[helene_t]

http://tinyurl.com/hz86nnk

pass-1♠
2♦-2♥
pass

Making 12 tricks.

OK with this hand it might not have been crazy to rebid 3♥.

But seriously - even in Acol, 2♥ would be forcing. And even if it is nonforcing it is ridicolous to pass with this hand.

Same in contested auctions:
1♠-(2♣)-2♦-(pass)
2♥-(pass)-pass

That, too, would be forcing in Acol.

[mikestar13]

The way I learned, opener's non-jump rebid of a new suit is not forcing after a passed hand 2/1--which might be a good 8 count. 1♠-2♦-2♥ by an unpassed hand is forcing is almost any system, even assuming 2♦ isn't game forcing t begin with. So I think there is a set of hands where P-1♠-2♦-2♥-P is the correct bidding sequence. This hand sure as h-e-double-hockey-sticks is not part of this set. Maybe you could argue 3♥ vs 4♥ (I would bid 4)-- it depends on how light the standards are for a third seat opening. But pass is inconceivable.

[Bbradley62]

I think the culprit here is the description (and presumably GIB's understanding) of 2♥. Why is it limited to 15 total points?

[helene_t]

Bbradley62, on 2016-July-10, 16:34, said:

I think the culprit here is the description (and presumably GIB's understanding) of 2♥. Why is it limited to 15 total points?

If it is NF it must presumably be limited to 15 points.

I find this a very strange system. What's wrong with just playing SAYC as a passed hand? I.e. a 2/1 response is forcing on responder. That would be consistent with 2/1 philosophy while allowing for light 3rd seat openings.

If 1♥ is limited to 15 points, it means you have to make jump rebids with only 5-4 and with bad texture. This goes against the 2/1 philosophy.

[Bbradley62]

I think North treats the bids as non-forcing because it's limited to 15 points, not that it's limited to 15 points because it's intended to be non-forcing.

I wonder (cue: Lycier) whether the explanation of 3♥ would have been 16-22 or an internally-inconsistent 19-22.

[johnu]

2♦ is a sick bid by GIB.

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2016-July-10, 17:19, said:

I think North treats the bids as non-forcing because it's limited to 15 points, not that it's limited to 15 points because it's intended to be non-forcing.

I wonder (cue: Lycier) whether the explanation of 3♥ would have been 16-22 or an internally-inconsistent 19-22.

---

First
After 2♦ :
2♥= New suit --- 4+♥,5+♠,11+HCP,12-15TPs
3♥= 4+♥,5+♠,14-21HCP,15-22TPs,forcing to 3N

How to distinguish with the two different 15TPs?
Here I think actually Gib CC Gib is following are :
2♥= New suit --- 4+♥,5+♠,11-13HCP.
3♥= 4+♥,5+♠,14-21HCP,forcing to 3N.


Second

2♦ is a worst systemic bidding, just like a beginner's CC.

[iandayre]

The funny thing is, had GIB responded 1NT and partner rebid 2H, there is no way it would have passed. I expect it would have bid 4, but certainly at least 3.

[lycier]

iandayre, on 2016-July-11, 11:39, said:

The funny thing is, had GIB responded 1NT and partner rebid 2H, there is no way it would have passed. I expect it would have bid 4, but certainly at least 3.

Yes.
So I would better take north seat ,after bidding 1nt, I left table and let Gib go on playing.

---

Result : 4♥S+2

North Gib really bid up to 4♥, very good.