[USViking]

From #9178 Robot Duplicate- (MP) 2011-12-21 16:22

Deal #6:

http://tinyurl.com/75u85sl

My 2♠ rebid showed a 6-card suit and as few as 11hcp/12 total points. GIB’s 10hcp with AT4 trump support
and a side Ace plus a singleton strikes me as suitable for invitational 3♠ but not for a jump to 4♠.

Is this another exercise of the LAW (not stated in bid explanation) even though opponents did not compete?
If so how weak must a hand be before LAW is turned off? Is it the side Ace which makes GIB assume the odds
are right for game?

On a separate note I am not sure why 2♠ should indicate 6 cards rather than 5 or more.

On another separate note, there were tables where opener bid (misbid?) 2♠ with 12hcp hand. GIB then raised
to 3♠ per LAW. However, I assume GIB did so under the supposition opener preempted. If so is it standard
to invite preempting opener under LAW?

[georgi]

1Major - 1NT is round forcing
2minor is 3+ for GIB just because you could have 5332 and no 4th suit to introduce or 6+ major.

So that's why if you rebid 2Major turns out to be 6+ definitely.

GIB has 11TP here which is close for invite or bid game, based on your likely 11-15HCP and not clear if unbalanced hand.

with aside 5 suit and 3rd support, it doesn't seem so badly bidded game.

Say you have ♠KJxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣KQ

Will you accept the invite? Looks unfortunate shortness in diamonds in both hands and no kings there.

Anyway it would be investigated for more precise followons over 1Major - 1NT, 2Major rebid.

[USViking]

georgi, on 2011-December-22, 00:19, said:

1Major - 1NT is round forcing
2minor is 3+ for GIB just because you could have 5332 and no 4th suit to introduce or 6+ major.

So that's why if you rebid 2Major turns out to be 6+ definitely.

GIB has 11TP here which is close for invite or bid game, based on your likely 11-15HCP and not clear if unbalanced hand.

with aside 5 suit and 3rd support, it doesn't seem so badly bidded game.

Say you have ♠KJxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣KQ

Will you accept the invite? Looks unfortunate shortness in diamonds in both hands and no kings there.

Anyway it would be investigated for more precise followons over 1Major - 1NT, 2Major rebid.

Thank you for the reply. I think you mean that you will look into GIB decision
to jump rather than invite which is the main thing I was looking for.

I am quite sure I would have passed a 3♠ invitation.

I would still like to know about whether LAW applied here in GIB decision.
I have looked at the 1st two google hits on LAW but they did not help for this deal.

[barmar]

I think it's pretty standard that if you have a hand that would have made a 3-card invite over a new suit by opener, you jump to game in this auction. The reason is that opener doesn't know about the 9 card fit -- you would bid 3♠ with 10-11 and 2-card support. That ninth trump can make all the difference. It doesn't in this hand, but there's no other way to distinguish it. The problem is that opener's hand is REALLY bad -- 8 losers (9 losers if you include the adjustment for 2 queens and no aces), so it was hardly even worth opening.

The explanation should be corrected, as this bid pretty should alway show exactly 3 spades.

[USViking]

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 16:38, said:

I think it's pretty standard that if you have a hand that would have made a 3-card invite over a new suit by opener, you jump to game in this auction. The reason is that opener doesn't know about the 9 card fit -- you would bid 3♠ with 10-11 and 2-card support. That ninth trump can make all the difference. It doesn't in this hand, but there's no other way to distinguish it.

A flattish 10hcp and 3-card trump support strikes me as totally inadequate
for a jump to game opposite partner who might have an aceless 11hcp, but
if you can vouch for the standard then I must concede no blame attaches to GIB.

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 16:38, said:

The problem is that opener's hand is REALLY bad -- 8 losers (9 losers if you include the adjustment for 2 queens and no aces), so it was hardly even worth opening.

I am not yet ready to accept any blame of my own for the fiasco.

Opener could have had many significantly better hands possessing such as KQ♠
or KQJ♠ and/or K♦ and still have had no chance. That would seem to provide more
support for my contention that it was reponder who caused the problem here than for
your contention that a substandard opening caused it.

[Bbradley62]

USViking, on 2011-December-28, 11:48, said:

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 16:38, said:

The problem is that opener's hand is REALLY bad -- 8 losers (9 losers if you include the adjustment for 2 queens and no aces), so it was hardly even worth opening.

I am not yet ready to accept any blame of my own for the fiasco...

http://online.bridge...ername=usviking
This hand was played by 40 human Souths:
5 passed
28 opened 1♠
6 opened 2♠
1 opened 4♠

Barmar: Did you notice that this is a fourth-seat opening? Some have overly-stubborn allegiance to the Rule of 15, but this hand has 12 HCP plus 6 spades! Are you telling us that GIB wouldn't open this hand 1♠ in fourth seat, never mind any other seat?

[Bbradley62]

Am I the only one who's curious as to why West didn't open 2♦?

[cloa513]

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 16:38, said:

I think it's pretty standard that if you have a hand that would have made a 3-card invite over a new suit by opener, you jump to game in this auction. The reason is that opener doesn't know about the 9 card fit -- you would bid 3♠ with 10-11 and 2-card support. That ninth trump can make all the difference. It doesn't in this hand, but there's no other way to distinguish it. The problem is that opener's hand is REALLY bad -- 8 losers (9 losers if you include the adjustment for 2 queens and no aces), so it was hardly even worth opening.

The explanation should be corrected, as this bid pretty should alway show exactly 3 spades.

I agree, the hand is really bad because that J and Q aren't worth anything and KQ doubleton degrades the value of the K and Q so open 2♠ in 3 and 4th hand with such a hand- its needs so much from partner (possibly more than partner could possibly hold) to make game.

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 18:21, said:

Am I the only one who's curious as to why West didn't open 2♦?

You mean overcall. It is lacking in values and a little in its position over opening hand. Simulations would count against opening.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2011-December-28, 18:58, said:

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 18:21, said:

Am I the only one who's curious as to why West didn't open 2♦?

You mean overcall. It is lacking in values and a little in its position over opening hand. Simulations would count against opening.

If I had meant "overcall", I would have said "overcall". West is the dealer on this hand. Wouldn't his hand be described reasonably well by an opening weak 2 bid?

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 19:10, said:

If I had meant "overcall", I would have said "overcall". West is the dealer on this hand. Wouldn't his hand be described reasonably well by an opening weak 2 bid?

You should have said preempt then.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2011-December-28, 19:15, said:

You should have said preempt then.

Wrong. I used the phrase "open 2♦" exactly correctly. I could have chosen to say "preempt 2♦" or "bid 2♦ in first seat", but that does not change the fact that the phrase I chose was clear and accurate.

[barmar]

USViking, on 2011-December-28, 11:48, said:

A flattish 10hcp and 3-card trump support strikes me as totally inadequate
for a jump to game opposite partner who might have an aceless 11hcp, but
if you can vouch for the standard then I must concede no blame attaches to GIB.

Yes, it's flattish, but not so bad. It has a couple of 10's supporting the honors, it has a 5-card suit with good spots, and it has a ruffing value.

Quote

I am not yet ready to accept any blame of my own for the fiasco.

I wasn't blaming you, I was blaming the card gods for dealing you one of the worst hands possible for your bids. GIB also had the minimum for its bid. It's unlucky that both happened together. It's also unlucky that GIB's apparent ruffing value was opposite your ♦Qx, so both were wasted. The hands simply didn't fit together well, but there's no way to find that out.

Sometimes you bid properly and end up in bad contracts, it's part of the game.