[Stefan_O]

I noticed, if responder is a passed hand, in the following sequence:

Pass - 1♥
1NT - 2♣
2♥

In this sequence 1NT is described as: 2-♥ (non-forcing)
but 2♥ was then described as: 2-3♥ ...

I guess the second description is copied from the similar
sequence where responder is not passed,
but not correct in this case.

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-May-09, 17:30, said:

I noticed, if responder is a passed hand, in the following sequence:

Pass - 1♥
1NT - 2♣
2♥

In this sequence 1NT is described as: 2-♥ (non-forcing)
but 2♥ was then described as: 2-3♥ ...

I guess the second description is copied from the similar
sequence where responder is not passed,
but not correct in this case.

Hi Stefan_O
This is your sixth thread in this forum, very good, now let me restore your hand in this situation.

First : if pd is not passed hand

---

Second : if pd is passed hand

---

This is a classic hand. Stefan_O, there are many top experts in this forum, it would better let them answer your question.

[Stefan_O]

Hard to see why we would need an "expert" opinion on this one...

It's so obvious the descriptions of 1NT and 2♥ (with the Passed responder) are inconsistent,
that my dog could tell you so.

[manudude03]

I think it's carried forward from the days before gib played drury. Now that drury is played, having 3 hearts is technically impossible (though I could still imagine doing it on a 4333 5 count or something) and the 2H bid should simply be 2H.

[lycier]

Stefan_O, on 2016-May-09, 17:30, said:

I guess the second description is copied from the similar
sequence where responder is not passed,
but not correct in this case.

If pd is passed hand with ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦AQx, ♣xxxx, after opening 1♥, my basic Gib directly raise 2♥ to show 3-card♥, 7-10TPs. It has only 6 TPs actually.
And Gibs also play Drury, so I am difficult to imagine your point isn't correct.

[Bbradley62]

lycier, on 2016-May-10, 18:48, said:

If pd is passed hand with ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦AQx, ♣xxxx, after opening 1♥, my basic Gib directly raise 2♥ to show 3-card♥, 7-10TPs. It has only 6 TPs actually.
And Gibs also play Drury, so I am difficult to imagine your point isn't correct.

Then stop posting crap in this thread. If you can determine that OP is correct, a simple "+" will do, so that the developers don't have to plod through all the verbiage if/when they actually read the reports here.

[lycier]

Bbradley62, on 2016-May-10, 18:50, said:

Then stop posting crap in this thread. If you can determine that OP is correct, a simple "+" will do, so that the developers don't have to plod through all the verbiage if/when they actually read the reports here.

Your point is correct, but this time it is a exception - which only holds 3-card H with 6hcp. I want to go on discussing.

Stefan_O, on 2016-May-09, 17:30, said:

[size="2"]I guess the second description is copied from the similar sequence where responder is not passed,but not correct in this case.

Stefan_O, here I want to ask you a question.
Assume your point is correct and the description is error, however in fact Gibs have been no problem on simple raise, preemptive raise, limited raise especially including Drury and forcing to game raise etc, I can say that it is difficult to find serious logical mistake on this respect.
That's to say this "Error Description" doesn't cause more errors.
How would you think about it?