Correction needed?

[uva72uva72]

My link

 

Match points, ACBL robot individual.

 

Am I mistaken in thinking that the explanation of North's 4♦ needs to be corrected? Or is "6+" in fact intended to mean "6 to 14" in this instance, with South to guess whether the hand belongs in part score, game or slam?

[iandayre]

A few issues here. Obviously there would be no jump with a weakish hand with a fit, but certainly the description is incorrect. The actual hand has values approximating a 4D call, but of course 3S is better in an attempt to reach 3NT. I don't think it can be reached without peeking this time though.

 

 

This hadn't occurred to me before, but the extremely poor quality of many of the GIB descriptions we encounter is starting to make me believe that the developers' programming knowledge is significantly greater than their level of bridge expertise.

[steve2005]

This hadn't occurred to me before, but the extremely poor quality of many of the GIB descriptions we encounter is starting to make me believe that the developers' programming knowledge is significantly greater than their level of bridge expertise.

think its more likely with all the changes they have been making their sometimes not updating the descriptions.

[Bbradley62]

The correct explanation of 4♦ must be considered together with the meanings of alternate bids of 3♦, 3♠ and 5♦. It would be nice to see the meanings of those, to ensure internal consistency and to avoid unnecessary overlap.