[lycier]

---

Of course,a great pity that I lost slam.
1- I think it is very incorrect for Gib to rebid 2♥ after my 2♦,why not 2♠?
Usually 2♥ shows 6-card ♥ except several special minimum hand.My 2♦ is forcing two over one and promises forcing to game,so Gib E should rebid 2♠ to describe its 5-4 distributions in the hand.
I have to say that rebidding 2♥ is not a correct approach of two over one game force,complete,it comes from the concept of garbage box in the old 2/1 system.
2- When holding 15hcp even with balanced hand,Gib E should cuebid 4♦ showing ♦A or first round control with slammish.

[Bbradley62]

Just to see the full description of 3♥:

---

[Stephen Tu]

lycier, on 2015-April-11, 23:44, said:

Of course,a great pity that I lost slam.
1- I think it is very incorrect for Gib to rebid 2♥ after my 2♦,why not 2♠?

This is a style thing.

1h-2d-2h shouldn't usually show 6 card hearts without special agreements. There are a lot of minimum hands that ought to bid 2H to give partner max room to describe. If you want 2h to show 6, then you need to have agreements like bidding 2nt as a catchall without promising stoppers (which can wrongside 3nt), and/or high reversing to 3c or raising 3d on minimum hands, which causes their own difficulties.

Reversing to 2s shows extras for some people, it's still helpful to distinguish strength ranges. One can still find spade fit after 1h-2d-2h-2s-3s, and then opener is limited.

Quote

I have to say that rebidding 2♥ is not a correct approach of two over one game force,complete,it comes from the concept of garbage box in the old 2/1 system.

A lot of strong authors (Lawrence, Bergen, Kokish), still strongly advocate the necessity of a "catchall" bid, even when playing 2/1 GF. It's still useful to have a low catchall to make your higher bids better defined, makes auctions on stronger hands better since ranges are tighter.

Quote

2- When holding 15hcp even with balanced hand,Gib E should cuebid 4♦ showing ♦A or first round control with slammish.

Yes it's gross for it not to cue bid 4♦.

[lycier]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-April-12, 09:41, said:

This is a style thing.
Reversing to 2s shows extras for some people, it's still helpful to distinguish strength ranges. One can still find spade fit after 1h-2d-2h-2s-3s, and then opener is limited.
A lot of strong authors (Lawrence, Bergen, Kokish), still strongly advocate the necessity of a "catchall" bid, even when playing 2/1 GF. It's still useful to have a low catchall to make your higher bids better defined, makes auctions on stronger hands better since ranges are tighter.

As I earlier said,in fact Gib play two over one game force,complete ! not others style.ok?
So I am sure that it is unnecessary for what you said since 2♦ promises 100% forcing to game,never include invitation.
In fact 2/1 responding includes invitation for what you said,which were out of fashion now even though some players like it.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2015-April-12, 10:19, said:

As I earlier said,in fact Gib play two over one game force,complete ! not others style.ok?

I don't understand this comment. There is more than one style of "complete" 2/1. The concept of playing a complete 2/1 system is not inconsistent with a choice of styles.

lycier, on 2015-April-12, 10:19, said:

So I am sure that it is unnecessary for what you said since 2♦ promises 100% forcing to game,never include invitation.

I don't believe that anyone has suggested in this thread that 2D may be game invitational. You have extrapolated that inference from a suggestion that benefits can be derived from opener limiting his hand. Such benefits are by no means limited to determining whether you should be in game.

[Stephen Tu]

lycier, on 2015-April-12, 10:19, said:

As I earlier said,in fact Gib play two over one game force,complete ! not others style.ok?

That's irrelevant. Even in the context of 2/1 GF, no exceptions, there is still utility in having a low level catchall bid to make higher bids more tightly defined. If it were simply a matter of whether to bid game or not, then yes, you could play a style where opener just bids out shape regardless of strength, and usually survive. But the problem comes when there is the question of slam or not. Then it helps to use these low level catchalls to subdivide opener's strength ranges more.

Consider 1h-2d-3c-?. Suppose responder has some extra values, like around 16 HCP. If 3c can be some 3514 11 count, 3nt may be quite high enough. So you bid 3nt. But then opener also has extra values. But responder can be some 12/13 count. So opener passes. You miss slam, because both partners have too wide ranges of ~12-17, and both are top end of the range.

Now one or the other could be more aggressive, and bid 4nt or something like that to show extras. But now one has the issue of:
- 4nt down 1 when other has a min or misfit and things break badly
- if 4nt now only shows 16/17, what do you do when you have a stronger invite of 18-19 or such?

[steve2005]

There are several ways to play 2/1. I agree 100% with what Stephen Tu said and I believe this is the method Gib uses. Also, the one I use where 2♥ is a catchall bid.

And god what monster of a hand does Gib need to cooperate with a 4♦ cuebid?

[lycier]

.

Some play that 2/1 is not absolutely game forcing and the pair can stop below game when responder rebids his suit.
For example:
1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 3♣

3♣ may be treated as nonforcing,for example Lawrence 2/1 etc.
Now,do you think all of 2/1 is 100% game forcing?

[Stephen Tu]

lycier, on 2015-April-12, 22:19, said:

3♣ may be treated as nonforcing,for example Lawrence 2/1 etc.
Now,do you think all of 2/1 is 100% game forcing?

It's 100% forcing to 3nt (some play that one can stop in 4m if 3nt is found to be unplayable due to lack of stopper).

But it's still irrelevant to your original argument, that 100%GF implies that rebid M = 6, opener just bids shape, no catchall bid. Using a catchall bid is not dependent on whether 2/1 is GF or not. If 2/1 is not a GF, a catchall is completely indispensable. If 2/1 is GF, in one sense you can get away without a catchall a fair percentage of the time, you end up in the same spot either way, after all most hands can only make game not slam, and very often you just end up in the same 3nt as everyone else. But your bidding accuracy will probably suffer on stronger hands, deciding whether to risk venturing beyond 3nt exploring for 6 of a minor or 6nt, in the view of most system designers.

For example, Mike Lawrence's 2/1 CD product, which changed to a 100% GF style in contrast to his earlier "workbook" where rebidding the 2/1 suit was NF on many auctions, still advocates using 2M as a catchall bid, and not making high reverses on minimums, etc.

[steve2005]

lycier, on 2015-April-12, 22:19, said:

.Some play that 2/1 is not absolutely game forcing and the pair can stop below game when responder rebids his suit.
For example:
1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 3♣
3♣ may be treated as nonforcing,for example Lawrence 2/1 etc.
Now,do you think all of 2/1 is 100% game forcing?

Yes, some people play this. Like I said earlier there are many ways to play 2/1. But not for Gib it is GF. Those who do play that way check off the box "Game Forcing except when suit rebid" on their convention card in the General Approach area, Gib has "Game Forcing" checked.

[georgi]

1M - 2m
2OM or bidding higher suit now asks GIB to have 16+TP.

The hand in the diagram has 15TP, so it's very close, but still under the range to do so.

Later

1♥ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♥
3♠/4m Cuebid might have stronger hand, but weaker trump, so that hand was unable to bid 3♥ or 3M instantly over 2minor GF.

Will be addressed for some polish as such maximum hands of the minimum range should reveal themselves once partner shows interest on next round.