iandayre

Good question. Doesn't seem to matter much here, 3NT looks like -2 as well. I assume it responded 1H when the opening bid was 1C?

I don't give credit for idiot bids that happen to work. I would say that the E hand is too good for the strong jump overcall, especially in the balancing seat. On the second hand, it seems clear that E should at least jump to 6H.

Kind of humorous, W underbids, E overbids and they get to the normal spot.

No doubt you mean it is not a penalty pass, and of course you are correct. GIB is apparently only using HCP count to make these decisions, and that is a major flaw that needs to be addressed promptly. In this case the value bid seems to be 5D, but that certainly may work out poorly. Any better ideas?

What it amounts to is, if the description of 2H causes GIB N to want to raise, the description is poor, since the hand is a clear pass of 2H.

Exactly. I posted on this a while ago. It is perfectly fine to play the 4th suit 1S as 3+ GF if playing Walsh. That is unplayable if you bid ♦ before a major over 1C.

Agreed. Hand isn't good enough for 4S so 4H is the only sensible option

Very very few attempts at game should require 25 points, but for some reason that is very common with the GIB descriptions. OK here is my code word - GDSFT. Stands for GIB descriptions suck, fix them.

The issue of GIB's inability to count 13 tricks has been mentioned several times before, and it certainly does apply on this hand if GIB, as is apparent, is playing you for 5 key cards plus the SQ. Have you noticed, this is one issue that BBO personnel have never responded to or addressed. And while I don't think 4S is a terrible action in real life, regulars here all know that the biggest sin playing with GIB is overbidding. You just have to bid only 3S on this hand, or possibly 2H. I would love to test those two choices over many hands to see which works best in the long run.

Not even close. Double is hopeless.

4H. Just can't see not giving game a shot. And for any considering 2S - if 1S is constructive, not forcing, then 2S is the forcing S call. A fit jump would be right if you were a passed hand.

Yes, let's hope so. Here is one good example, GIB's range for a positive Lebensohl advance is way too high. Should be about 8-11. It should also be more willing to simply jump to a major suit game with appropriate length (5+) and values instead of fooling around with Lebensohl or cuebids.

There aren't that many of them, but all descriptions that purport to show exactly 1 card in a given suit are very suspect.

This is one of those descriptions that is inaccurate by definition, since N would have made a negative double or bid the suit on the first round with that holding. I need some sort of catch phrase or code word which means "the descriptions are full of contradictions and impossibilities, there needs to be a major project to sift through them and improve them". I am getting tired of having to type it out over and over.

Or maybe we should be able to give the errant GIB an electric shock when it makes a particularly bad bid or play.

I apologize, but I don't understand your comment. What exactly are you fixing? Other than the fact that it can't possibly bid 3D, what needs to be fixed, as Stephen Tu said, is that 3C shows some extras but is NOT 16-22 points. GIB should be passing it with this hand. In addition, any time you make a negative double, then bid a suit it shows at least 5 cards, more likely 6. I have seen many times where GIB does not follow this basic principle.

A hand from an ACBL IMP tournament today. I chose the more aggressive 3D over the negative double, GIB bid 3NT which made on poor defense and a bit of luck. I take no credit for it. http://tinyurl.com/nkt3vtf Most bid 3C over the negative double. And of course, GIB should consider no action but Pass. But GIB bid its 3 card suit to the 9! Why does BBO continue to allow GIB to bid like this??

I couldn't agree more.

I suspect not, I think he just didn't look at the description and thought 4NT was RKC for S, or straight BW. But that's not the point. Don't you think it SHOULD be for Spades? If you find all the Aces you can then ask for Kings.

Another thing that needs to be fixed - after the 3S jump, 4NT should be BW for Spades. Mind you it was this player's own fault for not checking the description. Too bad he was rewarded for it instead.

Well yes obviously at least one of the minors must be 2 cards. But it does say "balanced hand" so I really don't see any possibility of confusion.

There are many candidates for the worst description of a GIB action, but the one for 4H gets my vote for the best. It is EXACTLY what 4H should mean, and at least in this case, GIB is not overriding it.

Actually it's exactly the opposite. You need 2M to be natural playing Walsh, because over 1C-1D opener will bypass a 4 card Major to bid 1NT. GIB will bid a major over 1C-1D with a balanced hand, so it makes sense in non-Walsh style that 2S does not promise length. On the actual hand it is an excellent attempt at lead-inhibiting.

Valid point, certainly 2NT must show a H stopper.

This is a case where the description of a raise such as 3H is way too high. This hand is more than good enough in reality, and the descriptions need to be adjusted.