xxhong

Looks like a double. This hand defends quite well facing long spades and potential H ruffs. Over partner's 2C, I'd pass. Over 2D or 2H, I may raise. Of course, I may miss some 5-3 H fit, which isn't a big deal comparing with the possible gain of 1S x I think. Of course, 2H is a second choice. It may be bad when partner holds little values and no H fit. However, if partner can bid more over 2H, it is actually not bad. 2S may get us to the right suit, but wrong levels.

This one really looks like a pass to me. Minimum values and you don't want to hear 3C from partner if you double, so you want to pass. Of course, it isn't a popular choice for many.

I think the only way to improve fast is to read some books and play a lot of hands and review them in an objective way. Books and software are just optional because they usually present a problem. In real plays, you actually don't know whether the hand is of special interest or not.

1S 2H 3C(extra value) 3H(6+ H) 4N(balanced invitation, denies H fit, about good 17 to 19) 5D(transfer to H, showing 7 or more H) 5H(transfered) 6D(cuebid Ace, shows even number of KC, grand slam interest) 7C(cue bid K, trying for 7NT) 7D(DK) 7N now 13 tricks.

1H 1S 2C 2S(gf, natural, 5+S) 3S(extra value, natural) 4D(even number of KC, cue DA) 4H(cue HA) 4N(cue SQ) 5C(cue CA) 5N(no cuebids, 6+ S) 6C(cue CK) 7S(now CQ is good)

1C 2C 2D(minimum) 3H(void) 3N 4C(even number of KC) 5C(no cue bids available) now either pass or 6C.

1H (2D) 3D 3S(cue for ace, slam interest) 4S(cue for K, denies lower aces, even number of KC) 7H

If you play rather weak openings and 1S shows 4S and 5+C, I strongly suggest 2NT. This hand is very likely a misfit hand and you should probably stay low.

This one looks like a 3H bid to show 6 hearts. We usually play 4C as a cuebid for D.

I bid 2D in both hands to show 6 hearts and later after partner's possible 2H, I bid 2NT to show the extra value.

This is a white 1S opener for many, so I don't see why it should be a 2S hand.

A similar problem also occurs here: After 1C 1S x p 2C, this 2C shows 4 +C, 12-22 points, which isn't playable at all IMO.

If you are talking about guessing factor in the game, I strongly suggest you to work a lot more on partnership understandings to eliminate a lot of guesses. To me, good judgment usually means that you can explore some situations where you can find more intrinsic values of hands others usually don't; or you can find pitfalls of the hands other usually don't. In that sense, it is more a matter of hand evaluation work, which can be done with the aid of computers. Of course, if you can design the bidding sequences to allow you to find more information in some situations, you certainly find the holy grail of the bidding. For example, in old days, two players may only know both have strong hands. They don't know whether they miss two aces. So if you happen to invent the 4NT blackwood convention, you have a huge edge. Nowadays, there are still many such kind of situations, such as finding the important K or Q or J in key suits, or showing more accurate shape information than others. In that sense, system always beats judgment.

BBO's correction of takeout double is still very limited. A takeout double followed by a suit bid to show a strong one suiter is only recognized in sequences like 1x(opp) x(you) p(opp) a non jump bid (your partner) p(opp) a new suit bid(you) Anyway, BBO really should focus on fixing the old bugs. I don't think it's wise to program many new features with a lot of new bugs.

certainly west is quite clueless. West has pretty much shown his shape and partner has placed the contract, there is just no reason to pull 3NT to 4S.

One big problem for 14-16 1NT is how to handle balanced 19. 1x 1y 2N usually shows 17-18, so it is certainly a headache to handle those 19 balanced hands. Perhaps a strong 2D showing 19-20 balanced is a good convention that is compatible with 14-16 1NT natural systems.

In money bridge, against 4D x You hold SAKxx HQTxx Dx CAxxx and lead SK, dummy: J9xx Axxx Kx Kxx, your gib plays 4 from 48 and you decided that you need to find partner's HK and switched H. Declarer won by HK in hand, played three rounds of D, a low S coming, so you naturally play low, just in case partner holds SQx or Qxx, no, dummy won by SJ, played HA, pitched declarer's SQ and later took the club finesse for an overtrick. This is the hand clearly showing that it is simply unwise to believe gib plays any sort of signals. Against any human players, the defense would be very easy and straightforward, SK, S8, then SA, S4, then, CA and spade ruff for down one. I think bbo should at least modify the code and allow gib to give a simple reliable counting signal on the first trick, which is really easy. Still, after so many years, no any modifications have been made for such a simple improvement.

