[iandayre]

A hand from an ACBL IMP tournament today. I chose the more aggressive 3D over the negative double, GIB bid 3NT which made on poor defense and a bit of luck. I take no credit for it.

http://tinyurl.com/nkt3vtf

Most bid 3C over the negative double. And of course, GIB should consider no action but Pass. But GIB bid its 3 card suit to the 9! Why does BBO continue to allow GIB to bid like this??

[Stephen Tu]

Well, 3♦ is pretty ridiculous, but the problem starts with the definition of 3♣ which is an also ridiculous 16-22 total points. I suppose GIB should just try 3nt over this, but you can see why it feels it can't pass.

3♣ is problematic when you don't play good-bad 3nt. I'm unsure how strong it really ought to be when not playing any gadgetry. Maybe 15-17 total points?

[1eyedjack]

I guess it's a style thing but I prefer 1N to x.

[EDIT] Perhaps I should put it stronger. A style that requires a double on that hand rather than 1N is a losing style.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-22, 22:04, said:

I guess it's a style thing but I prefer 1N to x.

[EDIT] Perhaps I should put it stronger. A style that requires a double on that hand rather than 1N is a losing style.

This seemed way too strong, but I don't always know modern treatments, so I created a poll: http://www.bridgebas...-double-or-1nt/

[1eyedjack]

Yeah, thanks. It is beginning to look like I am out of the mainstream there, although the pedigree of my modicum of support is impressive.

I have not yet seen a convincing argument for the popular choice, but it is early days.

[gordontd]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-23, 11:32, said:

Yeah, thanks. It is beginning to look like I am out of the mainstream there, although the pedigree of my modicum of support is impressive.

I have not yet seen a convincing argument for the popular choice, but it is early days.

I think the argument would be that it is easier to reach NT after making a negative double than to find a spade fit after bidding NT.

[1eyedjack]

Leaving aside the absurd 3D bid, do you think that on the hand that started this thread a sensible N/S would have found the auction (a) easier, (b) harder, or (c ) broadly indifferent had North chosen 1N rather than X at first opportunity? Of course we cannot be certain what action East would have taken over 1N, which complicates the question somewhat.

[georgi]

GIB had in pocket 3NT with stoppers.

Fixed in next version not to avoid it once we have values for game and stopper, and supposedly we don't have clear fit to play in this suit.

[goffster]

I *think* GIB thought this was forcing.
If you look at the explanation it is described as 7+ (no upper limit)
Since 3C is an offer to play, I think this is right.

So it looks like it tried to manufacture some sort of temporizing bid.

[iandayre]

georgi, on 2015-February-25, 07:10, said:

GIB had in pocket 3NT with stoppers.

Fixed in next version not to avoid it once we have values for game and stopper, and supposedly we don't have clear fit to play in this suit.

I apologize, but I don't understand your comment. What exactly are you fixing? Other than the fact that it can't possibly bid 3D, what needs to be fixed, as Stephen Tu said, is that 3C shows some extras but is NOT 16-22 points. GIB should be passing it with this hand.

In addition, any time you make a negative double, then bid a suit it shows at least 5 cards, more likely 6. I have seen many times where GIB does not follow this basic principle.