[1eyedjack]

---

MP, best hand South, Instant, pro GIB 30

I totally misread what North was trying to say, here.
I took the 5H bid as asking me to choose between the majors. With a hand only interested in Hearts but too strong just to bid 4H I would expect it to bid a direct 5H. But then, with the actual hand I might have a punt at 4H directly over 4C. North even had a chance to pass 5D.

Obviously my double of 4C is a questionable. Does that explain the entire fiasco?

Of some interest, the other Norths faced with the same auction chose 4H over the double, presumably using a previous version of GIB. I offer no comment on whether North is worth committing to the 5 level over the double. I have a lot of sympathy for my North's evaluation of the hand (if not for the manner of expressing it). But that is not my point, which is this:

It has been Sooooooooo long since GIB was last upgraded, that there can surely be no excuse for Instant tourneys still using hands from an earlier version. Indeed as a general principle, even after a relatively recent upgrade, would it not be better for the software to select a tourney using the latest version of GIB in preference to an earlier version, for as long as there is a tourney capable of filling that criteria?

[Bbradley62]

The explanation provided for "previous GIB" bidding 4♥ in response to the double is simply "4+H"; it wouldn't surprise me at all if we complained about the lack of specificity there and BBO staff tried to improve the sequence. If "current GIB" determines that he's too strong for 4♥ and that he's going to insist on hearts later (since he's convinced you have at least 3 for your double), I wonder what a bidding 5♥ would have shown over the double.

[1eyedjack]

Yes all of the explanations for North are a bit scant on detail.

Arguably the 5C bid is effectively a slam force. After all, what was he planning to do over 5S by South instead of 5D?

[iandayre]

I guess we can (or should be able to) infer that 4H or 4S over the double would be 4+, 0-10 if the cue shows 11 and up. Once again, the programmers/description writers do not seem to understand the need to balance with less than overwhelming strength. No way that any 11 count should be going past game. We can't see all of the description of the double here, what point range does it show?

I would also have bid 4H over 4C as N. And while I would make the takeout double with a human partner, now knowing that GIB will move beyond game with pretty much any hand good enough to make game (even 4H can be defeated here), I would have to say that it is better to pass with GIB as CHO.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2014-November-30, 12:24, said:

I guess we can (or should be able to) infer that 4H or 4S over the double would be 4+, 0-10 if the cue shows 11 and up.

Agreed, but a North with this good a heart suit has several ways of showing it:

• bid 4♥ directly over 4♣
  
• pass then bid 4♥ after pard's double
  
• pass then bid 5♣ after pard's double then insist on hearts later
  
• pass then bid 5♥ after pard's double (although maybe this one doesn't exist)

All of these should indicate different strength ranges, although some of these sequences are possible with weaker hearts, so there may be some either/or parts of meanings that result in least common denominator explanations.

I find it odd that 5♣ is explained as 11+ whereas 5♥ is explained as 14+. Does this imply that there are hands in the 11-13 range that would bid 5♣ then pass 5♦?

According to the explanation given at bogdan70's table (prior version of GIB), the re-opening double only shows 13+ total points. The explanation of 5♣ says 11+ total points, and that hardly seems like enough partnership strength to force to the 5 level. Of course, your 5♦ bid says 15+ and shouldn't show anything more than your double did, so maybe the requirements for the double have changed, but that's still not enough for the 5 level.

I would also bid 4♥ directly over 4♣, but I guess GIB has some constraints.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-30, 16:30, said:

• pass then bid 5♣ after pard's double then insist on hearts later
• pass then bid 5♥ after pard's double (although maybe this one doesn't exist)

All of these should indicate different strength ranges, although some of these sequences are possible with weaker hearts

I don't think that variations in total strength or heart quality are necessarily the only, or even main, distinguishing features.

As mentioned in the OP, I took the delayed sequence as offering 2 places to play, where an immediate 5H sets trump. But I took them to be of similar strength.

I don't see why 5C should exist but 5H not. They are both equally committal as to level.