[p_t_red]

Pass 1♣ 2♥ 3♥
Dbl 4NT Pass Pass
Pass

I'm the 1♣ bidder, and my GIB passed a 4NT bid that
in anyone's game would be forcing with:
♠752 ♥void ♦AJ53 ♣A86432

[mgoetze]

What was 3♥ explained as? What was 4NT explained as?

[p_t_red]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-08, 15:47, said:

What was 3♥ explained as? What was 4NT explained as?

The 3♥ bid was explained as:
Cue: limit raise or better -- 4+ C; 12+ total points; forcing to 3N

The 4NT bid was explained as:
3+ C; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points

[ahydra]

The 4NT explanation clearly makes no sense - surely more than a minimum hand (else why not 3NT?), surely something in hearts.

I imagine just about every human would play it as Blackwood for clubs. The problem is - I believe anyway - that GIB needs to be taught loads of bidding sequences rather than using some kind of algorithm to work out the meanings of the more obscure bids for itself.

ahydra

[mgoetze]

So it wasn't explained as forcing, and why did you expect GIB to bid on when it thinks you might have only 11 HCP? I mean it might not make very much sense to define 4NT this way (even if it were quantitative it would need to show more points), but don't say "GIB passed a forcing bid"... it wasn't forcing.

[Bbradley62]

p_t_red, on 2011-January-09, 11:32, said:

The 4NT bid was explained as:
3+ C; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points

Isn't this exactly the same as the description of the 1♣ bid? I think this happens too often; each bid should somehow restrict the prior description of the hand (except when the bidder is making a forced response to a transfer or relay).

[hotShot]

It's my impression that if GIB does not know the meaning of a bid, it takes the meaning of the last bid/sequence it understood.

[p_t_red]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-09, 13:29, said:

So it wasn't explained as forcing, and why did you expect GIB to bid on when it thinks you might have only 11 HCP? I mean it might not make very much sense to define 4NT this way (even if it were quantitative it would need to show more points), but don't say "GIB passed a forcing bid"... it wasn't forcing.

[p_t_red]

RKC Blackwood is always forcing.

[manudude03]

It didn't say it was RKC blackwood though. It isn't even that uncommon an agreement for 4NT to be to play when the agreed suit is a minor.

[p_t_red]

manudude03, on 2011-January-09, 18:38, said:

It didn't say it was RKC blackwood though. It isn't even that uncommon an agreement for 4NT to be to play when the agreed suit is a minor.

In this auction 3NT would be to play. A jump to 4NT has to be a form of ace-asking, and since GIB's cue-bid set the trump suit, it must be RKC for that suit.

[manudude03]

I didn't say it was standard, but merely that a lot of pairs do play 4NT as simply a hand that's too good to bid 3NT. It's just a slightly more unusual form of 1NT-4NT (which pretty much every decent pair plays as quantitative).

[barmar]

I suspect that anyone who plays it as natural also uses some other ace-asking convention, such as Minorwood or Kickback.

[BunnyGo]

p_t_red, on 2011-January-10, 13:24, said:

In this auction 3NT would be to play. A jump to 4NT has to be a form of ace-asking, and since GIB's cue-bid set the trump suit, it must be RKC for that suit.

The point is that when you play with GIB you don't get to discuss the system, it tells you what you're playing. Whether you agree or not, your bid was not blackwood (whether anyone would agree or not). So while you could (should?) suggest that the GIB system be changed, you cannot reasonably say that it passed your forcing bid because within the system you and your partner (GIB) agreed on the bid was not forcing.