[Stephen Tu]

---

Really dislike cue here holding neither major. It should IMO just bid 2♦ or 1nt, then it goes plus if North competes further.

I think the priorities with strongish hands should be:
- holding no major:
1. cue with enough for slam interest, else
2. game in NT with stopper, no slam interest
3. cue with GF values but no stopper
4. 2nt inv with stopper
5. 1nt
6. jump other minor
I guess 4/5/6 can often be close borderline decisions, might resolve by length in minor. I generally prefer NT bids when holding only 4 other minor, and tend to prefer 2nt over 3 of a minor. With 5 cd suit and being able to jump to the 2 level only and only 1 club stop I guess prefer 2d over 1nt, but might be wrong about what does better in long run.

holding both majors:
- always cue if inv+

holding one major:
- cue with GF values,
else with inv values jump in major even ahead of longer unbid minor.
with less than inv just bid major cheaply

[1eyedjack]

I go with 2N on that one

[iandayre]

2D would be my choice, but either 1NT or 2NT would be much better than the cuebid.

[lycier]

We all should know that 2♣ cuebid responding to takeout is a very important "Gib TP evaluation"ish artificial !
I guess that the Gib programmers never change this method at present whatever it is good or bad unless the total abolition of TP evaluation.

[lycier]

I meant that you should accept such 2♣ cuebid method if you would accept TP evaluation.

Any ideas?

[Stephen Tu]

Yeah lycier, what you wrote is a bunch of nonsense.

The problem is not anything to do with TP evaluation whatsoever. The hand is borderline invitational, and is either a 2d call or on the border between 1nt and 2nt depending on how aggressive one doubles with.

The issue is there are multiple choices available with this total point range, and they should not all be lumped into the cue bid. With only one major, Inv, should just jump in that major, not cue. This allows one to stay low if partner is min and doesn't want to bid game. With neither major, should either bid nt (focusing on most likely game) or jump in minor. Cue should only be hands with BOTH majors Inv+ so you find your sure 44 fit, or hands that are GF. Really cue followed by 3d ought to be forcing, because with just Inv diamonds can just bid jump 2d.

[lycier]

Stephen Tu
Such sorts of issues have entirely someting to do with TP evaluation, so especially when with 11-12 TPs in any situations, Gibs always do such cuebid. This is a kind of Gib style method.
What you said just like a falk expert, it really looks like a bunch of nonsense!
What I said is just impossible to deny the fact by anyone.
However it's great pity you always have been denied such thing.
Deliberately hiding the truth is unethical behavior.

[manudude03]

Lycier, you really are speaking nonsense here.

No-one ever said the hand wasn't worth 11-12 TP, but making a 2C cue here violates the basic principle of trying to get to the best contract. Are you happy with having to bid 3D when your hand would be otherwise be adequately described with an initial 2D bid? Personally I would say that a jump should be the top end of a passed hand, and if that can include 12 TP hands, then the system should be changed to allow 12 TP hands for a jump.

[lycier]

manudude03, on 2017-January-08, 07:00, said:

Lycier, you really are speaking nonsense here.

No-one ever said the hand wasn't worth 11-12 TP, but making a 2C cue here violates the basic principle of trying to get to the best contract. Are you happy with having to bid 3D when your hand would be otherwise be adequately described with an initial 2D bid? Personally I would say that a jump should be the top end of a passed hand, and if that can include 12 TP hands, then the system should be changed to allow 12 TP hands for a jump.

You can never pretend to know what you don't know on Gib bidding style , whatever you think, 2♣ cuebid is a important artificial for Gib, this is a basic fact. Of course, this really isn't my favorite, no one would be keen on such style unless Gib. And I think the programmers wouldn't change it.

[lycier]

I think you can't have any useful suggestion to Gib programmers now.

[manudude03]

BBO can change the meaning of bids. It wasn't that long ago that a 1NT overcall in the sandwich position was unusual. A simple shifting of a point range should be no problem.

[Stephen Tu]

Lycier why do you think you know better than we do how to bid, and what is and isn't possible to program GIB? What expertise you have in either area more than us that you presume you are right and we are wrong? It should be simple matter to lower priority of cue bid rule below jumping when inv and one major or no major. If your position is that it should always cue in this point range, then it would never utilize the jumps to 2d-2s, which would be an absurd system.

If barmar/jdonn say cannot be done, fine, but from you I believe nothing.

You really need to stfu about stuff you clearly are clueless about. Let the BBO staff say if it is really technically difficult.