iandayre

I hope the OP finds this comment useful. You play a nice mix of solid, commonly played conventions - with one exception. Having "stolen bid doubles" on your convention card is the equivalent of having a flashing neon sign on your card saying "I'm not very good". Better players simply do not play this. Do yourself a favor and learn Lebensohl over 1NT interference. This obviously is my opinion but I think you will find it widely shared.

The more interesting question is, would 4C have been forcing? By the standard rules of advancing negative doubles, it is not. (bid the full extent of your hand, only a cuebid is forcing). But this can be awkward and I am sure some/many would consider this forcing today.

This is a well-known problem that has been referred to many times, but is, as yet, unaddressed. For some reason GIB does not recognize that the jump advance of the double showed invitational values, and treats the normal 3NT call as showing massive strength. We all hope this will be fixed in the long-awaited next GIB revision. It would also be nice if GIB could recognize that the N hand had already shown its full values, and that if partner were that strong it would not sign off in 3NT.

His profile says he lives in the Chicago suburbs.

Nice to see you're still out there Barmar. Speaking of robots, no one from BBO has visited the Robot forum in quite some time, and there have been no software updates in many months. Please let us know BBO's plans.

Using GIB's methods I believe you are expected to open 2C with this hand. It is too strong to open 1D and jump to 3NT.

Quite true. The second double is redundant, doesn't show anything the first one didn't. I can't imagine there is any passed hand worth another double here.

deleted

One of GIB's most basic problems is that it does not plan ahead in the bidding. It figures out the bid most fitting its programming on one round (apparently this hand is too strong for a balancing suit call at the one level), and starts the same process again every round. Here it does not consider what to do over the 1H advance if it makes a takeout double, and paints itself into a corner (not good enough to double and bid a suit). I would estimate that in over half of all GIB auctions, the descriptions of bids are not sensible given the meaning of previous calls at the table).

I was about to suggest you pass 3D, as I would do in a Robot Tournament, with my 11 and the robot limited to 11. But your robot has 12, so you were playing some other form of the game. I am old fashioned enough to Pass the S hand in first seat anyway.

http://tinyurl.com/oevd7ue ACBL Robot tourney, MP Classic. (Robot declares when appropriate) I reached the normal contract of 3NT, recognizing that the 2S rebid doesn't promise 6, and by taking the risk (only with robots of course) of making the natural rebid of 3D. So after a club to the Ace and a club back, any sensible declarer would lead a S to the J, guaranteeing at least 9 tricks with a chance for as many as 11. But for reasons unfathomable to me, it played a S to the 9, losing to the Ten. Clubs were set up and 8 tricks were the limit. What possible reason would GIB have concocted for taking this bizarre finesse? I considered the MP angle, perhaps the robot perceived us behind the field for not being in Spades? Doesn't make sense with that lead and continuation. Robots declaring 4S all played a S to the J and took 11 tricks - the same 11 available in NT with the normal line of play. All in 3NT - a slightly larger number - failed as happened at my table. So can anyone seriously explain why this happened?

I was thinking the same thing. I have never heard a persuasive, much less convincing, argument for opening 1C with 4-4 in the minors. While this same hand after a D opening is a problem, as presented it is a very serious problem.

Yes, very few do not play negative doubles to at least 3S these days. And it is no problem if the double is not negative, you have an obvious pass.

I'd like to refer once again to the hand in the November 2015 thread "Negative Simulation". It shows a hand where GIB used the 5NT ask, got information that made it simple to count 13 tricks in no trump, and then signed off in 6S. And this is only one of 3 or 4 times I have seen the same thing. Can you provide an example where GIB used the 5NT K ask to reach a solid grand slam? I am not saying that can't happen but GIB is a lot better at counting HCP than it is at counting tricks.

I would say that having such a wide range for the 1NT rebid is far more of a problem than is usually caused when opening 1NT with a 5 card major.

All true. As I have noted several times previously, GIB has no clue when to use or not use the K ask, nor what to do with the information once it's been received. And in this case, with Clubs as trump you are not supposed to show a K above the level of the trump suit, so the ask is totally meaningless. I am now looking at the description of 5NT - in particularly "does not show extras". Well that may be, but it should - must - show interest in a grand slam. But it appears that GIB is simply confirming the presence of all the key cards. The entire area of the 5NT specific-King ask, and responses and follow ups thereto, needs a total revamp from BBO. I think you are partially at fault, given your long experience with GIB, for bidding 6NT. GIB often seems to take slightly offbeat (by its logic)actions to show significant to impossible extra values, and GIB is known to be overly aggressive in MSS auctions. You have a very average 16, GIB can have no more than 16, and you should realize you'll be darn lucky to make 6C without pushing to 6NT.

I have said before and will say again - BBO should retire the basic robots. They are an embarrassment to the brand.

Certainly a good question! This minimum overcall has no business accepting anything, except perhaps an invitation to Overbidders Anonymous.

True enough, and I certainly agree that GIB had no part of a jump to 7, cuebid or no cuebid.

Don't know what you had, but GIB is on the aggressive side when responding to a 2C opener. I rarely move when it attempts to sign off in a major suit game.

I agree on all counts. Certainly forcing to the 5 level is stronger than doubling 3S. And I would have bid it exactly as you did. 4NT seems perfect, lots of offense, more minor suit orientation than a second double would imply.

Deleted duplicate

Well, our voters did well. PASS was the winning option and won a large number of IMPS I was a 1H bidder, and when the bidding came back to me, I saw that 3H would show extras and game interest opposite the mixed raise, so I passed. Partner bid 3H which was doubled and set two vulnerable tricks. Amazingly, this also won a few IMPS! The GIB quirk I mentioned was that those who rebid 3H were taken to game by partner. This contract was also held to 7 tricks - but undoubled. I don't think anyone overcalled 1H and rebid 3D so I can't say what would have happened. Why did 3H*-2 win IMP's? Those who overcalled 1D heard the auction go double, P, P back to them, and there they sat. Opener had 2056 shape (AJT97 of D), Dummy the stiff Q and neg. doubler the K8. 1D* was held to ONE trick - the SA - for -1400! Nearly 1/2 the field suffered this fate.