[iandayre]

Probably the most bizarre of GIB's common bidding quirks is raising from 5 to 6 of a minor with hands that have nothing resembling a justification for that action. I have seen quite a few examples over the last few weeks, but none more strange than this one today:

GIB held as N xx, x, JTxxx, Txxxx. P 1S Dbl 1NT
P 2H Dbl P
3D P 5D P
6D!!

This was not my bidding - most including myself left the opps in 2H. This player would have done very well to reach a D partial, 5D was wildly aggressive. But 6D?

I am sure there will be no shortage of other examples fitting this thread.

[uday]

5D showed a hand strong enough to take 11 tricks opposite, say, xxxx xxxx xxx xx ( worst case, i guess )


GIB reasons that if that's true, partner must have the equivalent of game in his own hand, which is usually like 29 Total points in a minor or so, and it has about 4 Total points, so it's in the slam zone.

I'm trying to construct hands with which I'd bid 5D and it isn't so easy.

Having said that, this ( blind belief that auctions that commit to a level show approx combined values to get to that level ) does result in some very aggressive sequences. We tame them as we find them.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that South needs to have 11 playing tricks for this auction. It is sufficient that he judges that North will pass an invitational 4D raise sufficiently frequently when 5 is a good spot that it justifies removing from North the option of passing 4D, even if it risks going down in 5 opposite a worst case hand.

In real life bridge we recognise that partner generally has a range of strengths and we seldom assume the absolute worst case scenario opposite when we commit to a bid. The complication in this case is that South does have an invitational 4D raise available, and it would be interesting to know how GIB defines that bid.

That said, this North is considerably better than worst case. Even so, speaking personally had I held the North cards I would not have bid 6. But what do I know.

Whatever the merits of raising on this hand I do agree that GIB seems to me in general to be a bit "raise-happy" in these situations, and I am unconvinced that totting up total points is the best way to proceed. I do agree that it is not easy, and perhaps given some of the other things that need correcting this may not be top priority.

A problem that we face here is that with 29 total points opposite 4, then certainly we could be in the slam zone. We could also have 19 top tricks after the defence have taken the first two. That is what Blackwood is for, except that at the level of 5D there is no Blackwood available. At that point it is just a number crunching exercise, which is where you expect GIB to excel. If GIB runs sims as well as just counting total points, then I would be inclined to respect its decision.

But another problem is that while theoretically a slam might need only be 50% or so to justify bidding it, that sum is based on a presumption that everyone will be in game and that you will not be doubled going more than one down in slam.