[Bbradley62]

---

(1)The upper limit on the 1♠ bid should be 18 or 19 total points, since I did not jump shift.
(2)The explanation of 2♣ makes no sense at all. 3+C? What is cut off at the end is "22 total points". 2♣ should show a hand that is simply trying to compete, not trying to investigate game opposite a hand that dropped the auction.
(3)The explanation of 3♠ is even more strange than the explanation of 2♣. 4+S? 2- total points? Forcing?

[cloa513]

(1)The upper limit on the 1♠ bid should be 18 or 19 total points, since I did not jump shift.
Its shocking that Ginsberg (I assume) couldn't define correctly such a simple ordinary sequence- he must be total bridge moron.
(2)The explanation of 2♣ makes no sense at all. 3+C? What is cut off at the end is "22 total points". 2♣ should show a hand that is simply trying to compete, not trying to investigate game opposite a hand that dropped the auction.
More absymal definition- with all this rubbish in GIB's hand definition- is it any wonder that GIB bids poorly. Afterall you didn't double 1NT.
(3)The explanation of 3♠ is even more strange than the explanation of 2♣. 4+S? 2- total points? Forcing?
[/quote]