iandayre

I don't think it's fair for any of us now to continually bash the original programmer, Mr. Ginsburg, for GIB's bidding faults, especially since he's not here to defend himself. But this is a very common problem with GIB explanations, so I think we know the answer to your question, and many, many others like it. I had a huge 0355 hand recently. 1 opened 1D and the opponents had bid to 4S by the time it got back to me. I aggressively jumped to 6C and GIB passed with 5D and 2C!. Those who bid 5C were fortunate enough to get the preference. For the record 6D was nearly cold despite ZERO high cards in partner's hand.

I agree about bidding 2H the first time, but at least 3H did show some length (4+) in the suit. But we can all agree that the description of 3NT is bizarre. It says "4-" for Hearts, but if 3H showed 4, why wouldn't you raise with 4? And probably more importantly, 3H is forcing, so how can 3NT show extras? Fortunately, you had the perfect fitting minimum. I feel so much better about this sort of discussion now that it has been acknowledged that GIB's original programmer didn't possess expert level bidding knowledge. We just accept it and await improvements.

What BB is saying is not criticism of your bridge content, and we understand that English is not your first language, but your comments are simply very difficult to understand. But regarding the bridge part, once again, the cue is a limit raise or better, saying nothing about Spades. You may not agree with that yourself, but that is how GIB plays. It's not really clear what point you are trying to make.

It is a close decision but I sympathize with 2H. The hand has enough shape that game could be good if partner can raise.

GIB isn't reading the cuebid as a void. It plays it as a limit raise or better, saying nothing about Spades.

Agree 100%.

None of us can answer that. Any human player with even a little bit of experience understands that looking for 3NT is the top priority in minor-suit auctions. GIB has no concept of overall priorities. Apparently,since either call would be forcing, the programmers have made rebidding a five card suit a higher priority than showing its double stopper in the unbid suit.

Your point is completely valid. No doubt GIB's second call should have been in No Trump. However, your 2H call was not a reverse. It was a jump shift, thus game forcing. A sensible partner could safely bid 2NT over that, knowing it could not be passed. Lebensohl/Ingberman does not apply to this auction. Once again, it in no way affects your point about GIB, but I would have bid only 1H since the hand isn't really worth a game force. Had partner's first response been 1S, 2H would be a reverse.

OK Stephen I am willing to become better informed on this issue. Yes, you are correct, I have been operating under the assumption that some human(s) wrote the bidding descriptions, and then GIB was programmed to bid according to those descriptions. The problem, as I'm sure you know, isn't just GIB's bad bids, it is that when we are in the middle of an auction, and know what bid we would like to make, often the description of that bid is not at all what we would expect or hope for. The OP is an example, I had to act over the opponents 3S raise and my choices were to pass or show 25+ points. I apologize for what I agree to have been my generally negative tone to these posts. But look at the bright side, Fred has now come out and publicly stated that improving GIB is a priority. I think my impatience was understandable, given the lack of upgrades or even any BBO presence on this board for a long time. And 1EyedJack's most recent post is excellent and I concur wholeheartedly. So I'll be patient, a bit quieter, and hope for the best.

If you are an ACBL member, take a look at the overall masterpoint rankings of all members. The median masterpoint holding is just under 200. Let's be fair and eliminate the whole bottom half, very new players or those who play very infrequently. My masterpoint holding puts me in the 95th percentile overall, and so about 90% considering only regular duplicate players. So perhaps I was conservative, but I think there is one level between players I consider my peers, and the very top group. Yes, masterpoints do not exactly correlate to skill. I have worked full-time all my life, so traveled only infrequently to tournaments. I have never hired a professional partner. I have won 6 open (no masterpoint limit) regional events. I never had the patience to play with new or lesser skilled players, so I never had any desire to play professionally. And now, I have not played a live duplicate in almost 8 years, and I didn't play at all until I started on BBO in late 2013. I'm a bit rusty and I'd probably struggle some if I returned to live tournaments today. So LOL all you want, but I stand by my statement. It really isn't anything all that special.

First, I never called anyone an idiot, stupid, or anything similar. Second, I accept the extreme difficulty and complexity of bridge programming. I still wish GIB were further along after all these years, but I accept Fred's statement that improving GIB is a significant BBO priority, and I look forward to see what progress is made, especially in the relatively short term - say this year.

Right Lycier. If on an arithmetic scale of bridge skill and achievement, if Fred Gitelman is a ten, I'm about an eight, and you're about a three.

Well thank you Barmar. I guess I'm not as dumb as some of the others here seem to think I am. From now on I am not going to post poor GIB actions on this board, though I will continue to make robot reports, and to comment on others' hands. I will look forward with anticipation to future upgrades. So, it would seem to me that default rule should be changed. Everyone knows it is often necessary to assume some values in partner's hand when considering competitive action. And even with my lack of programming knowledge, that sounds like none too easy of a task. But perhaps progress can be made. Best of luck.

