[Bbradley62]

Presuming that South mis-saw the ♦9 as the ♦Q...

---

No 3♠ bid over 3♥? (PS: another example of both "5+C" and "3-card C" in the same explanation.)

[pigpenz]

not familiar with Burns Law
but life would have been a lot simpler with a 1NT opening!

so to not violate Burns Law, reopen with a double?
or find a partner who would bid 2♠ over 2♦

I dont think the explanation is wrong just the 3♥ call
north is expecting south to be 5+♣4+♥
double would show support for ♣♥♠'s

its a case of the call not fitting the discription

[Stephen Tu]

South is showing a 5-6 in theory, and North fancies his chances in 4h over 5c apparently, which I suppose is OK.

But North has a clear 2s call at first turn.

[Bbradley62]

Burn's Law of Total Trumps:
"When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents."

[Bbradley62]

Stephen Tu, on 2012-May-05, 15:38, said:

But North has a clear 2s call at first turn.

Agreed. But, of course, this is part of the ongoing conversation about the requirements for free bids.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-05, 10:33, said:

(PS: another example of both "5+C" and "3-card C" in the same explanation.)

Remember I once said that I wanted to fix GIB so that when it updates one hand feature (e.g. suit length), it would make corresponding adjustments to related features (e.g. suit quality)? It turns out, it already does this (I'm not sure if I've posted this before or not). However, it does it in a separate place than the list of features that have been explicitly shown. The adjusted features are used when making its own bidding decisions, but the explanations continue to say what has been shown explicitly. While it may be possible to change the displayed descriptions to use the adjusted features, I don't think it's critical -- any person competent to play bridge can make these same inferences.