[msheald]

Hello! My partner and I play a simple Standard American system. In the following bid sequence, opener would typically have bid 2NT over responders 2D since a rebid of spades promises 6+ cards in the suit, and the 2NT would be the lowest possible bid over the new suit of responder (which is forcing).

In the bid description, I see that robot only promises 5+ cards when rebidding a suit. What would a 2NT response by robot opener mean in its system rather than a 2 spade rebit? Thank you and best regards.

Mike

https://tinyurl.com/26y9crmr

[smerriman]

Last I checked a couple of years ago, GIB never rebids 2nt with any hand. Most definitely not for any logical reason, of course.

[smerriman]

Checked again and confirmed that 2NT simply does not exist for GIB.

While that's atrocious, 2♠ not promising 6 is a common bidding style in general - players are divided into two camps, one where it promises 6, and one where it doesn't.

The logic for those who it doesn't is that if you're forced to bid 3♣ with a dead minimum 5314 12 count (or 5-5 shapes which could be even weaker openers) as well as stronger hands, how will partner with, say, a 16 count be able to distinguish when you should be in 3NT and when you should be in slam with no room left to explore?

[msheald]

Thank you, all, for your comments. I appreciate them. Best regards.

Mike

[msheald]

Here is an interesting hand, though a rebid by responder rather than opener.

https://tinyurl.com/22qh5gqs


I would have bid 3NT in robot's place rather than rebidding 3S. For me to have rebid spades, I would have wanted more than 5 to the Jack since I would have thought that partner likely had two spades. If 3 spades, then I would have thought that there was a good chance of losing two spade tricks. Given the increased chance of losing two other tricks on other suits, NT would have seemed a better game bid for me on the most likely card distribution deals. But then, I find that I tend to bid NT more often than other folks (and make it more often than other folks, at least at my intermediate level.)

Of course, the only real way to tell would be to run simulations with several thousand deals in order to see which might be the correct bid.

Robot's rebids, either as declarer or responder, tend to have too wide a range in strength for my taste, and, therefore, make it more difficult for me to place the final contract, at least at my intermediate level, than how I play with my human partner. Best regards.

Mike

[helene_t]

3♠ doesn't promise 6, but with a bit of a stopper in each of the unbid suits, 3NT is a reasonable alternative.

Haman's Law says that when 3NT is a possible contract and now may be the last chance of getting there, you should bid 3NT. It may apply here.

3NT works better when opener can't bid 3NT themselves although it is a good contract - something like a solid diamond suit but only half a heart stopper, or no club stopper.

3NT could be wrong - opener could have 3-card support and shortness in one of the unbid suits, such as here.

Note that pass would also be an option for North if playing a more normal SA style in which 3♦ is limited to about 17 points. But the robots play the 3♦ bid as almost forcing.

[1175]

msheald, on 2024-May-19, 05:32, said:

Here is an interesting hand, though a rebid by responder rather than opener.

https://tinyurl.com/22qh5gqs

While I agree with many of your claims, on the hand give, declarer should have made 4♠ once declarer shifted to a heart at trick three. This always makes 3♠ (double dummy), but can't even make 1NT (assuming East finds the club lead).