iandayre

Duplicate

It often seems that redoubles lead GIB astray. Of course, judgment about when to pass takeout doubles is another big GIB problem area. I wonder what GIB W would have done without the XX?? I have long believed in the late Edgar Kaplan's rule - Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out. In other words, pass only when it is clear to pass,otherwise bid.

I have to agree in both cases. The H hand is an example of exactly why Lebensohl exists - to be able to show a weak but playable hand such as this. As for the other hand, let's focus on the range shown for 2NT - 11 or less HCP, 12 or less total points. This range make no sense opposite a 15 to 17 1NT opening bid, since the higher end of the range belongs in game. Any yes I have promised to lay off BBO bashing, but this is a simple case of either a thoughtless blunder or lack of bridge knowledge by whoever established this range. No hard feelings, how about a correction? Or does anyone disagree with my logic?

In Mike Lawrence's excellent book on balancing, the range for a 1NT balance after 1x-P-P varies based on the suit which was opened. The higher ranking the suit, the higher the top end of the range, up to 16 over 1S. I believe this is the best answer to this difficult bidding problem, although it's far from perfect. I would say this is a low priority for correction.

Lycier, It is one thing to say that we should be patient with BBO, should not make personal criticisms, and I agree. It is another to say that BBO can dictate which topics can be discussed on this board, and which cannot. They have no right to do this, although I wouldn't necessarily say they are attempting to do so. This is a very valid topic of discussion. Three things are clear: This has come up many times before, BBO has taken no action to correct it, and, most importantly, GIB's usage of this treatment is distinctly at odds with standard practice. I think we are due both an explanation and some corrective action.

I guess I would have done fine. With 2/3 of my HCP in the short suits, I would have opened 1NT. Surely the jump to 6D is a bug. As you say, part score or slam, GIB won't play in game. I also agree that GIB should have passed after 1C-1H-2D-3NT, but I have found that it is safer to open 1NT with a singleton than rebid 1NT with one. One bridge point, you state that 1D-1H-2C shows a maximum of 15 points. We are not playing a strong club, so this is incorrect, 2C could be any strength short of a game-forcing jump shift.

I agree. This egregious recent programming error should be BBO's top priority to fix. I'll leave it at that, and hope they act quickly.

I agree with the consensus that unlimited bids should be forcing. The problem here is the description of the bid being unlimited, not the fact that it is non-forcing. A further problem is the cuebid as showing a H rather than a C fit - that is clearly nonsense in light of the original double. I also play the double as showing the unbid suit with typically a doubleton in overcaller's suit. I will make an exception here to the general rule that GIB doesn't need more conventions, and suggest that advancer's double in situations such as this be so defined. This used to be called "Snapdragon".

Tough hand. I wonder how many players of any skill level would find the double-dummy correct action of allowing E-W to play 4S undoubled.

Sometimes you just have to play bridge. 4C sounds invitational or competitive, not forcing. I'm not at all surprised GIB took it so. Especially since you can bid game (5C) or try for slam (4S) in other ways.

I agree. I never suggested that GIB stop bidding 5NT, only that it be programmed to use the information gained appropriately.

The interesting question to me here is, how would GIB treat a pass by you over 2S as opposed to your 3H call? I play 3H as the weakest action, would pass here which is more encouraging. It's also unclear why E is fooling around doubling the 2S cue bid, an action which should indicate defense. Should go directly to 4S.

In my opinion your double was automatic. So should have been GIB's takeout to 3S.

This would fit right in with BBradley's excellent idea. It's well documented over several posts that GIB often bids 5NT for Kings, then does not know what to do with that information. I've seen at least 3 hands where once GIB's partner showed a side K, it could easily count 13 tricks, but it still signed off at 6.

Excellent points regarding GIB's card play. I too am willing to be patient about improving GIB's defense, and I agree that GIB's declarer play, while not at expert level, is above average. Those of us who play the ACBL and the Instant Robot Tournaments don't get the benefit of GIB's strongest point since we usually opt to play all the hands ourselves. This should be remembered though, when BBO points to the statistics that GIB typically scores a few percentage points above average in random MP games. It is out-declaring the average player, so therefore bidding and defending somewhat below average.

No I am certainly not a programmer. I don't suggest it is easy to produce a good bridge playing program. But you have identified the problem - just a "couple guys at most working on it on a part time basis". You have seen my posts and that is exactly what I have called for, for BBO to devote more time and resources to improving GIB. There are other bridge-playing programs out there but GIB is the only one licensed to award ACBL Masterpoints, so that is where I do my playing. Given that relationship between BBO and ACBL, I think that BBO has an obligation to put a higher priority on improving GIB. Don't you?

It would be one thing if GIB had made the incredibly wimpy call of 5C. You could then say that it doesn't appropriately handle extreme distribution. But to PASS with this much high card strength? And once again, had GIB been introduced recently, OK, give it time. But it's been around more than 20 years and owned by BBO many years-don't recall the exact date. To have so many significant blind spots - see also the recent hand with 8 solid Diamonds that never bid - simply doesn't cut it for me.

A matter of personal preference and style. Leo and lots of others who do very well bid that way with GIB. In my opinion, they are playing a game other than bridge, and I'm not interested. But I don't criticize them either.

I too would like to know how the auction went at other tables. Hard to imagine that many Souths accepted the invite at MP with this hand. Certainly N must not pass below game.

GIB boxes itself into a corner here. It allows a 2H opener at unfavorable with this garbage, but it requires a maximum to bid anything but 3H over the 2NT inquiry. If I were placed at the table after the 2NT call and had to find a rebid, I would probably bid 3H also. But your point is quite valid.

Do you suppose that anyone at BBO is even the slightest bit embarrassed by this? No, I don't know exactly how much time and expense BBO puts toward improving GIB. I do know, that for a program that has been around for many years, this is unacceptable.

I would call this a bug. A 4NT bid after the transfer would be aggressive, 5NT is lunacy.

One of the first topics discussed in detail when I first started playing with GIB some 18 months ago was GIB's propensity to hang partner for balancing. And it was supposed to have been fixed back then. But apparently not here. S did not double the first time, limiting values and making and call by GIB other than 2S a gross overbid.

Double is 100% correct. Forget about takeout doubles guaranteeing 4 cards in the unbid major(s). 3 is fine with enough strength to act. But yes, 3S is a big overbid, 3C is enough playing Lebensohl. Given recent examples of GIB making the strength-showing suit advance over doubles of weak 2's with weak hands, and given that GIB's version of Lebensohl has always been non-standard, an improvement in GIB's use of that convention is clearly called for.

You are correct that GIB currently promises at least 3 in both majors in this auction. But this is not good bridge. The negative double can be short in one major IF it also contains good support for opener's Club suit. The same is true after a 1D opening and 2C overcall with D support.