[1eyedjack]

---

MP, best hand South, Instant, pro gib 30

It is a highly personal and subjective view, but I think that version 30 is a marked improvement on previous efforts, despite the continuing odd flakey action, which I guess will never entirely disappear. I look forward to version 31.

One of the things it used to do regularly was find the killing lead, but all you had to do as declarer was duck once or twice and GIB would let you off the hook by switching tack. That seems less prevalent now, and it also seems more inclined to lead its long suit v NT. It could all be an illusion.

One observation I made quite early on was that GIB was, obviously subject to exceptions, in general quite good at judging when to continue in a contested "bread and butter" auction, often bidding (successfully) when I would have passed. Most of the times that it went off the rails resulted from human departure from system earlier in the auction.

The example hand in this post may be an exception. That said, I had an 18 HCP hand for my 1N opener, but if anything that argues more strongly, in my view, against North's decision to bid 3S.

The vulnerability and TNT on the hand seems all wrong to me. I expect that 3S by North on the previous round would have shown extras, although in real life if I was ever going to come in with 3S by North it would have been at first opportunity. But let that slide.

We appear to have an 8 card Spade fit, but nothing better than that, and the oppo may not have anything better than an 7 card fit, and certainly not better than an 8 card fit.

So, sitting North, I have KTxx of the opponent's trump suit, a weak holding in my own trump suit, they are at the 3 level, we are vulnerable, and the TNT rates to be at best 16. Why on earth would I contemplate bidding 3S?

I note from other hands that GIB does have some rudimentary understanding of "The Law". some of its raises even quote it in its explanations. I am of course aware that The Law does not always work. But I am still passing 3H on this hand.

Ironically, despite conceding 200, the MP equivalent of Hell, I got 60% on this deal. But then of course GIB was sitting North at all tables (albeit perhaps not the same version)

[Bbradley62]

Probably off topic, but... Does West's hand conform to the modern parameters of Cappelletti?

West certainly doesn't have 18+ points, as stipulated in the 3♣ explanation.

With respect to the timing of North's bid, he had two prior opportunities to show four spades; is it the case that doing so over 2♥ would have been game forcing, doing so over 3♣ would have been game invitational, and doing so over 3♥ is a sign-off?

[steve2005]

doubling 3♥ before bidding 3♠ where I have 2 pretty sure trump tricks opposite a strong NT

[iandayre]

GIB plays Lebensohl, so presumably over 2H, 2S would be NF, 2N followed by 3S invitational, and 3S direct forcing. Can't say I can confirm that it plays it that way, but in all cases it should show 5+.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2014-July-26, 18:26, said:

GIB plays Lebensohl, so presumably over 2H, 2S would be NF, 2N followed by 3S invitational, and 3S direct forcing. Can't say I can confirm that it plays it that way, but in all cases it should show 5+.

Yes, these should all show 5 spades. My question is if:
1N-(2H)-3H and 1N-(2H)-2N*-(p)-3C-(p)-3H both require an opening hand with 4 spades;
1N-(2H)-p-(p)-dbl-(3C)-3H would be invitational Stayman with 4 spades; and
the actual auction is to play with 4 spades.