iandayre

A new suit advance over partner's overcall is not forcing in GIB's system. I play it that way with human partners as well, though certainly many do play it forcing. I have seen some of the discussions about overcalling with length in opener's suit, and while I cannot question them on a mathematical basis, I have had excellent results over many years using Mr. Lawrence's methods and I will continue to use them. I don't ridicule a 1NT opening bid but rather than risk the 5-1 H fit or missing a good S fit I will take my chances rebidding 2C over a 1NT response and bidding again if partner rebids 2S.

Here are two hands from an ACBL IMP Robot Tournament today. These are themes that are not often discussed, I thought they were worth mentioning. http://tinyurl.com/ondgeft I thought GIB bid quite well at my table. I learned my overcalling tactics from Mike Lawrence's books, and I overcalled 2C here despite the weakish suit on the theory that my ♦ length increases the chance for a fit from partner, and to take the one level away from the opponents. This was quite successful as I made an overtrick in 5C for +7.4 IMPS. I am posting the hand based on GIB's actions at other tables where my hand was, quite reasonably, passed. GIB passed the hand out in 4th seat. It is very difficult for me to understand why GIB would not find a balancing 1H call. I found the next hand to be much more bizarre: http://tinyurl.com/mdw9jcr I thought any level of NT would be a misbid for my first rebid, and I had the extras GIB requires, so 3C it was. GIB's choice of 3NT rather than 3H is astonishingly awful. It should not only bid 3H but pull a subsequent 3NT to 4H in my opinion. After a D lead I needed two dummy entries so I crossed to the HA and finessed the SJ successfully, making 6 but likely going down if it had lost, with 4H a certain make. On to the next revision I suppose.

Right again. An explanation from BBO is warranted here as well.

Yes, sad that the long-awaited new revision does not address this issue. What is so difficult about fixing this? Barmar? Uday? ANYONE????

http://tinyurl.com/qzlqj4k 3♣? Really? This time the description is reasonable, the bid is not.

Obviously, based on its expectations of your strength, GIB should raise Diamonds here. If not that, it should pass. The problem, as in so many other areas, is the description of 3H that allows it to be bid on a 4 card suit, which is clearly ridiculous. Partner would have reopened with a double with as many as 3 Hearts. I would agree that no fewer than 6 of them would be required to bid the suit in this sequence.

I don't know what you were doing on #1, but I certainly don't understand GIB's pass. The second one really needs to be fixed. Hey GIB, takeout doubles are meant to be TAKEN OUT!!

I certainly agree. GIB is still way too prone to force us into 4-3 fits without sufficient exploration. 3H seems very easy here.

Yes opener should rebid 4H with 5-5. You don't want it raising H with 3 since opener may have only 4. The false preference keeps options open.

Thank you Barmar. I will take your statistics at face value. But I must say, you can ask any regular GIB player, and they will tell you that GIB typically does not handle splinters well. It often signs off with perfect fits and bids again with wasted cards in the splinter suit.

We will need to see the descriptions of the 2D and 2M rebids after the Drury response. And, of course, if the bids correspond to them. I am especially curious to see how further bidding after P-1M-2C-2D will be defined. As well as other rebids by opener (other and 2D and 2M). For example, 4M should be a simple acceptance of the limit raise, with no slam aspirations. New suits should be natural and forcing, jumps should be splinters.

5NT should be pick a slam. GSF makes no sense as GIB holds two of the top three ♠ honors. So I believe that GIB did intend it as pick a slam - obviously nonsense though that is with the actual hand. And I see no reason why the opening leader holding the DA did not attempt to cash it.

I have used many uncomplimentary words and phrases to describe GIB's bidding misadventures, but I believe this is the first time that "unfair" has come to mind. http://tinyurl.com/oyr8jnw I actually don't mind the 3S call with GIB's hand, it is sensible. But not when it is described as 3S, 11-12 HCP! I am certainly justified in Blackwood with that description. A simple fix, no programming change needed. Just fix the description.

That is what I would have, but it is not part of GIB's system. Unlucky the AK of D were on lead.

Only recently I noticed the option of voting Plus or Minus to posts on these boards. I have now tried 3 times, on different days, to cast negative votes, and each time gotten the following error message: Action failed: You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day May I conclude that the "quota" is Zero?

The 1NT rebid is utter nonsense. I open 1H all day with this hand, but if you can't handle that a 2C rebid is the only possibility. My auction: 1H-1S, 2C-2D, 3C-3D, 3S-4C, 5C-6C.

It's hardly awful even if that is the case. A small Club beats it if opening leader has neither missing honor, or the A only, and the latter lead is unlikely to be found. You have excellent chances on any other lead, and with friendly breaks you will take all the tricks.

Another stealth revision?? Experience says that surely GIB would have raised 5C to 6 in the past, and probably on less. But it is certainly baffling why it prefers the minor to the major.

This isn't the first time recently I have suspected that there have been unannounced changes to GIB. If this is one, it's very positive. http://tinyurl.com/kz4nhe6 With only 9 HCP GIB did very well to move to the near-cold slam with no wastage opposite the splinter. The hand also demonstrates that while Axx is good opposite a splinter, xxx is even better. The slam is far less good with responder's minor suits reversed.

My thought, you didn't know that LHO was going to raise. If you are good enough now to double 4D for penalty, you probably would have bid 3NT or something else the first time.

Bad enough that it doesn't pass 5D but then, it can't do the most basic bridge action imaginable, take a simple preference. Sad.

I clearly remember being told that GIB would no longer try for game opposite balancing doubles by hands that had previously passed. This isn't quite the same because we are already at game level, but the point is that GIB would recognize that the doubler is limited by having passed.

I would choose 2NT, 1C a reasonable second choice. If 1C is the opening bid I would have to manufacture a reverse to 2D over a 1H response.

We were told that this was fixed one or two revisions ago.

Yes, we disagree strongly. That is the main point of this Board, to point out areas where GIB needs improvements. Unfortunately I think your optimism is ill-founded. GIB has been around for years, and the computing power exists to improve it significantly, but BBO will not invest the people and resources necessary to do the job.