Please you make a best definition of 4C you think

[lycier]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp3c4cp?]400|300[/hv]

 

For Gib system, what's the best definition of 4♣?

[TylerE]

This 10000% has to be majors.

[The_Badger]

hi lycier,

 

Being GIB I expect it is 'A explanation of a bid that none of us would even contemplate.'

 

Other than that I would take it as majors 99.99% of the time (The 0.01% is when GIB bids it I assume.)

[lycier]

This 10000% has to be majors.

 

Thank you very very much for your good reply.

 

hi lycier,

 

Being GIB I expect it is 'A explanation of a bid that none of us would even contemplate.'

 

Other than that I would take it as majors 99.99% of the time (The 0.01% is when GIB bids it I assume.)

 

Thank you very very much for your good reply.

 

 

However, on the contrary, its real answer is very surprising. Now see my teaching Gib hand.

 

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Robot&s=S86HADT654CT76532&wn=lycier&w=SKQ943HQJ9762DACA&nn=Robot&n=SA5HK53D872CKQJ94&en=Robot&e=SJT72HT84DKQJ93C8&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P3C(Weak%20--%205+%20%21C%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%209-%20HCP%3B%205+%20total%20points)4C(27+%20HCP%3B%20forcing%20to%204N)P4D(4+%20%21D%3B%2016-%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%204N)P4H(4+%20%21H%3B%2027+%20HCP%3B%20forcing%20to%204N)P5H(4+%20%21D%3B%204+%20%21H%3B%204-16%20total%20points)PPP&p=CKC8C2CAH2H5HTHAS8S9SAS2D7D3DTDAH6H3H4D4S3S5SJS6DKD5S4D2DQD6SQD8DJCTSKC4D9C6H7CQHQHKH8C7CJS7C5H9HJC9STC3]400|300[/hv]

 

- 4♣= 27+HCP,forcing to 4N

- Obviously Gib E didn't understand the meanings of my bids.

[lycier]

After 1♣ - 3♣, West CC at 3 level:

3♦= overcall -- 5+♦,15+TPs.

3♥= overcall -- 5+♥,15+TPs.

3♠= overcall -- 5+♠,15+TPs.

3N= 5-♥,5-♠,25-32HCP,likely stop in ♣.

 

25-32 HCP? On theory, this is not possible since 1♣ opener has promised 11+hcp, W could have 29hcp at most.

 

Its CC at 4 level :

4♣= 27+HCP,forcing to 4N.

4♦= Preempt --- 7+♦, 3-20TPs.

4♥= Preempt --- twice rebiddable ♥, 3-25 TPs.

4♠= Preempt --- twice rebiddable ♠, 3-25 TPs.

4N : undefined

 

3-25TPs? If really holds 25TPs, W always is gonna make a double at first instead of overcall.

[The_Badger]

hi lycier,

 

4♣ as 27+HCPs forcing to 4NT is plainly ridiculous!

 

Obviously before making any bid with GIB Robots you can see how GIB interprets it, so I presume the only options left were the far from ideal bids of Dbl, 3♥ or 3♠, leaving you with just one feasible option with the West hand, bidding 4♥ and hoping for the best.

 

4♣ is the ideal bid with the West hand (as we all know) for ♥/♠ but GIB's interpretation just destroys any chance of finding the right makeable contract :(

[jdonn]

When GIB was originally designed there was a general rule, something like "If you bid to game with no noise from your partner, you promise the values for game in your own hand." The rule would only apply if the auction was otherwise undefined, so for example opening 4S was given a definition, therefore the rule didn't apply to that bid any more. The rule still exists but individual auctions were corrected one by one until there were very few left. Obviously this is one of the remaining auctions that hasn't been defined - note there is no shape information with 4C. I will see if it can be defined as majors with a lower minimum strength range.

[johnu]

When GIB was originally designed there was a general rule, something like "If you bid to game with no noise from your partner, you promise the values for game in your own hand." The rule would only apply if the auction was otherwise undefined, so for example opening 4S was given a definition, therefore the rule didn't apply to that bid any more. The rule still exists but individual auctions were corrected one by one until there were very few left. Obviously this is one of the remaining auctions that hasn't been defined - note there is no shape information with 4C. I will see if it can be defined as majors with a lower minimum strength range.

 

That sounds correct, since the ~25+ HCP descriptions still seem to occur with regularity even though a lot of old examples were reported and supposedly fixed.

 

From a programming point of view, that would have been one of the worst ways to fix the problem since there are countless ways where this could come up and you are only fixing a small subset at a time. The definition for bidding game with no partner input should have been redefined, one reasonable method would have been HCP to bid at that level assuming partner had a fair share of the remaining points.

 

An added refinement would be to estimate the opponents points (e.g. an opponent opened the bidding, and the other opponent made a non-forced response, so assume ~16+ HCP for the opponents).

 

That would have handled all the undefined solo game bids, although determining whether a bid was to make or to sacrifice is a much more complicated task.

[lycier]

http://i63.tinypic.com/2pr77s9.jpg