[thorvald]

---

South has a problem at first bid, and at the other table East was allowed to play 1♣. Our hero here bid 1♦, and North bid a fine 2♦. South bid an invitational 2N.

But the interesting bid is Norths 3♣, that according to the explanation denies a stopper in ♣, but nothing else as the 2♦ did limit the hand. 3♣ is forcing to 3N, but is the bot searching for a major contract?

[smerriman]

2NT is undefined for GIB, since 15-18 with stoppers would have overcalled 1NT, and stronger would have doubled first.

The catch-all rule for undefined 2NT bids is that they show exactly (24 - min partner has shown) HCP, so that partner can accept with more than a minimum.

Partner has shown 0 HCP to date, only 6-9 total points. So 2NT is considered to show exactly 24 HCP in your own hand.

Since 1♦ already limits you to 17 HCP for the 1 level overcall, the definition merges the contradiction of <= 17 with = 24 to result in = 17, even though it doesn't really mean it.

North can't bid 3NT because 17 + 7 < 25.

Every other bid is messed up because we're already way into undefined territory; for example, 3♦ is set to show rebiddable diamonds with exactly 6 total points.

So no, it's not trying to find a major fit, it just has no clue what anything means anymore.

If you see a 2NT bid show an exact number of HCP, don't bid it.

[TylerE]

"at best partial" != "denies"

[smerriman]

TylerE, on 2023-March-09, 09:55, said:

"at best partial" != "denies"

Well, unless you count Jxx or Qx as a stopper, then it does deny one..