iandayre

Good examples. It would be hard to find two better hands, when seen together, that illustrate the most severe of GIB's problems.

As others have stated, all these bids are natural and game forcing. The way to answer this question for yourself is, had I bid the second suit without jumping, would it have been forcing? Clearly not in the first two, so the jump is needed to force. Some do play a 1-level suit rebid by opener as forcing, but that is not standard in SAYC or 2/1, so once again, it is necessary to jump to force a rebid from partner. To PMarlowe's point, I don't play opener's 1 level suit rebid as forcing, but among those that do, many play that the jump shift shows 5 Spades and a longer minor.

Here is an example hand of something I have seen GIB do several times in recent weeks: http://tinyurl.com/pot4br6 GIB will open 1 of a Major in 1st seat, P, P, Double. It now leaps to 3 of the major with hands that were only slightly too strong to open a weak 2 to begin with. This is the weakest hand I've seen but all are in the 11-13 HCP range. Does anyone consider this a normal bridge action? Is this what BBO expects GIB to do with such hands? For all W knows, N may have been planning to pass 1S doubled. Just wondering. I do see that the explanation is accurate. As you see I had more than enough to reopen with a double and GIB guessed well to pass - I would have pulled to 4H, which would have been much better had I held a small singleton or void in Spades.

I'm sorry your son Chacun has gout, but what does it have to do with bridge?? Seriously, my wife speaks French, I'll have to ask her to translate. I tried the link but it didn't work.

The correct responder rebid here is indeed 2D. This is one area in which GIB's version of 2/1 is compatible with generally accepted methods. The only possible alternative is 3NT but with both unbid suits unstopped, that is a very poor option. Less so with GIB, since it tends to make very passive leads and you are more likely to get away with bidding 3NT with a suit unstopped, but still 3NT is not a sound action. 2D also leaves open playing 4S on a 5-3 or possibly a 5-2 fit. To your other point, I have never liked rebidding 1NT as opener with a singleton in responder's suit. But with GIB, the auction 1m-1S-2m-2H is also game forcing, which is NOT consistent with sound methods. You can easily miss a 4-4 or even 5-4 H fit by rebidding the minor. Solutions are either to rebid 1NT or to treat a strong 4 card H suit as a 5 carder and open 1H!

Yes, after submitting a just a few Robot Reports, I got a message from JDonn thanking me and making suggestions. Also, in his long post a few weeks ago, he stated that these reports were reviewed regularly, daily if I remember correctly. We're lucky to get any response from BBO here once a month. Also, I'm sorry I missed your earlier suggestion. It's an excellent idea regardless of who thought of it!

3S. Gszes makes good points. Mind you, in the tournaments I play with GIB it's impossible for me to hold such a weak hand, so I have no experience with how GIB reacts to weak preempts.

Duplicate

It's true that the opening hand here is understrength for a 2C opener. That said, KQJTxxx, AKQJ, A, x, is most assuredly a 2C opener, and you are still off the SA. The issue of GIB's failure to use Blackwood on hands where it is easily available is a long-standing issue that deserves to be addressed.

The responding hand is actually excellent for SSGT's. It should accept H or C, but refuse D. But it doesn't even bother to ask, why is that BBO?? Mind you I would not make any sort of GT with the S hand, except perhaps Vul. at IMPS.

This auction is fine up until the 3C call, no doubt GIB should have corrected to Spades. The range of the auction 2C followed by 2NT is dependent on how often a partnership opens 1NT with a 5 card Major. I do so freely, but with something like xx, AKJTx, xxx, AKx most, including myself, would probably open the major and rebid 2C over 1NT. Those who rarely open 1NT with a 5 card major have to use 2NT on the 3rd round to show their strength.

After 2C-2D-3M, I like this fairly simple continuation method - Any minimum new suit bid shows that Ace. If responder has no Ace but one or more Kings, 3NT is bid. Opener can then ask about specific kings. Responder simply raises 3M to 4 with no Aces or Kings.

I wish there were a way of implementing BBradley's excellent idea of sorting posts here based on the GIB issues they relate to. It has been repeated over and over for months now that GIB passes out far too many of partner's takeout doubles. It would be great to have a large group of hands all together, all demonstrating the same problem. If playing in real-time tournaments, I suggest everyone use the Robot Report function to report bugs like this. These reports seem to get more regular attention than posts to this board. Unfortunately that function isn't available for instant tournaments. Probably not for other play formats either.

Surely you're correct that those D bids should have different meanings. I would suggest that if (reasonably enough) you are not going to sit for a double of 2S, then you should not have doubled 2C. Wouldn't 2S by you have been forcing with Diamonds?

Once again, not a programming issue, a poor description. Of course 4D must be stronger than 3D, although it should be non-forcing. Personally I am OK with N making the responsive double with that hand. It's aggressive but the shape makes the hand worth competition, and if partner rebids Spades that's not awful.

The first nonsense call is East's double of 3H. I can't imagine a more clear-cut pass. And look at the description - a huge point range, but EXACTLY 2 Hearts, why?? How does that make any sense? Yet E has only a singleton H, and doubles anyway, and not surprisingly, E-W are in the soup. I'm not sure which happens more often, GIB bids when it is clear to pass, or GIB passes when it is clear to bid, but both are far, far too common.

No. As you said earlier, if the cue IS a game force, then 3D, showing location of values, is reasonable. The programming is fine but it is based on a poor definition of the cue bid.

http://tinyurl.com/krta7sl GIB's preemptive minor raise has quite a wide range, so anything could have been right. Pass, 3NT, 5D were all worthy of consideration. I decided to made the call I would make with a human partner, 3H. When GIB came alive with Blackwood, it seemed certain I had made a blunder and was headed for a poor result. But if I bid 5D, GIB would expect 4 key cards, so I made the accurate reply of 5C, and GIB bid the slam. As you can see, it was ice cold. Bidding your hand accurately certainly doesn't always work with GIB, but it does work out reasonably often. And you don't develop bad habits which may carry over to other venues.

Agree on all counts. Your hand is worth a cue bid, which should be a game try, not a game force. N should show its fit and weakness with 3C, ending the auction. Once again, not a programming issue, but one in which the explanations do not reflect sound bridge logic.

No argument with your points about GIB. I will say your bidding is usually sensible, but I can't imagine bidding 2C as opposed to doubling with your hand.

Agree completely. Here is something that has occurred to me. JDonn's long post, among others, discusses the difficulty in programming GIB. And I can see the point. What has NEVER been addressed to my knowledge by BBO personnel is the quality of the bid explanations. They would require some time and effort to fix, but, as I have stated many times before, it would be well worth the effort.

Perhaps I'm misremembering. I looked at uva's profile when we were playing in the same tourney, and I thought that is his real name.

I was confused by this for a moment, but I believe you mean when your opponents take a different action that was taken in earlier versions, it works better for them. One would hope that when your partner's action is different in the current version it would more often help you. In the long run, if this all works out, most of us would score more poorly in instant games than in real-time games, since there are two opponents which have improved vs. only one partner.

I think it is time for a direct question to BBO. JDonn, Uday or Georgi, please respond. Why DOES GIB require 17+ points for responder to rebid a second suit after a 2/1 call? Do you play this way with your partners? Can you cite a source for this systemic quirk? And even if you can, I strongly believe that after making a GF 2/1 bid, responder should be able to bid naturally below game without showing extras, and I am quite sure this is not a pet preference of mine, but completely mainstream. That's part one. Then as Fred says, even with him holding full values for 3C as GIB is presently programmed, it grossly overbids. This is a more general issue that needs work.