[lycier]

---

if I rebid 3♥,Gib will be alerted as 4+♥,9hcp+,but I think it is not forcing,according to Gib CC,cuebid 3♠ shows 16P+,forcing,strangely Gib N pass,so I know Gib don't know how to bid due to lack of bidding rules.

[nige1]

Wow: Gib is adopting human traits, flouting system, masterminding the auction, and taking idiosyncratic views.

[barmar]

North's 2♠ shows game invitational or better strength and asks you to pick a suit. You didn't.

BTW, GIB ignores "forcing to XXX" in the explanations.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2014-April-05, 21:01, said:

BTW, GIB ignores "forcing to XXX" in the explanations.

Then that should be removed from the explanation. I hate when opponents knowingly tell me stuff that isn't true when I ask about their bids.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-05, 22:20, said:

Then that should be removed from the explanation. I hate when opponents knowingly tell me stuff that isn't true when I ask about their bids.

Well, it's kind of true. The bid shows the strength appropriate to force to that level. But there still needs to be an entry in the bidding rule database that tells the robot what it should bid -- you can't tell the robot "just bid something".

I've suggested in the past that the bidding engine should treat this as a requirement that it perform a simulation if it can't find an appropriate rule. But that's not currently implemented. For now, just consider it descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

[1eyedjack]

I find it a bit bizarre that the uncontested sequence 1D-1S-2D-2H should be described (for 2H) "forcing to 3N". OK I now know that it is not ACTUALLY forcing to 3N, but I am no less surprised that it shows equivalent values. Forcing, yes, I can understand that. But to 3N? Maybe it's an American thing.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2014-April-05, 21:01, said:

North's 2♠ shows game invitational or better strength and asks you to pick a suit. You didn't.

OK but 3♠ is the normal bid and the description of the bid fits Lycier's hand. There is nothing in the description of the 2♠ bid that says "please don't bid 3♠ because that will paralyse me".

[barmar]

Yes, I fully admit that not having a continuation in this sequence is a bug in the bidding rules.

[barmar]

1eyedjack, on 2014-April-07, 12:13, said:

I find it a bit bizarre that the uncontested sequence 1D-1S-2D-2H should be described (for 2H) "forcing to 3N". OK I now know that it is not ACTUALLY forcing to 3N, but I am no less surprised that it shows equivalent values. Forcing, yes, I can understand that. But to 3N? Maybe it's an American thing.

Whoever designed the GIB system decided to make this show 12+ total points. So it's consistent, since that's enough to force to game opposite an opening hand. You could rightfully argue that this is not the best agreement, and it's not mainstream (most play this as promising 10+ points, so it's just a one-round force).

I wonder if this happened when we changed responder's second bid to promise only 3 cards in the suit, so it can be used as a temporizing bid to find out if opener has 3-card support for responder's first suit. Georgi?

[georgi]

Thanks for reporting.

There used to be a bug in the sequence disallowing to proceed with 4 cards and no explanation even if you proceed if having 5. The only one info you get when you bid new suit on 4th level would be 11-16TP, but no suit length promised at all.

Now would show 4+ cards and would let GIB to proceed.

In diagram in question GIB would bid 4♣ ( 4+ ♣; 11-16 total points ) , 4+ cards in OM are with priority if exist.

Level 3 was ok for responder to bid new suit with 4+ cards and info shows this normally.

[Bbradley62]

georgi, on 2014-April-16, 09:19, said:

In diagram in question GIB would bid 4♣ ( 4+ ♣; 11-16 total points ) , 4+ cards in OM are with priority if exist.

Of course, many hands that would bid hearts after the double would have overcalled hearts or made a takeout double directly. Will these hands be excluded from the definition of responding heart bids?

Also, I believe the description of a takeout double by North would have been 2-S; 3-4H; 3-5D; 3-5C; 12+ total points, or something close to that. If that's the case, why did North not make such a takeout double?

[georgi]

North hand could be or 11TP or not having 3+ in rest suits.

Or also could have 12-15TP, but something like both majors and OM is 4th. So cannot overcall with it.

[Bbradley62]

georgi, on 2014-April-16, 13:07, said:

North hand could be or 11TP or not having 3+ in rest suits.

Or also could have 12-15TP, but something like both majors and OM is 4th. So cannot overcall with it.

This does not answer my question. My question is: why did North, in the hand posted by OP, not make a takeout double, since he appears to have all the requirements (12 total points and at least 3 in all the unbid suits)?

[barmar]

If I'm reading the rules correctly, when it only has 3 cards in the other major, it wants at least 14 HCP to double.

This is the usual problem of the bidding explanations not being able to describe OR conditions, it shows the least common denominator of them.

[steve2005]

I don't like 2♠ as pick as suit. ♥ is going to be a 4-3 unless p is doubling with a hand too strong to overcall which seems unlikely as his heart suit will be too weak to do this. plus there isn't enough point in the deck for doubler to have a really big hand

so what to bid ♦ suit is poor, ♣ is decent and it does have invitational values (towards a minor suit game) so I say GIB should jump to 3♣