[virgosrock]

should i have proceeded over 4S ?

vrock

---

[steve2005]

Never liked this idea. Very little clue what you need.

[sfi]

Since partner didn't splinter, you know all of your cards are working. Why wouldn't you move?

[Stephen Tu]

I think GIB's bidding is fine here, and that you have a clear 4nt call. Your cards are all working opposite a 6(322), you have a non-minimum, your jack is solidifying the spade suit and not somewhere else where it might be random worthless or only a hook, you have a source of tricks in clubs potentially, you have have Ks not more vulnerable stray Qs.

Controls are good. Non-trump quacks are dubious.

Take it from GIBs perspective, you can easily have hands like xx AKxx QJxx KQx where you need to pick up trumps for one loser and guess which red suit hook works. Just trumps alone not working is < 50%. And there's no other way for GIB to really invite holding this shape.

[virgosrock]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-10, 18:53, said:

I think GIB's bidding is fine here, and that you have a clear 4nt call. Your cards are all working opposite a 6(322), you have a non-minimum, your jack is solidifying the spade suit and not somewhere else where it might be random worthless or only a hook, you have a source of tricks in clubs potentially, you have have Ks not more vulnerable stray Qs.

Controls are good. Non-trump quacks are dubious.

Take it from GIBs perspective, you can easily have hands like xx AKxx QJxx KQx where you need to pick up trumps for one loser and guess which red suit hook works. Just trumps alone not working is < 50%. And there's no other way for GIB to really invite holding this shape.

I think the move forward folks are right. Somehow thought lack of splinter and "mild" threw me off because i have seen GIBBO's "mild" tries.
4NT is correct.

vrock