[1eyedjack]

---

MP, robodupe, 34

Most of the room bought it in 3H, by choosing 2H initially over North's double. North then competes to 3H over 3D by oppo. End of.

Perhaps I was being too clever for my own boots. 2S and 2H were about equally likely to hit the best strain, but if it does not die there then starting with 2S improves our chances of playing in whichever major is better.

There are two points of interest, I think:

One is that South having bid 2S North should never expect my subsequent bidding to indicate a hand too strong for the earlier 2S. If North thinks that game is on over a South that is worth 2S he should not risk defending 3D. I am curious to know whether North would have passed me out in 2S had West passed instead of 3D.

The other point of interest is that I don't think that 3H can sensibly show systemically as few as 3 cards in the suit,

[iandayre]

At least now we know that it was not our current BBO staff that wrote the explanations for GIB's bids. I guess now we know that Matt Ginsburg may have been a very fine programmer, but he wasn't much of a bridge player.

This is the one situation where a negative double guarantees at least 4-4 in the unbid suits. But the explanations of subsequent bids are not consistent with that fact.

BTW I completely agree with 2S.

[steve2005]

Question: If you had doubled instead of bidding 2♠ would that be responsive for GIB?

That may explain why Gib thinks u might have think have 3♥ u didn't responsive X

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2015-June-22, 19:15, said:

Question: If you had doubled instead of bidding 2♠ would that be responsive for GIB?

Shape is not well defined in the explanation, but as I suspected, X would show extras in values - extras that I lack. Whether it should be forcing to 3N is a separate issue. Personally I think not, but this has been aired before.

---