Questionable Bidding x 3

[USViking]

For well over 100 deals has GIB been a pleasure to work with, and I have had no one to blame

but myself for my poor results.

 

However, GIB bidding in deals 4, 6 and 8 of Tournament #5351 Robot Duplicate- MP 2011-11-15 12:52

make me wonder about bugs somewhere:

 

#3 http://tinyurl.com/739wv3b

 

I learned in an earlier thread that there may be unusual circumstances where GIB thinks a

misleading Stayman is the best bid, but surely 2NT is an obviously much better bid here.

 

 

#6 http://tinyurl.com/6rsoutg

 

I did misinform GIB with my first bid, but is that an excuse for GIB raising with 2-card support

when two decent 5-card suits were more cheaply available? How about the 2nd raise with 2-card

support instead of trusting partner's judgement?

 

 

#8 http://tinyurl.com/794mvnx

 

I assumed at the time I made the bid that my 4 Spades was a signoff. I now see that it promises

19+ total points; is that standard? If so how does takeout doubler manage the auction to reach game

and no more after GIB bids 3 Spades? I also wonder about GIB insisting on slam with such a hand,

particularly in view of the possibly worthless ♦Q, and the hazardous 5 cards in a suit rebid by opener.

[Bbradley62]

#3 http://tinyurl.com/739wv3b

 

I learned in an earlier thread that there may be unusual circumstances where GIB thinks a

misleading Stayman is the best bid, but surely 2NT is an obviously much better bid here.

No bug here. Stayman does not promise a four-card major in this auction; this is exactly how GIB (and many humans) invites 3N. 1N-2N is a transfer to clubs.

 

This is very clearly explained in GIB's system notes: http://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php

[Bbradley62]

#8 http://tinyurl.com/794mvnx

 

I assumed at the time I made the bid that my 4 Spades was a signoff. I now see that it promises 19+ total points; is that standard? If so how does takeout doubler manage the auction to reach game and no more after GIB bids 3 Spades? I also wonder about GIB insisting on slam with such a hand, particularly in view of the possibly worthless ♦Q, and the hazardous 5 cards in a suit rebid by opener.

CHO's range is 6-15, so you need 19 to ensure that your side has the 25 needed for game. Clearly, with less than that, you are supposed to invite :P

[USViking]

No bug here. Stayman does not promise a four-card major in this auction; this is exactly how GIB (and many humans) invites 3N. 1N-2N is a transfer to clubs.

 

This is very clearly explained in GIB's system notes: http://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php

 

OK, thanks- this was as discussed before and I should have reread the earlier thread

instead of relying on my foggy memory. I should also have added GIB system notes to

my faorites for easy reference whenever there is a GIB at the table; I have done so now.

[USViking]

CHO's range is 6-15, so you need 19 to ensure that your side has the 25 needed for game. Clearly, with less than that, you are supposed to invite :P

 

Thank you for the input.

 

I hope a staff member will be able to comment also.

 

Might it be preferable in significantly more cases to allow the 4♠ bidder

to possess a good but not great hand such as 15hcp?

[georgi]

#3 http://tinyurl.com/739wv3b

 

I learned in an earlier thread that there may be unusual circumstances where GIB thinks a

misleading Stayman is the best bid, but surely 2NT is an obviously much better bid here.

That 2NT explanation will be improved, so in next version you will be informed whether it may or certainly denies major 4th holding.

 

like 1N - 2♣; 2♦/2♠ - 2N may not have major 4th/4th♥, but just invite values,

while 1N - 2♣ ; 2♥ - 2NT will definitely denies having major 4th.

 

#6 http://tinyurl.com/6rsoutg

 

I did misinform GIB with my first bid, but is that an excuse for GIB raising with 2-card support

when two decent 5-card suits were more cheaply available? How about the 2nd raise with 2-card

support instead of trusting partner's judgement?

 

2♠ having 2nd fit or less it's a glitch, which is fixed in next version.

[USViking]

That 2NT explanation will be improved, so in next version you will be informed whether it may or certainly denies major 4th holding.

 

like 1N - 2♣; 2♦/2♠ - 2N may not have major 4th/4th♥, but just invite values,

while 1N - 2♣ ; 2♥ - 2NT will definitely denies having major 4th.

 

 

 

2♠ having 2nd fit or less it's a glitch, which is fixed in next version.

Thanks you very much for replying.

 

Do you have any thoughts about deal #8 from that tournament?

 

A similar sutuation arose in the next tournament I played in:

 

#6190 Robot Dupilcate- MP, deal #8:

 

http://tinyurl.com/d5oh9za

 

This time I knew my 4♠ bid was not signoff.

 

I checked the meaning of 3♠, and although I now forget what 3♠meant,

it did not convey what I wanted either, so I bid 4 and hoped for the best,

but got into another very poor slam.

 

Two declarers were able to make 6♠ on that deal on what appear to me

to be two different misdefences by GIB. I hope someone can look at that separate issue.

