[pescetom]

Another board from the same tournament.
I intervene Unusual NT and GiB bids 3♦ described as "Preference" and little else.
Logically could be 0 HCP and 3 cards.
I have an interesting hand... but an illegal hover over 4♦ shows that this promises "28 Total Points" (IIRC, or something similarly unlikely).
Obviously I pass and we miss game, with the handicap of having explained my hand and the minor suit layout to Declarer.

What is the point of playing an aggressive shape showing convention if you do not understand the developments?

[benellis58]

The GIB robots are hopeless. The GIB system is pathetic. The GIB definitions are quite often ridiculous and poorly expressed. Why doesn't BBO get better robots or at least upgrade GIB so that it is not so irredeemably bad?

[smerriman]

Yep - with GIB, if you bid 2NT, you can't bid again ever, since they only programmed in direct responses (so later bids are generic descriptions about needing a certain number of points to bid freely at the 4 level or higher, combined with partner, who has shown 0).

But this is one of those standard rules that you learn quickly when playing with GIB - just like you never double with a strong offshape hand, you never make a two suited bid if you don't plan to pass the response (or lack of one, in further competition).

Having said that, how would you define 4♦ to GIB here, both in terms of when it should be bid, and what shape/strength it shows?

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-May-04, 16:52, said:

Having said that, how would you define 4♦ to GIB here, both in terms of when it should be bid, and what shape/strength it shows?

If you mean 4♦ of the Unusual bidder after a 3♦ minimal preference, I think it should be bid rarely if ever and show excellent shape/strength. Quite possibly it could be forcing and demand a control-bid.
But the problem is upstream, I only even considered bidding that because 3♦ was defined reticently as "Preference", without specifying any maximum.
Not sure how GiB does define the advances over 2NT. I confess I'm no bean counter and I confess I never even discussed this with a partner, so certainly not the right person to redefine GiB system But I do remember reading the original Roth document and finding it logical and sufficient at my level. As I remember:
- take a non-jump preference with any hand less than invitational
- take a jump preference invitational
- make a game jump preference with a hand to play or reason to preempt
- cue the opps suit to force a control-bid
- jump cue the opps suit to force choice of game
- bid a new suit to play.

[smerriman]

OK, I totally misunderstood your post - it sounded like you were saying that despite knowing your partner might be completely broke, you wanted to be able to bid 4♦ and got a bad result because you were unable to do so. Wanting to bid 4♦ here did seem very odd to me.

For the responses themselves, they made jumps preemptive but didn't consider strong responses, which is indeed silly. I still wouldn't have bid 2nt here though.