I can't see bidding 4H on the actual auction. And I get the necessity for opening in NT on a wider range of hands playing with GIB, and I certainly have been doing so. That said, I still open this hand 1D and jump to 3C over 1H. Over 1S of course 2NT is fine. Just my opinion.

Stephen, I also respect you a lot. I openly acknowledge my lack of programming knowledge, and by no means do I suggest that it is easy or can be done overnight. My problem is with the DESCRIPTIONS, haven't I said that multiple times? If the descriptions are poor, perfect programming performance would still result in poor bridge bidding. I believe that you or I or many other experienced players could write better descriptions for many GIB auctions, and then it would be up to the programmers to implement them.

Thank you for your response. I don't recall ever having received a personal response from you, but this is certainly one! In no way do I think you are a liar, on the contrary I have the highest respect for you, for your success as a player but more so for the fact that you have built BBO into the top online bridge product in the world. I am glad to hear that you consider GIB to be a high priority, and I wish you success in implementing improvements. I have never, and do not now, expected them to come overnight. I will say that you have misinterpreted my disagreement with Helene. It had nothing to do with programming, it had to do with that fact, as I said originally, that the descriptions in GIB, in many cases, are not in keeping with sound bridge principles. This strongly indicates to me that the original programmers were not experts. If they were, in my opinion they did a poor job. But of course that is now the past, it can't be helped and you'll be moving forward from here. I will say that I believe most of the GIB regulars are somewhat taken aback in that there have no GIB upgrades for well over 6 months, and that BBO personnel have not been active on this forum for some time. That is the main source of my impatience. I would also add that, as a paying customer, I would have hoped that, not just in the 2+ years I have been playing with GIB, but in the many years that BBO has offered the product before that, that we would be further along now. You have given me reason for optimism! Once again, thank you.

No offense Helene, but I emphatically disagree. One simple example - the actual hand here. What expert would put in place a 25+ requirement for further action? And there are many similar situations in other auctions. Note I am referring to the original programmers. If they were in fact experts, they did a very careless and haphazard job. I respect the BBO people who work with GIB, but they are employees who must allocate their time and resources as instructed. It is the responsibility of Mr. Gitelman to see that GIB improves. It's his business. If he doesn't choose to prioritize improving GIB, well again, I made my prediction in the OP.

I don't see how Ingberman (or Lebensohl) would apply. Bidding 2S in this auction is a jump shift, not a reverse.

I'm no programmer, here's how I look at it. GIB is currently programmed, on the most part, to comply with the bidding descriptions as written. Unfortunately, those who wrote those descriptions had some very serious misconceptions about what constitutes sound bridge principles. If the descriptions were re-written and improved, couldn't they then be programmed in the same fashion the current ones were? On the question of ACBL Masterpoints, they have always meant a little something to me and I enjoy that I'm gaining some again without having to leave my home or try to find compatible partners. A lot of people here apparently feel the same way, as tons of them are being won here. I'm not anywhere near the top tier of online winners. Let's say this is another, possibly more persuasive, reason to convince BBO that their current policy regarding GIB improvements may not be sustainable.

Yes, we are talking about GIB tournaments. You play with them, you use their system. Not to imply I am against 2/1, it's my personal choice also.

This is not a system problem Lycier. If you read the system notes, I approve of the great majority of the system AS WRITTEN. Instituting realistic and reasonable strength requirements for competitive calls such as this would not require any changes to the system. GIB's ARE better than humans in some ways, most notably that they watch every spot card on every hand and never miscount. But in terms of the calls they choose, in too many cases, such as this one, they are worse than novices.

I think most would agree with my 4C bid, even with a human. GIB has high requirements for competing at the 4 level in this situation, making it more necessary to compete in my opinion. But we needn't discuss that further unless you want to. I am more interested in your final comment. Care to elaborate?

I once had an agreement with a regular partner that 4C would show something like this - a max NT with a D fit and short S. But obviously that is not the explanation you were given. I am used to most of GIB's eccentricities by now, but this is a new one.

http://tinyurl.com/jrnmrfg Surely any bridge player worthy of the name would compete further after the 3S raise is passed around. But, as we all know, GIB has unrealistically high strength requirements for such actions, giving me a problem. 25+??? I am sure our BBO folks know better. I decided I just could not stomach selling out and bid 4C. Now look at the N hand. 95+% of players would pass without a thought. A few might try 4H, even fewer might consider 5C. But not GIB. It likes its hand in view of the massive values promised by 4C, and CUE BIDS!?!? It is too bad that BBO does not choose to invest the time and resources necessary to eliminate these clear-cut erroneous descriptions. We can all hope for some improvement, some time. I have a prediction. If BBO does not significantly improve GIB's bidding skills within a reasonable time, the ACBL will withdraw the privilege of awarding Masterpoints. Letters to that effect are already appearing in the Bulletin.

Good question. 3D seems quite pointless, 2NT the normal action. And I wouldn't be surprised if a subsequent asking 3H cuebid by opener is described as showing significant extras, making it essentially impossible to reach No Trump.