iandayre

Actually it's the product of the hopelessly incorrect description of the 3D bid. The idea that that call could be made on a minimum 12 count is obviously nonsense. Equally nonsense is the idea that the bidder might have only 3 Clubs, but must have 4+ Diamonds, despite having bid Clubs first. I am sure JDonn would agree, hopefully he will encourage that a change be made.

Perhaps. Reverse your minor suit holdings and the grand requires 2-2 H and 4-2 or better S. I guess you make with H 3-1 and the ruffing finesse working - or if they try to cash the A at T1. I wonder what the definition of 6D is over 4NT? Even # of key cards with D void? Bingo. But GIB would not be able to process that, even if it were available. It is sad but somewhat humorous that most of the times GIB bids a grand slam it is in reaction to an aggressive bid by partner that is described erroneously as showing the earth, moon and stars. When GIB uses 4NT then 5NT, and as a result can count 13 easy tricks in NT, it signs off in 6 anyway.

True, and it specifically DENIES 4 Spades. You bid 2S over 1H with a GF hand with 4 Spades. Of course this is an inconsistent treatment unless playing Walsh, which GIB does not. You could miss a 4-4 S fit if opener is 4423 and responder has 4S, 5D and less than forcing values.

Once thing GIB seemingly does perfectly is accept or reject claims. I would not mind if BBO's GIB would claim when it has all remaining tricks certain.

True, it's great for the GIB community as a whole to learn how the robots handle a wide variety of auctions. But I am assuming that when most of us play in GIB tournaments, we are trying for a good score, not to perform experiments. I certainly don't comment every time I see human bidding I don't like, but when I see a pattern I don't think a comment is inappropriate. To each his own though.

Well Stephen, if the only purpose of this forum is to communicate with BBO about GIB's imperfections, I would agree with you. But since this is the only forum exclusively for GIB users, I don't think it is inappropriate to suggest actions that maximize GIB's effectiveness and to discourage those that don't. The point about GIB's problems is still there to be seen.

I don't wish to make a personal attack, but this appears to another one of your typical "ignore my bad bidding, focus on GIB" hands. Maybe if you tried bidding sensibly you wouldn't create so many problems for the robots.

1C here also. But if 2C were opened, I don't see how you are any worse off after a 2H negative response than after 2D waiting. Opener rebids 3C in any case, and responder has the same problem. Important point - after the immediate 2H negative, any new suit by opener is forcing for one round. 3D would be an automatic continuation, followed by 3H, 3S, 4S!

You may be right Stefan, but I'll give GIB the benefit of the doubt and assume an advanced GIB would continue with 2S. Stephen is right that this specific hand could offer a good play for 3NT, but GIB can only count points, can't distinguish between this hand and one with the same shape with the top honors in S instead. All this points I think to closely defining 1NT-2C-2H-2S-2NT-3m as natural,non-forcing.

I would agree with manudude. I haven't seen better players using a natural 2NT response to 2C for decades. My last few years of live play I was using 2D as waiting but GF, 2H as artificial negative and 2NT to show a H positive. I liked this a lot, but it doesn't seem to have gained a lot of traction. I don't expect GIB to adopt this, but if currently active live tourney players such as Stephen Tu or JDonn would comment, I would appreciate it. Anyone with an opinion of that method is welcome to chime in if they wish.

Thank you for your recent presence here JDonn, it is appreciated. I have seen GIB pass like this before, after interference. It never does so in an uncontested auction. My guess would be some sort of "hole" in the programming such that GIB has not been given clear/proper instructions on how to proceed after interference to the 2C opener. I would think it similar to the times when GIB passes high level cue bids. I have assumed that no specific instructions have been given to GIB on how to proceed, so it passes by default.

I agree.

Only a near-maximum for an overcall. I want more than this to double and bid. 2H. 1NT?? Could work, not my style.

Luke, your perception is correct. But it is not a bug, it is a deliberate programming decision. There is an explanation in the GIB system notes, quoting some reference book.

Three widely different approaches, to be sure. None of them are that much out of line really. I would have to say #3 is the best, I don't like 3C with the N hand.

Very true. And an easy one to answer, cannot possibly be forcing to game. The question is whether it should even be a one-round force.

Of course by passing you lose the opportunity to reach the cold 5D. To me, the problem is the 3NT rebid. Most 2/1 players use that bid to show AKQxxx of S with cards on the side. 2NT should show a good 17 to 19, with 19+ hands upgraded to 2NT openers.

This hand has 8 HCP. Certainly more TP but I never bother with that for entering the bidding, either with GIB or otherwise. Any bid above 1H is a gross overbid, and pass seems bizarre with an 8 card suit, so make the normal 1H call. Not sure how you set up these hands, seems odd that #2 passed 3H but #3 cuebid on the same auction. Let's see....gross underbid pass, mild overbid 3S, normal action raise to 4H.

Agree with the OP, but 2DX is the best possible spot for NS double dummy. CA, C to the K and a S switch beats it 2 tricks.

But in this case it denies a real S fit. In the other example, it appeared to neither promise or deny a D fit.

You are mistaken Badger. BBO is now the sole owner of GIB and is 100% responsible for its maintenance and development. As for Lycier's point, it is correct. They are just a couple of examples of situations where calls in NT should be unusual, but are not so defined.

One must admit, the hand fits all the listed criteria for the 5C bid. And, shows the clubs only as "biddable", by no means indicating they are playable opposite a void or even a singleton. The question is, what would 5D have meant?

I would say yes. 4SF forcing to game has been quite popular for years, and I get the impression that most new players for the past 25 years or so never learned any other way.

Same old nonsense, no other call fits the descriptions so it passes. Presumably the obvious 1st round 2C would guarantee 5.

If the descriptions show that, and also show that 1S-2H shows 5, I wonder what you are supposed to do with a 3433 hand, too strong the immediate 3NT response. I see no option but 2C.