Improvement in GIB?

[1eyedjack]

[hv=sn=1eyedjack&s=SAKT853H87DQ9CA53&wn=Robot&w=SQ92HAT5DA42CK874&nn=Robot&n=S74HKQ632DT6CJ962&en=Robot&e=SJ6HJ94DKJ8753CQT&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1S(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B)P1N(Forcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20%21S%3B%206+%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)P2S(6+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-16%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21H%3B%202-%20%21S%3B%2014-16%20total%20points)3S(3-%20%21S%3B%206+%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)PPP&p=DAD6D8D9C4C2CTCASAS9S4S6H7HAH2H4CKC6CQC3D4DTDKDQDJS3D2H3H8H5HKH9S7SJSKS2STSQH6D7C7CJD5C5&c=8]400|300[/hv]

 

MP, Instant, ver 32.

 

At most tables the auction was bought at 2S undoubled after the same start (1S-1N-2S) but with E-W silent. This was of course with a previous version of GIB, this being an "Instant" tourney.

 

Double dummy, South should be restricted to 7 tricks in Spades, and E-W can make 9 tricks in Diamonds or (par) 8 tricks in NT. In practice it is hard to prevent South from making 8 tricks in Spades.

Resulting aside, pushing on over 2S by either side is no huge error. Not in the same league as passing partner's 3S after he has previously opened 2C and you have 5 card Spade support with a K and Q outside (see other thread). That said ...

 

Personally I think that 3S by North on this hand is a clear error, despite that it beats par.

I also think that West's double is ill-judged albeit much more marginal (and it works well on this hand). What do all y'all think about that?

[iandayre]

I agree on both points. I see no reason for the 3S bid. And I certainly would not be forcing partner to bid at the 3 level at unfavorable with the W hand.