[shyams]

---

After three rounds of bidding, and having shown a basic minimum hand, I decide to double opponents on what appears to be a misfit. I feel safe in the knowledge that partner cannot assume it as takeout because opponents have shown all four suits (including the one I originally bid) plus I have denied a fit in partner's major.

However, North GIB thinks for a while. Then decides to take out to 4♦. I must say North showed restraint in bidding only 4 because I made exactly FOUR tricks .

Well done, GIB. Minus 600 instead of Plus 300/500.

[iandayre]

Agreed, 4D is terrible. But you can't be greedy with GIB. It is a complex auction that doesn't come up every day. Often when that happens, and you find a double out of left field, it's going to be confused. Take your plus until the day when they make some real changes.

[cloa513]

iandayre, on 2016-October-30, 16:20, said:

Agreed, 4D is terrible. But you can't be greedy with GIB. It is a complex auction that doesn't come up every day. Often when that happens, and you find a double out of left field, it's going to be confused. Take your plus until the day when they make some real changes.

Similar situation come up not too often.

[shyams]

My oft-repeated theme (also used in other GIB bidding threads) is that IF GIB uses sampling to determine likely winning action, I cannot think of many hands where a PASS will come out worse than a 4♦ bid. I refuse to believe that GIB cannot compute (using whatever programming logic it has) to infer correctly that PASS has to be a winning action.

What I also find odd/suspicious is that neither GIB E nor GIB W could compute that doubling 4♦ is a no-brainer.