iandayre

3S seems fine as an attempt to reach 3NT. It shouldn't require much extra after your jump to 3C. But very valid question, if that were the case why not leave it there.

If these were humans we'd have to accuse them of cheating, seeing as how 4NT makes for a matchpoint top.

Well I agree, 2NT is not good, but if he had kept quiet the rest of the way, he might have gotten away with it. 5C was suicidal

For once the description of 3H is completely accurate, and the jump should give them a good chance to reach the slam. I don't know why E seemed to not understand the bid.

I agree. Or if not that, certainly 5C. One thing the the programmers need to do immediately is stop GIB from bidding on after having been doubled for penalty. Let it redouble 5C if it is so confident. This all said Lycier, you are not new with GIB. You should have known you can't bid 5C with this hand.

Well certainly that E hand is too good for 3C, it should bid 3H, or, depending on agreement, 3S. I see that the description of 3C is "Forces" 3C. This is incorrect. It is not like Lebensohl over NT interference, where the hand has been limited. Doubler has every right to overrule the request to bid 3C with significant extra values.

Edit - perhaps 3H isn't THAT obvious. 3D isn't awful.

.

It would for me. I have shown extras and partner has shown interest. No reason not to make a below-game cuebid. As for Jack's question, in my experience LTTC is seen more in print than real life. I have never agreed it and I have never had anyone alert it against me.

http://tinyurl.com/ldjjg9l I was amazed to find that out of 45 times this hand was played in an ACBL Robot MP tourney today, I was the only one to make the initial 2H response. I reached the normal contract despite the fact that, after GIB's 3NT rebid, I wanted to bid 4S to show my shortness there with a D fit. The description did not indicate that meaning, so I bid what I thought would make. A favorable opening lead later I took all the tricks for a shared top. All other times I have made the SJS with a fit for partner's suit I was able to show shortness in the way the treatment is designed. The point? Use the system. This hand is a clear-cut SJS so forget about "wasting a round of space" and make the bid that allows you to describe your hand most accurately. And newer players, check the meaning of bids before you make them. No fewer than 10 players languished in a part score after bidding 1H and making a non-forcing ♦ bid the next round.

I am getting a little sloppy in my reading, need to pay closer attention. Thank you.

I don't really agree. Covering retains the power of your small Spade, forcing Declarer to play the suit 3 times to draw all the trumps. If you duck, the J holds, Declarer then cashes the A and goes about his business. Won't likely matter here but I have seen hands where it does. I suppose some novice might fly with the A after a duck, but at any decent level it's not going to happen.

I have to question the value/accuracy of any "simulation" that leads W to believe that a Club lead is superior to a Spade, the suit that partner entered a live auction to bid at unfavorable vulnerability.

One of the most egregious of GIB's common errors is to attempt continued constructive bidding after your side's contract has been doubled for penalty! You are of course correct, W has business whatsoever taking any action over 3C, doubled or not, but after a double it is comically foolish.

I don't think 2/1 is the problem. The robots do reasonably well in uncontested auctions. Competitive auctions are very poorly defined in many cases, and these would be the same using 2/1, SAYC, or any other system.

I'm glad you're here Wank. You say things the way I think them, though I've learned to be a bit diplomatic over the years.

First of all I don't believe this hand (or perhaps any hand) is too strong for an SJS, but you are correct that it is inappropriate. If you do so you will never be able to bid Spades naturally, for example in the auction 1H-3C, 3H-3S, 3S is a splinter in support of Hearts. So how should the hand be bid? I actually like your auction, as long as you were able to anticipate that 5S over 5H would be a cuebid. Any you are correct that GIB should pass 6NT. If nothing else, you have bid Blackwood and it should be assuming you are off an Ace. Mind you, good human defenders would defeat that contract by doubling 6NT for a H lead. But GIB isn't up to that and you would very likely make. As for why no Double of 7H, this is a well-known oddity of GIB that is rarely discussed. Since it comes up mainly in auctions that are already hopelessly off track, I guess it concerns us less than many other issues.

I suppose it bears repeating once again. The entire database of bid explanations needs a thorough overhaul to remove nonsensical ones such as this. Sure GIB, I passed the first time with 21. Do you know what would really improve GIB? If it were able to recognize when it is playing against other GIB opponents who are not bidding on air but whose actions show the same values it would have. Now THAT I realize is too much to ask. But getting rid of the many, many ridiculous bid explanations that exist is not at all too much to ask, it is what we deserve as paying customers.

Programmers PLEASE make it stop doing this!!!!!!

I missed the fact that it was a reverse. We know that 2S is forcing, but yes, excellent question, what would 2H have meant, it seems like a normal action for this hand. Some play 4th suit at the 2 level over a reverse as the negative with 2NT natural, but I don't think GIB does. I'll try to remember to look at 2H the next time this auction comes up.

I am sure you can guess - it would be 4th suit forcing to game. Not ideal of course. There are ways around this but I will have to refer to some old notes for more details. The other issue is that if there is no non-game forcing way to bid Hearts, then 2NT would probably be a better bid than 2S. As would 2D. This is reminiscent of the recent discussion with Georgi about inverted minors. GIB is too obsessed with point count and not sufficiently concerned about reaching the right strain. And also another example of the programmers' frequently allowing GIB to make bids with insufficient suit length or strength for that level.

On the first hand 5C is shown as a raise of Clubs with 4+ cards. It's reasonable that it chose to play slam in the 4-4 fit with pitches available that would not be if the 6-2 were trump. This one is on you. On the second hand, bizarrely the 4H bid did not show Hearts! The description is the same as the 3D overcall. I really could not blame you for hoping GIB would read the bid as natural - we all know that it doesn't always have the hand the description indicates. This is a clear bug that should be fixed.

I disagree Georgi. If GIB has 3 or even two of the suit opener bids, it should NOT attempt to escape to a 4 card suit. In fact in all auctions GIB should not be voluntarily introducing 4 card suits at the 3 level or higher.

I could not agree more. The 2 level rebids by the raiser should be descriptive but not game forcing, although suit calls are unlimited. And Georgi while you are improving, please have GIB stop making inverted minor raises with 3334 shape.

I also dissgreed with 3NT showing 19, it should be the generic response showing little/no slam interest. As for BB's disagreement, I feel confident about my position. Perhaps Stephen Tu will weigh in.