[Bbradley62]

---

What's with the 3♦ bid?

[mgoetze]

Well, let's do what GIB does... simulate. Given that North has T53 AKJ 973 T654, West has at least 5-5 in majors, and South has 11-21 HCP with no suit longer than diamonds, South averages 5.1 diamonds. So while you were glad you had so many, it was only 0.9 more than GIB was expecting.

[Bbradley62]

Of course, that's completely not the point. If North makes a bid whose description includes "4+D", South is going to use this information when making his next bid; it would be nice if the information that partner is providing were accurate. If you want to say that it's reasonable for North to consistently bid 3♦ over 1♦-(2♦) with only 3-card support, and I might agree that it is, the description should say "3+D".

[mgoetze]

Well, if I were only allowed to make the bids mandated by the GIB system, I wouldn't like playing with GIB at all! Given what horrible misdescriptions I perpetrate, it's only fair to let GIB deviate by a card once in a while.

More seriously, it must be right to let GIB's "judgement" override the rules once in a while. There is certainly a case to be made that GIB does this a bit too often. I'm not sure this is a good example, though.

[EricK]

Maybe GIB's descriptions should be auto-updated every time one of its simulations makes a bid outside the description. So after the first time it makes this 3♦ bid, the description for future occurrences becomes "Competitive raise 4+D, 7-9 Total points; occasionally 3D"

[mgoetze]

EricK, on 2012-January-27, 15:49, said:

Maybe GIB's descriptions should be auto-updated every time one of its simulations makes a bid outside the description. So after the first time it makes this 3♦ bid, the description for future occurrences becomes "Competitive raise 4+D, 7-9 Total points; occasionally 3D"

Oh yeah... 3NT "stopper in spades; occasionally only a small singleton" ... sounds good.