[smerriman]

Starting quite recently, almost every single one of my 4NT Blackwood bids aren't being described as Blackwood (yet GIB still treats them as Blackwood). Sometimes this applies to the response too.

In all of these, the 4NT description doesn't mention Blackwood:

---

Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

In these, responses to Blackwood don't mention the number of keycards:

---

Example 2

This never used to happen.

EDIT - the descriptions for new minor forcing and fourth suit forcing have also disappeared entirely, and are no longer alerted. Looks like someone introduced a major bug

[broze]

I've been meaning to post about this and I've been experiencing the same problem. On this hand I kept wanting to bi Blackwood but 4NT was never defined as such. Eventually when I got the bot to bid Blackwood my responses weren't defined as Blackwood responses so I decided to pass!

Big bug.

[steve2005]

example 4 appears not to be blackwood although description is partly.
says 2 or 5 KC (has 1) then says solid diamonds which it does have.
Why would 5♠ show solid diamonds? Never heard of that one!

[smerriman]

steve2005, on 2017-April-01, 15:40, said:

example 4 appears not to be blackwood although description is partly.
says 2 or 5 KC (has 1) then says solid diamonds which it does have.
Why would 5♠ show solid diamonds? Never heard of that one!

Nothing strictly wrong there - 4♦ shows the solid diamonds, so it treats 4NT as blackwood in diamonds, and the 5♠ description is just a continuation.

[smerriman]

It gets worse. I just set up a practice table to confirm after it happened in a normal table, with GIB north opening 1NT. The responses (consistent, not like a rare server glitch):

2♣ - empty description
2♦/2♥ - 5+♥/5+♠ (no 'jacoby transfer' wording like previously)
4♣ - empty description (though GIB treats it as Gerber)

and so on. Something is seriously messed up.

[lycier]

smerriman, on 2017-March-31, 17:39, said:

Starting quite recently, almost every single one of my 4NT Blackwood bids aren't being described as Blackwood (yet GIB still treats them as Blackwood). Sometimes this applies to the response too.

In all of these, the 4NT description doesn't mention Blackwood:

---

Good topic, very good point.
Here I also found another issue.
First, we should learn from Gib, let's see how Gib play here.

---

Here Gib opens strong 2♣ correctly, of course, it is better than opening 1♠, I agree.
However responder's 4nt is a worst bid, too radical. To illustrate my point, I specially re-edit a similar hand with same bidding sequences, let's see what would happen.

---

[diana_eva]

This was fixed

[1eyedjack]

Confused here. Are you saying that there has been a new version of GIB released (perhaps 2 new versions in rapid succession) and the only announcement to that effect is "This was fixed"?

[Gerardo]

No. Same GIB. Just the explanations were incorrect (wrong file, with just a handful of explanations). THIS has been fixed, proper file, with all the explanations, being used.