frisbee

I do not play on MSN, but, if I follow your clicks, I do not make it as far as the login screen. The initial screen does warn that MSN might not be compatible with all browsers. I use Firefox (discarded IE a decade ago), but with a number of security features that might be blocking content on the pop-up window (which I absolutely refuse to use). Very easy for me to ignore this problem, so good luck in finding a solution.

Thanks for the programming slice, barmar. Now I better understand why GIB is so poor in spots. 6000+ lines of code is small, at least in a compiled language. I do not want to suggest re-starting from scratch (which is usually the most efficient method to improve a program that has been under continuing development for years), but at least try to convert to a more useful programming language.

My guess is that South did not understand that his partner was showing a balanced 18-19 HCP. Since his hand is already limited by his 1♥ bid, he is strong enough to bid 2♠ over 2♦ (showing more ♥s than ♠s) or to simply drive to a 4♥ contract. North had his bids. If North were to cuebid 2♦ instead of bidding 1NT, he would be showing a very different hand ... game forcing opposite a zero-count. Same problem with a 3♥ bid, North does not have the ♥ support that he would be promising. 1NT is the correct rebid.

In a standard ACBL GCC (General Convention Chart) tournament, Stolen Bid doubles are allowed and must be Alerted ... note that you "Alert", you do not announce "Transfer". The normal (ACBL GCC) meaning of the Double (except over 2♣) is Penalty, so the Double must be Alerted when it is not Penalty. You can play Stolen Bid doubles, but make certain that both partners understand what the subsequent bids mean ... too often, both partners know what the first bid means, but neither partner is certain what the next bids mean, which is a good reason not to play that convention. Playing Stolen Bid doubles, when the auction goes: 1NT - (2♦) - 2♥ ... and you mean the 2♥ bid as a Transfer to ♠, it must be Alerted by Partner. As others mention, it is debatable whether Stolen Bid doubles are useful or not. The last survey that I saw (maybe a year ago) showed that the great majority of good, experienced tournament players used the Double as Penalty and most inexperienced players used the Double as a Transfer (Stolen Bid).

If this were a Goulash event, I would dislike West's Double and I would have no strong objection to East's bid (but I would Double instead of bidding 7♣). If this were a regular event, then I would disagree completely with both East-West bids. I do not consider this Double of 2♥ to be strong enough to be a penalty double showing ♥s. Also, when a Double is supposed to be a penalty double of a two-suiter, the Doubler needs stuff in both suits. Here, all the Double did was encourage North to make a great bid of 6♠ to put maximum pressure on the opponents. Assessing blame: 70% West and 70% East ... yes, that is more than 100%, but both bids were poor choices.

If my understanding of this convention/sequence is correct, I would suggest that the 2♠ bidder type "beginning of an asking sequence" in the Explain box. Then Partner will bid 2NT and type "Forced" in the Explain box. That would satisfy me and I could ask relevant questions, if necessary, since I would now understand what is happening. (Again, this is problematic only in non-ACBL BBO games, because this convention/sequence is not allowed in ACBL games.)

You can type what your bids mean down in the chat section (where the arrows are) and then easily send that to both opponents (your partner will not see your description) ... at least you can on the DOS version, I do not know about the BBO web version. I see too many problems with simply typing "Transfer" and would definitely explain the bid more completely. You must explain to the opponents everything that your non-standard bids mean. Let's not turn BBO into a poker game.

In an ACBL tournament, Partner would "Alert" the 2♠ response (and not explain the Alert unless asked). Of course, in an ACBL tournament (following GCC), you would not be allowed to use your home-grown 2♦ special opener. On BBO, if I understand your auction correctly, the 2♠ bidder should provide a much more descriptive explanation since it is clearly not standard (or allowed?). As mgoetze mentions, this should be posted elsewhere for what to do in a BBO tournament.

Yes, Steve, playing Results, you certainly belong in 3NT instead of 4♠. In a tournament, I would be rewarding such good fortune by assigning a Monitor to watch that Pair. This hand was reported to try to have an apparent programming error corrected.

