cloa513

No a great place to necessarily play and you have partially wasted a whole sequence of bidding- you could have 5 ♣+ for which 3NT or a possible 6♣ would be a lot easier.

Don't bid the 1♠, bid 1NT. Those sort of details should explicitly discussed in the system notes (it is a system from a blank slate) but aren't.

Why should 4♠ be limited to 12- total points? What am I supposed to do with a slightly stronger hand, like the one here? 3♠ (instead of 4♠) was explained as 3+S and 12- total points. Why does it matter- more TP is not needed to reach a better contract- you need controls to get slam(those diamond HCP aren't worth much though the major's HCP are gold) ? Can you cue? What does 2NT (if natural then it should be conventional asking to clarify the strength of the hand) mean? Give your hand just the Q of spades instead of Jack and then if North's void was in clubs then assuming he held the J of Diamonds then slam would be good- only minor changes whereas an extra K of clubs is of limited value.

It not really that its void that's bad- void is no big deal because its not on lead rather that its nearly dead minimum on high card points (apparently it opens with 10 with 5/5 suits) and the high viability of playing in hearts contract rather a possibly difficult penalty double. I am sure GIB knows what to do if you double- raise you game in hearts. You really have to double with such a minimum hand- add the 10♣ and your hand much less marginal.

Unfortunately they will never program that in as its too specific.

Gotta to love that 3♣ bid- totally insane.

It should be allowed to bid 3♦ which is weaker than 2♦ on such hands. If it was weaker still, it should be allowed to bid 1NT which merely says 3-Clubs, 3-Spades, 4+Hearts 6-9HCP. A lot of descriptions are way too descriptive (restrictive).

This probably a better question for the BBO Support Forum- there you might get an answer.

Either a 10 of diamonds (misleading leads are better) or a low diamond- only needs partner to have the 9 or higher for it to be good. Its impossible for you to tell it might be a great double- partner might have one sure spade trick with 5 spades.

Anyway what is really wrong is that the hand should be evaluated using 8421 points which is slam region hand evaluation- then its clear cut.

After South's cuebid, North should have the choices of: * signing off/simply competing to 2♠ * inviting to 4♠ * bidding 4♠. Each of these three alternatives should be assigned different subsets of North's initial possible strength range (8-17HCP; 9-19 total), with the understanding that there's sometimes fudging based on extra trumps and other factors. Unfortunately, both 2♠ and 3♠ as North's second bid carry the same description as North's original 1♠ bid. 4♠ as a possible second bid said "15HCP"; not 14, not 16, exactly 15. Can we please tier the explanations of 2♠/3♠/4♠? Thanks. It also has the choice of pass in this hand which should minimum hand with high card points in hearts.

Despite the funny analysis of your hand- it manages to get to the really good small slam. The problem is the opening of 2♥- its got three places to play- hearts, clubs and spade- it has too much- its not a defensive hand in nearly purely hearts. Its should have most of its high card points in hearts (10-12 is reasonable for vul against not). Its really a pass as the 1 level isn't a reasonable opening either.

You know those documents are ridiculous lean on content.

GIB has that 2♣ as fit showing when an opponent open 1♣ and that bidding is the same. Trouble is you didn't read the description of 3♥ which is fit showing.

If the simulation has an 8-1 club break, the contract is doomed anyway as South must get 2 heart tricks so GIB loses all morale and plays badly for even more down.

That's how GIB mind supposed works. You are still wrong. This given hand is ridiculous evaluation agreed but that's internal rules that GIB is supposed to follow. So you are saying GIB doesn't follow its internal evaluation so its not following its own rules. You are basically saying GIB doesn't follow any logic- no matter how bad. There are dozen of hands where the GIB evaluation has ridiculous evaluations of its hand but it still plugs through its TP evaluation (e.g. shortage in opponents suit) and using TP for NT bidding. That's GIB TP evaluation. HCP is better described as Milton Work Index(MWI)- 4 for ace etc. Indeed TP=MWI+ Distribution Points(DP). Its in the system notes that DP is 1 for doubleton, 2 for singleton, 3 for void and 1 for extra cards in the long suit longer than 5. There is no special aggregation. GIB has a lot of logic using TP even it obviously nearly impossible to do real simulations using it. MWI is much better because there is 40 HCP in a pack.

Except you are wrong- at the 2 double-tons add 2 more TP so its at least 22TP. 20HCP yes but isn't such a point the reason to have simulations- yet you don't use it ridiculous.

The link via "examples" says nothing- the variation is all due human stuffups.

You have wonder what's in GIB simulations where letting East win with the K makes sense for South's hand (assumes SOuth plays DD) and what a return in the same suit could lose. Anyone want to imagine what could be that possibility?

Clearly South is insane not strong enough for 2 over 1 bid if the opener can be light but the bid descriptions are just about totally useless- no limit to HCP or TP beyond original limits. But North also insane, South can't sign off in 3NT and just because North has one more spade continue on to slam.

But then GIB will actually have to cash those ace(s) from lead at least, how do you ensure it actually does that? If it plays like it usually does, declarer will cash 12/13 tricks in other suits to make.

It probably simulates you as having a spade void and therefore 4♥ and that playing better than clubs. By blind DD simulation it has got a better place- 2♣ is 2 down and 2♥ is 1 down.

Maybe it simulates that the bidding will go on to some bid with less down.

Its probably another GIB HCP=TP problem which is absolute garbage of course and total ill-definition of bids- look how wide is the TP range for 4♣- 12-22 is nearly meaningless- and despite the description in Bradley's example that's probably the information it gets there so it has no idea what to do next. Partner: I have an opening hand- GIB ???????? gotta to pass. Partner: I have a impossibly strong hand GIB: slam is always right.

North probably has a quality check about its hearts- I count nearly 9TPs but they are a terrible evaluation (counting a honour singleton twice in the opponents suit)- you should have expected that and your hand is 19HCP of appalling shape (your K♠is worthless as fitting with North which absolutely need to have a chance at game) - I wouldn't want to come in there.