[Bbradley62]

Is this consistent with the modern treatment of Texas Transfers? (I honestly don't know what the "modern treatment" of most conventions is.)

---

[ArtK78]

The hand is too good for just a game bid opposite a strong NT (and possibly even opposite a weak NT). So if your intention is to bid 4♦ and pass partner's 4♥ call, that is not right.

What is right is hard to say. 2♦ followed by 4♠ (exclusion) would ask the right question, but you could easily be beyond the level of safety. If a 3♠ rebid is a splinter, that might be best.

But this post is in the GIB discussion forum. So trying to decide what is best is not particularly relevant. Suffice to say that a Texas Transfer on this hand will get you to the right strain and game may be the limit. So it is a good guess.

[barmar]

GIB does play that 3♠ after Jacoby Transfer is a splinter. Its current requirement for this is 14-15 total points, so this hand is a little weak. While slam may be possible if opener has just the right hand, it's not obvious (to me) how to find out everything you need to know.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2015-June-20, 11:07, said:

GIB does play that 3♠ after Jacoby Transfer is a splinter. Its current requirement for this is 14-15 total points, so this hand is a little weak...

I presume that this is the same strength required for 1N-2♦-2♥-4♥?
Maybe this is a hand evaluation issue, since total points would be the same for -, KJ876532, KQT, J2 and -, KJ8765, KQT2, J32.

[WesleyC]

barmar, on 2015-June-20, 11:07, said:

GIB does play that 3♠ after Jacoby Transfer is a splinter. Its current requirement for this is 14-15 total points, so this hand is a little weak. While slam may be possible if opener has just the right hand, it's not obvious (to me) how to find out everything you need to know.

If you're working with total points, a void is usually worth 5 so this hand would certainly fit that range. I'd take off a point for the lack of aces add a couple for the 8c suit and arrive at about 16.

To approach it from the other direction, if partner has 13-15 working HCPs then slam rates to be excellent. Holding a hand in that range, partner will know what to do after you splinter.

[steve2005]

WesleyC, on 2015-June-21, 10:37, said:

If you're working with total points, a void is usually worth 5 so this hand would certainly fit that range. I'd take off a point for the lack of aces add a couple for the 8c suit and arrive at about 16.

To approach it from the other direction, if partner has 13-15 working HCPs then slam rates to be excellent. Holding a hand in that range, partner will know what to do after you splinter.

Points are almost irrelevant on this hand. Splinter in ♠ if p doesn't have much wasted in ♠ have good play as long as not off 2 cashing aces. Need to be able to use exclusion KC to findout so wont know for sure playing with GIB.

[Bbradley62]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-20, 10:27, said:

The hand is too good for just a game bid opposite a strong NT (and possibly even opposite a weak NT). So if your intention is to bid 4♦ and pass partner's 4♥ call, that is not right.

What is right is hard to say. 2♦ followed by 4♠ (exclusion) would ask the right question, but you could easily be beyond the level of safety. If a 3♠ rebid is a splinter, that might be best.

But this post is in the GIB discussion forum. So trying to decide what is best is not particularly relevant. Suffice to say that a Texas Transfer on this hand will get you to the right strain and game may be the limit. So it is a good guess.

GIB North did, in fact, pass 4♥. So, which is it: "not right" or "a good guess"?

[Bbradley62]

Bbradley62, on 2015-June-20, 12:59, said:

Maybe this is a hand evaluation issue...

WesleyC, on 2015-June-21, 10:37, said:

If you're working with total points, a void is usually worth 5 so this hand would certainly fit that range. I'd take off a point for the lack of aces add a couple for the 8c suit and arrive at about 16.

As has been discussed frequently in this forum, GIB is not capable of this kind of nuanced hand evaluation. He simply counts HCP (4321), adds shortness points (321) and subtracts 1 for counting both in a suit. So, this hand is valued at 10 HCP + 4 shortness points - 1 for double-counting in clubs = 13 total points.

Hopefully BBO staff can take another look at the cost/benefit of tinkering with the hand evaluation routine.

[iandayre]

I think this is a hand evaluation issue, and it's well known that GIB seriously undervalues long, strong suits.

I would make a Jacoby transfer here, followed by a splinter jump to 3S. The auction 1N-4D-4H-4S (or 5C or 5D) should be exclusion BW, but I don't think this hand is strong enough for that action.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2015-June-21, 12:16, said:

Hopefully BBO staff can take another look at the cost/benefit of tinkering with the hand evaluation routine.

In fact, this is something we've been discussing.

The main bone of contention is how to balance improved hand evaluation with keeping the calculation understandable by the majority of players.

[barmar]

iandayre, on 2015-June-21, 14:37, said:

I would make a Jacoby transfer here, followed by a splinter jump to 3S. The auction 1N-4D-4H-4S (or 5C or 5D) should be exclusion BW, but I don't think this hand is strong enough for that action.

GIB doesn't play Exclusion, BTW. And I don't think there's any interest in adding it -- it's a pretty advanced convention that I'm guessing 90% of our users don't use.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2015-June-20, 11:07, said:

GIB does play that 3♠ after Jacoby Transfer is a splinter. Its current requirement for this is 14-15 total points, so this hand is a little weak. While slam may be possible if opener has just the right hand, it's not obvious (to me) how to find out everything you need to know.

Doesn't the splinter response to a 1NT opening show 4441 shape? That is what I have always seen when GIB makes that bid. If that is not true, then the splinter response becomes much more difficult to play (if not unplayable).

[1eyedjack]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-22, 05:32, said:

Doesn't the splinter response to a 1NT opening show 4441 shape? That is what I have always seen when GIB makes that bid. If that is not true, then the splinter response becomes much more difficult to play (if not unplayable).

A splinter in immediate response to 1NT might show 4441 or similar. But here we are talking about a second round splinter by responder having started with a Jacoby transfer. I think that this must promise a 6 card major and unlikely to have a biddable side 4 card suit,

[iandayre]

barmar, on 2015-June-21, 14:58, said:

GIB doesn't play Exclusion, BTW. And I don't think there's any interest in adding it -- it's a pretty advanced convention that I'm guessing 90% of our users don't use.

There are certainly many more important changes to be made, so I'm fine with that. I am confident in stating that is the modern standard treatment however, in response to BB's original question. How does GIB define new suit bids after a Texas Transfer and acceptance?