[Siegmund]

From the GIB 21 sticky:

"Tweaked the inverted minor sequence. GIB will now provide more accurate information and point limits as both opener and responder."

From a robot tourney tonight:
♠AK52
♥K8
♦K86
♣9842

Robot opens 1C (3+C, 11-21 HCP, 12-22 total points), I respond 2C, robot rebids....
3C (4+C, 11-21 HCP, 12-22 total points.)

Well, yeah, it does have 4+ clubs and 11-21 HCP, as it turns out. But I can think of three or four other bids it might have made on this hand that would have conveyed considerably more information to me.

I would like for it to have bid 2NT with both majors stopped; I wouldn't have been surprised by a natural 2S or a cheapest-stopper 2D.

What IS the bot's rebid style after an inverted raise? And whatever style it is, why did it decide repeating a 98xx suit was its best bid here?

[georgi]

The sequence of inverted minors is going to be changed more after next update.

The new behavior will show more likely stoppers and shapes. Currently shows natural suit and stronger hand saying nothing for stoppers in the suit/s.

So with the particular hand GIB will rebid 2NT showing balanced hands 11-14HCP and stoppers in the unbid suits.

There are some differences currently between 1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦ responds which is an issue, but this is going to be equalized in next update.

With not all stoppers it will bid closest suit with stoppers or rebid the minor with minimum unbalanced, etc.

[pigpenz]

yes
2NT min both majors stopped
3NT max both majors stopped
2♥2♠min those suits stopped
etc

[pigpenz]

---

I ran into this auction the other day where the
2♦ bidder passed on 14hcp. at other tables they passed
the double and opps bid 3♣ then GIB bid 3NT.

[barmar]

---

The changes Georgi made for this upcoming revision are to opener's rebids, not continuations after that (although they'll of course be affected by the changes to what opener can show). What's going on in this case is that there's a rule that says "Bid 3NT if you have enough HCP and the other suits are stopped." But there's a higher priority rule that says "If we've agreed on a minor, and don't have enough for the 5 level, pass."

In my tests, simulations usually overrode this rule and got North to bid 3NT. But probably the better solution is to raise the priority of the 3NT rule so it takes precedence over trying to find a minor suit game.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 11:09, said:

---

Am I the only one who thinks North should respond 3N instead of 2♦?

[barmar]

I was thinking about that myself. But since you can always get to 3NT by starting with an inverted raise, I think it's better to show your support early. It's not like raising a major, where it often commits you to playing in that suit.

[Bbradley62]

Bbradley62, on 2012-April-08, 11:17, said:

Am I the only one who thinks North should respond 3N instead of 2♦?

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 11:34, said:

I was thinking about that myself. But since you can always get to 3NT by starting with an inverted raise, I think it's better to show your support early. It's not like raising a major, where it often commits you to playing in that suit.

Why make things more complicated than they have to be? 3N should show 4-C, 4-D, 3-H, 3-S, 13-15HCP. If GIB doesn't make that bid on this hand, when will it ever?

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-April-08, 11:57, said:

Why make things more complicated than they have to be? 3N should show 4-C, 4-D, 3-H, 3-S, 13-15HCP. If GIB doesn't make that bid on this hand, when will it ever?

When its shape is 3=3=3=4.

3NT could make it hard to find a ♦ slam -- opener often won't pull with only a 5-card suit.

Remember the old rule: support with support.

[pigpenz]

I couldnt figure this one, in alot of the hands after the 3♣ call by west GIB north still bid 3NT....without the double I might have bid 2NT with stoppers in both major suits, but playing 3NT from south is the only way 3NT can be set....maybe just a triviality for this hand.

As far as a ♦slam wouldnt south need to make a bid that shows max values....I assue this is what a previous thread was about revamping bidding over inverted minors.

so with a max...what is a max? 15+hcp?
3♥3♠3NT by south would show max hands.
2♥2♠2NT 3♦ would all be min bids?
and theres still 3♣

[barmar]

pigpenz, on 2012-April-08, 12:10, said:

As far as a ♦slam wouldnt south need to make a bid that shows max values....I assue this is what a previous thread was about revamping bidding over inverted minors.

I was just talking about why 1♦-2♦ is better than 1♦-3NT.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 12:01, said:

Bbradley62, on 2012-April-08, 11:57, said:

Why make things more complicated than they have to be? 3N should show 4-C, 4-D, 3-H, 3-S, 13-15HCP. If GIB doesn't make that bid on this hand, when will it ever?

When its shape is 3=3=3=4.

3NT could make it hard to find a ♦ slam -- opener often won't pull with only a 5-card suit.

Remember the old rule: support with support.

I would think that a first bid that specifies my HCP count to within 1 (14 +/- 1) as well as my distribution to within one card (3344 -1) is about as good a bid as could possibly be made...

[barmar]

I also like to limit my strength quickly, but I think this may be an exception. Opener knowing that you have support is important, and you'll never have a chance to show it if you jump all the way to 3NT. That 4th card can be quite significant, since opener won't pull 3NT with only 5 ♦.