said:

There is no other bid in the GIB system - or most forms of 2/1 - other than 2C for the example hand, so that bid can't be criticized...

3S is presumably stronger than 4S so that's accurate...

I'm not criticizing the 2♣ bid (which I made); I am criticizing the description provided for that bid.

If 3♠ is stronger than 4♠, shouldn't the explanation of 3♠ include a higher minimum than 12 total points? Does 3♠ (rather than NT) deny a diamond stopper?

[mgoetze]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-December-29, 10:37, said:

2♣ shows 4+♣, not GIB's definition of "biddable" (five of them or four good ones).

I thought "biddable" can be less than four... anyway even when GIB specifically promises a certain length in a suit it rarely has it.

[Bbradley62]

Understanding GIB Bid Descriptions said:

Suit Quality
3-card
....exactly 3 cards
4-card
....exactly 4 cards
biddable
....5+ cards, or 4 cards + 3 of 5 honors or more than 4 8421 points

[iandayre]

One thing that whoever wrote or writes the descriptions is very bad at, is making them internally consistent. Often you will hold a perfectly normal hand, but in some way it does not qualify for any of the reasonable possible bids one might make. Clearly this is a case in point, any 3334 hand that is too strong for 3NT over a 1M opener must bid 2C, whether they are 5432 or AKQJ.

[1eyedjack]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-December-29, 10:37, said:

In what way, if any, does 3♠ clarify North's hand that wasn't already shown by 2♥?

Another way to phrase the question is: If North has nothing more worth clarifying that wasn't already shows by 2H, what default bid is he required to make when forced to do so by partner?

[Bbradley62]

That's not really the question... even if 3♠ is the default bid indicating that North has nothing else to say (and I don't think it should be, by the way), that default rebid must be denying something, whether it's additional distribution, or particular strength, etc. and the bid description should clarify this.

[iandayre]

I would expect that 4S is the default bid with nothing else to say.

[1eyedjack]

 iandayre, on 2014-December-30, 12:29, said:

I would expect that 4S is the default bid with nothing else to say.

3N could yet be the right place. Especially if the 2S only promises doubleton. If South can suggest that over 3S, then North would be happy to pass.

(I don't have a strong opinion on whether 3S is best for use as default, or indeed standard, which is a separate question but just as important).

[iandayre]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-December-30, 13:44, said:

3N could yet be the right place. Especially if the 2S only promises doubleton. If South can suggest that over 3S, then North would be happy to pass.

(I don't have a strong opinion on whether 3S is best for use as default, or indeed standard, which is a separate question but just as important).

I don't believe that it is appropriate in 2/1 to bid 2S in this auction without primary support. The auction is a game force and there are so many other possible calls that could be made. KQ, Kxx, xxx, AKxxx? Still I would prefer a waiting, 4th suit 3D. But then, as Uva pointed out recently, GIB has unusual requirements of significant extra values for responder to bid a new suit at the 3 level on the second round. And as he also said, that is not a form of 2/1 that I have ever heard of. It should be dumped.