[Bbradley62]

http://tinyurl.com/2dt2bap
A bit aggressive from both sides?

[arigreen]

There were a few factors at play here. First, 2♦ shows 5+5+ in the majors. This is not actually true, but given that East has promised 55, West's 3♠ bid is certainly reasonable. The 4♠ bid was poor, and caused by some curious results in the simulation:

- Sometimes 4♠ elicits a 5♦ sacrifice from North, when 3♠ would have gone down.
- Sometimes partner has the perfect hand, and 4♠ makes. This happens more often than one would expect given that declarer play is double dummy.

When I ran GIB 10 times, it chose 4♠ 8 out of the 10 times. I believe that this demonstrates one of the weaknesses in GIB's algorithm for projecting how the auction will continue during a simulation. Thanks very much for this report.

[cloa513]

What does GIB think the 3S raise can be? The bidding is bit more reasonable with the Q♦ becoming the Q♣.

[cherdanno]

While I am sure that all Ari said is true (obviously), I would have thought the most easily fixable problem is to force GIB to never bid Michaels on 5-4 - and I would think that would be a definite improvement.

[barmar]

In most of my regular partnerships I prefer DONT, and will often bid it with 5-4, and frequently with weak 4-4's in balancing seat (partner has values, but didn't bid, so he should be balanced and can probably support one of your suits). With Capp you have to be careful about the minor suit length in the major+minor combinations, but aggression with majors seems appropriate.

But responder to the Capp bid should know that it can be 5-4, so shouldn't make a free bid on the 3 level with only 3-card support (the LAW is the law).