iandayre

Obviously Uva is correct. A question for Jack and everyone else. Your point that there would be no changes to GIB's actions until there is an update certainly seems valid. But I ask you all - have you seen a Lebensohl auction after you doubled a weak 2 bid in, say, the last month? GIB is now bidding new suits at the 3 level with very modest values - as little as 7 HCP. I have seen this at least 3 times. The descriptions - showing GIB's odd version of Leb in which a non-jump 3 level advance is a virtual game force - have not changed. Anyone else seen this?

All I can suggest is, stop playing with basic GIB. The advanced ones declarer play is at least decent. I don't know if updates affect both basic and and advanced GIBS - anyone?

Right certainly. It's interesting to compare results in situations such as these to see the effect of the changes. Some work out, some don't, and we tend to remember the negative. One recent hand my LHO made a 3S preempt. I don't recall if I had previously opened the bidding or not. I balanced with a double and my GIB partner had KJT9 of ♠ and 4 small Hearts and an outside Ace. Before the change it passed - very successfully. After the change it bid 4H and went minus. Oh well.

Thank you for your reply Uday. There are two issues, the bids themselves, and the descriptions. Look at my recent post "Descriptions much worse than bids" for a pertinent example. I am looking forward to the next update. For all the complaining I do I enjoy playing with GIB. And let me add this. I understand that programming is a highly specialized skill very subject to error. GIB's pass of 3H may be a "glitch". Writing descriptions requires only a solid command of the English language and at least an advanced level of familiarity with the 2/1 bidding system. Most of the regular posters here, myself included, could improve GIB significantly by going through the descriptions and modifying those that are blatantly incorrect as the system is normally played. Whoever described opening 1C, then bidding and rebidding Hearts as "6+, 6+" did not suffer a "glitch". Even more than this one, the many situations where bids of new suits at the 3 level or higher are described as "4+", when longer length would clearly be required, is the one area that leads to silly results more than any other.

This is perhaps an even better to open 1D against GIB. I play in the ACBL tournaments where no hand holds more HCP than mine. A 5D opening would end the auction against GIB 95+% of the time. I'd much rather open 1D, see what everyone else does and use my judgment at the end.

No one can tell me that whoever wrote the explanation here has even intermediate-level bridge knowledge. http://tinyurl.com/mdrnstc 6+ ♣ (certainly reasonable) and 6+ ♥????? NONSENSE!! One would open 1H with 6-6 in the round suits. What is one supposed to do with 5♥ and 6 (or more) ♣? The explanation of 4H (instead of 3H) also showed 6+, 6+ with 13+ HCP. Gotta love the add-on after 6+, 6+ of "3-Card ♣". LOL if it weren't so ridiculous. Since there was no call I could apparently make to show my actual hand, I made the call I would make with a human partner, 3H. I played there, surprisingly losing less than 2 IMPS since much of the field either also floundered in a part score or reached 5H and went down. I will look at the other auctions after the tournament ends. I am starting to believe that BBO has stopped responding to this forum because they are too embarrassed to admit how bad some of the bridge is. Or maybe I'm too mean, nasty and critical. TOO BAD, BBO, suck it up and do something!

I agree BB, the 2H bid is nuts and should be eliminated. I would have bid 1NT, the call I had planned over 1S, over 1D as well.

Deleted

If you start low and keep bidding vs GIB, it starts to believe that you have a huge number of high cards and stops bidding its own hands. I have found that "walking the dog" tends to work quite well against the robots. Decent human players are not intimidated out of bidding the cards they are looking at by the opponents bidding. Basically it comes down to a comment I have made often. GIB can count points with anyone but it can't evaluate the trick taking potential of very long suits.

4D is terrible, I think most would agree. I would be more likely to open 5D against live opponents. 1D for sure vs. GIB.

No game? AKQxx, Axxxx, and any 3 low cards. Must at least raise to 3H. How about KQxxx, AQxx, x, Axx. I'm sure lots of other hands nowhere near a jump shift make game very good.

I would double. As for the follow ups, at IMPS I would bid 3C over 2H or 2C. I would pass 3H. At matchpoints I would probably pass 2H, otherwise the same actions.

This has been one of my frequent comments lately. This example shows one of the biggest discrepancies between what the description says and what the bid actually shows. The good news is, the bid is sensible, the description obviously is not. http://tinyurl.com/pa7emeu Check out the description of the 2S bid. Not even possible if the 1NT call and the double are legit. The hand is one where it is reasonable to run out from the double to a 5 card suit, and GIB did so. One just has to learn from experience the situations when the bid is OK when the description is nonsense, and bid accordingly. There are more of these than you would think. Or, BBO could get someone busy improving the descriptions where no programming changes are necessary, as in this case. You think??

xxx, KQx, xxxx, QTx The auction with opps silent: 2C, 2D, 2S, 3S, 4C, 4NT, 5S (all 5 plus the Q), 5NT, 6S (no side K's) - 7S?? Probably I don't understand simulations well but I can't imagine why it would think a grand slam was good missing both minor Kings.

Looks like this is a new recurring them eh BB?

I agree, 2H seems best. You aren't good enough to pass or bid 2NT. And yes, partner may have 4 Spades, but 2S would be game forcing by you. But this isn't a GIB issue, it is a tradeoff for playing support doubles. Not playing support doubles, and giving partner say Kxxx, Kxx, AQJx, xx, Partner would have to pass. Tough to find Spades over the interference.

The double is exactly, or at least approximately, as described. You cannot count on it to be takeout, even if that would fit a given hand. Obviously, this is completely unplayable, but it's what we're stuck with playing with GIB. It could hold 7 or longer card length in an unbid suit for all you know - I have seen that. There is some level of support for your opened suit at which point GIB will support, but exactly what that is, isn't clear.

Seems to me if E bids 3H, and W bids 4D, 4NT is surely RKC for ♦ at that point.

I couldn't believe this one. Especially since my memory tells me I have seen GIB raise in this situation with less. http://tinyurl.com/nuju26c PASS??? How dare you not bid 4H!!!

I am not surprised at all. If fact I considered making that prediction in my first response but decided not to.

Yes, playing support doubles, any call other than a double denies 3 Hearts. Some partnerships make exceptions to that by specific agreement, but GIB does not, from what I have seen. But then, the description says "3-". So who knows. As I have said on numerous occasions, GIB's bidding, for all its faults, is much better than the descriptions. And that's the main reason why I say that I question the bridge expertise of the programmers. No expert or even solid advanced player would have come up with some of these ridiculous and inconsistent descriptions. I could write a whole page or two on this subject but why get myself worked up? Time to relax.

3S seems fine to me. Then I would correct 4m to 4S. Of course playing with GIB I would check the meanings of 3S and 4S before taking any action.

Before I look at the hand - CK?? Not unreasonable taking your bid as a preempt and going for the set with a ruff or good switch if it holds.