cloa513

Comes back to the attrocious hand evaluation and ill thought out book bids- another 1 second thought book bid.

Isn't the 9 TP limit for a double response too high? I would have thought 8-11 TP for a two level response. Any stronger then cue or bid NT or a minor.

The best way is to cash the top diamonds (discarding a spade from dummy) and cash two top hearts and cash the AS and ruff out a spade. Typical GIB block yourself play- you always gotta to wonder with GIB does it really do DD analysis.

Why would want to be in 4S with East's hand- its a clear 3NT bid over 2NT- its awful thought process by GIB to even think of playing in a major with such a flat hand.

I think you mean, after reading what you wrote many times to acertain the meaning, is that he should bid major at game level to superaccept with an unbalanced hand. Other than 3NT, any other bid is nearly undefined. Maybe 4H is a hand holding 5 hearts and 2 spades and a　maximum.

Hitting chronic underbidding here- South's hand is worth much more than 18 HCP with long spades and North's hand is instant massive improved above 11HCP with South's spade opening.

EW make 4H only if NS play clubs for them. Crappeletti strikes again- a dumb convention especially for GIBs- how can West know what East has with such a vague bid in order to simulate- he has to have a book bid to help him either 2NT or X to push out the true suit.

Sort of penalty- North wants to bid 2♠ and the wide point range is to cover a range of vulnerabilities. It only bids 3♠ for an overcall with 4 card support following the law of total tricks.

Given GIB's rediculous system requiring 14 TP for that bid, double is the only option. Double seems totally reasonable.

At least it shouldn't jump bid with useless spade values but they'd never work hard on GIB's hand evaluation.

When good thread go astray. I think you wanted this in something like tournament forum not the GIB forum

Declarer ♠AQx Dummy ♠10 All other suits either eliminated or dummy holds the tops. Its in hand and declarer needs two more tricks and hasn't been paying attention to defender's play so how it could it possibly lose to play the ♠x. At the table they either gave up or assuming the remote chance of a singleton K♠ and so lead A♠.

or even four card majors. Shouldn't 3D be 100% forcing?

Sounds like higher level bids are undefined in GIB's mind.

Why not a heart discard?

Why does neither human evaluate his hand right- its worth about 18 so its too strong to open 1NT and over unusual 1NT, its worth 2NT. I guess GIB thinks you are strong not the weak option of 1C- it afterall has poor decision making programmed in.

That's why I say the forward chain logic of GIB is ludicrous- it cannot possibly know what is in partner's or opponents` hands with almost any amount of bidding so the chains just lead it to the wrong place. It should always use bookbids, if not available then a simulation with that bid as the final contract and simple DD analysis will allow it get the biggest possible sample of hands. I see it simulated 11 hands out of millions.

Its not been defined for GIB- it too hopeful for them to define that when they can't define a 1 spade rebid correctly and a NT hand could have 25 TP in spades support though 25+ is rediculous.

That's not a superaccept- GIB bid spades.

Board 52 doesn't look even close to being bid like this.

Its sad the human didn't think her hand was good enough to open- most likely would have ended in 1SX.

They only went down 2 because of poor play- don't discard a heart, discard a spade.

It just illustrate the point- you can have far more that 40 TP. There is no defined amount of total points so useless for directly simulating. Why can't you be happy for once that GIB didn't mastermind the hand and force you to 7NT when you could hold a diamond void.

Because 3D is a strong bid- which I agree with somewhat. When my real life partner bid that vul against not- I took her to game and admonished her afterwards for such a poor bid- your bid is pass- the 3C is probably near max and 1C is probably 14 balanced so they'd make 3NT (like most GIB bids poorly defined Ginsberg took 3s to define those bids).

GIB is so dumb as to run from the making contract- I can't see 2♦X going down.