[pescetom]

How would you respond here, playing 2/1?

MP

---

[jillybean]

3♣, 2nt,

how about 2♥ WTHeck?

I doubled checked to confirm it was a 1♠ and not ♣ opening.

[smerriman]

GIB requires 13 total points for a 2/1.. the two it adds for each doubleton are countered by the two it subtracts for each doubleton containing an honor. Silly, but GIB's total points evaluation has always been a non-negotiable weak point..

[JeffMorrow]

As definitely non-expert, I would vote for “It depends.”

First, I count South as holding 12 points: I don’t ever count J singleton or J small except in partner’s suit. However, I add a point for the fifth heart.

Second, if we are playing semi-forcing, I vote for 2♥; there is no way tha I am letting this auction die at 1N with 12 points and solid hearts. Obviously, I bid 2♥ rather than 2♣ because, whenever I lie, I tell the truth about shape. In any case, I am not sure this is a lie because I would open this hand.

Third, if we are playing true forcing 1NT, I vote for 1N (to describe my strength) followed by a raise to 4♠ if partner rebids them, 4♥ if partner bids those, 3N iif partner bids 2N, and 3♥ if partner bids a minor suit.

The issue to me is that we get to game in no trump or a major. I have been educated here in recent days that it is a low percentage play to assume opener is dead minimum.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-August-23, 18:50, said:

3♣, 2nt,

how about 2♥ WTHeck?

I doubled checked to confirm it was a 1♠ and not ♣ opening.

I thought very much like you.
A minimum with anaemic minors, but nonetheless solid hearts, Ax in partner''s suit, both majors, decent chance of 3NT if in misfit: no brainer.
And more to the point, so did everyone else in the tournament: all tables except mine responded 2♥ and then bid to 3NT making +1 or so (while my robot smugly brought home 2NT+3).

As a sanity check, I polled in on that other site, with
this vote as a result.
So not unanimous there, but a solid majority all the same (the first two votes were for 1NT, which threw me: I did not check if they were by Steven and Diana Eva ).

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-August-24, 00:18, said:

GIB requires 13 total points for a 2/1.. the two it adds for each doubleton are countered by the two it subtracts for each doubleton containing an honor. Silly, but GIB's total points evaluation has always been a non-negotiable weak point..

Thanks. I guessed something similar was going on when I got over the shock of 1NT, although I confess I never noticed it happening before.


(before I get thrown out again: has anyone else noted a worsening of the Forum Bug recently?. Might just be me as I am on wifi for once)

[pescetom]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 06:27, said:

Second, if we are playing semi-forcing, I vote for 2♥; there is no way tha I am letting this auction die at 1N with 12 points and solid hearts. Obviously, I bid 2♥ rather than 2♣ because, whenever I lie, I tell the truth about shape. In any case, I am not sure this is a lie because I would open this hand.

Third, if we are playing true forcing 1NT, I vote for 1N (to describe my strength) followed by a raise to 4♠ if partner rebids them, 4♥ if partner bids those, 3N iif partner bids 2N, and 3♥ if partner bids a minor suit.

I am used to playing semi-forcing, and did wonder afterwards whether the 1NT choice was a fully-forcing thing, although that poll suggests most would avoid 1NT even then.
My Advanced robot rebid 2NT over my 2♦, which seemed the best fitting description.
I was a bit shocked when this 2NT was described as 10+ HCP, as I would expect it has to invite a bit heavy given that Opener's rebid could still be on a complete minimum, unlike in semi-forcing. With 13 HCP balanced in misfit I passed.

[smerriman]

I am surprised it's not unanimous too. But it seems the argument for 1nt is based on partner opening aggressively, which GIB most certainly does not, so I don't think there's any conclusion that GIB's evaluation is reasonable. Just that it can only do so much with bean counting..

[jillybean]

I have an opening hand. If partner opened aggressively, we better play our hands well.
If this isn't a GF, it's time to discuss your openings or stop playing 2/1

[Huibertus]

jillybean, on 2025-August-24, 19:39, said:

I have an opening hand. If partner opened aggressively, we better play our hands well.
If this isn't a GF, it's time to discuss your openings or stop playing 2/1

If this isn't a GF it is based on fear. So, I'd rather discuss the partnership's ability to extract as many tricks as possible at declarer play, or if there is no room for improvement there discuss the minimum requirement for an opening.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-August-24, 19:39, said:

I have an opening hand. If partner opened aggressively, we better play our hands well.
If this isn't a GF, it's time to discuss your openings or stop playing 2/1

My openings in the first two seats are as conservative as GiB expects, not that it worries about that or anything else.
It's a bit late to tell BBO that their robot should stop playing 2/1

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-August-25, 07:01, said:

My openings in the first two seats are as conservative as GiB expects, not that it worries about that or anything else.
It's a bit late to tell BBO that their robot should stop playing 2/1

Get a new Bot 😊