[Bbradley62]

This hand was played in "Just Play Bridge", so I have no hand record.

I open 1N, CHO bids 2♣, doubled to my right.
I bid 2♥, CHO bids 2♠, explained as 9HCP
I bid 2N, CHO bids 3♦, explained as 4+D, 9HCP

CHO holds xxxx, AKJ, Jxxx, xx.

Seems to me that CHO invited game, I declined the invitation, and CHO refused to accept the rejection.

[gwnn]

I think it makes sense to bid like this on:

AKxx x xxxxxx xx

i.e., you're fairly sure 3D will play better than 2N.

4+D seems like nonsense (5+ is OK, I just gave 6 diamonds for the example hand for clarity).

[Bbradley62]

Hmmm... I like your example, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what the bidding rules would be. Should the descriptions of 2♠ and 3♦ include "4+♠", expecting GIB to invite with 2N instead of 2♠ with only three spades?

[gwnn]

Oh 2S always shows 4 spades, I thought. I have never seen GIB make this bid without 4 spades, at least. It's an alerting fail but correct bid.

[Stefan_O]

Bbradley62, on 2016-April-24, 13:54, said:

Should the descriptions of 2♠ and 3♦ include "4+♠", expecting GIB to invite with 2N instead of 2♠ with only three spades?

Yes, that's how Gib bids like, since 1NT-2NT is transfer to clubs.
Actually, 2♠ shows exactly 4 spades (not 4+) since it would rather start with 2♥ transfer when holding 5+spades and no ♥ suit.

[Stefan_O]

Bbradley62, on 2016-April-23, 18:02, said:

This hand was played in "Just Play Bridge", so I have no hand record.

I open 1N, CHO bids 2♣, doubled to my right.
I bid 2♥, CHO bids 2♠, explained as 9HCP
I bid 2N, CHO bids 3♦, explained as 4+D, 9HCP

CHO holds xxxx, AKJ, Jxxx, xx.

Seems to me that CHO invited game, I declined the invitation, and CHO refused to accept the rejection.

So looks like a fault in bidding-db. 3♦ should be defined as at least 5+, if not 6+.

I'm just thinking, though... with such a fat ♥ suit -- esp. after the X of 2♣ -- the robot might figure 3♦ on 4-4 or 3♥ on 4-3 would be a better play than 2NT,
and expects you to either pass with 4 diamonds or correct to 3♥ ?