[Bbradley62]

---

[iandayre]

I haven't seen this particular blunder before. Let's get it fixed please BBO.

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-12, 11:22, said:

---

I guess georgi have been hesitating since no answer,maybe he need more detailed information.

[Bbradley62]

North is clearly too strong to bid 2♠.

[georgi]

2♠ is bug for sure.

3♦ shows fit in opening at the moment.

X could be one of the solutions, but i am investigating for the proper fix about it.

3♠ at the moment is 6+ cds/ 13+TP and forcing. So it's another call for GIB.

So note taken and solution is on the way.

Will report it when i got it.

[iandayre]

iandayre, on 2015-February-12, 11:54, said:

I haven't seen this particular blunder before. Let's get it fixed please BBO.

I don't see why 3S should be forcing, it should be invitational as it would be without the interference. The actual hand can just bid 4S but with a weaker suit but same overall strength a cuebid followed by 3S forcing, if possible, would make sense.

We DO NOT want it doubling with this hand, partner will pass much too often.

[Bbradley62]

georgi, on 2015-February-14, 03:54, said:

2♠ is bug for sure.

3♦ shows fit in opening at the moment.

X could be one of the solutions, but i am investigating for the proper fix about it.

3♠ at the moment is 6+ cds/ 13+TP and forcing. So it's another call for GIB.

So note taken and solution is on the way.

Will report it when i got it.

Based on the explanations you've presented, if this hand doesn't bid 3♠, what hand ever would?

[georgi]

There was another solution/fix which is applied.

GIB could have used direct 2♠, showing that hand and it's also forcing.


1♣/♦ - 1♦/♥ - 2♥/2♠, 6+ cards and 13+(GF)

That hand had nothing else to show beside this call.

[Stephen Tu]

georgi, on 2015-February-16, 06:02, said:

There was another solution/fix which is applied.

GIB could have used direct 2♠, showing that hand and it's also forcing.


1♣/♦ - 1♦/♥ - 2♥/2♠, 6+ cards and 13+(GF)

That hand had nothing else to show beside this call.

Do we really want this? Weak jump shifts in competition are about 99x more popular than GF jump shifts. So people aren't going to think to bid this. So really have to cater to people allowed bid only 1♠ to start.

To me the fix is to have cue bid on the 2nd round *not* promise support opening suit. Only cue bid first round promise support. Over the cue bid, opener should bid NT with stopper, otherwise support responder with 2 cds (having denied 3 by not making support double).