iandayre

Having played with GIB for several years now, I don't think I have ever seen a call quite as bizarre as the 4H out of nowhere here. Possibly an unintended consequence of the most recent update? I don't know but BBO needs to act now if GIB is going to be making bids like this regularly.

Just to clarify - programmers are not in charge of GIB. The owners of the company are, and they assign programming talent and other resources to GIB in accordance with their own business plans.

I had this auction today in an ACBL Robot IMP Tournament P 1S 3C 4C (me) P 4S P Here is the definition of 4S: 5+♠; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points. Honestly, I don't think GIB actually bids in accordance with this definition, and would move toward slam with hands near or at the top of the stated range. I certainly hope that is the case! Obviously this definition is nonsense and should be a high priority for change. It was easier for me since I held 13 HCP and knew partner had no more, even though slam was still possible. I don't think the definition would be any different in GIB formats where "Human Best Hand" is not used, though.

If you play semi-forcing 1NT response, you should pass holding a balanced hand that would pass a delayed 3-card limit raise. If you would accept, you bid your lower-ranking 3 card minor (or 2 card minor if 4522). All hands with 6 in the major or a second 4 card or longer suit bid accordingly. I played forcing for a number of years, switched to semi-forcing some time ago, with generally good results.

Let's just say that this particular bidding situation needs to be prioritized for improvement. The OP and others are correct that there is no conceivable call for North on the third round of bidding other than pass.

Bermy, most of the regulars here share your frustration with GIB's bidding deficiences. You are not the first to notice them. JDonn does an excellent job of responding to questions here. He is not a programmer nor is he responsible for BBO's decisions about how much time and money to invest in GIB. He is however a true expert player, and his participation is welcomed. If you read the system notes to GIB, it is a solid version of 2/1 in my opinion. Obviously, when it comes down to evaluating actual hands and bidding according to that system, GIB needs much improvement. It is indeed frustrating that improvements are slow in coming. When I first started playing with GIB a few years ago, system upgrades came out 3-4 times a year. Recently we are lucky to get one per year. It would be nice if JDonn or, better, Fred Gitelman himself, were to post here to explain this delay. Mr. Gitelman has posted here exactly once, 2-3 years ago. He was not happy with my criticisms, and he promised that resources would be invested to improve GIB. I am sorry to say, despite my overall respect for him, that the promise has not been kept. I am hopeful that now that there has been an ACBL National event conducted using GIB, that improvement of the product will become a higher priority. We shall see.

It is hard to fathom the convoluted logic that makes GIB choose 4C over the 1000% obvious 3S.

UPDATE! Regular posters to this BB who played in the NABC event did very well. I recognized the names of 4 players who scored over 60% johnu 16th Place 65.20% stefan_o 28th place 64.11% stephtu 92nd place 61.58% iandayre 168th place 60.16% A total of 2428 players participated. Anyone I missed?

So, are most of the regulars here going to play in this tournament? Should be fun, and obviously those of us experienced with GIB, especially the Human Best Hand format, will have some advantage. I suppose I am looking forward even more to all the comments from experienced players new to GIB. I guarantee that some will make the ACBL Bulletin, and I am sure there will be an article, which will of course minimize and excuse GIB's foibles. Should be very interesting indeed, especially now that there will be significant Masterpoint awards.

It is funny how often a nonsense call such as the 1NT overcall here throws the robots into a tizzy. What would 2D by W over the normal takeout double show? Certainly it is natural NF, how does this hand not fit the criteria?

Perhaps you are right. The name of the thread "in the absence of a support double" is confusing then. "In an uncontested auction" would be more accurate. No, I don't play any sort of checkback after a single major raise by opener. But I can pass 2NT or 3NT, and, if partner bids another suit, I will not return to the major if accepting a game try.

I can't think of any hands where I would raise with 3 cards if a support double is available. I do often raise a major in uncontested auctions from 1 to 2 with 3 card support - Kxx, QJx, AQxxx, xx I would open 1D and raise either major.

Double should certainly be negative. This should be easy to fix right BBO?

I don't believe your description of a possible 3H rebid is accurate. That is the bid that can be passed below game. Certainly you had no valid reason to believe that 3D was anything but a natural bid. Also, 3C was not natural, it was weakness showing, the fact the clubs were held is coincidental. Hands like this are why I prefer a 2H response to 2C as an immediate negative. Subsequent bids then can be natural without overstating strength.

GIB is the Walter the Walrus of computer bridge. It makes decisions based on points. It does not know how to evaluate hands based on fit. At least you go plus here. Wait until you make a splinter and it goes to slam with KJxx in the splinter suit. Of course when GIB makes the splinter, you have the opportunity to evaluate based on it, so splinters should be retained.

True. I don't ever recall GIB passing an overcall, then jumping after opener's reopening double. I would bet that call is defined as a hand good enough to have bid the first time.

I am pleased to say I haven't seen this either. Welcome back JDonn. Even if there are no software improvements, your presence and replies improve the quality of my experience here. Why the admins are here for a while, then disappear for months before returning, I suppose is one of the mysteries of BBO.

Short answer - it is possible. But it is a very involved, time-consuming process. Many changes have been made over the years, many for the better. We now seem to be in a period where GIB is being ignored by BBO. No one comes here to respond to issues, and there have been no announced upgrades for many months. My opinion - since BBO has entered into a long-term agreement to award ACBL masterpoints in GIB tournaments, they believe that further upgrades are unnecessary or, at least, very low priority. While this isn't stated openly, GIB is intended for the majority of ACBL members who are non-Life Masters and for whom GIB is an upgrade over their current live partners. And all that said, as an LM more than 12 times over, I still play with GIB frequently. At least the convention card is always the same, no need for discussions every time you play. In tournament you always have at least a tie for best hand, and you get to play the hand when dummy normally would. I can live with the tradeoff, but of course it would be nice if some of the still-existing bad bidding areas could be improved.

I am sure it was never intended that GIB have any more information than a player at a normal table would. As to why the human always has at least tied for most HCP, I am not sure why it was done, but I expect I would have long since given up playing with GIB otherwise. It is very difficult to defend with GIB due to its lack of signaling, or ability to read signaling.

It should be noted that human does not necessarily have "best" hand. No other player has more HCP than the human. Others may have an equal number, and certainly may have better shape. If human gets a 10 point it is known that all other players also have 10.

Agree that 2NT better than 2H, and that N may be too strong for a double negative. But neither is seriously off the mark. The same cannot be said of GIB's failure to pass 3NT.

Thank you for your responses. I also felt that pass was called for and did so at the table. 4th best H lead led to a one-trick set and a near-top score. Had they somehow scored +90, I would still have done very well with most of the field down 100 or more in H contracts. With all the emphasis on aggressive bidding these days I wanted to see if a sensible pass was still the expert consensus.

It was my belief that Frances was commenting on my language usage, not the bridge problem. I don't know what her call would be. I meant to include in the OP that the game is matchpoints.

choice (countable and uncountable, plural choices) An option; a decision; an opportunity to choose or select something.  [quotations ▼] Do I have a choice of what color to paint it? One selection or preference; that which is chosen or decided; the outcome of a decision. The ice cream sundae is a popular choice for dessert. Anything that can be chosen. You have three choices: vanilla, strawberry or chocolate My question fits well with #2, and perfectly with #3. Apparently you're not as smart as you think you are.