iandayre

I think 4H was a reasonable shot and should indeed show a doubleton. I don't mind the 2H call but somehow BBO needs to program GIB to understand that 3NT is the priority contract in minor suit auctions.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. But, Classic ACBL robot tournaments are human best hand, with robot declare. I will add that while I would prefer the adjustment mentioned in earlier posts, I would prefer the current method to completely random deals. As someone else mentioned, defending on 1/2 of the hands would be very tedious given the lack of robots' ability to signal or interpret signals.

No, not at all. Sorry if I don't recall this answer before. My point was that it wasn't obvious to me why it would be more expensive for BBO to provide Advanced robots as opposed to Basic ones. If it is is indeed more expensive, then that is a valid reason. And for the record, while I certainly have been critical of BBO on many occasions, I have always tried to treat my fellow contributors the this board with respect, and I am getting fed up with the incessant snarky comments toward me that seem to come out every time I make any sort of mistake or omission, perceived or otherwise.

Good point as always but it begs a question I've asked before without any BBO response: Why use basic robots at all? The advanced robots are already there, programmed and ready to go, and I don't see why it would be cheaper for BBO to have people use the basics rather than the advanced.

Yes in the Classic tourneys, the Robot declares as in normal bridge. Isn't the "classical format combined with human declares when dummy" the same as what we now have in the regular, non-Classic Robot Tournaments? It's the same in the real-time ACBL tournaments and in the Instant tournaments.

They do not count in any annual point competitions, but they count toward your lifetime total and allow you to advance to LM and beyond.

In any case no one is asking to go to strictly random deals. My suggestion is this. Human has 11+ HCP every hand, but PARTNER may have more. Then you can't open in 1st or 2nd seat and pass partner's new suit. Now if you have 12, there is no point in inviting after say, 1m - 1M - 1NT since you KNOW partner has 12. And as for the OP here, some say it's a bad example but I disagree. Perhaps you think I should bid game anyway, but the point is I HAVE to go to game if I don't know partner has a max of 12.

Nonsense. A cue bid advance to partner's overcall hasn't been a GF for 50 years, if it was then. If you are sure you want to be in game opposite a minimum overcall, just bid it. If you are inviting, cue bid, then decide whether to raise to 3 if partner makes the minimum rebid of 2 of the suit.

I didn't intend to post this in two places, sorry for the confusion. Partner's hand, with no spots above an 8: Kxxx, Kxx, Kx, KQxx. 4S suffered from the easily anticipated problem of needing to ruff with trump honors. Of the other bids, the cuebid led to disaster, GIB launching into BW and reaching 6C. Irritatingly, the gross underbids of 3H and 4C all got a 4H bid from partner. Perhaps I didn't give double enough consideration. That also successfully reached 4H.

Interesting. If true, it would indicate the futility of the current band-aid approach to improving GIB, and make clear the necessity of a full-scale evaluation and improvement of the entire bidding mechanism. Card play, while obviously not at the highest level, need not be affected in my opinion.

I must admit I am disappointed that no one other than Cloa has chosen to participate in this problem. I participate in YOUR questions and polls. So Cloa, I will tell you that 3S was also my choice. GIB raised to 4S. Pass now?? I might add that support doubles have no relevance to the problem. Advancer jumped to 3D over 1H, beyond the level of support doubles.

A negative double after 1C and a 1D overcall shows 4-4 in the majors. 1H (or 1S) shows 4+. GIB corresponds to standard methods in this area. There is no maximum point count. I agree this is inconsistent with the description of 3S in the problem, but that is GIB for you.

I am going to hold off on the hand diagram for now, here is my S hand: AQJ, AQxxx, x, 9xxx. The auction has proceeded P, 1C by partner, 1D, 1H by you, 3D raise, P, P back to you. Here is how possible bids you might consider are described: 4D: 17+, 4+H, 5+C 3S: 13+, 4+S, 4+H Double: 10+, 2+D, 4+H 4C: 9+, 4+H, 5+C 3H: 11-12, 6+H I can't think of anything else. Clearly, none fit the hand very well. What's your best guess? ACBL Robot Tournament, MP's.

