[thorvald]

---

With this powerhouse in north it could be to strong for bidding 3N like in bridge, but when 3N is out it is interesting that GIB shows 6+♦ with the 4♦-bid.

BTW it is also interesting that South can't show 5-5 in the majors, as the above sequence is showing 6+♠ (Same as jumping to 4♥ over 1N)

[pescetom]

Maybe simulations said that diamonds (even moysian) have better chances than the long but scrappy clubs? NT with a protected clubs king and 28+ HCP on the line should do even better I suspect, but maybe that is excluded by system choices given the misfits.

4♦ promising 6+ seems playable to me, 3♥ lengthening the spades to 6+ less so (although from a purely natural point of view maybe it is right).

[smerriman]

The descriptions differ substantially from the old version so I can't say definitively what's going on here, but it seems fairly evident based on other issues.

In the most recent version of GIB, 4♦ is the book bid, so it's not a result of a simulation overriding the 'proper' bid.

Assuming GIB had run a simulation, it wouldn't be surprising at all to still come up with 4♦ as a result, not because it would show diamonds working better as trumps, but because it would show you're going to end up in a spade contract regardless, and if several bids lead to the same end result, it's going to prefer the book one.

As to why it's the book bid, and why 4♥ promises 6 spades, there are some functions outside of the database itself that automatically assign certain lengths depending on the level that new suits are bid at. This has shown to be very buggy in past threads (and why it often doesn't give preference correctly; I remember describing an issue where this function must have been incrementing wrong values).

Anyway, the point is, it's almost certain that to GIB 4♣ and 4♦ are simply 'biddable suits' with extra values, and it's only the description that's assigning 6 card length that doesn't exist. And it's picking 4♦ over 4♣ just because that happens to be the one that appears first in the database.

[thorvald]

smerriman, on 2023-July-17, 14:28, said:

The descriptions differ substantially from the old version so I can't say definitively what's going on here, but it seems fairly evident based on other issues.

In the most recent version of GIB, 4♦ is the book bid, so it's not a result of a simulation overriding the 'proper' bid.

Assuming GIB had run a simulation, it wouldn't be surprising at all to still come up with 4♦ as a result, not because it would show diamonds working better as trumps, but because it would show you're going to end up in a spade contract regardless, and if several bids lead to the same end result, it's going to prefer the book one.

As to why it's the book bid, and why 4♥ promises 6 spades, there are some functions outside of the database itself that automatically assign certain lengths depending on the level that new suits are bid at. This has shown to be very buggy in past threads (and why it often doesn't give preference correctly; I remember describing an issue where this function must have been incrementing wrong values).

Anyway, the point is, it's almost certain that to GIB 4♣ and 4♦ are simply 'biddable suits' with extra values, and it's only the description that's assigning 6 card length that doesn't exist. And it's picking 4♦ over 4♣ just because that happens to be the one that appears first in the database.

Thx, as you can see I decided to bid 4♥ over 4♦, but my poor opponent trusted the 4♦-bid and bid 5♦