MightyMoe

It is clear that GIB has no idea what to do over jumps in balancing seat. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-54964126-1419518401 No raise of 3♦s!? 7♦s!? Seriously? Ross

Really. How can the ACBL offer Masterpoints when GIB is involved and this kind of thing happens? [hv=pc=n&s=sjt94hkq6dat9ck53&w=sk82h8dk843caj984&n=sq6hat5432dj62cq6&e=sa753hj97dq75ct72&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d2c2d(%3F%3F%3F)]399|300[/hv] The standard excuse of "It is just like a human partner making a mistake at the table.", doesn't cut it. Not even the worst LOL partner would come up with a stupid bid like this. I also now how hard it is to program artificial intelligence systems -- I do so for a living. This is atrocious.

In this case it is a matter of interpretation. How can this possibly be programmed as take out? It makes no sense. If South wants to play in clubs, South can bid clubs. This is the very dodgy kind of thing that really detracts from playing with GIBs: crazy bid interpretations that have no basis in reality.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt63haj4dqj9ca5&w=skj975h73d87ckq74&n=s42hkt5dt52cj8632&e=s8hq9862dak643ct9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1spp2sd2np3dp3hppdp4cppdppp]399|300|South's Second bid is for take out?[/hv] By what crazy interpretation does south's second double mean take out? That's what the tool tip said.

The discussion of squeeze positions is utterly immaterial. There is no way GIB should have even looked at the ♦ finesse to begin with. There is plenty of transportation so the consideration is: Play on ♦s: slightly more than 50% Play on ♠s: 100%. 12 tricks, guaranteed. Then there is the actual line, where GIB cashed a second ♥ to pitch the ♣ K which was utterly gratuitous. This kind of 'flair' is absolutely unnecessary. It would be appreciated if that kind nonsense be shelved for the sake of some more technically sound play. I know it sounds boring but if the play had gone: win the ♥ lead, ♣ to the A, ♠ 2 to the J, any double dummy analysis is not required. Had GIB West doubled the NMF call and gotten a ♦ lead, there would be merit to this discussion of squeezes, otherwise, it is moot. It should have not even been in this situation.

Uday, It was in a Race/Best Hand tournament and the link you show could be the one. I've played several of these tournaments. You can imagine the shock when the movie said 6N-1. Ross

GIB finessed the ♦Q then cashed the ♠A, playing the ♦ A and J, losing to the T when it didn't drop for down 1. [hv=pc=n&s=saqt52h7daqj9cak6&w=s984hj83dkt865c83&n=sj7hakq9d74cqjt95&e=sk63ht6542d32c742&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1sp1np2d(NMF)p2hp6nppp&p=h4h7hjhahkh6ckh8d4d2dqdkh3hqh5s2c5c2cac8sas4s7]399|300|the bidding is a bit crude, but you can't be subtle when GIB is your partner.[/hv] This was played at total points. There are 12 guaranteed tricks if GIB uses just a bit of basic technique in the ♠ suit. Even the 'rookie play' of finessing the ♠J produces 13 tricks. What is up with this? Doesn't GIB count its developable tricks? Ross