[lycier]

---

4♠ says " twice rebiddable ♠ " .
Really?
What is " twice rebiddable " ?

 Bbradley62, on 2015-April-01, 18:54, said:

"We" should read the very clear explanations published by BBO staff: http://doc.bridgebas...criptions.xhtml

The answer on this link is " rebiddable + 1 card ".

 lycier, on 2015-March-31, 22:24, said:

I have different opinions on this.
There are too many " rebiddable " we can't understand.
There are too many " twice rebiddable " which is to reduce the standard or the quality of suit.
In the other word,both of twice rebiddable and rebiddable are fuzzy definitions,it often let players caught in dilemma.

I have to say that 4♠ - " twice rebiddable " is to blame since it misled its partner,while both of 3nt and 5♣ are makable contracts.

-------------------------------------

P.S. here are two hands played by others

Hand-1

---

Hand-2

---

[manudude03]

I don't think 4S should be twice rebiddable here. What else are you supposed to bid on AKJx Ax x AKQxxx? I find it interesting that the other tables opened 1C rather than 2C. I think the main problem at your table was that by the time West had bid 4D, all he had really said was he has 4+ diamonds, which just makes bidding constructively impossible.

[Bbradley62]

 manudude03, on 2015-April-03, 18:41, said:

I think the main problem at your table was that by the time West had bid 4D, all he had really said was he has 4+ diamonds, which just makes bidding constructively impossible.

I don't understand defining 3♦ as unspecified 12- total. Isn't that exactly what 2♦ said? I would expect the 3♦ call to be significantly more limited than that.

What would 3N be over 3♣? If 2♦ denied the ability to bid 2N (showing a balanced 8+ HCP), shouldn't this 3N be something like 5-7 balanced?

"Biddable" means 5 or 4 good ones, so
"Rebiddable" means 6 or 5 good ones, and
"Twice rebiddable" means 7 or 6 good ones.

I agree with both Lycier (who says that GIB should be better at having what he says he has) and with Dude (who says that "twice rebiddable" is an unreasonable requirement for the 3♠ bid). But, sitting East, I would have bid NT at one of my first three opportunities to do so.