wbartley

If it isn't forcing then 4♣ is a standout with that undisclosed 7 bagger.

Just play bridge robot. Human South. [hv=pc=n&s=saj962hakqjd9cq32&w=skt83h64dat86542c&n=s7ht95dkqcajt9874&e=sq54h8732dj73ck65&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1s3dpp3hppp]399|300[/hv] New suit at the three level by an unpassed responder should be forcing, no?

Just play bridge robot. Human South [hv=pc=n&s=sj63hakjt942dcak6&w=saq854h75dj87cj95&n=st9h863dakq6432c4&e=sk72hqdt95cqt8732&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1h1s2sp3cp3hp4dppp]399|300[/hv] Explanation of the 4♦ bid is appropriate. It essentially says it's a cue bid showing first round control of diamonds. This seems particularly bad here because the 2♠ bid marginally agrees hearts. The simplest sort of heuristic here would solve the problem. If GIB doesn't recognize a bid and there is an agreed upon suit, rather than passing, it should just make a minimum bid in the agreed suit. 1X=2X, 1X=3X, 1X-1Y-2Y, and 1X-2Y-3Y all come immediately to mind. Just set a flag in these few situations indicating that X is the agreed suit and if GIB thereafter runs into a hole in its bidding database, DON'T PASS!

I didn't even think about the meaning of the double of 2♣. Silly of me.

Just Play Bridge Robot, human South [hv=pc=n&s=skqj86ht82daqckj9&w=satha943dt97643c3&n=s95hkqj5dk852c862&e=s7432h76djcaqt754&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1np2cd2sp2np3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

I'm interested in what the experts in GIB have to say. The point of my post was that either the explanation for the bid is incorrect in a pretty bad way, i.e., it says a bid is forcing when it isn't. Or, the bid is supposed to be forcing and there's a bug in GIB that is allowing it to pass a forcing bid.

Should be a pretty good result given that NS are cold for 7D.

Just play bridge robot. Human South. [hv=pc=n&s=skhk7654daqt5caqj&w=sqj8753hqt932dct3&n=sa2hdj98732ck9764&e=st964haj8dk64c852&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1hp2dp3dppp]399|300[/hv] The explanation given for the 3♦ bid is: Raise of minor -- 4+♦; 5+ ♥; 21- HCP; 13-22 total points; forcing It seems reasonable that this bid should be forcing in spite of the non-forcing nature of the 2♦ call.

The description of 2♥ was 5+♠; 4+♥, of course.

Just play bridge robot. Human South. [hv=pc=n&s=skqt95hkj62dack73&w=sj43h43dk653cqt96&n=s76ht9875dq987ca8&e=sa82haqdjt42cj542&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1d1s2dpp2hp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

Just play bridge robot. [hv=pc=n&s=sat93haqt6daj5c94&w=sk86hkjdkt74cq753&n=sj542h743dq9862c6&e=sq7h9852d3cakjt82&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1npp2cp2np3cdppp]399|300[/hv] 2NT was described as balanced, invite. Double was described as "Takeout double -- 2♣; 3-5♦; 3-5♥; 3-5♠; 17- HCP; 18 total points"

Just play bridge robot. Human is South. [hv=pc=n&s=skq43hak9djcaqt52&w=sj976h5dk8752cj96&n=sa8hqj864daq3ck83&e=st52ht732dt964c74&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1cp1hp2sp3cp3hp4np5sp5np6hppp]399|300[/hv] The description of the 2♠ bid was 5+♣; biddable spades, 18-21 HCP, etc. The description of the 3♥ bid was the same with 3+♥ added. The description of the 5N bid was Query kings. Have all keycards. The description of the 6♥ bid was King of H; 5+♣; 3+♥; 18-21 HCP; biddable ♠; ♣Q; ♥K; 19-22 total points My questions isn't so much why didn't GIB bid 7♥ but why did it bid 5N in the first place if it wasn't going to use the information it gained?

Just Play Bridge robot. South is human. [hv=pc=n&s=sqha2dkq863cak875&w=sajt963hdat97ct94&n=s8hjt98765dj42c63&e=sk7542hkq43d5cqj2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2n4spp4np5c]399|300[/hv] The explanation for the 4NT bid was 5+♣; 5+♦; 18+ total points.

