[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPS, ACBL robot individual

Recognizing that this auction is probably a one-off (to borrow the British term) that shouldn't recur, there are still some issues of more general concern. First, North's double of 1♥ is documented as showing "3+♥s" which is not what North has in the actual case and puzzling given my failure to double 1♥ myself (predictably, the contract makes, usually with an overtrick); second, my retreat from 1♠X is described by the notes as showing 4+♠s, which makes no sense and should certainly read "4-♠s. " North's pass of 1NT is also puzzling in light of its subsequent action (if North must bid again, some bid more consistent with North's actual strength at this point would haven given us a chance at a soft landing).

For the curious, 4NT over 4♠ would have been Blackwood for ♠s. The question is, would North or East have answered had I bid it?

It's also interesting to note that, while North has no idea what is going on, East and West have read the situation perfectly and are not about to double ♠s when a better spot is obviously available to us.

[steve2005]

So why does GIB deduce that playing 4♠ instead of defending 2♠X? Surely if 4♠ has a play are destroying 2♠ this is flawed reasoning.

Apparently your 1N bid showed 4♠ which is ridiculous if you have 4♠ your sitting for 1♠X..