[Siegmund]

This same auction has happened to me twice this week:

1H (2H) pass (2NT)
pass (3C) pass (3S)
all pass.

2H = michaels, 2NT=asking for the minor.

Among humans, this is an uncommon sequence, and carries a rather specific implication: "I wanted to play 4S if you had diamonds, but I am giving up on game since you have clubs."

The first time GIB did it, he had Kxx xx QJ9x QJ9x, and can't possibly have planned to do anything different opposite one minor than opposite the other. Opting for 3m I could understand if it were imps; not asking and then bidding 3S. I horrendously misdefended this one, expecting bad clubs and good diamonds from advancer. Linky

The second time GIB did it, he had QTx Qxx KTxx Q9x and no excuse to do anything other than sign off in 2S. Linky

[fred]

It is fairly normal, at least in North American expert circles, to play this sequence as invitational (and a direct 3S as semi-preemptive).

The explanations on GIB's 3S bids suggests that this is what GIB was trying to do. That does not mean I necessarily agree with GIB's judgment. The "correct" advance of partner's Michaels bid is partly a function of the partner's expected strength (which, in a perfect world at least even if not in GIB's world, should vary according to things like vulnerability).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Bbradley62]

Could this explanation be added to the GIB System Notes, similar to the Soloway Jump Shift explanation that Barmar recently added?

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 20:04, said:

Could this explanation be added to the GIB System Notes, similar to the Soloway Jump Shift explanation that Barmar recently added?

I'd rather not put the kitchen sink into that document, just cover the most important areas of bidding, to keep it easy to digest. I don't think a section on Michaels bidding is that necessary.

[calm01]

Thought provoking question.

I like both the Siegmund and Fred treatments.

For the partners that like 2H to mean spades and an undisclosed minor I will ask of their preference.

[cloa513]

If the system notes were in a full disclosure format ie. you select a bidding sequence and it shows the meanings along the way then then putting the kitchen sink in the system notes would be no big deal since you'd only look at the parts that you want to.

[barmar]

cloa513, on 2012-January-03, 20:46, said:

If the system notes were in a full disclosure format ie. you select a bidding sequence and it shows the meanings along the way then then putting the kitchen sink in the system notes would be no big deal since you'd only look at the parts that you want to.

The system notes are supposed to be readable and understandable. They're a summary, not a detailed enumeration of every bidding sequence, which you have to navigate to find the information you want.

And creating such a file would be an enormous project. Full Disclosure is incredibly cumbersome, because you have to enter all variations of a similar bidding sequence explicitly. Consider how you describe Jacoby 2NT in plain text:

2NT shows 4-card support, game forcing values, no shortness.
Opener's rebids: 3M = balanced max, 3N = balanced submax, 4M = balanced min, 3 other = shortness, 4 other = good 5 card 2nd suit

With full disclosure, this would require writing 18 bidding sequences (2 major openings X 9 possible rebids).

And the logic isn't apparent in FD, you have to notice all the patterns yourself. As far as I'm concerned, FD is only useful for creating automatic explanations, it's horrible for trying to understand a system.

[georgi]

The better apply of this situation comes after 1♠ - 2♠ showing heart + minor.

If you have invitational hand with hearts how you going to show to partner?

3♥ seems like forced and drop call. 4♥ could be too high. 3♣ will be pass/correct to the partner's minor. 3♦ would be too odd to be invite with hearts. 3♠ would be GF.

And it leaves room for cuebid if you like the minor after.

So initially you really ask for the minor, as that's the thing you expect partner to bid, then over your rebid he could decide whether and how to proceed.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-January-03, 12:03, said:

Bbradley62, on 2011-December-28, 20:04, said:

Could this explanation be added to the GIB System Notes, similar to the Soloway Jump Shift explanation that Barmar recently added?

I'd rather not put the kitchen sink into that document, just cover the most important areas of bidding, to keep it easy to digest. I don't think a section on Michaels bidding is that necessary.

I think this is a terrible attitude. There is a concise 2-3 page summary at the beginning of this document, which some players may decide is all they're interested in. Then, you have links to detailed explanations that some other players might want. What difference does it make whether there are 6 or 26 pages of detailed explanations? Those who are interested will read, and those who aren't won't.

In this case, we are told that a particular treatment "is fairly normal, at least in North American expert circles". Why not provide the information, for the benefit of those of us who do not play in such circles?

[Bbradley62]

double post