[thorvald]

---

I wonder how strong a hand GIB needs to bid other than 3♣ with longer ♣ than ♥.

I wouold take my chances in 4♥ any day.

[johnu]

I don't remember ever hearing 2NT being called Michaels. Was 2NT supposed to show the majors?

[pilowsky]

johnu, on 2022-October-09, 15:08, said:

I don't remember ever hearing 2NT being called Michaels. Was 2NT supposed to show the majors?

Maybe it's the unusual Michaels.

[thorvald]

pilowsky, on 2022-October-09, 15:41, said:

Maybe it's the unusual Michaels.

It was showing 5+♥ and 5+♣. Many years ago I learned it was part of Michaels cuebid, but It am probably wrong then.

[smerriman]

It has no relation to Michaels; it's an Unusual 2NT and GIB correctly describes it as such. Thorvald just put the wrong description in above.

thorvald, on 2022-October-09, 14:14, said:

I wonder how strong a hand GIB needs to bid other than 3♣ with longer ♣ than ♥.

Non-vulnerable you can give it Ax.AKQ.AQxx.xxxx and it'll bid 3♣ without simulating. Give it an extra Jack, and it will simulate before leaping to slam.

The book bid in the earlier version of GIB was also 3♣, but that was mainly intentional / not a problem - the only specific continuations it defined after U2NT was to give preference to the longer suit (or occasionally bid 3NT); everything else was meant to come from simulations, which makes sense. (There is a weird quirk in the database that tells it not to count a jump to 4M as a book bid in many situations when there are chances of slam, but it's allowed to pick this when simulating, so that's not really a problem.)

But they must have really messed some bid priorities / simulation spots up, as back then it would choose from a range of 4-5 different continuations including game in hearts as you'd expect.