[1eyedjack]

---

MP, Instant, ver 33

The main reason for responding 1S in the first place on a non-forcing hand is because it is a more efficient route to showing both majors if the subsequent auction suggests that it may be profitable and an opportunity presents.

GIB should be applauded for recognising that a major suit fit is not guaranteed after the 2N rebid. But that said, neither is a Heart fit denied.

Not a dreadful sequence, but I just wonder whether North should look for Hearts on the way to 3N?

[steve2005]

Best way to show 4-4 in the majors would be to cuebid but in this case Gib doesn't have sufficient values. If Gib now bids 3♥ over 2N either could/should be 5-4 which causes other problems.

The solution would be a 3♣ cuebid after 2N asking for Gib to describe hand as a sort of checkback Stayman but I doubt Gib has implemented this. Also, Gib is notorious for bidding poorly after cuebids.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2015-April-18, 07:18, said:

Best way to show 4-4 in the majors would be to cuebid but in this case Gib doesn't have sufficient values.

Erm, quite so. Cue bidding is absolutely NOT the best way to show both majors when as here, and as you acknowledge, the hand lacks the values to cue. Kind of like saying that 4N would be the right bid if only he had a balanced 19 count, but in this case Gib doesn't have sufficient values.

Perhaps 3H over 2N should not promise a 5th Spade if the systemic response to X is 1S on 4-4.If doubler gives preference to 3S, advancer can pull to 3N.

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2015-April-18, 07:39, said:

Erm, quite so. Cue bidding is absolutely NOT the best way to show both majors when as here, and as you acknowledge, the hand lacks the values to cue.

Perhaps 3H over 2N should not promise a 5th Spade if the systemic response to X is 1S on 4-4.If doubler gives preference to 3S, advancer can pull to 3N.

You need 3♥ to at least possibly have 5♠. Anyone know how many ♠ Gib promises in their description?
Yes, was going to also suggest doubler give preference to 3♠, but can you trust Gib to bid 3♠ not 4♠ and then not pull 3N to 4♠?

[Bbradley62]

Interesting that the 2N explanation shows 2-4 in each major after the double explanation showed 3-4. It's probably right, but I don't recall having seen GIB modify his descriptions in this manner.

[1eyedjack]

The explanation of the initial double has only ever shown the hand shapes consistent with a minimum-values double.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-April-18, 15:16, said:

The explanation of the initial double has only ever shown the hand shapes consistent with a minimum-values double.

Agreed; it's the description of 2N that interests me. There have been lots of hands posted where someone makes a double-and-correct and the description of the second call still includes the alleged requirements of the first call.