iandayre

I would say so! While the previous example could be lived with, this one shows a clear lack of understanding of the meaning of the passed hand 1NT and is certainly a bug.

South had a tricky problem. North did not, 3H over the 2S call is 100% clear cut.

Agree with Steve. At least we all agree that GIB's choice, 3C, is terrible. Realistic choices are Pass and 3H, and I am sure most would try the extremely risky 3H, recognizing that Pass has its significant risks as well.

I guess I have been fortunate Jim, I have never been blessed with this GIB auction. And yes, it should not exist. 6-4 major hands with no slam interest should re-transfer at the 4 level. Sorry about those who won't read the description and will pass it out in the transfer suit.

Sure, Max wrote 3 different books on the 2/1 system, essentially one each for the 70's, 80's and 90's. I owned them all in their time, and I still have the final one - "Two Over One Game Force". The treatment I described here is discussed on Page 146 of that book.

I think Helene made a good choice rebidding 3D with a doubleton honor rather than 2NT with three small hearts. It is well known that opener is often put in a position after partner's 4SF where no bid is completely accurate. And I am QUITE sure that GIB does not recognize this, and would describe 2NT as showing a H stopper and 3D as showing 3 card support, and rebids of the black suits showing extra length. Some years ago in one of Max Hardy's books on 2/1, he recommended rebidding 2S with a hand like this. Partner was specifically warned not to expect 5-5 or more in the black suits unless confirmed by further bidding. I'm not sure if this ever became widely accepted. But it does suggest an issue regarding hands like this. I would agree that this responding hand has extra values above a game bid, making using 4SF before raising Spades appropriate. However I've seen several other hands with random 13 points that after 1m-1H-1S, incorrectly use 4SF instead of simply jumping to 4S with 4 card support. I'll leave it to BBO to explain why GIB never went back to Spades on this particular hand.

Could you explain further? It seems very counter-intuitive to have to jump to 4NT to show a minimum balanced hand, having opened 2C. Also, if you had an unbalanced hand, why would you not just bid a suit over 2NT? Given GIB's parameters, please provide an example hand that would raise 2NT to 3NT. Or, as I suspect such a hand is not likely, consider changing the programming so that raising 2NT to 3NT shows 22-24 or perhaps 22-23 or even exactly 22. I now see that this has been discussed and is under consideration. Thank you. But I can't help but wonder why any experienced bridge player would design a system where 2C-2N-3N is an idle bid! Perhaps it has something to do with that fact that the use of a direct 2NT response to 2C as a natural call is no longer common practice in North America.

Deleted

I think it's most important that partner can have more points than you, only that will help with the issues I mentioned.

Good question upon a second look LOL.

As stated W's double isn't that bad. If you have your bid partner is void in S and they could easily have a good save or even a make. It is looking like the concept of "human best hand" is distorting the bidding too much. It is not sensible bridge to be able to bid 4S with a hand like this with virtual impunity. That said, I enjoy having a decent hand each time. Perhaps the parameters should be: Human always has at least 11 HCP but then other hands are distributed randomly. That would eliminate hands like this, and the ability to open poor hands intending to pass your unpassed partner's 1 level response. Programmers correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this change would be too difficult for BBO to implement. And it would be an improvement to the integrity and the challenge of the game.

Agree of course that the description of the delayed cue bid is wrong. But, Partner did not make a negative double, which would have occurred with 4 Hearts and 8+ points. We have all played with GIB enough to know that it makes negative doubles when it has the appropriate values, but that descriptions of cuebids - especially delayed ones - are highly suspect.

Bidding anything other that 2S is begging for a minus score.

My comments: Why 4D? Isn't 3D a splinter over the interference? Might make it easier by saving a level of space. It would be better if 4D were either specifically undefined, or showed a void. But I still prefer to start at 3D and bid 4D later with the void. It would be an overall improvement if some descriptions clearly said "this call has no meaning in the system" rather than just restating the values required for the previous bid, as is the current practice. There is clearly no good bid for this hand using the GIB CC. I give GIB credit for recognizing that the hand is worth at least a slam try, and that BW would not be helpful with the C void. Not to mention that the SK is irrelevant! I suppose 5C is better but you are asking a lot of GIB here. But if it starts 1C - P - 1S - Dbl, 3D now partner can cue 4C, you cue 4H and partner knows there is a small slam but no grand. Would GIB bid it that way? Did any other table start with the lower splinter?

Mr. Ace's suggestion is completely correct. In truth what you are trying to avoid is losing 4 tricks in Spades. See what happens if you just draw trump and play Spades without eliminating the side suits, and your LHO has a singleton A, K, or Q of Spades.

I would just say that this is the third (at least) recent mention of this bug. After a double and a strength showing jump advance by partner, a 3NT bid is described as showing 22-25 points - clearly not nearly that much should be necessary. And I certainly agree that the 3NT call, uh, leaves something to be desired. The call would not have even occurred to me.

I would not open 1H with the S hand. To answer the question, were I playing the other 3 seats the bidding would go 1H - P - P - 3C - P - 3NT all pass.

We have seen at least 3 hands on this topic in the last week or so. No comment from BBO, but we can at least hope for a fix in the next version.

It is amazing how ofter GIB passes doubles with nothing in the suit and bids with a trump stack. Is it just counting points? Isn't any part of the programming regarding how to react to doubles geared toward the holding in the trump suit?

I agree, a takeout to 2H would have easily been better. But it did have length and strength in both minors, so this is a relatively minor example of poor judgment.

GIB often cuebids over takeout doubles - when it's not inappropriately leaving them in - with hands where that is not a sensible action. Here, a passed hand cue bid would be perfect but GIB can't find it. The good Spade game might still be missed but at least you'd play in the higher scoring partial.

http://tinyurl.com/ov4www3 The auction here began the same way at almost all tables, with the bidding back to opener at 3S. Since I've already referred to it, let's start with the auctions where S raised clubs. 4C was passed (reasonably enough) but 5C was raised to 6! An utterly abysmal call, given that the hand was barely worth 2C to begin with. And there you are, unable to play game, only partial or slam. The only action that led to any sort of sensible continuation by GIB was 4D, which was raised to 5. This was a good contract that should have been doomed by the bad trump break, although a couple were allowed to make. I didn't like any of those rebid choices. I considered 4S, but as usual that was described as showing massive values, so I rejected it. Sure enough, those who did cuebid were treated to a Blackwood call from the dead minimum N hand. Any action other than 5C over the cue is unthinkable IMO. Then I checked the description of 4H. Sounded good! Promised 6 good D, 4H, and extra but not necessarily overwhelming values. Bingo?? I am afraid not, GIB PASSED 4H. Perhaps the contradiction in the description was to blame, starting out with 6+ D, later stating 3+. There are so many auctions where bidding a new suit is described as guaranteeing only 3+ in the opened suit when any basic bridge logic would indicate that it must show at least 5. My overall conclusion, of which this hand is only the latest of myriad examples, is that GIB needs to start bidding its own hand and stop trying to bid partner's hand for him. And yes I realize that isn't going to happen overnight.

JDonn, I am about to post a new thread that, in part, covers the same ground. Please check it out.

OK I see now, the OP did not mention the description of 3NT. So yes it can't be right that 2NT shows 12-14 and 3NT shows 18-20