[phoenix214]

http://tinyurl.com/gmrlpo6

[cloa513]

phoenix214, on 2016-March-26, 06:46, said:

http://tinyurl.com/gmrlpo6

Your hand is too good to simply pass- you have controls in all suits plus extras in clubs. Humans would find difficult to decide whether to go on. The hand definition is bit crazy- could have 13 or 15 HCP and possibly not all the aces and a void in diamonds. With humans it would be better to first bid 3C then 4D not that I think that series is its well defined in GIB's system- it will probably still pass even though should show a near max hand.

[lycier]

phoenix214, on 2016-March-26, 06:46, said:

http://tinyurl.com/gmrlpo6

Welcome you to Gib Robot forum.
Now let's see you hand played by advanced Gib :

---

Result : 4♠S+2

You said " Partner misevaluating hand '. In fact, who should be to blame in your hand ?
1♠ says " 5+♠,11-21hcp,12-22 TPs ". However for you hand, you have 19hcp and 24TPs ! Is it a correct opening ?
Here I can tell you the definition on opening 2♣, it says " 19+hcp,23+TPs, forcing to 2N." Now you should see you would open strong 2♣,only in your hand.

My final conclusion : Your hand is too strong to open♠, it just is you to make a opening mistake, for Gib, no problem.

Here I would replay your hand, its standard sequence goes :

---

Result : 6♠S+1
Now you would see N Gib plays so well.

---

[1eyedjack]

Using GIB evaluation, without commenting on its accuracy opener has 17 HCP + 3 distributional points for void = 20 total points. Well within GIB's definition of a 1S opener, with 2 HCP and 1 TP to spare.

And if I may add, with any human partnership I would expect opener to be regarded as short of a 2C opener.

The OP question is less than explicit, but from the thread title I gather that he is looking for confirmation that the 4S bid is an underbid.

Opener's decision to pass 4S is a valid concern. I can construct hands where 5S is at risk. Just swap responder's red suits, for example. That is rather beside the point. Had North bid 4H over 4D there is little doubt that South would have come to life, even if disinclined to do so over 4S.

Regardless of your opinion of South's final pass it remains a valid concern to ask which of 4H and 4S would be better by North over 4D.

Plus points for 4H:
1) No wasted values in Diamonds.
2) Good trumps in context
4) 4H is below 4S
5) Good hearts (relevant only if 4H is not LTTC).

Minus points for 4H:
1) Overall minimum values in context

A question that an human pairing would ask before the match is whether a cue bid is forced, if available below game and there is no wastage in the splinter suit. Much depends on how narrowly defined is the splinter.

[cloa513]

1eyedjack, on 2016-March-27, 02:52, said:

Using GIB evaluation, without commenting on its accuracy opener has 17 HCP + 3 distributional points for void = 20 total points. Well within GIB's definition of a 1S opener, with 2 HCP and 1 TP to spare.

And if I may add, with any human partnership I would expect opener to be regarded as short of a 2C opener.

The OP question is less than explicit, but from the thread title I gather that he is looking for confirmation that the 4S bid is an underbid.

Opener's decision to pass 4S is a valid concern. I can construct hands where 5S is at risk. Just swap responder's red suits, for example. That is rather beside the point. Had North bid 4H over 4D there is little doubt that South would have come to life, even if disinclined to do so over 4S.

Regardless of your opinion of South's final pass it remains a valid concern to ask which of 4H and 4S would be better by North over 4D.

Plus points for 4H:
1) No wasted values in Diamonds.
2) Good trumps in context
4) 4H is below 4S
5) Good hearts (relevant only if 4H is not LTTC).

Minus points for 4H:
1) Overall minimum values in context

A question that an human pairing would ask before the match is whether a cue bid is forced, if available below game and there is no wastage in the splinter suit. Much depends on how narrowly defined is the splinter.

Minus points for 4H no aces. Partner might needing those. The description might a little simplification really including 1D.

[iandayre]

cloa513, on 2016-March-27, 04:02, said:

Minus points for 4H no aces. Partner might needing those. The description might a little simplification really including 1D.

I wouldn't bid either 4H or 4S. I much prefer pass. No Ace to cue, but, with no wastage in Diamonds and a source of tricks, no reason to discourage partner.

The S hand is NOT a 2C opener.

[manudude03]

GIBs cues are first round control only at first, so the only thing it can really do is force to the 5 level, which I guess it didn't like with its (albeit fitting) minimum.

[AyunuS]

I'd definitely say you should keep bidding over 4♠ as the overwhelmingly best and most realistic way you could get to a slam with these hands, not anything your partner bid. In fact, your partner has shown their full strength of 10+ points and 3+ spades. Once one person has shown all of their points like this, I find it's usually best to just let the other decide what to bid. Not only that, but your hand is really good considering that your partner does have 10+ and 3+ spades, but also that an opponent has points in diamonds which means that your team's points are more useful. Also it doesn't really have much else to show. Given that 4!♥ is the only intervening cuebid, it doesn't want to bid that, since it doesn't really have a good heart control. It has winners in hearts but it doesn't win the first round and could get ruffed in the second, so it's not a good cuebid. Also it can't go straight to blackwood since you've only shown 18+ points, so it having 10 opposite that it correctly doesn't see as enough total points to go there.

[1eyedjack]

I hadn't thought of pass, but certainly meritorious. It might be interpreted as having wasted values in Diamonds but sufficient compensating values in total to be worthy of encouragement. I don't know what is standard or what is GIB system there.

Per manu, GIB "officially" cue bids 1st round controls, but even GIB has been known (regularly) to cue a second round control if worth a cue, lacking a convenient first round control but having a convenient second round control to cue.