Strange competitive bid - bug?

[palabreur]

http://tinyurl.com/7bxhwpg

 

4♦ looks pretty buggy to me.

 

Every table that started with the same first seven calls, GIBWest bid 4♦. Is 4♦ meant to be a raise to the spade game, showing diamond length/values along the way? If so, the description probably needs amended, as does GIBEast's understanding of the bid.

[mike777]

http://tinyurl.com/7bxhwpg

 

4♦ looks pretty buggy to me.

 

Every table that started with the same first seven calls, GIBWest bid 4♦. Is 4♦ meant to be a raise to the spade game, showing diamond length/values along the way? If so, the description probably needs amended, as does GIBEast's understanding of the bid.

 

Not sure.

 

This is the second hand posted here in the forums in recent days where Gib bid a new suit at the 4 level(d) with tolerance for the other suit(spades).

[Jyrki_63]

Here is a similar strange 3-level bid.

Why Diamonds?

 

Does GIB think this is a good time to make a forward going bid after we have both signed off? If so, it should be alerted as forcing. I played GIB for 25 in the reds and passed. Something like H:xx, D:AJ9xx. With stronger/longer diamonds it should have bid 2D over my 2C. If GIB wants to compete (as it probably should), I fail to see what's wrong with 3C? Surely my bidding shows that my clubs are longer than diamonds, so why volunteer to a 3-level contract with a weak 7-card fit at best?

 

IMHO there cannot be a hand that would make a forcing bid at this juncture, so GIB has to choose between 3C (my choice) and 3H.

[georgi]

http://tinyurl.com/7bxhwpg

 

4♦ looks pretty buggy to me.

 

Every table that started with the same first seven calls, GIBWest bid 4♦. Is 4♦ meant to be a raise to the spade game, showing diamond length/values along the way? If so, the description probably needs amended, as does GIBEast's understanding of the bid.

 

Thanks for reporting.

 

It's a bug. Just GIB finds bad rule. Notice it reduced the TOX points to 11-HCP after.

 

It will be fixed