[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs, ACBL robot individual

North's 2♦ call is what Alphonse Moyse would once have called (albeit in a different context) "a petty, little, odious bid." I myself would add "vile" and "stupid." Please note that I did not suffer a major loss of IMPs on this hand, nor did it affect my overall placement. What I did suffer was the boredom and frustration of playing in a ridiculous contract which I should not have been in, getting the ridiculous splits that one expects on BBO when one is playing a low-level 4-3 fit with 23HCP.

The ONLY correct bid with the North hand is 1NT. North doesn't have a ♠ fit, is balanced, but doesn't have enough to bid 2NT. There is no hand that South could have that would produce game with which he/she won't bid over 1NT. And North has no reason to believe that ♦ is a better place to play than ♠s or ♣ or NT.

Think I should have "corrected" to 2NT over 2♦? North raises to 3 for the same -200 I got. The only "winning" action, (other than passing out a 13-count with 5♠) is to rebid 2♠ on A10xxx knowing North has no more than a doubleton.

Is there no way to stop this kind of nonsense?

[42krunner]

With this exact hand, prior to GIB playing Drury, does he bid 2C?

I agree 1NT is the bid. Just wondering if this in an artifact of the upgrade, where previously 2C might have been pass or correct to 2D? (Still not my favorite)

[uva72uva72]

Unfortunately, the bot bid 2♦ with a virtually identical hand pre-Drury. On that occasion, I passed with ♦Qx for an even worse result;
"correcting" to 2NT was the winning action (other than passing the hand out, which was the big winner). 3NT went down only 2, while 2♦ went for a vulnerable ride.