iandayre

If the cue shows 11-16 I would think they expect you to bid 3NT with that range.

A completely valid point. This is one I believe that BBO can fix, and hopefully they will do so. And if you read other posts here, of course BBO realizes that GIB is flawed. Those of us who are regulars here simply wish that BBO management would invest more resources into improving it.

Sadly, the descriptions in many cases (I would not say GIB overall) are that bad. See the current post "Missed the Memo" for more on the subject. I rarely tout new conventions for GIB, but this post suggests one. Since 1m-2m-4m currently is essentially undefined, why not make it RKCB? Keep it simple, use in that specific auction only and see how it goes. And while you're at it, or even if you don't consider this, please make the much needed change that after 1m-2m-2 of a higher suit, 2NT shows the unbid major(s) stopped but is non-forcing. It's nonsense the way GIB does it now, with responder rebidding 3 of the minor on 3334 11 counts.

At least now we know that it was not our current BBO staff that wrote the explanations for GIB's bids. I guess now we know that Matt Ginsburg may have been a very fine programmer, but he wasn't much of a bridge player. This is the one situation where a negative double guarantees at least 4-4 in the unbid suits. But the explanations of subsequent bids are not consistent with that fact. BTW I completely agree with 2S.

I'll throw in an opinion there. There should be no fast arrival in No Trump. 3NT should show the strength of a 1NT opener. 2NT either weaker, or stronger, intending to raise 3NT to 4NT, quantitative.

There are certainly many more important changes to be made, so I'm fine with that. I am confident in stating that is the modern standard treatment however, in response to BB's original question. How does GIB define new suit bids after a Texas Transfer and acceptance?

I think this is a hand evaluation issue, and it's well known that GIB seriously undervalues long, strong suits. I would make a Jacoby transfer here, followed by a splinter jump to 3S. The auction 1N-4D-4H-4S (or 5C or 5D) should be exclusion BW, but I don't think this hand is strong enough for that action.

I agree with you completely here Barmar. I thought of making a similar reply but did not. I have no better use for 1D-3C than an invitational hand with a good 6 card ♣ suit.

I'm not talking about GIB's calls matching the description. I am talking about areas where even if GIB's calls matched the descriptions perfectly, there would be problems. Or perhaps even more, when the human player has to make a call and no action comes close to showing the hand. There is a recent example where at one point in the auction, 2H, 3H and 4H all had the same description. You have cue bids that force to some level of THEIR suit. The descriptions of an opening bid of 3NT and that of 2C-2D-3NT are identical - surely there should be some distinction. My posts over the last several months have provided many, many other examples. The connection between the skill level of BBO personnel, in my mind, and the descriptions is that many descriptions do not derive from solid bridge knowledge and experience. I therefore conclude that they were written by persons with limited bridge experience.

I can understand that JDonn. We'd settle for a simpler concept, that one should very rarely pass takeout doubles without trump tricks.

Good question, I have nothing to add. Awaiting the BBO response.

I would have opened 1D, but I certainly agree that 3S is a nonsense call.

It's a very, very common GIB issue that the descriptions of bids indicate shorter length than normal bridge practice would indicate. If this were fixed, I suspect that GIB would be introducing new 3 and 4 card suits at high levels much less frequently than it currently does.

To Stephen Tu or anyone else knowledgeable on the subject: Does anyone have any experience with other bridge-playing programs currently on the market? I know that there is an annual computer championship and that GIB participated in the early years, but not since. I am very curious to know if GIB is comparable to the best programs currently available. Is so, our expectations of GIB obviously have to be toned down. But if not...

OK I'll accept that. I also accept that programming is difficult and tricky. What I would like to see you or other BBO personnel address is the quality of the explanations. I know that Uday and JDonn are, at minimum, solid Flight A players. You may be as well, I don't know. What I do know that the overall quality of the GIB bid explanations is terrible, and that any very good player who reads through them would recognize that. It certainly makes me wonder who wrote them to begin with. But regardless of that, they need to be improved significantly. I know that is not an easy or quick job, but there is no better time to start than now.

5D is an atrocity, I would sooner pass the forcing bid. I would be thrilled to hear partner bid 4S over 4D, which I would pass quickly. Obviously 3NT could work but I prefer bidding my hand, not what I wish my hand was.

Of course, raising 3H to 4 is extremely aggressive, a call I would not consider even Vul at IMP's. Sure passing will work sometimes. But look at the hand. Who would ever pass? It's not even a thought. Most of the time when passing does work are like these, when you find doubler with something like Ax of trump. Advancer should always assume doubler has a small singleton when considering passing a normal takeout double.

First of all, thanks to Barmar for his comments. Still in all, this is a common type of GIB error that BBO needs to stop making excuses for and start fixing.

Does anyone remember BBO telling us that GIB's strategy regarding passing takeout doubles had been changed? I don't but it seems that it has been, and not for the better, since the N hand has no business passing. This may be the most often seen, glaring weakness for GIB at this point.

2H is clear cut in my opinion. We need so little for game. Now if it then goes 2S, P, P back to me, I will pass. But I am hoping partner finds a bid - a responsive double perhaps?? I'll know what to do.

That's fine, but once again, why use Basic GIB's at all? Unless someone can explain how it would cost BBO more to just use the advanced robots for all applications.

Yet another thing we were told had been fixed some time ago, yet GIB is still perpetrating the same blunder.

So many of the explanations of GIB seem to be defined looking at that one action only. In this sequence, 2S, 3S and 4S are all normal rebids by the takeout doubler, and they clearly should all show 4+ Spades with an increasing range of strength. Not just here but in many other auctions, major gaps are left leaving a bidder without a call that even remotely shows their hand. And as so many of us have said repeatedly, no raise to game should show massive values, such as the 23-25 here. There are always cue bids available to show hands that may have slam interest after a non-jump advance, and those hands are very rare. Few bidding sequences should be reserved for them.

I agree on all counts. This hand is just too good for a balancing jump overcall. I don't suppose 3S over 2D would have been natural either?

There's no "understanding" or excuse for GIB not to take simple preferences. This has come up a lot recently and we are hoping that improvements will be part of the next update. It is our understanding that there are only two versions of GIB, basic and advanced. I personally would not use my time playing the basic version. I don't believe if it has ever been explained clearly whether updates apply to both versions. Here is another question - why have Basic GIB at all? The advanced program exists and it doesn't seem as though it would cost BBO any more to just use it for all applications. Both use the same CC so are equally accessible to all levels of players.