[1eyedjack]

---

MP, Instant, 35

The description of the double as "take-out" is fine, although the limitation on suit lengths seems strange. The description "5- hearts" seems rather vague for a bid that is takeout of hearts.

And responder has no defence, and a HUGE double fit, and sits for it.

[iandayre]

Once again, you are quite right. N has no business sitting for the double. Once can only wonder why improvements in that area were not part of the latest long-awaited revision.

But what a hand for S. The hand is way too good for a simple overcall, but doubling with a H void seems very wrong. This hand should be posted as a problem. Maybe something of a compromise with 4D?

[manudude03]

I guess North simulated going for 800 a lot, so decided -590 doesn't seem too bad.

[lycier]

Now I couldn't resist here, I have to speak my mind : obviously, all of the above are wrong, of course, including Gib CC.

1- About this double : what's it? in fact it is a classic Cooperative double , and has nothing to do with take-out.

2- This is a story which shouldn't happen, its normal standard sequence goes :

---

Or

---

3- This hand also showed two of Gib flaws : one is the definition on this double, another is judgement.

---

In order to maintain your poor experts honor, please don't insist on false ideas.
Here if I have some wrong comments, please tell me, thanks.

[iandayre]

Sure, double would work OK this time since the opponents have all the hearts. If partner had lots of them, try convincing him you are void in the other major after doubling Spades. Perhaps double IS best but as I said before, I'd like to see a variety of opinions, preferably from experienced players.

And whatever you call the double of 4H in the OP, N should take it out. He has less than no defense, he has negative defense due to the D length.

[ahydra]

22 HCP, two losers, two great suits and huge playing strength - you simply have to start with X. The second time I think I would X again, or maybe bid 3H, just to get across how good my hand is (the GIB definition of 3D is stronger than most would play it, I suspect, but even then you still have a lot more).

Agree with those saying N should pull the X. Indeed you might get (1S)-X-(p)-2D; (2H)-3H-(4H)-p; (p)-X-(p)-4NT suggesting both minors after which you get to 5D (or 5HX), though South might be forgiven for blasting 6D, unluckily going down when clubs split 4-1.

ahydra

[cloa513]

ahydra, on 2016-March-31, 13:00, said:

22 HCP, two losers, two great suits and huge playing strength - you simply have to start with X. The second time I think I would X again, or maybe bid 3H, just to get across how good my hand is (the GIB definition of 3D is stronger than most would play it, I suspect, but even then you still have a lot more).

Agree with those saying N should pull the X. Indeed you might get (1S)-X-(p)-2D; (2H)-3H-(4H)-p; (p)-X-(p)-4NT suggesting both minors after which you get to 5D (or 5HX), though South might be forgiven for blasting 6D, unluckily going down when clubs split 4-1.

ahydra

That's one choice- the other choice is the unusual 2NT and then cue spades.

[xeno123]

ahydra, on 2016-March-31, 13:00, said:

22 HCP, two losers, two great suits and huge playing strength - you simply have to start with X.
ahydra

Good luck in the ensuing fight with your partner GIB in the highly probable cases where he shows up with four or five hearts. That's not a fight you are likely to win.

[Thiros]

ahydra, on 2016-March-31, 13:00, said:

22 HCP, two losers, two great suits and huge playing strength - you simply have to start with X. The second time I think I would X again, or maybe bid 3H, just to get across how good my hand is (the GIB definition of 3D is stronger than most would play it, I suspect, but even then you still have a lot more).

If you start with X (which I would do, as much as people like to say what "serious business" two-level overcalls are, 2♦ has an upper limit and this hand is at least an ace above it), you will hear 2♦ from partner. There is a case for raising that to 6, although East is likely to make a 2♥ rebid and then I would be more inclined to try 4♥ to convey the fit, power and void.

