Where did that cuebid come from

[thorvald]

[hv=url=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn%7CHuman%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C3SKQJT9HKQT5D7CA96%2CSA7H87DAKJ963CQ75%2CS52HAJ64DQ85CK832%2CS8643H932DT42CJT4%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7CTwo-level%20overcall%20--%205%2B%20%21D%3B%2010%2B%20HCP%3B%2011-18%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7CNegative%20double%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2015-21%20HCP%3B%2016-22%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C1%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%201%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%20no%20%21CA%3B%20%21DA%3B%20no%20%21SA%3B%2011-12%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2015%2B%20HCP%3B%2016-20%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cmc%7C11%7C]399|300[/hv]

 

I think a part of the problem is that 3♥ is defined as forcing, where it normally is invitational, but strange bidding 4♦ and explaining it shows ♦A

 

Missing an invitational bid the player at the other table settled for 2♥

 

[hv=url=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn%7CHuman%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C3SKQJT9HKQT5D7CA96%2CSA7H87DAKJ963CQ75%2CS52HAJ64DQ85CK832%2CS8643H932DT42CJT4%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7CTwo-level%20overcall%20--%205%2B%20%21D%3B%2010%2B%20HCP%3B%2011-18%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7CNegative%20double%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2015-21%20HCP%3B%2016-22%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C1%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%201%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%20no%20%21CA%3B%20%21DA%3B%20no%20%21SA%3B%2011-12%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2015%2B%20HCP%3B%2016-20%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cmc%7C11%7C]399|300[/hv]

[smerriman]

GIB never understands cuebidding for slam. You can ignore the description entirely; the rule for bidding 4♦ doesn't have anything to do with controls, just whether its total points + partners maximum total points could be enough for slam (as well as a couple of other conditions like sufficiently good trumps).

[thorvald]

GIB never understands cuebidding for slam. You can ignore the description entirely; the rule for bidding 4♦ doesn't have anything to do with controls, just whether its total points + partners maximum total points could be enough for slam (as well as a couple of other conditions like sufficiently good trumps).

 

As 3♥ is forcing a bid of 4♦ to show a maximum hand (remember the initial pass) seems quite reasonable, but then the explanation is just wrong. It seems that there is a broken connection between the actual reasoning and the description of the bid. I wonder if that is two different systems.

 

I can see that when finding the explanation GIB calls a webservice http://webutil.bridg...2/u_bm/u_bm.php

[smerriman]

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

[thorvald]

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

 

Is that information you can find in mb.txt?

[smerriman]

That's the bidding database, yes.

[pescetom]

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

So whoever wrote that rule was intentionally pulling the wool?

[smerriman]

So whoever wrote that rule was intentionally pulling the wool?

Well, I doubt they did it intentionally. But it results in *GIB* doing it intentionally, yes..

[pescetom]

Well, I doubt they did it intentionally. But it results in *GIB* doing it intentionally, yes..

 

Incompetence is little better than deceipt. I was just wondering, because I've often seen misleading descriptions but assumed that whoever wrote the rule was not in contact with who wrote the description.