[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs, ACBL robot individual

5NT "does not promise extras." No kidding.

But shouldn't North have more than a pair of Jacks to drive the hand to slam? And shouldn't the system notes reflect that 4 diamonds is a bust response, not "18- total points?"

[iandayre]

Obviously N should just sign off in 5D over 4S. Not doing so pretty much defies belief.

How many points does GIB say the cuebid showed? There has to be some point where you are too strong to bid 3NT and double instead.

If, as this and another of today's thread indicates, GIB can only understand bids based on the current round, and cannot be taught that current actions must be based on limits shown by previous actions, then it should be scrapped and replaced by a better program that has that capability.

[barmar]

GIB combines what each bid shows with what was shown by previous bids. So if an earlier bid shows 13-22 HCP, and a later bid shows 15+, it knows that the player has 15-22 (and this is what will be shown in the bid explanation). However, it will get confused if later bids contradict what was shown earlier. So if you make a bid that limits you to 15 HCP, and later show 18+, it doesn't know what to make of it (unless we create a rule that specically covers that sequence, and tell it to forget what it thought earlier, this is what the whole sequence shows).

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2014-December-20, 13:36, said:

How many points does GIB say the cuebid showed? There has to be some point where you are too strong to bid 3NT and double instead.

If, as this and another of today's thread indicates, GIB can only understand bids based on the current round, and cannot be taught that current actions must be based on limits shown by previous actions, then it should be scrapped and replaced by a better program that has that capability.

barmar, on 2014-December-21, 02:05, said:

GIB combines what each bid shows with what was shown by previous bids. So if an earlier bid shows 13-22 HCP, and a later bid shows 15+, it knows that the player has 15-22 (and this is what will be shown in the bid explanation). However, it will get confused if later bids contradict what was shown earlier. So if you make a bid that limits you to 15 HCP, and later show 18+, it doesn't know what to make of it (unless we create a rule that specically covers that sequence, and tell it to forget what it thought earlier, this is what the whole sequence shows).

I agree with Ian that current actions must be based on limits shown by previous actions. After South showed 16-22 HCP, nothing he can say after that should allow him to be outside that range. Hopefully, the cuebid is something like 20-22 HCP, but we will never know since we don't seem interested in fixing the "South's bid explanations are truncated when saved" problem.

Yes, the obvious concern with previous limits is "double and correct", so maybe takeout doubles by unpassed hands simply shouldn't include the requirement of 3+ in each unbid suit.

[Bbradley62]

uva72uva72, on 2014-December-19, 20:46, said:

But shouldn't North have more than a pair of Jacks to drive the hand to slam? And shouldn't the system notes reflect that 4 diamonds is a bust response, not "18- total points?"

Hopefully programmers will address these two specific questions, although it's not clear to me what the limit on 4♦ should be. Is 4♦ forcing? (I hope so if North might have 18 opposite South's 15.) Where does the "18-" come from? Does North require 19+ to bid 3♦ over 2♠ with 6+♦?

If South is limited to a balanced 22 HCP, North clearly needs to sign off in 5♦ over 4♠.