[thorvald]

---

What is interesting is the explanation of 5♣: 5+♦, strong rebiddable ♣, because ♦ is at least strong rebiddable and might be longer

[thorvald]

Quite interesting I have found that when bidding this hand with the old version of GIB North will not pass over 4♥

dealt 18 hands at time 0.35
redealt 21 hands at time 0.37
book bid 0% chance of continuing auction
book bid [default] P, considering P 5C
prognosticate at time 0.39
complete at time 0.40; size 17

analyzed 17 deals (17 current) at 0.46 sec
5C: 6.47 (prog 315.29 par 264.71)
P: -5.97 (prog -51.76 par -51.76)

But interesting North is not considering 5♦

[smerriman]

There's heaps of threads on GIB not giving preference correctly.

In this case, it thinks you've shown longer clubs than diamonds, even though that's nonsense.

The function that does this is hidden in the code rather than the database, but my suspicion is that every time you bid clubs, it increments by 1 the number of clubs and diamonds you hold, which sounds reasonable.

The problem is that the since the first bid of clubs is strong at the 3 level, it starts clubs at 5, and diamonds only started at 3 for the opening bid. So each time you increment, it's keeping clubs one higher than diamonds.

[thorvald]

Yes, GIB is just not understanding the bidding - implied reasoning is difficult.

Now that means with a hand like this you will have 2 options:

1: Double 2♦ to show a rebiddable suit, then later bid ♣
2: Bid 3♦ and then later bid ♣

In this situation it could be nice to have 4NT to show both minors