[lycier]

---

For this hand,I am very hard to understand Gib's bidding sequences.
1-After 1♦,why not bid 2♠ instead of 2♣?
2-After 3♦,why not bid 4♣ to show rebiddable ♣ only with 3 hcp,but 4♣ says 7-9 total points?
3- When 4♠ says 4 card ♠ only, why Gib S pass instead of 5♦ if 4♣ shows good ♦ fit?

[Lovera]

Because GIB has a strong hand : with only a club it'd have bidden 2♣. Answering X with this hand and 3 points it's just 1♦ but range of force is 0-5. 2♠ it'd be correct with this hand : ♠ AQJxx ♥ K10xx ♦ Ax ♣ xx whilest with all these points in the others suits GIB overcalls with 2♣.

[Bbradley62]

I have more questions/comments, mostly having to do with the inconsistencies between the descriptions provided for the bids made and the actual hands that made the bids.

 lycier, on 2015-January-06, 05:50, said:

1-After 1♦,why not bid 2♠ instead of 2♣?

Before we even get there... if 1♦ is the correct bid with the South hand, the description should not include "4+♦". Then, if 2♣ is the correct bid to avoid showing a single-suited double-and-correct hand, the description of 2♣ shouldn't preclude any five-card suits.

 lycier, on 2015-January-06, 05:50, said:

2-After 3♦,why not bid 4♣ to show rebiddable ♣ only with 3 hcp, but 4♣ says 7-9 total points?
3-When 4♠ says 4 card ♠ only, why Gib S pass instead of 5♦ if 4♣ shows good ♦ fit?

You can't really blame South for choosing to play a Moysian 4♠ instead of a potentially 3-3 5♦. (Despite the descriptions, South is looking at his hand with only three diamonds and 3HCP.)

[Lovera]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-January-06, 15:37, said:

I have more questions/comments, mostly having to do with the inconsistencies between the descriptions provided for the bids made and the actual hands that made the bids.Before we even get there... if 1♦ is the correct bid with the South hand, the description should not include "4+♦". Then, if 2♣ is the correct bid to avoid showing a single-suited double-and-correct hand, the description of 2♣ shouldn't preclude any five-card suits.

You can't really blame South for choosing to play a Moysian 4♠ instead of a potentially 3-3 5♦. (Despite the descriptions, South is looking at his hand with only three diamonds and 3HCP.)

Bidding about X as "informative contre" is not simple : in this case (1♦) probably GIB considers suit having 4/+ cards. Raising diamond with AQ opposite an eventually Kxxx it may be if equivalent four cards of support. Indications in box about cards and points are not much correct.

[1eyedjack]

 Lovera, on 2015-January-06, 07:25, said:

Because GIB has a VERY strong hand

FYP

In most human partnerships, and I think also in GIBberish, a new suit by doubler SHOWS a "strong" hand. Stronger, I think, than ♠ AQJxx ♥ K10xx ♦ Ax ♣ xx, with which I suspect GIB would start with a 1S overcall (as would I by preference, but there may not be a right or wrong answer to that - style).

But if X followed by 1S still has an upper limit on strength then this hand probably tops even that. 2S would show longer Spades, which leaves 2C. Can't say that I am too happy about it - in my partnerships it would show better D support.


I thought it odd that someone had thought to program in that the 2C cue is forcing to an arbitrary level of 3H. Where did that come from?

Also, given GIB's propensity on other hands to bid 3 card suits when it has not denied holding 4 of them, why would it be reluctant to do so when, as here with the 1D bid, it effectively has done so?