[colin_sand]

I bid 2NT over a Robot 2♠ bit. I enquired with 2NT and the Robot bid 3♠. The explanation was minimum hand, but the Robot had both A and Q of spades and a 10 count. I missed a game believing the explanation.

Do Robots actually play Ogust responded to 2NT over weak twos?

[thepossum]

As with many things related to GiB the bid is different to humans

No real sense of min versus max and no real sense of features

they don't play Ogust but I have no idea what it is

I think its based on points more than anything - who knows if there are sims involved or not

Beautiful hand with a few features including an Ace and void or a terrible hand with decent points and many losers - who would know

[helene_t]

Sorry, nonsense deleted. I thought it was the opponent that opened 2♠.

[Douglas43]

Assuming the robot was your partner, the convention card says the opener should show features. So 3♠ should be a minimum. Why it bid that with a 10 count, I have no idea. Paul

[helene_t]

Ah right, thanks Paul. That makes sense.

I suppose the system is so that 2nt asks for a feature, so with a maximum without a feature and not a solid suit, it has to bid 3♠.

[smerriman]

 helene_t, on 2024-March-21, 11:10, said:

I suppose the system is so that 2nt asks for a feature, so with a maximum without a feature and not a solid suit, it has to bid 3♠.

Precisely. 'Minimum' is probably a poor description; it's more that it's unable to bid anything else.

Though in this case the outside HCP were presumably something like QJJ, and such quacky values probably means 10 HCP is a bit of an overestimate.

Perhaps if one of the side suits was QJx it may be better to 'lie' and show that as a feature, but GIB doesn't.

But if game was on despite you looking for a feature and finding none, it makes me wonder what hand you were actually bidding 2nt with, and whether there was a better alternative.

[pescetom]

Mildly OT, but I'm not thrilled by either convention... given my preference for wide-ranging weak twos I choose to play Ogust with whoever is prepared to do the same and capable of remembering the relay, but I often wish we were playing Feature all the same.

I am currently brooding on a hybrid: say that after 2X, 3♣ is junk, 3X is a good suit, 3Y a feature with same, 3N a solid suit. Thoughts are welcome.

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2024-March-21, 16:23, said:

Mildly OT, but I'm not thrilled by either convention... given my preference for wide-ranging weak twos I choose to play Ogust with whoever is prepared to do the same and capable of remembering the relay, but I often wish we were playing Feature all the same.

I am currently brooding on a hybrid: say that after 2X, 3♣ is junk, 3X is a good suit, 3Y a feature with same, 3N a solid suit. Thoughts are welcome.

I don't play extensive relays, but for weak twos in the majors you might try rolling all of one type (upper range?) into 3♣, then using 3♦ by responder as a further enquiry, if responder wants more detail?

[pescetom]

Douglas43, on 2024-March-22, 03:38, said:

I don't play extensive relays, but for weak twos in the majors you might try rolling all of one type (upper range?) into 3♣, then using 3♦ by responder as a further enquiry, if responder wants more detail?

Thanks.
My first thought was similar but opposite, to roll all the lower range into 3♣ alongside the upper range with clubs feature combination, then use 3♦ to disambiguate - I like this because it is a recurring theme in some of my other conventions (and also because if someone forgets the convention and responds plain Feature, it will probably do no harm).
But I will open a specific thread to discuss, rather than hijack this one.