Just play bridge robot. Human sitting South [hv=pc=n&s=s5hk8dkj85cakj952&w=sqjhjt73d97432ct6&n=sak9872haq2dcq873&e=st643h9654daqt6c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2cp3cp3dp4dp5cppp]399|300[/hv] The explanation of the 4♦ bid was: Cue bid -- 4+♣; 1+♥; 5+♠; 21- HCP; ♦A; no ♥A; no ♠A; 17-22 total points

I may be mistaken but I think the point OP is trying to make is that 3♣ should not systemically have a minimum length of four in this sequence. If you look at the description of the double, it's for takeout and it shows spades and diamonds, not clubs. Systemically, a bid of 3♣ should show at least six.

In my opinion this is a bit more subtle a question than I would normally post here but I'm interested in your opinions on the matter. Just play bridge robot. Human is sitting South. [hv=pc=n&s=saq8hak65d9752caj&w=skth8daqj43ckt987&n=s9742hqj9432dt8c5&e=sj653ht7dk6cq6432&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d2cppdp2hp3hppp]399|300[/hv] I bid 3H reluctantly. I still think it's a bit of a stretch, but my question is, shouldn't North bid 4 with two extra trumps and a singleton in clubs? The hand made four even with South's ultra minimum. On a side note, notice the horrible 2♣ bid and inexplicable absence of a raise from East.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you show me a hand consistent with South's and the opponents' bidding where 5H is the wrong action by North? I've tried and I can't come up with one.

Just play bridge robot. South is human. [hv=pc=n&s=s5hakqjtdqjt965cq&w=sqj43h5da83cj8752&n=s876h876432d7cat9&e=sakt92h9dk42ck643&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1s2s4sp]399|300[/hv] This seems like a clear 5H bid by GIB. Anyone disagree?

In case anyone cares, a bridgewinners poll with 18 responders (for the moment) is showing 94% bidding 3NT. 1 vote for club transfer and 17 for 3NT. Update: Poll is now 26-1 in favor of 3NT

That's small (doubleton king offside and declarer holding 2 clubs also) compared to the fact that double dummy opponents always make the right lead. I would suspect that double dummy analysis is pessimistic from declarer's point of view. The number of situations where correct play and double dummy play by declarer changes the result is almost certainly less than the number of times the correct (or ambiguously correct) single dummy lead hands declarer his contract.

You partner holds at least 15 HCP, you have 8. That means your partner holds at least 15 of the outstanding 32 points. Combine that with the fact that he has way more than two clubs on average and he's going to hold the club K about half the time, not 1/3 of the time.

There is no way that 3NT is less than 50% on average. Dummy's club holding will produce 6 tricks way more often than it won't. This is not nitpicking. I predict that if you give this hand to 100 experts, 100 of them will bid 3NT regardless of colors and regardless of scoring method, assuming they aren't looking for a swing.

Just play bridge robot. [hv=pc=n&s=saq42ha3dat86ck65&w=st7hk54dqj943c732&n=sj53h82d75caqj984&e=sk986hqjt976dk2ct&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1np2np3cppp]399|300[/hv] Human is South. GIB transfers to clubs when it should just bid 3NT

I've seen this sort of thing before where GIB indicates it's playing some sort of canape responses to takeout doubles. I created this diagram using the full editor. Human is South. All other seats are GIB. There were explanations for all the bids which more or less correctly described the hands which I have omitted. Note the explanation of the final 4♥ bid. [hv=pc=n&s=skq3hkq5dakqt4ck3&w=s65ht9762d98753c8&n=s98haj43djcjt7654&e=sajt742h8d62caq92&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1sdp3cp3np4h(4%2B%20clubs%3B%205%2B%20hearts%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points)ppp]399|300[/hv]

The explanation for the 6NT bid is 22-24 HCP. GIB has 15 HCP. It doesn't matter what you think of the 6NT bid. It has nothing to do with the point. The point is that if the bidding goes 1NT showing 15-17 HCP and GIB has 22 HCP and a balanced hand, it's going to bid 7NT. If on this auction it thinks 6NT shows 22-24 HCP, why is it not bidding 7NT holding 15 HCP?