[steve2005]

hand
GIB doubles 2♦for lead I have good diamonds so bid 3♦ at my turn. But the explanation for my bid is not of a raise, it basically shows any 1N hand.
Now Gib bids 3♥ on 4 crappy hearts completely hanging me out to dry.
thoughts?

[Bbradley62]

I'm not really sure North meant the double as "for lead". The explanation says "biddable diamonds", which could mean any ratty five-card suit.

But yes, there is a hole in the bidding chart. 3♦ should be a natural raise, and since "biddable diamonds" could be as few as four, 3♦ should show at least four, and no other five-card suit.

Is it a simulation bizarreness that causes North to bid 3♥ anyway, since you have given no indication that your hearts are better than your diamonds?

[lycier]

---

Here I prove his point was right.
Yes, Gib never allow a raise of lead directing double.

---

In addition to passing, nothing can be done.

[iandayre]

Bbradley62, on 2016-July-10, 17:13, said:

I'm not really sure North meant the double as "for lead". The explanation says "biddable diamonds", which could mean any ratty five-card suit.

But yes, there is a hole in the bidding chart. 3♦ should be a natural raise, and since "biddable diamonds" could be as few as four, 3♦ should show at least four, and no other five-card suit.

Is it a simulation bizarreness that causes North to bid 3♥ anyway, since you have given no indication that your hearts are better than your diamonds?

The description of 3D is essentially, if not exactly, the same as of the original 1NT opening bid. This is the BBO equivalent of telling us that the bid does not exist. But of course, here it should, and does. It must be redefined to show D support and deny interest in game after GIB's original pass of 1NT.

Edit: Not sure why I replied directly to BB. No criticism implied.

[helene_t]

Maybe it is related to the fact that gib doesn't understand lead directing doubles? It almost never leads my suit when I double stayman.