[iandayre]

I am going to hold off on the hand diagram for now, here is my S hand: AQJ, AQxxx, x, 9xxx. The auction has proceeded P, 1C by partner, 1D, 1H by you, 3D raise, P, P back to you.

Here is how possible bids you might consider are described:

4D: 17+, 4+H, 5+C
3S: 13+, 4+S, 4+H
Double: 10+, 2+D, 4+H
4C: 9+, 4+H, 5+C
3H: 11-12, 6+H

I can't think of anything else. Clearly, none fit the hand very well. What's your best guess? ACBL Robot Tournament, MP's.

[Stephen Tu]

Another one of those "2+" doubles I hate that I think need to be weeded out of the database. Really doubles should either be 2-, takeout (and perhaps occasionally perpetrated with 3 cards if it's best call after simulation), or 4+, penalty (again occasionally perpetrated with 3 cards in some auctions after a redouble or prior penalty pass where it seems like the best shot).

[cloa513]

iandayre, on 2015-July-29, 12:20, said:

I am going to hold off on the hand diagram for now, here is my S hand: AQJ, AQxxx, x, 9xxx. The auction has proceeded P, 1C by partner, 1D, 1H by you, 3D raise, P, P back to you.

Here is how possible bids you might consider are described:

4D: 17+, 4+H, 5+C
3S: 13+, 4+S, 4+H
Double: 10+, 2+D, 4+H
4C: 9+, 4+H, 5+C
3H: 11-12, 6+H

I can't think of anything else. Clearly, none fit the hand very well. What's your best guess? ACBL Robot Tournament, MP's.

3S is the best fit- a practical bid. Does it define 1H as 5 Hearts if not then its a natural consequence of the wasteful support doubles? Double by opener should be penalty.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2015-July-29, 12:20, said:

I am going to hold off on the hand diagram for now, here is my S hand: AQJ, AQxxx, x, 9xxx. The auction has proceeded P, 1C by partner, 1D, 1H by you, 3D raise, P, P back to you.

Here is how possible bids you might consider are described:

4D: 17+, 4+H, 5+C
3S: 13+, 4+S, 4+H...

So, a negative double over 1♦ would have been limited to 12?

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-July-29, 21:00, said:

So, a negative double over 1♦ would have been limited to 12?

A negative double after 1C and a 1D overcall shows 4-4 in the majors. 1H (or 1S) shows 4+. GIB corresponds to standard methods in this area. There is no maximum point count. I agree this is inconsistent with the description of 3S in the problem, but that is GIB for you.

[iandayre]

I must admit I am disappointed that no one other than Cloa has chosen to participate in this problem. I participate in YOUR questions and polls.

So Cloa, I will tell you that 3S was also my choice. GIB raised to 4S. Pass now??

I might add that support doubles have no relevance to the problem. Advancer jumped to 3D over 1H, beyond the level of support doubles.

[1eyedjack]

iandayre, on 2015-July-31, 12:28, said:

I must admit I am disappointed that no one other than Cloa has chosen to participate in this problem. I participate in YOUR questions and polls.

Quoi????

Stephen Tu and Bbradley have responded in this thread, and I and Lycier responded to your duplicate thread. Added to which Steve2005 took the trouble to vote in your poll.

Forgive me if I am reticent in participating in two identical threads.

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2015-July-31, 14:29, said:

Added to which Steve2005 took the trouble to vote in your poll..

yes I was confused by the 2 threads wasn't sure which would catch on.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2015-July-31, 15:35, said:

yes I was confused by the 2 threads wasn't sure which would catch on

I expected the thread that contained the poll to be the one. Goes to show.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2015-July-29, 12:20, said:

What's your best guess?

My best guess is that GIB's system needs to be corrected so that something fits and to remove inconsistencies like we one we've agreed exists.

[1eyedjack]

It is an interesting point of game theory. There is an argument that if in the process of leaving one (presumably rare or low risk) hand type unbiddable and in the process (sufficiently) improve the accuracy of the bidding on the remaining population of hands then it could be a price worth paying.

[Stephen Tu]

1eyedjack, on 2015-August-02, 11:24, said:

It is an interesting point of game theory. There is an argument that if in the process of leaving one (presumably rare or low risk) hand type unbiddable and in the process (sufficiently) improve the accuracy of the bidding on the remaining population of hands then it could be a price worth paying.

Yeah, except that there's no rational reason to restrict doubles to "2 or more" in this position. Knowing partner has 2 diamonds doesn't make penalty passes particularly attractive. So partner should be taking these doubles out most of the time. And if he's supposed to take these doubles out, why remove your option to double with 1 or 0 diamonds?

So just fix that bid, then there is no real unbiddable hand here, except the penalty double, which should be almost nonexistent after the 3♦ raise if the opps didn't psych, and which can try 3nt depending on strength and relative vulnerability or just defend undoubled.

Really I can think of no situation where a double should be defined as "2+" with strength. It's not very useful to show "2+" in the enemy suit. It's quite useful to show 2-. And the only time the double should show exactly 2 is after some sort of 1nt or 2nt opening, with opener making a takeout double.

[iandayre]

I didn't intend to post this in two places, sorry for the confusion.

Partner's hand, with no spots above an 8: Kxxx, Kxx, Kx, KQxx. 4S suffered from the easily anticipated problem of needing to ruff with trump honors. Of the other bids, the cuebid led to disaster, GIB launching into BW and reaching 6C. Irritatingly, the gross underbids of 3H and 4C all got a 4H bid from partner. Perhaps I didn't give double enough consideration. That also successfully reached 4H.