BBO Discussion Forums: Bad Descriptions - Bad Bids - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Bad Descriptions - Bad Bids

#1 User is offline   iandayre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,114
  • Joined: 2013-December-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-November-24, 20:31

This problem did not affect me. I made the correct bid as S - a balancing jump to 3C - and reached 3NT.

http://tinyurl.com/pr7rcaq

This player underbid with 2C. But still, the only sensible action by GIB would be 2NT. A major suit bid here does not, in any sane methods, show "4+". So tell me Uday, why does the description say 4+, forcing GIB into a silly action instead of the obvious correct one?
0

#2 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2014-November-24, 22:16

30 of the 41 human Souths in this tournament bid 2, which is described as showing 11+ with rebiddable clubs. If this is not "the correct bid", its description should be changed, maybe to include an upper limit. (Only 2, including you, chose 3.) The "silly action" in the auction you posted is South passing 2 with 16 opposite an announced 12-16; only 3 of 30 Souths faced with this decision passed.

If a 5card suit is needed for North to bid 2M over 2, what are you suggesting that the full requirements should be for that bid, since North was unable to overcall 1M over 1?
0

#3 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,025
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-November-25, 00:15

WTP? A 4 card suit which is one more than the required 3 :rolleyes:
0

#4 User is offline   iandayre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,114
  • Joined: 2013-December-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-November-25, 11:52

View PostBbradley62, on 2014-November-24, 22:16, said:

30 of the 41 human Souths in this tournament bid 2, which is described as showing 11+ with rebiddable clubs. If this is not "the correct bid", its description should be changed, maybe to include an upper limit. (Only 2, including you, chose 3.) The "silly action" in the auction you posted is South passing 2 with 16 opposite an announced 12-16; only 3 of 30 Souths faced with this decision passed.

If a 5card suit is needed for North to bid 2M over 2, what are you suggesting that the full requirements should be for that bid, since North was unable to overcall 1M over 1?


I don't disagree that passing 2S was a poor action by that player. And I'll agree with you that a simple balancing overcall should have an upper limit (it does have one - GIB's description just doesn't show it). But I am not impressed by the statistics showing the preponderance of 2C bidders. I had full values for my 3C bid and it fit perfectly within GIB's definition for the action - not to mention standard bidding practice. There is another "correct" bid that is seldom made by players in the robot tournaments - that being the strong jump overcall over a Weak 2 bid. Yet it is very effective. GIB will continue to game with modest values, passing only with nearly trickless hands - just about what you would want. Every time I use that bid and reach game I get a great result, the field having been left in a simple overcall.

Regarding your other point, it's true that there aren't a lot of hands worth a 2M bid after the balance, having not overcalled. Still, the bid is not forcing and I do not believe that it should be made on a four card suit. And I suspect that you would agree that 2NT better describes the actual hand in any case. Opposite a simple balancing overcall and with only 4 card major suit(s), around 10 points and lacking sound stoppers in the opponent's suit, pass is the correct call IMO.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users