iandayre

If you were to read Fred's posting Stefan, one thing he said in no uncertain terms was that BBO is indeed motivated to improve GIB. Whether they have the skills, and are truly willing and able to devote the necessary resources, I auppose each of us will have to judge that for ourselves. I have no idea if they would ever consider licensing a more modern and advanced program for use on BBO.

A number of interesting points here. Unless it has been changed VERY recently, 1D-2C has always been a one-round force. I have seen GIB, as responder, pass a 2D or 2NT rebid. I agree with Stephen that this is not optimal. I have never advocated wholesale changes to the system. It needs improvement to the details, as Stefan accurately gave examples, but as far as the basic structure goes, I am OK with at least 95% of it. If I had to pick one basic change, that would be it - make 1D-2C a GF with 1D-3C invitational with long Clubs. I will Stefan the short version of the "announcement" of a few months ago. I believe I was the instigator. Along with others, I had been critical of GIB's bidding over an extended period of time. Finally, I stated my concern that the ACBL could well discontinue awarding Masterpoints from GIB tournaments unless its performance improved. Fred Gitelman himself responded - the only time he has personally posted to this forum since I have been here. You can probably find that response if interested. Since that time, I have tried to give Fred and his staff the benefit of the doubt, and to give them time to do what needs to be done. We have had one upgrade since - it was a bit disappointing but it did cover a couple of important problem areas. In the meantime I'm still here playing.

Your point is quite valid, thank you. We all learned some facts about GIB a few months ago. The original programmer's focus was on card play. He was NOT an expert bidder, and the weaknesses of GIB's bidding approach reflect that. BBO management assures us that they are working as fast as they reasonably can to improve GIB's bidding. Mind you, BBO has owned the GIB program for many years now, and many of us think they have not implemented improvements quickly enough. But that is where things stand for now. Be careful though. I am not at all certain that the initial auction you gave - 1D-2C-2D-3D - is forcing with GIB. 1D-2C is its exception to 2/1 GF. I am SURE that GIB would consider 2D passable.

Obviously West's pass is a bug, no comment needed. I am fine with the first pass by E, but then I would settle for a simple 4H, showing some values but needing significant extras for slam. With GIB's current programming we have the unfortunate self-exacerbating problem that GIB cuebids too frequently on hands where a simple suit bid would be better, and that GIB's ability to interpret and act intelligently after partner's cuebid is extremely limited (and that is an understatement).

GIB's strengths - card play and defense, although far from expert level - come up every hand. Its weaknesses in bidding do not - many hands are straightforward 1NT-3NT or similar and GIB does fine on those. So I would expect it to average a better-than-average score. For the record my MP average currently sits at 60.22%.

This is a good example of how GIB bids one round at a time. I consider the cuebid a poor choice, since E can anticipate partner bidding Spades. Now you are at the 3 level, knowing partner likely has only 3 Hearts. Much better 2H the first time, which should end the auction. Yes even as it went, 4H is awful.

I agree that 2NT followed by 4NT over 3NT to show 18-19 is the correct and best answer. Don't try it playing with GIB though, it can and will pass unless it has a full opener or better. This applies after 1D-2C. GIB won't pass 2NT if you opened a major.

I have also reported this problem, at least twice. The second was last fall, and I got a response from a BBO person who I have known very well personally for many years. She said she'd look into it and get back to me. She never did.

GIB has its problems but I don't believe this is one of them. It knows how to matchpoint. I don't know how to access other players' results, but several others here do. I hope someone pulls up the hand and we can see what happened.

Unlike today's other hand, I have no problem with 2NT here. But you know GIB is aggressive at the slam level in NT auctions, especially with a fit. 4H was playing with fire. Especially since a natural 4NT was available.

I would bid exactly as you did. No extras having made a GF splinter. Slam easy as cards lie but hardly cold. N could certainly make another move with 5H. Definitely there should be a distinction between single and double jump. Here is one that has some adherents - 3H is either just game invitational - will pass 3S - or a super-max that would be tempted to make a second slam move. 4H is in the middle, a game force but no extras.

Agree on all counts. N should pass 3NT. If 4D is bid, 4NT should be to play. And passing a double with the N hand is poor.

This is certainly not an example of what Woodych was talking about, GIB gave delayed support for his suit, it did not continue to bid its own. It's of course true that 6H was a bad bid and the human player deserved the bad result. Then again, posting this hand which has nothing to do with his post isn't fair.

Sure, double would work OK this time since the opponents have all the hearts. If partner had lots of them, try convincing him you are void in the other major after doubling Spades. Perhaps double IS best but as I said before, I'd like to see a variety of opinions, preferably from experienced players. And whatever you call the double of 4H in the OP, N should take it out. He has less than no defense, he has negative defense due to the D length.

I have played Leb in its entirety with human partners, in more detail than GIB does. I play 2NT then 3S here to be invitational with exactly 4 trump. This is how it was written up years ago. I haven't seen a detailed writeup recently.

Once again, you are quite right. N has no business sitting for the double. Once can only wonder why improvements in that area were not part of the latest long-awaited revision. But what a hand for S. The hand is way too good for a simple overcall, but doubling with a H void seems very wrong. This hand should be posted as a problem. Maybe something of a compromise with 4D?

Your point is very valid. To me system is partially to blame. I don't like to have to go through 2NT to show this hand. A direct 3S should show invitational values with 5 or more trumps. This way gives the opponents extra space with little upside.

I wouldn't bid either 4H or 4S. I much prefer pass. No Ace to cue, but, with no wastage in Diamonds and a source of tricks, no reason to discourage partner. The S hand is NOT a 2C opener.

Too bad it didn't get cute and try a different lead this time.

Partner WAS reversing. It could be argued that 3C is enough with this hand, but make the D better, and 2D would be the only sensible call.

You don't play transfers? 4S, invitational is easily most common treatment.

Not standard now or ever. Just a bizarre bug that should have been fixed long ago. I bet you were shocked when the SA was ruffed at T1!

I suspect it has to do with the fact that GIB N doubled, while many humans would overcall 2D.

I had the same feeling when reading the list of enhancements. The third listed - that after GIB's partner makes a jump advance of a takeout double, a subsequent 3NT call doesn't show massive strength, was the most mentioned and needed. The first - no more weak jump rebids of its own suit after say 1S - P - P ,(balancing action) is also good. The rest were pretty obscure. But what bothered me most is that they were all about how GIB would bid. There was nothing about improving the descriptions. BBO, you have got to start eliminating these "gotcha" auctions where a bid shows a wide range, including values where bidding game would be clear, but GIB is allowed to pass it. If a bid is non-forcing, fine, but the description must limit it to values where the bidder is willing to be passed out.