[Bbradley62]

Ick. I don't know what should happen, but...

---

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2016-January-17, 10:12, said:

Ick. I don't know what should happen, but...

---

I once had an agreement with a regular partner that 4C would show something like this - a max NT with a D fit and short S. But obviously that is not the explanation you were given. I am used to most of GIB's eccentricities by now, but this is a new one.

[Vampyr]

iandayre, on 2016-January-17, 17:25, said:

I once had an agreement with a regular partner that 4C would show something like this - a max NT with a D fit and short S. But obviously that is not the explanation you were given. I am used to most of GIB's eccentricities by now, but this is a new one.

Would not 3NT be better than 4♣ to show this hand?

Why 6-11 HCP for 1NT? Is 2/1 GF being played?

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-17, 19:09, said:

Why 6-11 HCP for 1NT? Is 2/1 GF being played?

Yes, GIB 2/1 since this is a GIB hand (with human sitting South) and hence, in the GIB forum. GIB attempts to include strength limits on bid descriptions; with North being a passed hand I might have said 5-11HCP, but it's hardly worth quibbling.

[iandayre]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-17, 19:09, said:

Would not 3NT be better than 4♣ to show this hand?

Why 6-11 HCP for 1NT? Is 2/1 GF being played?

Yes, we are talking about GIB tournaments. You play with them, you use their system. Not to imply I am against 2/1, it's my personal choice also.

[cloa513]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-17, 19:09, said:

Would not 3NT be better than 4♣ to show this hand?

Why 6-11 HCP for 1NT? Is 2/1 GF being played?

I'd say 3NT is insane- guaranteed down. The trouble is how little vaguely 2♦ is defined- it needs 3 diamonds and not 6 spades and no more strength than an opening hand not even limiting the strength. The whole forcing 1NT is pretty worthless- doesn't help find a better contract.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-17, 19:09, said:

Would not 3NT be better than 4♣ to show this hand?

Yes but you need 3NT as a natural bid. Alas, by an unpassed hand. Here, responder is a passed hand, so 3NT can hardly show a balanced hand with the values to bid 3NT, and also 3♠ can't be natural here so you have plenty of options.

I can sorta understand this 4♣ bid, though. Too strong for 4♦ but 5♦ shows 5-card support because 2♦ could be a 3-card suit. I am not defending it, of course 4♣ is a bad bid if it doesn't promise diamond support. Just saying that I can understand it. GIB often makes bizare bids with tweener hands in a desperate attempt to show its overall strength accurately, and this situation is similar.

[Stephen Tu]

To me to show diamond raise should bid 3♥. As passed hand 1nt should deny invitational with 6H, those hands can bid 2H over 1S.

And hands with invitational just clubs should be able to bid 1s-3c or 1s-2nt depending on agreements if Drury is in effect.