[steve2005]

Here gib bids 1NT so it can show a 3 card limit raise see link>bid 1NT
shouldnt GIB show 5 card spade suit with 1♠ then make a limit raise in hearts later

later i found this hand. partner opens 1♥ and Gib bids 1♠ with

---

so gib will show a crappy 4 card spade suit in preference to a solid 9 card club suit but wont show a good 5 card suit with 3 card heart support

[HighLow21]

Hey! Another hand showcasing the occasional ridiculousness of 2/1.

[BunnyGo]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-23, 12:50, said:

Hey! Another hand showcasing the occasional ridiculousness of 2/1.

I don't think that's the issue with either hand...

[Bbradley62]

A hand posted in another thread also shows GIBs explanation of Forcing 1NT:

---

The explanations of East's bids indicate that he has denied 4 spades.

[pigpenz]

I have seen GIB bid 1♠ and both 1NT holding 4 spades over 1♥ opening.


I tend to put more trust in DM pro simulations than GIB
1♥ 11+hcp 5-13♥ everything else 0-13 in suit

results:
400 hands generated
4♥-3%
4♠-25%
5♣-72%
3NT-47%

[Bbradley62]

pigpenz, on 2012-March-23, 17:08, said:

I have seen GIB bid 1♠ and both 1NT holding 4 spades over 1♥ opening.

Yes, OP's second example clearly shows that GIB is willing to bid 1♠ over 1♥. It appears that the problem is that GIB prioritizes showing a limit raise in hearts over showing his own spade suit, and the explanations don't match the bidding logic.

[pigpenz]

Bbradley62, on 2012-March-23, 17:16, said:

Yes, OP's second example clearly shows that GIB is willing to bid 1♠ over 1♥. It appears that the problem is that GIB prioritizes showing a limit raise in hearts over showing his own spade suit, and the explanations don't match the bidding logic.

I could see that if on first example opener rebid 1NT over 1♠ might be more likely to take shot at 3NT. If you bid 2♣ or 1NT everything is a shot for 3NT. So 1♠ over 1♥ with a limit raise (3) in ♥ does give a chance for 4-4 ♠ fit, bit in first example 4-4♠ with 9 solid clubs will have better play in 5♣ or 3NT vs 4♠.

it just seems GIB did all this in reverse logic

[Bbradley62]

I guess this inconsistency still exists... GIB's explanation of 1N indicates 3 or fewer spades, but that's not always the case...

---

[1eyedjack]

There are at least 3 hand types discussed in this thread. We normally try to separate them into separate threads for clarity, except where comparison between them is valuable. Two of these types in particular warrant comparison: In each case responder has Spade length and Heart support for 1H opener, but in case (1) responder is worth no more than a raise to 2H, in case (2) responder is worth at least a raise to 3H.

Without commenting on the absolute merits of the argument, in relative terms there is a stronger argument for suppressing the Spade suit in case 1, where only worth a raise to 2.

The problem with 1S response is that a subsequent preference to 2H may fail to express primary support. That objection at least disappears where followed by a limit raise to 3.

[steve2005]

With limit raise 3♥ and 4-5+♠ Gib should bid 1♠ not 1N and then bid 3♥. Probably bidding game if opener bids 2♥ and bidding 3♥ if opener raises ♠ showing double fit, probably bidding game with 5♠. This allows finding low hcp game based on a double fit. Very little cost to looking perhaps none compared to 1N.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2014-November-22, 05:02, said:

There are at least 3 hand types discussed in this thread...

There are also two distinct but related points (a) GIB should do a better job of deciding between responses of 1♠ and 1N over a 1♥ opening, and (b) the descriptions provided for those possible responses should be made accurate.