iandayre

Wow is right. In the current ACBL Bulletin there was a report of the most recent annual competition between computerized bridge playing programs - not including GIB. I am going to speculate that all 5 of the participants are superior to what we are playing with here on the largest online bridge site in the world. I think we deserve better.

1S is clear cut in 3rd seat in opinion. I guess that because I am E it's not the standard ACBL or Instant Robot Tournament, but I would open 1S under any conditions.

I agree that 2NT as a natural response should be dumped. I don't think this response has been used by any strong pairs in 50 years. i guarantee you that Bergen does not advocate it. Personally I would like to see 2H as an artificial negative and 2NT the H positive (5+, 2+ of top 3). Once weakness has been shown at responder's first opportunity, further calls are natural. Or with Qxxx, xxx, Qxxxx, x you could splinter in support of Spades if partner bids them.

I certainly agree with Uva's opinion of GIB's actions here. I would say that one action that has worked for me after 1NT by me, P, P, then an artificial 2C or 2D, is double showing a good 5 card suit there has been effective, GIB partner competing to 3 of the minor when appropriate. I will add that I would also have opened 1NT with the ♦ six bagger, the same call with the small singleton ♣ would not have occurred to me, though I see it done fairly often. Whatever GIB's failings when I open 1S and bid 2D over 1NT with such hands I have not had big problems. Obviously it would have worked fine here when partner raises ♠.

http://tinyurl.com/omaohen I know I should always read the descriptions.... But I made the normal(aggressive) call. Obviously the description of 3 ♥ as being "4-" makes no sense. But clearly GIB took it that way, failing to leave me in a Heart contract. A bug that should be fixed.

deleted

deleted

Indeed, no disconnect here, the description is as nonsensical as the bid itself. Surely a hand with extra values would use Blackwood or cue bid in preference to 4D.

Interesting. Perhaps this would be right long-term. Still, I very much enjoy it when one of the players with massive amounts of BBO points gets burned doing this. I remember a recent hand where (is it OK to say the name?) did not show his 5 card H suit after Stayman. His GIB partner did hold 4H and only Axx of S, declarer's weak suit. He was able to cash 9 tricks but got a cold zero when decent play made 11 tricks in H and even poor play could not make less than 10.

I would explain GIB's success in these competitions to the fact that it counts every hand, never miscounting or forgetting. This is a tremendous long-term advantage over humans below the expert skill level. Its declarer play, helped by counting of course, is a strength as well. Bidding-wise it handles some complex auctions quite well, while often manufacturing bizarre calls that no human at any level would consider.

No sensible explanation for GIB's action exists. There could hardly be a more clear-cut call than 3S over 3C.

I agree with what you say, but look at this hand. There is nothing about the bidding that indicates that the opponents can make 3NT or that you can make 4S.

I have come to the conclusion that, at least when it comes to bidding, GIB does not understand that there are only 40 HCP in the deck. It sees its own hand, gives full credence to partner's bidding, but apparently is also willing to believe that the opponents have full values for their bids, even when all of those suppositions cannot possibly be true.

Having been playing in GIB tournaments for about a year now, I thought I was familiar with the program's strengths and weaknesses. I have never seen it make such a ridiculous call in this type of situation before though. http://tinyurl.com/p6hvn5r Double??? Come on Uday, let's fix some of these egregiously bad bids. I was fortunate to be playing human best hand, just bid 4S which was the normal spot. That aspect saves you quite often, and is why I would never play with GIB against human opponents.

Once again GIB refuses to defend against a 3C doubled contract with a 6-card stack against the declarer. Do you suppose we have identified a "glitch"?

Not to knock you BB - I see that you realize that 3C was an overbid - but another example of my recent post about bad bids often leading to great results. And certainly there is no obvious reason here for GIB not to double 3C.

