Antrax

3N isn't always a great contract, but right now it looks like you'll consistently miss 25-HCP NT games after balancing.

Yeah, this looks just like a "book" issue, GIB needs to be updated to always invite on (semi)balanced 11-counts here.

Is it obvious that an Ace is better than KQJ?

I also wound up in 5♠. I expect partner to raise or bid 5♠ himself or something, you can't give me a pass or correct bid and expect me to jump again.

Not sure if I'm representative, but I don't really have time to play seriously, and don't want the relevant parts of my brain to atrophy. The various quick play options are great for that, since bots don't care if you drop out suddenly after playing 5 hands, they play a system you know in advance and even at basic play you need to count the hand and bid normally to get good results, so it's challenging enough.

Either way it seems poor. I wonder how much GIB needs to invite here.

Can you give an example hand?

My best guess is that GIB simulates you always make +2 based on the HCP you showed. I'm not a good enough player to tell you how, though. If you hold singleton ♣K and ♠Qxx to go with your ♥KQ you still have a loser, so presumably you could always squeeze your way out of it?

I think it's the same method but a more human-friendly explanation. You can understand what's going on by converting it to 8421 in your head. In your example, GIB wanted to say 6+ in 8421 and holds 8. I've already posted in the feedback thread about how I think this does more harm than good, currently. It should at least say something like "A or KQ or better".

I think in the Watson book he advocates leading Q from AKQxxx so that's just taking it one step further.

So far unable to reproduce, but one time I had an issue where the font size on some of the cards was different (slightly smaller).

Please merge this too: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64591-bbo-mobile-app-version-370-comments-thread/page__view__findpost__p__783397

No official 3.8 thread I can see, so I'll report here. Bug: impossible to play the 2nd card from the left from dummy's hand on the opening lead in portrait mode using iPad air. Feature: not crazy about the new GIB explanations. They're more human-friendly but I'm afraid it might be at the cost of accuracy. I'm specifically referring to the new 8421 explanations - to make a positive response to 2♣ opener the explanation said I needed ♠KQ. It's probably obvious that implies ♠AK and ♠AQ are also good, but is it obvious that ♠AJ isn't enough? For a cue bid in a suit that was previously bypassed, it just said "cue bid" and that it denies the ace of that suit - but it didn't say what it promises.

My exact line (replayed it now): Duck two spades, pitch a club on the third. Diamond to K and A, spade comes back, pitch another club (E pitches ♣9). ♣J won in hand. Cash another high ♦. ♥ to A, ♣A. Now E pitches a diamond that I feel is a mistake. Looking at the hands, though, I see it was a legitimate squeeze. So, not a bug, just not the most difficult discard to read.

Sorry, I forgot to mention I played another top ♦ before ♥A. But yeah, what I do is play these hands out which means I test inferior lines you guys would miss.

Single-suited hands with lots of HCPs, balanced hands too strong for 2NT, many-suiters without short spades.

Can I ask why not open 1♥? You can reasonably expect someone to hold spades so it won't go AP, no?

How many more threads are you going to open about how psyching confuses GIB? You showed 22+ HCP, so you must have ♦A, so GIB E sees no point in anything and plays a random ♠T.

Why would you open 1NT with 2=1=5=5? There's no rebid problem.

Fluffy, not sure if it's a bug or a feature, but I started out similar to your line: win third round of spades pitching a club from hand, diamond to K, pitch another club from hand on fourth spade, win ♣K in hand, cash a high ♦ and ♥ to A in dummy. Now I played the ♣A and E pitched a diamond which made my life easy (pitch ♥, finesse, claim). Was this a legitimate squeeze or a misdefense? If E pitches ♥Q it leaves me guessing what to do next, I think. [edit] Corrected the play

Seems like a case for unusual 2NT, which if memory serves is a convention that only helps the opponents. Odd.

It's that same partner again, isn't it. Know that for most pairs, 3♦ denies a four card major. Have you two agreed otherwise?

Do you know what the auction was? Is it possible 5♦ was bid over the opponents' 4♥ contract? I must say I'd pass with your hand opposite 3♦, expecting to make at most 7 tricks in no-trump (your partner's 5 or so diamonds and the two major-suit aces).

I don't think there's a difference in the first round of the auction.

[hv=pc=n&s=s63hkq94daqj7ct84&w=sjt52hj32dt932c73&n=skha85d854cakq965&e=saq9874ht76dk6cj2&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2spp3c(5+%21C%2C%2014+HCP)p3h(3-%21C%2C%204+%21H%2C%2013-18%20TP)4s(%3F%21)ppdppp]399|300[/hv] Basic bots, all vul. It makes no sense for GIB W to enter the auction when it did. It can count 6-7 losers based on the auction up to then.