A simple splinter plus kickback: 1D p 1S 1N p 2C 4C(shortness) x 4H(RKC) p 5S(3 or 0 KC, void in C) p 6C(cue for SK) 7D

Kickback is definitely a better treatment than RKCB for minors and for hearts. It is especially a good convention when you can settle your trump suit at 3 level or lower. Problems of misunderstandings usually occur when you can't find your trump fit at 3 level. In those cases, it is probably wiser to play 4NT as Roman Blackwood (Not RKCB). Those who don't play kickback may have severe problems in minor suit grand slams and some problems in minor suit small slams IMO. In your sequence, if you can play 3D as setting up D and GF, then your life can be much easier IMO. 2S can start invitational sequences.

Thank you. I did bid 6 and the trump is 4-0.

Well, there are certainly some hands that you can have a good play in 6D, like xx Axxx Qxxx Axx. The problem is that it is not easy to bid. It is probably a good idea to just play 4m as a natural slam try to find this kind of miracle slams. Otherwise, it is wiser to just play 4H, because for more than 95% of times, you just belong to 4H. Also, you not only need two aces, DQ from partner to have a good play in slams, you also need the right aces. I certainly admire those who can find the good slam scientifically. Those who can't find the slam shouldn't be blamed.

If you want to save some time, try the same strategy and push back to them when they slow down. Of course, it's the best to know how much time left.

There is an even larger community in China playing shengji, which is also a variant of trick taking games. The goal of Shengji is to take as many points as possible. Points are 5, 10 and K. 10 and K are 10 points, 5 is 5 points. So the side that takes the trick would score all the point cards played in that trick. Declaring side's goal is to take 60 or more points. Defending side's goal is to take 40 or more points. I think about one out of four Chinese play this card game. That also explains why many Chinese bridge beginners play much better than other places but bid considerably worse. Also this game can be played using 2, 3, 4 or even more decks of cards and by 6 or 8 players.

I am only telling you what happened in gib's logic. Of course it is a rather bad system. Still, if you make the raising range large, gib may not know when to raise or only raise to game with a very strong hand. This is not only the problem of gib system. This is also the intrinsic problem of many 2/1 systems with forcing 1NT. You usually have two poisons to choose, either play a wide ranged 3 level raise or play a narrow one and make false preferences in opener's first suit.

Money bridge hands are not findable in myhands. Those interpretations are mostly accurate. The purpose of this post is to point out how buggy gib's bidding is and how much it can deviate from its own system. In my impression, bbo's programmer is busy adding new features to the bidding and lazy to solve old existing problems. Many problems existed many years ago when gib first landed at BBO. Now the gib system has too many conventions and many of the conventions are rather badly programmed with a lot of flaws. And many hand types are impossible to show (For example, a strong hand after opps opened and responded. Take-out double would show exactly the correct shape, so strong hands without correct shape would be out of bids. Also, Robot tends not to make penalty doubles in many obvious situations. All these problems created a lot of psyche possibilities to destabilize the whole system more. Also bbo tends to encourage such kind of behaviors, instead of solving those existing problems. Fred Gitelman once said something like you can win playing with gib if you manipulate the bot well. IMO, the correct attitude should be if you play bridge well, you can win, not if you know how to induce more bidding mistakes from opp's bot, you can win. ) A robust system should also be firstly built on some very simple logic with as few conventions as possible. Gib's bidding logic is so bad in some cases, like the pull of the redoubled contract, or the DOPI mentioned in the post. Of course, what I mention happens rarely in robot tournaments, so they are probably of low priorities to solve, since money bridge doesn't attract a lot of players. Among all the players who frequently play 1 cent or 2 cents, I am probably the only one who regularly post in this forum. Another impression is that the code is quite badly written without good designs in early days. Therefore, it is very difficult to add some very simple features like summoning gibs in the middle of the play to finish the hand, or allow the human player to declare when in dummy.