[cloa513]

For well over 100 deals has GIB been a pleasure to work with, and I have had no one to blame

but myself for my poor results.

 

However, GIB bidding in deals 4, 6 and 8 of Tournament #5351 Robot Duplicate- MP 2011-11-15 12:52

make me wonder about bugs somewhere:

 

#3 http://tinyurl.com/739wv3b

 

I learned in an earlier thread that there may be unusual circumstances where GIB thinks a

misleading Stayman is the best bid, but surely 2NT is an obviously much better bid here.

 

 

#6 http://tinyurl.com/6rsoutg

 

I did misinform GIB with my first bid, but is that an excuse for GIB raising with 2-card support

when two decent 5-card suits were more cheaply available? How about the 2nd raise with 2-card

support instead of trusting partner's judgement?

 

#8 http://tinyurl.com/794mvnx

 

I assumed at the time I made the bid that my 4 Spades was a signoff. I now see that it promises

19+ total points; is that standard? If so how does takeout doubler manage the auction to reach game

and no more after GIB bids 3 Spades? I also wonder about GIB insisting on slam with such a hand,

particularly in view of the possibly worthless ♦Q, and the hazardous 5 cards in a suit rebid by opener.

On 2, Probably should have doubled and rebid 2 or 3 NT but given the explanation of 2NT invitational to 3NT, 3NT is a clear bid.

 

On 3, shows GIB poor understanding of Total Points, South has 19 TP, GIB's clubs are worthless so only 6 working HCP which is worth about 9 TP- not worth going on.

Why does GIB use TP if it doesn't understand what total points mean? Numbers are worthless without context.

[cloa513]

Thanks you very much for replying.

 

Do you have any thoughts about deal #8 from that tournament?

 

A similar sutuation arose in the next tournament I played in:

 

#6190 Robot Dupilcate- MP, deal #8:

 

http://tinyurl.com/d5oh9za

 

This time I knew my 4♠ bid was not signoff.

 

I checked the meaning of 3♠, and although I now forget what 3♠meant,

it did not convey what I wanted either, so I bid 4 and hoped for the best,

but got into another very poor slam.

 

Two declarers were able to make 6♠ on that deal on what appear to me

to be two different misdefences by GIB. I hope someone can look at that separate issue.

You can make 6♠ by end-gaming West, ruff out the clubs, take out the spades, cash the diamonds, place A of ♥ and low heart but its a poor slam.

 

If you could bid a reverse then 4♠, then it would show your hand better if GIB could understand that bidding.

[USViking]

You can make 6♠ by end-gaming West, ruff out the clubs, take out the spades, cash the diamonds, place A of ♥ and low heart but its a poor slam.

 

If you could bid a reverse then 4♠, then it would show your hand better if GIB could understand that bidding.

 

I have been playing too much bridge today, and I may be too bleary-eyed

to track the discards, but it seems to me this is the endgame, with no chance

for declarer to avoid two losers:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sh984dc&w=shk5dtc&n=sha32dc&e=shqj7dc]399|300[/hv]

[cloa513]

I have been playing too much bridge today, and I may be too bleary-eyed

to track the discards, but it seems to me this is the endgame, with no chance

for declarer to avoid two losers:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sh984dc&w=shk5dtc&n=sha32dc&e=shqj7dc]399|300[/hv]

South will have two spades and North 1 spade remember north only ruffed two clubs and followed to two rounds of spades.

Of course west could throw in the K of hearts on the first round to counter N-S but this is GIB no chance of it working out that special play.

 

 

 

 

Only tried to duplicate the important honour cards.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj5h984dc&w=shk2djt9c&n=sqhat76dc&e=shqj53d7c]399|300[/hv]

[georgi]

#8 http://tinyurl.com/794mvnx

 

I assumed at the time I made the bid that my 4 Spades was a signoff. I now see that it promises

19+ total points; is that standard? If so how does takeout doubler manage the auction to reach game

and no more after GIB bids 3 Spades? I also wonder about GIB insisting on slam with such a hand,

particularly in view of the possibly worthless ♦Q, and the hazardous 5 cards in a suit rebid by opener.

 

Here is some chained issue. Firstly the 3♠ is incorrect explained and respectively taken ahead in the auction. That should be 9-12.

 

GIB considers between some bids including Double as well. However if the double is not given 3♠ should carries appropriate info.

 

That on the other hand will change your requirements for 4♠ which will be respectively less.

 

This situation is fixed in new version.

It includes affected auctions like: 2nd and 4th seat TOX and continuation to game after partner has bid something ( unforced ).

Like:

1X - Pass - Pass - Double

2X - 2Y/3Y - * - 4Y

 

Pass - Pass - 1X - Double

2X - 2Y/3Y - 3X - 3Y/4Y

 

etc.

 

So in the particular case and auction, with the correct meaning of 3♠ and duly 4♠ GIB-North will not consider 4NT as continuation as nothing extraordinary is expected by partner.