[helene_t]

http://tinyurl.com/hbs6wkp

[cloa513]

helene_t, on 2016-September-25, 13:03, said:

http://tinyurl.com/hbs6wkp

The 3♦ isn't defined as forcing rather it is a case of atrociously bad GIB judgement.

[iandayre]

Actually it's the product of the hopelessly incorrect description of the 3D bid. The idea that that call could be made on a minimum 12 count is obviously nonsense. Equally nonsense is the idea that the bidder might have only 3 Clubs, but must have 4+ Diamonds, despite having bid Clubs first. I am sure JDonn would agree, hopefully he will encourage that a change be made.

[Stefan_O]

iandayre, on 2016-September-25, 15:23, said:

Actually it's the product of the hopelessly incorrect description of the 3D bid.

Just wondering, how do u actually know?

In some other thread someone wrote, the descriptions are not interpreted by the robots, they are just made up for human consumption...

So the bidding database might prescribe something entirely different, than what they tell the clueless humans... ?

[iandayre]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-27, 09:55, said:

Just wondering, how do u actually know?

In some other thread someone wrote, the descriptions are not interpreted by the robots, they are just made up for human consumption...

So the bidding database might prescribe something entirely different, than what they tell the clueless humans... ?

I don't know any more about the specifics of the interface between description and programming than any non-programmer. My experience does say that, in general, the programming is intended to reasonably match the descriptions. Even poor descriptions such as some of the ones where high-level cue bids are described as 27+ or whatever. GIB does indeed play you for that strength.

[jdonn]

I will report this one. It is based on the definition of the 3D bid. Any bid above 3C should logically show game forcing strength.