[1eyedjack]

Thiros, on 2016-April-11, 22:51, said:

If you start with X (which I would do, as much as people like to say what "serious business" two-level overcalls are, 2♦ has an upper limit and this hand is at least an ace above it), you will hear 2♦ from partner. There is a case for raising that to 6, although East is likely to make a 2♥ rebid and then I would be more inclined to try 4♥ to convey the fit, power and void.

You have the privilege of knowing that partner does not hold the Heart suit, at the point of your recommended double. And with a human partner you may well be able to extract yourself from the mess when partner (North) has (and tries to insist on) hearts, and he will have hearts far more often than not. Playing with a robot, despite that X may be the GIB system bid, there is absolutely no way to recover when partner has Hearts. He absolutely will insist on Hearts, right up to the 7 level. This is a long reported bug in GIB, and a major disappointment that in the 9 month delay between version 34 and 35 it was considered too low a priority to fix. But fixed it is not, and so we plod on in the knowledge of GIB's anticipated behaviour.

There was a great player who occasionally would make an underpowered bid with the comment "if I can just get past this round ..." I can't remember who it was. Possibly began with a K (Kantar, Kehela, or Kokish) or maybe one of the Rubins. On this occasion, playing with GIB, and conscious of GIB's foibles, the possibility of 2D overcall being passed out is the most significant danger of the bid, but is frankly the least dangerous of alternatives.

I regret that you fall in to the Lycier trap. The thread is not about South's bidding, nor is it a complaint about the result or how a better result could be achieved. It is purely about whether, with North's hand, and with sight of nothing other than North's hand and the auction, type of scoring, position of dealer, and vulnerability, it is or is not reasonable for North to pass the final double, trusting the others to have their bids where feasible. If you judge that it is not reasonable to pass the double, then it is reasonable to point out that GIB can be programmed to bid North better.

[lycier]

1eyedjack, on 2016-April-12, 00:00, said:

I regret that you fall in to the Lycier trap. The thread is not about South's bidding, nor is it a complaint about the result or how a better result could be achieved. It is purely about whether, with North's hand, and with sight of nothing other than North's hand and the auction, type of scoring, position of dealer, and vulnerability, it is or is not reasonable for North to pass the final double, trusting the others to have their bids where feasible. If you judge that it is not reasonable to pass the double, then it is reasonable to point out that GIB can be programmed to bid North better.

You're really stubborn.
Many of the immediate cause of the disaster was unsure of double nature in the history of the bridge event.
Given that opps have shown its decent fit in ♥ , you also showed your suits, your second double should be cooperative for sure. If somebody think your double is takeout, I wil say I regret that they fall into the 1eyedjack trap.
Even with different opinions, I am glad to see your friendly attitude.

[1eyedjack]

GIB describes it as takeout and you of all of us would have us enslaved to GIB. That said, even if it were some sort of grey undefined 'Co-operative' double, does that excuse North's Pass? I would say that North should not pass anything short of a "blood" penalty double, and then with trepidation.

[lycier]

Your words make a little sense, I think here needs to establish some complex bidding rules for programming, it may be a very tough work in the current.

[lycier]

1eyedjack, on 2016-April-12, 03:07, said:

GIB describes it as takeout and you of all of us would have us enslaved to GIB. That said, even if it were some sort of grey undefined 'Co-operative' double, does that excuse North's Pass? I would say that North should not pass anything short of a "blood" penalty double, and then with trepidation.

You earlier said :

1eyedjack, on 2016-March-28, 03:44, said:

The description of the double as "take-out" is fine, although the limitation on suit lengths seems strange.

After thinking it over for several days, I think the definition as takeout is not appropriate.
Today, I fortunately got a Gib hand.

---

After E-W showed good trumph fit in ♠ , north Gib double should show takeout, that's to say north Gib will support all the unbid, in fact, north made the right decision. Obviously this should be a standard takeout, so the double in your hand should belong to " Cooperative".

Would you now agree with me?

[lycier]

Sometimes, it is takeout,but also cooperative, for example :

---

Here the description of the double as "take-out" is fine.