The only right choice is to bid 2♠ after 2♦, obviously both of 2nt and 3♦ are very rediculous.
Rediculous bidding
#1
Posted 2017-November-07, 00:26
The only right choice is to bid 2♠ after 2♦, obviously both of 2nt and 3♦ are very rediculous.
#2
Posted 2017-November-07, 01:54
According to my references, 2nt and 3c are actually reasonable, systemic calls! 2nt shows both minors and is a scramble. GIB even has the correct explanations for the calls!
It just falls apart when it failed to pass 3c, which is not any worse than 2s. This at least here happens to be an 8 cd fit, if it bid 2s it could have found partner with 45 in the majors and a 6 cd fit.
So I'd say not passing 3c is the ridiculous move here, not the 2nt call. Maybe also the choice of the convention in the first place, and especially its allowing 2M on 4cdM+longer minor.
#3
Posted 2017-November-07, 02:58
I agree with Stephen that the 2NT call is OK, not sure what on earth possessed GIB to bid 3D though.
Aren't the descriptions for 2D and 3C wrong - should be 4+/4+, as 2D can be 5-4 either way or better?
ahydra
#4
Posted 2017-November-07, 04:02
Stephen Tu, on 2017-November-07, 01:54, said:
According to my references, 2nt and 3c are actually reasonable, systemic calls! 2nt shows both minors and is a scramble. GIB even has the correct explanations for the calls!
It just falls apart when it failed to pass 3c, which is not any worse than 2s. This at least here happens to be an 8 cd fit, if it bid 2s it could have found partner with 45 in the majors and a 6 cd fit.
So I'd say not passing 3c is the ridiculous move here, not the 2nt call. Maybe also the choice of the convention in the first place, and especially its allowing 2M on 4cdM+longer minor.
3D of course is abysmal. How about West passing 2NT? I tread on eggs when GIBBO does such things and go for the safest (i.e. smallest penalty) option.
vrock
#5
Posted 2017-November-07, 05:52
virgosrock, on 2017-November-07, 04:02, said:
vrock
Passing would be an execution offence. Why should we have a biddable minor when we have promised both majors? It's not like 2NT promises a weak hand either.
#7
Posted 2017-November-07, 11:27
#8
Posted 2017-November-07, 16:04
Stephen Tu, on 2017-November-07, 11:27, said:
my bad did not notice lefty had 3C, thought had 2 clubs. I would just bid 4c over 3D. Even if have all the remaining 25 hcp i.e. 40 hcp - 15 hcp 3NT tough make.
vrock
#9
Posted 2017-November-07, 16:18
#10
Posted 2017-November-07, 16:47
2nt if it is going to be minors shouldn't be reserved only for strong hands looking for game, which are incredibly rare, it is scramble looking for playable spot, rather than playing 2s on maybe 6 cd fit.
If you aren't going to trot out 2nt here, then it should have different meaning entirely, e.g. inv looking for the better major.
But my books and links say it is minors in the original convention. So bot may as well use it, just then pass 3c like any sane player.
#11
Posted 2017-November-08, 03:47
Obviously 2♠ is more better than 3♦.
This hand have showed there is a systemic issue to get a bad result due to 2nt as a rediculous bidding .
#12
Posted 2017-November-08, 04:33
If you want to not bid 2nt on such hands, then like I said it is complete waste to use 2nt as minors as convention originally published.
#13
Posted 2017-November-08, 08:06
Stephen Tu, on 2017-November-08, 04:33, said:
If you want to not bid 2nt on such hands, then like I said it is complete waste to use 2nt as minors as convention originally published.
thinking about this hand some more.... indeed 45 or 54 in majors is way more common. if 4-5 we don't want to play in a 4-2 fit if we bid 2s. and we do have 5-5 in minors. so i think 2NT to improve contract is ok. plus hcp is marked on our left. But 3D is asinine.
vrock