[1eyedjack]

---

MP, Instant.

I feel that an 8 point range 3N rebid is too wide for North to make an informed decision whether to move on.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-21, 16:14, said:

---

MP, Instant.

I feel that an 8 point range 3N rebid is too wide for North to make an informed decision whether to move on.

I don't the HCP range is so bad- its rather that it should have a definition in 8421 points- I'd say less than 22. Unfortunately due to the lazy design of the system you don't have decent alternative- 3♥ or 3♠ should cover hands with too much strength and/or too many controls which 8421 is good as a measure for.

[steve2005]

pretty decent 6N and no possibility of investigating. Not sure what standard for 3N but should be at most a 3 pt range as will often end the auction. 18-19?

[Bbradley62]

The description of suit lengths makes it clear that you have a balanced (i.e., NT) distribution. You'd have opened 1N with 15-17, and you'd have opened 2N with 20-21. So, that leaves 12-14 and 18-19. One of those two ranges should be a 2N rebid and the other is 3N. I prefer fast arrival, but my tournament experience is all 20+ years ago, so I have no idea what's popular now. But, GIB has to pick one or the other.

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-21, 19:02, said:

The description of suit lengths makes it clear that you have a balanced (i.e., NT) distribution. You'd have opened 1N with 15-17, and you'd have opened 2N with 20-21. So, that leaves 12-14 and 18-19. One of those two ranges should be a 2N rebid and the other is 3N. I prefer fast arrival, but my tournament experience is all 20+ years ago, so I have no idea what's popular now. But, GIB has to pick one or the other.

I know it,however I am embarrassed.
(The answer is first 2nt, then 4nt after 3nt.)
It seems this topic shouldn't be reported here.

jdonn, on 2015-May-12, 13:48, said:

- DON'T report a bid that you think isn't best if it's not really a bug, assuming GIB did make the proper system bid, or a very reasonable choice.
- DON'T report a bug just because GIB doesn't play your favorite convention. You can make suggestions if you like, but we have much more important things to work on than Exclusion Keycard Blackwood (such as improving how GIB uses regular Blackwood).

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2015-May-21, 21:20, said:

I know it,however I am embarrassed.
(The answer is first 2nt, then 4nt after 3nt.)
It seems this topic shouldn't be reported here.

Thank you for the lesson. Not.
I am well aware of what in principle should or should not be reported here. If I break those guidelines it is not because I am unaware of the guidelines but because I am unaware that the example hand is in breach.

The reason that I did not rebid 2N was for fear that it may be passed.

Things may have changed (which is where I may have been in breach), but it certainly used to be the case that 1D-2C-2N was treated the same as an inverted minor raise, ie 1D-2D-2N or 1C-2C-2N, and could be passed, showing a balanced hand too weak for 1N opener. That treatment came under some criticism, certainly from me, because it remained too wide a range for a non-forcing bid (11-14 HCP). Perhaps it has been corrected by now.

See this thread

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__831745

and this one

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__808228

That said, if I can show an 18-19 balanced hand at the level of 3N I would rather do so than at the level of 4N. Aside from the risk, albeit minimal, that on a bad lie of the cards 9 tricks may be the limit, the additional bidding space could be used (by an intelligent pair) for more accurate further continuations.

Furthermore, it is somewhat irrelevant whether I mis-bid this particular hand. Presumably GIB does envisage a possible set of hands, perhaps not including this one, on which it expects a 3N rebid. That set of hands contains a range of 14-21 HCP. At the top end it would have additional values in the form of total points, as with a balanced hand it would have opened 2N. That is unplayable. Is it in breach of the posting guidelines to express that view? Opinions other than from Lycier are solicited. And forgive me, but if it is in breach of forum guidelines to express that view then it bl**dy well should not be.

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-21, 19:02, said:

The description of suit lengths makes it clear that you have a balanced (i.e., NT) distribution. You'd have opened 1N with 15-17, and you'd have opened 2N with 20-21. So, that leaves 12-14 and 18-19. One of those two ranges should be a 2N rebid and the other is 3N. I prefer fast arrival, but my tournament experience is all 20+ years ago, so I have no idea what's popular now. But, GIB has to pick one or the other.

Except the hand can be unbalanced and then the ranges aren't so limited e.g short clubs.

[1eyedjack]

cloa513, on 2015-May-22, 01:11, said:

Except the hand can be unbalanced and then the ranges aren't so limited e.g short clubs.

The description shows a maximum of 5 Diamonds, a maximum of 3 Hearts, and a maximum of 3 Spades. If I also have short Clubs I call the director. Which is a problem in a robot tournament, there being no director.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2015-May-21, 19:02, said:

One of those two ranges should be a 2N rebid and the other is 3N. I prefer fast arrival, but my tournament experience is all 20+ years ago, so I have no idea what's popular now. But, GIB has to pick one or the other.

We only have a choice if 2C is GF and we are committed to game when opener has a minimum weak NT type opener.

Generally, I am quite cool on the principle of fast arrival when responder is unlimited. But that is a personal view and I don't insist on it.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-22, 01:39, said:

The description shows a maximum of 5 Diamonds, a maximum of 3 Hearts, and a maximum of 3 Spades. If I also have short Clubs I call the director. Which is a problem in a robot tournament, there being no director.

Only relevant to the bidding choices not the descriptions- their descriptions are sometimes too restrictive/unrepresentative.

[1eyedjack]

Yes, the entire thread is concerned solely with the appropriateness or otherwise of the description attached to the 3N rebid, focusing principally on the range of values.

The description, as you say, could be flawed and not reflective of the true GIB interpretation. In that case there is no reason to single out the distributional aspects of the description as being particularly suspect and yet trust the claimed range of values.

If the description does not match GIB's actual treatment then the description should be changed to match the actual treatment, whether that is in respect of hand shape, or value range, or both. That does not preclude the possibility that the actual treatment might be a candidate for change, but until we know what that treatment is there is no point in commenting.

If the description does match GIB's interpretation then the actual treatment is definitely a candidate for change.

[steve2005]

lycier, on 2015-May-21, 21:20, said:

I know it,however I am embarrassed.
(The answer is first 2nt, then 4nt after 3nt.)
It seems this topic shouldn't be reported here.

If the answer is 2N then 4N.
That still doesn't answer what is 3N? 14-21 is unworkable and should be changed by programmers.