[thorvald]

---

I think a part of the problem is that 3♥ is defined as forcing, where it normally is invitational, but strange bidding 4♦ and explaining it shows ♦A

Missing an invitational bid the player at the other table settled for 2♥

---

[smerriman]

GIB never understands cuebidding for slam. You can ignore the description entirely; the rule for bidding 4♦ doesn't have anything to do with controls, just whether its total points + partners maximum total points could be enough for slam (as well as a couple of other conditions like sufficiently good trumps).

[thorvald]

smerriman, on 2022-August-18, 19:49, said:

GIB never understands cuebidding for slam. You can ignore the description entirely; the rule for bidding 4♦ doesn't have anything to do with controls, just whether its total points + partners maximum total points could be enough for slam (as well as a couple of other conditions like sufficiently good trumps).

As 3♥ is forcing a bid of 4♦ to show a maximum hand (remember the initial pass) seems quite reasonable, but then the explanation is just wrong. It seems that there is a broken connection between the actual reasoning and the description of the bid. I wonder if that is two different systems.

I can see that when finding the explanation GIB calls a webservice http://webutil.bridg...2/u_bm/u_bm.php

[smerriman]

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

[thorvald]

smerriman, on 2022-August-19, 04:15, said:

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

Is that information you can find in mb.txt?

[smerriman]

That's the bidding database, yes.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-August-19, 04:15, said:

Nope, nothing like that at all. I can replicate exactly the same thing in the older version of GIB, and the database has a specific rule coded into it that tells it when it can bid 4♦ (nothing to do with controls), and on exactly the same line it says how it should describe the bid (controls).

So whoever wrote that rule was intentionally pulling the wool?

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2022-August-19, 06:28, said:

So whoever wrote that rule was intentionally pulling the wool?

Well, I doubt they did it intentionally. But it results in *GIB* doing it intentionally, yes..

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-August-19, 14:17, said:

Well, I doubt they did it intentionally. But it results in *GIB* doing it intentionally, yes..

Incompetence is little better than deceipt. I was just wondering, because I've often seen misleading descriptions but assumed that whoever wrote the rule was not in contact with who wrote the description.