The description of splinter auctions such as 1C-1S-3D or 3H indicates that the call shows 3+ in the originally opened minor. Actually it is impossible for opener to have only a 3 card minor,since with 3, 4 in the major and 1 of the splinter suit, that would leave 5 cards in the 4th suit, obviously not possible. Most of the time the minor will be 5 cards, the exception being 4441 distribution. I am not sure whether this description would at times cause GIB to undervalue the trick taking strength of fitting high card(s) in partner's minor or not, but I do know that as written the description is amateurish and sloppy.

After 2C-2D-2NT-3C, since GIB does not play Puppet Stayman, the normal response to deny a 4 card or longer major is 3D. On that auction with the following hand: KQ, xxxx, J, 9xxxxx GIB bid 3NT. The meaning of a 3NT rebid by an opener is unclear to me, since you would want to leave room for responder to show a 4-5 or 5-4 hand if held. Perhaps it should show 2-2 in the majors, but that is not the description. The descriptions of 3D and 3NT, while not written identically, appear to amount to the same thing - 22-24 HCP and no 4 card or longer major. But yet, with the hand above, GIB bid 4C over 3NT. So what IS the difference between 3D and 3NT?

I guess we can (or should be able to) infer that 4H or 4S over the double would be 4+, 0-10 if the cue shows 11 and up. Once again, the programmers/description writers do not seem to understand the need to balance with less than overwhelming strength. No way that any 11 count should be going past game. We can't see all of the description of the double here, what point range does it show? I would also have bid 4H over 4C as N. And while I would make the takeout double with a human partner, now knowing that GIB will move beyond game with pretty much any hand good enough to make game (even 4H can be defeated here), I would have to say that it is better to pass with GIB as CHO.

Often when I look at results where there were one or two top results on a board, it comes not from good bidding or play, but very bad bidding that somehow induces GIB to go off the rails. Sometimes it is the masterminders who open 1NT with voids, don't show their major (even 5 cards) after Stayman, etc. But often it is just novice errors that do the job - here's an example. http://tinyurl.com/kfgj3ja Two people jumped back into this live auction with 1NT opposite a passed partner on the minimum S hand. Obviously a novice error. One can understand why GIB N next bid 3NT, certainly not a great bid, but I get it. What I can't imagine is how this auction managed to induce GIB E to bid 4♠. Uday?? This unfortunately is not a unique or rare exception, this type of thing happens all too often.

I consider myself a very good bidder, a pretty good card player. On this hand I was the only player to make 4S out of 25-30 declarers who were in it. http://tinyurl.com/lqcc2dg What do you think of my line? Was I good or lucky?? Bidding and opening lead were the same at most tables.

Good discussion, I would say only that I disagree that any weaknesses reflected here are among the most egregious. Nothing is ridiculous, just moderately poor judgment at worst. If only GIB never or even rarely did anything worse than this!

I don't disagree that passing 2S was a poor action by that player. And I'll agree with you that a simple balancing overcall should have an upper limit (it does have one - GIB's description just doesn't show it). But I am not impressed by the statistics showing the preponderance of 2C bidders. I had full values for my 3C bid and it fit perfectly within GIB's definition for the action - not to mention standard bidding practice. There is another "correct" bid that is seldom made by players in the robot tournaments - that being the strong jump overcall over a Weak 2 bid. Yet it is very effective. GIB will continue to game with modest values, passing only with nearly trickless hands - just about what you would want. Every time I use that bid and reach game I get a great result, the field having been left in a simple overcall. Regarding your other point, it's true that there aren't a lot of hands worth a 2M bid after the balance, having not overcalled. Still, the bid is not forcing and I do not believe that it should be made on a four card suit. And I suspect that you would agree that 2NT better describes the actual hand in any case. Opposite a simple balancing overcall and with only 4 card major suit(s), around 10 points and lacking sound stoppers in the opponent's suit, pass is the correct call IMO.

This problem did not affect me. I made the correct bid as S - a balancing jump to 3C - and reached 3NT. http://tinyurl.com/pr7rcaq This player underbid with 2C. But still, the only sensible action by GIB would be 2NT. A major suit bid here does not, in any sane methods, show "4+". So tell me Uday, why does the description say 4+, forcing GIB into a silly action instead of the obvious correct one?