I have been asked to post (within reason) clear bidding errors in Robot tournaments, so here is another ... [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|frisbee,~~M38652,~~M38650,~~M38651|st||md|4S34JKAH5KADQAC37J%2CS9TH2479D3JKC4TKA%2CS2678HTQD89TC2568%2C|rh||ah|Board%2010|sv|b|mb|p|mb|2C|an|Strong%20two%20club%20--%2019%2B%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%202N|mb|p|mb|2D|an|2D%20bid%20waiting%20--%20forcing%20to%202N%20|mb|p|mb|2N|an|Balanced%20minimum%20--%202-5%20!C%3B%202-5%20!D%3B%202-5%20!H%3B%202-5%20!S%3B%2022-24%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|3C|an|Stayman%20--%203%2B%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|3S|an|2-5%20!C%3B%202-5%20!D%3B%202-3%20!H%3B%204-5%20!S%3B%2022-24%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|3N|an|4%20!H%3B%203-%20!S%3B%203-7%20HCP%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|H2|pc|HT|pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|SA|pc|S9|pc|S6|pc|S5|pc|SK|pc|ST|pc|S2|pc|SQ|pc|S3|pc|H4|pc|S7|pc|D2|pc|D8|pc|D4|pc|DQ|pc|DK|pc|CK|pc|C2|pc|C9|pc|C3|pc|CA|pc|C5|pc|CQ|pc|C7|pc|H9|pc|HQ|pc|H3|pc|H5|pc|S8|pc|D7|pc|S4|pc|H7|pc|D9|pc|D5|pc|DA|pc|D3|pc|SJ|pc|CT|pc|C6|pc|H8|pc|HK|pc|C4|pc|C8|pc|H6|pc|CJ|pc|DJ|pc|DT|pc|D6|]400|300[/hv] Clearly, the Robot should bid 4♠ over 3♠ instead of 3NT (because of the known 8+ card Major suit fit). The description (which you can confirm if you must insist on clicking on the picture) describes the 3NT bid as showing 4 ♥s and no more than 3 ♠s. If that is what the Robot actually held, then I would definitely agree with the 3NT bid. Here, however, the Robot holds 4 ♠s and only 2 ♥s. I hope that GIB does not peek, since 3NT is cold against any defense and 4♠ can be defeated with any reasonable defense, but that is the only rationale that I can imagine for the Robot's 3NT bid.

Partner is unlikely to have more than one useful card in this auction, so leading ♠s can do no good (unless the Kxx is in dummy and Partner holds AQxxx ... not something that I would play for, unless I could peek). Hope that Partner has a useful card in a minor; a small ♣ has a slight advantage, because Partner's Ten will be useful.

Bbradley62, thank you for understanding my comments. lycier, perhaps there is a language misunderstanding somewhere, but I was very specific in my comments. Yes, I played in that tournament. No, I did NOT have the specific auction that I showed; mine was different. I cannot post the auction that I kibitzed. All the details that you requested were given in my original comments, except for the hand diagram (that, as you mentioned, BBO does not allow anyone to post) that you want to see. I am retired now and have the time to enjoy tournament bridge again. If there is a need for programmers for GIB Robots, I could be interested, but my strength is with number-crunching languages such as Fortran (which has always been and still remains the preferred language for mission critical applications) ... I have zero interest in scripting languages.

lycier, as I mentioned, that was not my auction; I was kibitzing another player. The Robot hand, the Robot bids and the Robot descriptions were given in my initial post. I do not see why the hand of the Robot's partner would matter, if that is what you are requesting. If someone is able to show that particular auction and fancy hand diagram, they are welcome to try; I cannot.

I could certainly go back to find other hands that I and others have posted and commented on in this GIB forum, but I am not going to waste the time. Robots mis-bidding ♣ (even with voids) has been discussed on several occasions. I will now retire from this flame-throwing fruitless argument.

Stephen, I posted here to show the hand in question. Clearly, the Robot's 3♣ and 4♣ bids were inappropriate. That programming logic needs to be corrected. (Let us stick with that, instead of the side issues I mentioned ... only an attempt to further explain this was a continuing problem ... Robots bid ♣ by default much too often.)