iandayre

Once again GIB paints itself into a corner. The double is very poor, it should bid 4C and you'd know to bid 5D. It probably would pass 3S if you took out to that strain.

The one thing I don't understand about these types of situations, is that GIB ALWAYS seems to choose the assumption based on opponents card play or bidding, rather that the sure thing of cashing top tricks. It is as though GIB wants to prove its intellectual superiority. But unfortunately it can't learn from experience that it is not infallible.

Must be a high splinter as it also shows a "partial stop in ♦".

The obvious problem here is that GIB makes these decisions pretty much exclusively based on HCP. So E doubles 3C with 10, although as you say they provide little defense. And W has a minimum, so does not double 3H even though that call is clear to a human player having heard partner double 3C.

I think 2C opener is fine. The descriptions allow for fewer HCP with good distribution. And yes, 3C seems quite inferior to 2S over 2H but I must say that 6H over 3H isn't a bad description, even if inconsistent.

As far as I've ever been able to tell, GIB makes no distinction between opening 3NT and opening 2C and jumping to 3NT over 2D. If the response to 2C is 2NT, 3NT shows a minimum balanced 22 HCP.

If I said the sky was blue, you'd say it was purple. I may respond to your posts in the future but I have no interest in your comments.

And here is another very poor "Grand Slam Force" call by GIB on a hand where 6 could easily fail, and values for a grand are far away. http://tinyurl.com/gorjtqw

And here is another hand with the same theme. Opener's 3C can show up to 22, but the 1NT responder can (and does here) pass it. Gotcha again. http://tinyurl.com/heps63g

I couldn't have said it better <_<

Of course you're right. I took the lead here in trying to get BBO to implement improvements to GIB more quickly and effectively. I got a response from the top. Now we wait. I achieved the newly minted ACBL rank of "Sapphire Life Master" as a result of playing with GIB, and I appreciate the opportunity. I hope we won't be disappointed with BBO's next moves.

I don't play NFB's but I think that a negative double followed by a 2H call over 2D would describe this hand well.

I can't imagine why East didn't start with a negative double. As far as whether 2S should be forcing, there's a good argument for it, as Stephen said, but not high on my list of changes GIB needs. The change REALLY needed is to change the description of 2S. If it is NF it needs to be limited to no more that 14. Saying it can have up to 21, then allowing it to be passed, is a trap for the human player.

I disagree, there is no need for a grand slam force. RKCB will tell if all the key cards are present. 5NT should say to choose between 6S and 6NT.

I think the point is to cash 3 rounds of Clubs, pitching a Spade from dummy, before playing Ace of H and another Heart. The play to Trick 1 makes it appear that Spades are Axxxx opposite xx.

So you are playing with a Robot partner and opponents, but at other tables humans are in other seats? Just curious, what type of tournament is this?

In the end, this hand demonstrates the unplayability of being unable to bid a second suit of 5 card length after having made a GF 2/1 response. Partner is usually forced to make a wild guess when responder is systemically not permitted to describe their hand. Only by bidding diamonds can the good slam be reached. And Jack is right the 3H is the worst choice. 4H could fail with bad breaks with 6NT Cold!

You are right, when you actually do have the extras it can be helpful, if partner bids 3NT it's usually safe to pass. Presumably GIB considers rebidding Hearts less of a lie than bidding 2NT with two small clubs. I'll respond to Cloa here too - not sure of your point. GIB plays 2/1. I am aware it is not the only system in the world.

The next time you want to make a bid like 3D (a second suit after you have made a game-forcing 2/1 response), check the description. You'll see that it promises about an Ace better than an minimum opening bid. Why GIB was programmed this way is anyone's guess, but many have noted that it is a treatment that cannot be found in any 2/1 book. When I hold a similar hand, I usually bid the second suit anyway, but sometimes I get too high.

Quite possibly you should accept the game try with a human partner, but certainly not with GIB. It is notorious for making super-light game tries after a major-suit response and a single raise. Often a maximum solid 14 count offers little play for game.

They "play so well"?? Because this time you can make 7 on a finesse AND a squeeze against East? LOL. And in fact GIB does bid better in no trump auctions.

A must fix here, as Jack says 4H is the only sensible action.

It's a valid discussion as to what North's first call should have been. But it can't be changed now. I find it hard to imagine anything other than a 4D cuebid at this point.

I would have bid the hand just as GIB did with most human partners. I like the "anti-reverse" here with 3S showing 4-4. It would be less effective to use NMF or Checkback with that shape, since if opener showed 3 Hearts it would usually only help the opponents. GIB does freely bypass 4 Spades to bid 2NT with the appropriate HCP, I also approve. I can see Jack's point, but this is a fine judgment area where we really can't expect GIB to try to maneuver.

Great point Lycier. The strong jump overcall over a Weak 2 is missed by most players in GIB tournaments, but I have found it to be extremely effective. And yes, this hand qualifies. OOPS LOL. This time it is GIB who missed the overcall. I often misread hands where GIB has a strong hand opposite the human's weaker one, since this never occurs in the tournaments.