I am going to hold off on the hand diagram for now, here is my S hand: AQJ, AQxxx, x, 9xxx. The auction has proceeded P, 1C by partner, 1D, 1H by you, 3D raise, P, P back to you. Here is how possible bids you might consider are described: 4D: 17+, 4+H, 5+C 3S: 13+, 4+S, 4+H Double: 10+, 2+D, 4+H 4C: 9+, 4+H, 5+C 3H: 11-12, 6+H I can't think of anything else. Clearly, none fit the hand very well. What's your best guess? ACBL Robot Tournament, MP's.

You are right, and that's exactly the point. Only knowing that GIB has a max of 12 HCP can 3S even be considered. It's certainly possible that 4S might have made easily and I would have gotten a poor score. On the actual hand, the HQ must be found even if they don't find their ruff, although that's pretty easy with the preempt. By the way, I doubt if I need your bidding advice. I haven't played live duplicate in a few years, but I was reasonably successful at the local and regional level in the 30 years when I did.

http://tinyurl.com/qadqgfn In normal bridge I would have no alternative to force to game with this hand. But playing Human Best Hand and looking at this aceless balanced 12 count, and playing Matchpoints, it made sense to take the low road and bid only 3S. I played there making an overtrick for 92.9% of the MP's. All but one in 4S were defeated. As I stated in another recent thread, I like having a reasonable hand each time. But I really think it needs to be changed so that PARTNER can have a stronger hand than you do. BBO (or anyone else of course) please comment?

I agree with you Jack. I think we can agree that declarer play is GIB"s strongest area, which is why it does pretty well in those tournaments you mentioned. But when we play in Robot Tournaments, the human usually declares all the hands, which magnifies GIB's shortcomings on defense and, in particular, bidding. In fact I would not mind if they left defense completely alone, and focused on the weaker areas of bidding. And with regard to bidding errors, I am more tolerant of those where GIB varies somewhat from the descriptions for its bids. I am less tolerant of the cases where the descriptions themselves are contradictory or just don't make bridge sense, meaning that both GIB and the human partners have little chance of reaching the best contract.

http://tinyurl.com/odrzors We have seen several recent hands where after a balancing double and a jump advance by partner, 3NT shows 22-23 points, far in excess of what should be required in view of partner's jump. This hand shows that the same problem exists over a direct seat double. When I double here with 20 HCP and partner jumps to 3C, 3NT is the obvious action, and it should show a hand just too good for a 1NT overcall, or 19-20, exactly what I had. But the description, for some reason, requires 22-23. At MP I saw no alternative but to try 3NT and hope for the best, but not surprisingly partner jumped to 6C. And amazingly enough, helped by a favorable opening lead, I was able to make it. But the situation still needs to be fixed by BBO.

I don't understand this comment. I said that N should pass 3C, not "escape" anywhere. What are you suggesting?

We're paying customers BBradley. You don't think we deserve anything from BBO? Let me add something else. BBO is licensed by ACBL to award masterpoints. Many ACBL members oppose the idea of awarding masterpoints for play against robots. I would like that practice to continue. But I fear that if BBO does not fairly quickly get much busier in improving the product, it will become very hard for ACBL to justify the practice. Thoughts?

True. I don't remember how ordinary Stayman by a passed hand is defined, I wonder if it is any different.

BBO, we deserve an explanation here. Not so much for the fact that GIB could not find the obvious PASS of 2C, but for the fact that it rebids Diamonds on a 3 card suit, when the description calls for 6 card length!

An extremely sad, poor performance by GIB here.

GIB does not play Garbage Stayman. That is not my choice, but it should help GIB here. If 2C showed at least invitational values, as I believe it does, N has an easy pass over the 3C interference.

It's well know that GIB is very weak in the grand slam zone, in particular in the use of 5NT. It is obvious from N's side that you should not be in 7 without the DK. Most would play that 6D over 6C asks for that card, but I don't believe that is part of GIB's programming. I would at least recommend that the program be adjusted to make GIB less aggressive in pursuing grand slams. It's quite true that the extra ♥ instead of, say, a ♣ improves prospects. Even a small slam isn't great opposite 3523.