iandayre

One can hardly fault the explanation for the second double, whatever it may be. I can understand the programmers not planning for the possibility that an opponent, in a position to pass out a doubled contract, would instead raise! That said, whether this problem is new or not, it must be fixed immediately.

I agree, both of those auctions are terrible. I doubt they have anything to do with the latest revision, though. I suspect the old GIB would have bid them the same.

GIB bid to the perfect, last makeable spot. I wish I had such connection problems LOL.

I would say that, simulations aside, GIB should not be allowed to force to game (with 2S here), then pass at the 3 level below game. 5C is better than 3NT here, although both will make on the lie of the cards. I wonder if BB is correct that it's possible that GIB N essentially forgot that partner opened the bidding now that he has shown "14-". I wonder even more if the programmers (or however we should be referring to Uday, Barmar and others who comment on behalf of BBO here) would admit that.

There is no other bid in the GIB system - or most forms of 2/1 - other than 2C for the example hand, so that bid can't be criticized. There is now no great rebid by opener. I suppose I would have chosen 3C but that is probably supposed to show 3 of them. 3S is presumably stronger than 4S so that's accurate, and 3NT is not a sensible option (though I am sure many would bid it). I used to play full Bergen Raises where 4C over 1M shows 3 trumps, 4333 shape and 16+ HCP. Worked pretty well.

It could certainly be argued that all bids through 3S here were technically correct. 2H was cheapest stopper, 2S another stopper, and the 3S call showing 4 and nothing in D. Your next call is certainly far from clear-cut. I might also have chosen 4H, which certainly should not have been passed.

Why punish your next random partner, who may know how to bid, because of this one who doesn't?

i would bid 3nt. But if you think your hand isn't good enough to force game, make the delayed limit raise. Yes, there is an argument for it with the loose Jacks. But if you miss a makeable game, I don't think partner will be too happy. Any other call is nonsense in my opinion.

I would have to say that 3S is the right bid here. Better than GIB usually does, actually, as it shows awareness of the fact that the first priority in minor suit auctions is reaching 3NT.

It's true you erred by bidding 2H. But then, if you have shown 3 or more H, why does GIB pass 4C? Makes no sense. As far as what to do when GIB transfers, then bids a minor, any new suit at the 3 level shows support for the minor. I don't believe that a max is required but I haven't seen this auction in the latest release.

Quite so. In this case 4NT was my signoff and GIB bid on anyway.

My word this program is utterly hopeless in many areas. No excuse for this, BBO programmers. None.

Yes I see your point now, and I agree. Playing one-under minor transfers, one should be able to simple accept the vast majority of the time.

I don't see a critical need to change methods here. What is needed is improved judgement on GIB's part, it being able to determine that no slam try should be made opposite a minimum opener with support. Here is somewhat similar hand: http://tinyurl.com/ncj8csx Despite me denying 3 Hearts or good C support, GIB bid on to the NT slam that is poor if the Hearts run, and pretty much hopeless if they do not. And I had a prime, full-value hand. Weren't we told that GIB would be less aggressive in bidding NT slams? Can't see that here. And to revisit another theme - who got the great scores on the hand? Two players who opened 1NT with 20 real, and one who opened 1D, bid all of 1S over 1H, and mustered all their courage to bid 3NT over 1NT.

I just had a hand where Pass was explained, and quite helpfully. I held AKQx, AKx, A, AJxxx and opened 2C. Pass by LHO, 2D by GIB partner, Double on my right. I wanted to pass but checked the explanation, which showed the normal point range but added "forcing to 2NT" seemed perfect I did pass and partner found a jump to 3S! Thought about 7 but didn't really see a way to explore so I just bid 6S. Had to find the CQ for 7, which I didn't so it was fine, at least at IMPS.

You are certainly correct that Hand 3 should be bid differently. Two under transfers are good for the one suited hands but create problems for the hands that would have bid MSS. Perhaps the best solution for GIB would be to go through Stayman and invite with 2NT. But I don't understand your comment about South bidding 3C over 2NT knowing a game won't be missed. What sort of hand would you propose that the 1NT opener do this with? Most hands will be the simple balanced hand invites, not a long C suit.

I can't see the bidding

deleted

You made an overcall and you should know by now that GIB plays preemptive raises of overcalls, and aggressive ones at that. You had no business going on to game.

I wouldn't go that far, but certainly GIB needs to be stopped from bidding BW on weakish hands with meager fits such as this one. Certainly you have every bit of your 4D call, but GIB apparently expects much more. That's where the problem lies.

The bad description of the 3D call is the culprit here: http://tinyurl.com/ljtm326 11-21 HCP? Please. 3D is a minimum rebid showing a maximum of 15 at the outside. It's true that game is possible but pass by responder is certainly the normal action.

http://tinyurl.com/mo3sxn2 I must give GIB credit here, it defended very well, underleading the CA to get partner on lead for a D play and trump promotion. It was certainly irritating that those who misplayed the hand by drawing trump immediately were rewarded with a 3-3 Heart split, making. Secondly, those who blasted to 4S on the first round were doubled. The defense started the same way but when GIB W won the 3rd round of Hearts it cashed the CA, allowing the contract to make. So everyone who was doubled made, while of those not doubled the ones who played correctly were defeated, while those who misplayed the hand made it. Not a complaint, that is bridge.

Points 1 and 2 are arguable. GIB's 1NT shows 6-9 and you have 10 and a nice fit. The cue isn't forcing to 3C as a non-forcing 2NT is available. But you are certainly right about 3, and I find it surprising. GIB has no problem stopping in 3C after having made an inverted raise without competition, but in this equivalent auction it does not pass the 3C signoff. I don't get it.

Obviously N should just sign off in 5D over 4S. Not doing so pretty much defies belief. How many points does GIB say the cuebid showed? There has to be some point where you are too strong to bid 3NT and double instead. If, as this and another of today's thread indicates, GIB can only understand bids based on the current round, and cannot be taught that current actions must be based on limits shown by previous actions, then it should be scrapped and replaced by a better program that has that capability.