[easy]

---

The auction was (Dealer East)
1♣ 1♦ x p
1♥ p p 2♦
2♥ 3♦ 3♥3♠
p 4 ♦ all pass


At some other tables the auction was:

1♣ 1 ♦ x p
1♥ 2 ♦ p p
2♥ p p 3♦
All pass

It would appear that Gib thought the over-caller in auction one had a stronger hand than in auction 2. Is that the case? Is there a flaw in Gib logic in this type of competitive auction?

[BunnyGo]

easy, on 2011-October-30, 08:13, said:

---

The auction was (Dealer East)
1♣ 1♦ x p
1♥ p p 2♦
2♥ 3♦ 3♥3♠
p 4 ♦ all pass


At some other tables the auction was:

1♣ 1 ♦ x p
1♥ 2 ♦ p p
2♥ p p 3♦
All pass

It would appear that Gib thought the over-caller in auction one had a stronger hand than in auction 2. Is that the case? Is there a flaw in Gib logic in this type of competitive auction?

Here's the link.

Here's an example with the other auction.

[cloa513]

What if you double the 1H which quite sensible except for the crap spades (assuming it takes it as Takeout)?

[barmar]

The description of 3♦ in the first auction says "19 total points". GIB is missing the logic that says the hand can't be that strong because it didn't double on round 1, and also doesn't always understand simple competitive bids.

[Bbradley62]

cloa513, on 2011-October-30, 21:45, said:

What if you double the 1H which quite sensible except for the crap spades (assuming it takes it as Takeout)?

The question being asked is not "what is the most accurate way to describe South's hand?", although that might be an interesting second conversation; the question asked by OP is "is it a bug that GIB thinks South1 has shown a stronger hand than South2 has?" I think it's certainly a flaw.

There seem to be two recurring GIB-themes here:
(1) except possibly for suit choices, GIB seems to think that direct-seat bids in competitive auctions are attempts at game, not simply competitive bids to win a part-score auction, and
(2) GIB seems to not use players' passes to reduce the stated ranges of future bids.

OP's 3♦ bid is explained as "twice rebiddable D; 19 total points"; strong hands with rebiddable diamonds would have bid instead of passing over 1♥, so GIB should adjust accordingly.

OP's partner's 2♦ bid is described as "3+D; 3-10 total points"; but, hopefully a hand with 3+D and 7ish-10 total points would have bid 2♦ over West's double, so the delayed support should be limited to 3-6ish total points.

[cloa513]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-31, 08:39, said:

The question being asked is not "what is the most accurate way to describe South's hand?", although that might be an interesting second conversation; the question asked by OP is "is it a bug that GIB thinks South1 has shown a stronger hand than South2 has?" I think it's certainly a flaw.

There seem to be two recurring GIB-themes here:
(1) except possibly for suit choices, GIB seems to think that direct-seat bids in competitive auctions are attempts at game, not simply competitive bids to win a part-score auction, and
(2) GIB seems to not use players' passes to reduce the stated ranges of future bids.

OP's 3♦ bid is explained as "twice rebiddable D; 19 total points"; strong hands with rebiddable diamonds would have bid instead of passing over 1♥, so GIB should adjust accordingly.

OP's partner's 2♦ bid is described as "3+D; 3-10 total points"; but, hopefully a hand with 3+D and 7ish-10 total points would have bid 2♦ over West's double, so the delayed support should be limited to 3-6ish total points.

Surely the second auction must show an overcall hand stronger than the first.