I am often less critical than many of Gib bidding. However! Playing yesterday there were two hands , one right after the other, when Gib and I were not on the same wavelength. My objection in both cases is from a general philosophical viewpoint. Trigger warning: This will be a bit preachy.
First hand:
Red against white, imps, partner deals and opens 1
, rho passes. You hold
9
KJ4
QJ953
Q964
We are playing inverted minors, a phrase that means different things to different people. For the Gibs, it means that 2
is forcing but not game forcing. BWS (Bridge World Standard) agrees, so even though some play 2
as game forcing, the way that I, the Gibs, and BWS play it has some broad support. Gib says I need 10 highs, but with shape and good support this hand seems to qualify.
So I bid 2
.
Now Lho doubled, but I want to pretend for the moment that he did not. Uncontested 1
- 2
- 2NT - 3
. Gib tells you what its bids mean. We are not in a gf auction, 2NT was a minimal balanced hand. So 3
? To my mind this announces: Playing in a partscore is fine by me, I think 3
is better than 2NT. It is not an invitation to 3NT, which is what Gib bid. 3NT was off 1, it could have been off 2. 3
is a solid contract that, because of the lie of the cards, produce 11 tricks. Not that anyone would want to be in 5
, just looking at our cards, but it makes.
Now include lho after my 2
, so the auction is 1
- Pass - 2
- 2NT. I am fine with his 2NT,and it shows a bit extra since passing was an option but imo it doesn't really change the meaning of my pull to 3
: A partscore sounds right, and 3
is preferable to 2NT.
Back to BWS for a moment. BWS plays 1m-2m as forcing to at least 3m. I have often thought this is right, for just the sort of reason that happens here. If the 2m bidder has a hand that is not strong enough to raise 2NT to 3NT then quite often, after 1m-2m-2NT, the hand should be played in 3m. I don't feel strongly about this, I can play the 2NT as passable, sometimes playing 2NT is right, but quite often responder will go to 3m anyway. This is a hand such as the one I had.
Next hand:
White against red, imps, rho deals and opens 1
. You hold
KQ9763
AK3
KQ8
2
I am more cautious than some about doubling and then bidding my suit, but surely that is the right plan here. Good values, the spade suit, three card support for the other two suits. I double. The entire auction:
1
- X - 2
- P
P - 2
- 3
- P
P - X - P -4
Wait a moment. There should be a way to contest 3
by playing in something at the 3 level. With my hand, we might be able to play in 3 of something. In fact partner does have five hearts. He also has three spades, so playing in spades is right. But some hands, this one for example, belong at the 3 level. If he is going to pass over 3
rather than bid 3
, and then jump to 4
over X instead of bidding 3
, how do we get to 3
? Yes, I could have bid 3
but I have already shown long spades and quite possibly, from my perspective, the right 3 level contract might be in hearts or diamonds. I am not so interested in saying whether partner should have bid 3
over 3
or passed and then bid 3
after the double, but passing and then jumping to 4
precludes playing in 3
.
Partner's hand:
JT5
97654
JT63
4
Obviously there are three aces to lose, and we will lose a heart unless it can be pitched on a long diamond. They can, but didn't, prevent that from happening.
The common thread here is to give partner some room to contest the auction at a part score level. On the first hand, I felt that 3
was better than 2NT and I was right. On the second hand I made 4
, even after misplaying it, but it requires the cards to be just right. They are, but the hand could have been set either by inspired defense or by taking advantage of my misplay. Drawing trump in two rounds, I left a small trump on the board, depriving me of a needed entry if they just hold up on the
s. I needed to either keep a high spade on the board or the
3 in my hand. I know better, I was just careless. Not for the first time. Anyway, the right contract is 3
even if I did make 4.