GIB bidding error

[Gerben42]

Hi, I'd like to report an error in GIB's bidding database.

 

We had the following auction:

 

1♣ 1♠ p 3♦

 

This was explained as 5+♦, 12+ but GIB as overcaller then passed.

Irrelevant but then the auction continued:

 

1♣ 1♠ p 3♦

p p X 3♠

p p X p

p p

 

making, +530 :)

[barmar]

I had a hand a couple of days ago in an MBT where my GIB partner made 2 unforced bids with a Yarborough. I'm trying to find it, but the "Show Boards" links on the recent MBTs web page don't seem to work -- they all display "No data found".

[newmoon]

I play a few GIB Money Tournaments, and I was pleasantly surprised at how GIB played a slam.

 

I was dummy, and really thought Meckstroth, Fred, or Zia was sitting opposite me! :rolleyes:

 

The hand?

July's hand: Newmoon's page

[barmar]

Speaking of slams, I've also noticed that GIB usually makes them when they're makeable (unfortunately, it's usually EW). But the other day he had a bogus auction that got them to 6NT-2. Partner GIB opened 1♠-P-P, then LHO GIB balanced with 2NT, which was explained as 19-20 balanced with likely ♠ stopper, so RHO GIB jumped to 6NT with his nice 11-12 HCP. What LHO actually had was about 15 HCP with ♠ATx.

[barmar]

Well, I take back what I said about GIB's brilliant slam declarer play. :)

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sktxxxhxxdqjxxca8&s=sajxxhqdakxckqt9x]133|200|Scoring: Total Points[/hv]

 

The auction was 1♣-1♠-4♥-5♠-6♠. The opening lead was a small ♣, West played the J, GIB won with his A. He played a trump to the K and a trump back to his A, getting the bad news when West showed out. So there's a sure trump loser and a ♥ loser. At this point he played a ♣ to dummy, East ruffed and took his ♥, down 1.

 

The contract can actually be made by discarding my ♥ on the 4th ♦. It seems like he was playing East for having led from 3 or 4 small in the suit I bid, but it seems more likely to be a singleton. Once you assume this, he's also likely to have at least 3 ♦ (else he has a 7-card ♥ that was never mentioned), so playing on ♦ seems the percentage line.

 

I could be misremembering the hand, and maybe we didn't have the ♦J, so it required them to be exactly 3-3. This still seems more likely to me than that the lead was from length. But maybe it's just sour grapes, as this was the second slam we went down in during that MBT session (the first one I knew I was gambling a bit when I leaped to slam, and the opponents took the first two tricks when partner's control in their suit wasn't as good as I'd hoped).