[Stephen Tu]

Yeah I know, freak deal, hard to program, low priority because of rareness etc. But just add an example to the pile in case they ever get around to fixing these.

I think combination of things should be attacked:
- add significant TP for 7th, 8th, 9th cd in suits
- use simulations to decide whether bidding extra levels are warranted with 7+ suits in general
- in competitive auctions, when there seem to be too many pts in the deck, adjust deals to give people longer suits, more shape in general, fewer HCP, simulate what to do accordingly.

---

[johnu]

Unlucky double by West. Even though double showed 12+ HCP (?), who would have thought that AKJ 7th was worth only 1 trick on defense And with East showing 14-19 points and adding 8 points from West, how can N/S make a game with only 18 points? This calls for a congressional investigation

As for bidding again on a 9 card suit, that's crazy talk. 9 card suits are meant to defend or be dummy

[johnu]

What would an immediate 4♥ over 3♦ mean? 25-28 points??? I don't see many humans bidding just 3♥ unless they are playing a deep game.

[steve2005]

It is true Gib undervalues these type of hands.
They are also hard to get correct for humans.
Adding points wont make Gib bid better, they are so stupid they will make or sit for a penalty double at high level with no defense as it has lots of points.

[Stephen Tu]

4H is defined as 16+ total points, 20-HCP. So actually this bid fits the system, probably 3H priority too high, and 3H range too wide when holding 6? Rule set should be constructed so that it considers if it fits 4H first, then falls back on 3H.

I don't know if I'd require 6+H for 3H, in real life I'll overcall a fair #of 5 baggers when nothing else is really reasonable, of course one would prefer 6 but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

If I'd break down 6cd suits I guess 3H 14-17, 4H 18+ TP is about right?

My old PC GIB at least bids 4H the first time. But then still passes if its partner doubles 4s. (But PC GIB sometimes tries 5c instead of dbl over 3d-4h-4s). But if I turn on the option flag to make it always consider more options, simulate, it figures out to bid 5, and even 6h if pushed. But without that flag, the output seems to indicate on some auctions (if I force 3h first) it only is deciding between passing the double and bidding SEVEN!, not considering 5 or 6 at all, and if it bid 4H it doesn't appear to be considering bids other than pass.

Adding pts for super long suits (maybe 2 pts per extra card?, experiment with different formulas see what improves scores best?) and reordering rule priorities will get the first bid right. Simulations will improve the bids after further competition, as long as it is looking at the right candidate bids. Figuring out a better definition for the first double would be good idea also. Penalty doubles at high levels should be based mainly on simulations which hopefully will pick up the importance of bullets, devalue # of tricks expected in long suits expecting opps to be short, etc. and not rely on total pts at all.