[Creeksider]

Handviewer link

North's 3♥ bid shows a maximum of 9 total points, leading me as south to conclude it was unwise to bid game. Despite the great trump suit I wasn't able to imagine a north hand worth 9 points or less that would take care of all those losers. It turns out 4♥ can be made, because north's hand is actually worth 11.

A bid of 2♠ by north would be more accurate, showing a limit raise or better. Is this bid (cue-bidding an implied suit) outside GIB's repertoire? If so, should it be added?

[ArtK78]

If you want a bid that shows a very good 9 count (possibly better) with two kings behind LHO's aces, then by all means have GIB bid 2♠. After all, GIB may actually have the ability to know where the opponents' minor suit aces are located.

To me, 3♥ was a perfectly reasonable contract.

[Creeksider]

It isn't a matter of knowing where the aces are, just a matter of accurately bidding the hand. 3♥ is an underbid, and when you're vulnerable you want to bid game if there's a reasonable (37.5%+) chance of making. Anyway, 3♥ wasn't the contract. The contract was 3♠ for the opponents, making an overtrick, while those who plunged ahead despite GIB's underbid made 4♥. I'm not complaining (this was just a practice session anyway), just pointing out a place where it might be possible to improve GIB's bidding, which as we all know is otherwise flawless.

[georgi]

If 2♠ is considered as invite+ and 3♥ as constructive raise why North should evaluate that hand so profitable?

The good news is you have 4 trumps, but you can't force while there is two-suiter with unknown minor.

Which king besides K♠ is looking as trick at first glance?

Still 1♥ opening doesn't promise AKQxx or AQJT to be certain one trump loser max. So your partner could be faced into trump guessing as well.

Without singleton somewhere just imagining Kings are behind the West's Aces looks too optimistic to invite with 9HCP being 9 or 11 optimistic TP.

[Creeksider]

My main point here isn't that the wrong contract was reached because of GIB's bid (although I believe it was). The point is that holding 11 total points GIB made a bid described as limited to 9 total points. Regardless of whether you like 4♥ as the final contract with this particular collection of cards, GIB should make a bid that accurately describes the hand. I'm aware GIB's bids are often inaccurate in various respects but posted this because I thought it might demonstrate a gap in GIB's bid repertoire that could be corrected.

[georgi]

Creeksider, on 2011-October-25, 22:01, said:

My main point here isn't that the wrong contract was reached because of GIB's bid (although I believe it was). The point is that holding 11 total points GIB made a bid described as limited to 9 total points. Regardless of whether you like 4♥ as the final contract with this particular collection of cards, GIB should make a bid that accurately describes the hand. I'm aware GIB's bids are often inaccurate in various respects but posted this because I thought it might demonstrate a gap in GIB's bid repertoire that could be corrected.

♠K3 ♥9652 ♦K3 ♣KT982 has 9TP

♠K3 ♥K965 ♦32 ♣KT982 has 10TP and will bid 2♠ here

♠63 ♥KQ92 ♦53 ♣KJT92 has 11TP and will also bid 2 ♠ and etc ahead.

Following the evaluation you suggested, if North holds hand like ♠Q4 ♥A432 ♦K ♣JT843 should GIB bid game directly based on 14+TP ?

So that hand matches the 7-9TP range. Although looking good hand, GIB could consider after simulation to improve them to 2♠, but 3♥ is not looking as wrong.

[Creeksider]

georgi, on 2011-October-26, 05:57, said:

♠K3 ♥9652 ♦K3 ♣KT982 has 9TP

This hand has 9HCP. In a system that adds a point for a doubleton, which I believe is GIB's system, it has 11TP. That was the precise problem in the hand I posted. I figured I could bid game if partner had total points adding to 11: I needed either high cards or distribution points to take care of my losers.

But to repeat, my reason for posting isn't to pore over this particular hand, but rather to ask whether GIB has a bid in its repertoire for an 11-point hand in this situation, and if not, whether it might be added. I believe GIB evaluated this hand as 11 and I'm guessing it bid the hand as 9 because it didn't have an 11 available.