iandayre

It's Futile Willie LOL. Anyway, the problem appears to be the extreme wide range (14-21!) for the 3NT move. If GIB is going to make 3 card raises (and I'm fine with that) then 3NT should be non-forcing, thus no more than about 17.

Wouldn't you say Barmar that is a poor rule? Obviously you can be off an Ace with 36 HCP. And there is a simple and effective way to avoid that possibility by using Gerber. It is also accepted practice to upgrade hands with extra playing strength and good spot cards, and the GIB rule you quote ignores this. Mind you I realize that some Robot tourney players take this to excessive, sometimes nonsensical, levels, but Ace asking bids are still available. If they stop at 6 off an Ace and still go down, they get what they deserve.

This is certainly a valid topic. The OP makes its point clearly, I didn't see any need to add a comment. Quite true, bidding 3NT was a hopeless error and 3S was the correct call. I just wish BBO would comment more often, they are the only ones who can correct these problems. Addendum: I think I have further identified the problem here. I have noticed that often when I have opened 1NT and GIB partner later shows a short suit at the 3 level, it often overrides my 3NT call to 5 of a minor without slam interest. I noticed yesterday that the description of 3NT does not include having stopper(s)! No wonder GIB doesn't know what to do from either side of the table.

Same old song, another verse. GIB cuebids too often after partner's doubles, and is far worse at knowing what to do the next round. GIB's bidding would improve quite a bit it if were only allowed to cuebid in this situation with equal length in the unbid suits. Otherwise let it take its best shot at level, and get to the right suit. This might be easier to program than having it correct to Spades on a hand such as this.

As far as my personal feelings are concerned, it makes no difference to me whether BBO has a monopoly or not. I haven't been to OKB or Swan in many years. As far as ACBL masterpoints are concerned, there have always been players who care about them, and there have always been players that don't. I am one of the former, though they are hardly an obsession. I like to play for SOMETHING and I like to see that .90 masterpoints against my name when I win a robot tournament. I played no bridge of any sort for about 5 years from 2008-2012 (after being an active duplicate player for 30 years), and if I weren't for the masterpoints there is no chance I would have gotten interested in the game again the way I did.

I am happy to report that my concerns that the ACBL might stop offering masterpoints for BBO robot tournaments were unfounded. BBO and ACBL have signed an agreement making BBO the sole online provider of ACBL masterpoint tournament. I am glad that will continue. No mention if the level of play of GIB robots was part of the negotiation. Since the overwhelming majority of ACBL members are well below the advanced play level, it may not be a concern. My hope is that BBO will still continue its efforts to improve robot bidding. Since some of the weaknesses of GIB are hard-wired in and nearly impossible to change, I would have to believe that at some point BBO will have to consider either developing a whole new robot environment on its own, or purchasing/leasing one from another developer.

New suits NF after partner's overcall of a 1 level opening bid is still standard, although a large contingent plays them as forcing. As manu says, a jump advance in a new suit is natural and forcing, but isn't always ideal. This is a bigger concern in Robot tourneys on BBO than in real life, where you often may have a reason to bid with less overall strength than partner might hold. On BBO, you always have the best hand or at least equal HCP. Does anyone know, does GIB play a new suit as forcing after partner's overcall of a weak 2 bid? This is the standard treatment but I don't recall it coming up in a robot tourney.

It would also help to get rid of the many confusing instances where a description of a bid starts with, say, 5+ and then later on shows 3+.

There is nothing wrong with a negative double with this shape. In this auction double shows either both majors, or one major and a club fit. This is far more than a 50-50 treatment. I see several contend otherwise. Sorry, but this is a gap in your bridge knowledge. The only negative double auction that promises both unbid suits is 1C opener, 1D overcall.

Once again I misread a suit signal. Thought the overcall was 2C. Support doubles would not have applied. This doesn't change the fact that North's 4C bid is from another planet.

Of course you were right that 2H showed longer Clubs. I don't see that Walsh, played or not, has anything to do with it.

It's easier than that. If S had only 3 D, must be 4-4 in the majors. S has not only denied 4 ♥, but has denied 3 (no support double). Why N could never manage to support D is anyone's guess. I would call it a bug.

What exactly is your point BBradley? I don't know what FMP means.

I think just about everyone opens that hand these days. We'd likely have trouble finding many that would pass.

I am certain that in fact, 2S does indeed show 4 spades and is invitational.

In most partnerships I simply haven't used the double-jump splinter. But here is one treatment using both. Single-jump splinter is EITHER 1) A mini-splinter-will accept a signoff at three of our suit OR 2) A maximum splinter that would have to think about bidding again after a signoff otherwise. Here if partner is willing to stay out of game opposite the mini,you generally can skip the slam try and just bid game. Double-jump splinter is in-between. A game force but not a maximum.

I'll pose this as a debate subject: RESOLVED - the biggest problem with GIB's bidding is that it allows bids at higher levels with insufficient length. So often the descriptions say "4+" when even 5 is very questionable, should be 6. Pro or Con?

delete duplicate

Certainly the E-W robot actions can't be criticized! Should N run to 1H? Perhaps. I am sure many human players would not. If this were among the worst GIB problems, we'd have a much better product. I am not sure how Lycier happened to play the exact same hand (his Bd. 11 example) but GIB did well there, playing West's pass of the XX as for penalty. Once again, this differs from standard practice after a direct-seat double and immediate redouble, when advancer's pass is non-committal and allows doubler to escape as best suits their hand.

Too good to pass. So only other choice is 1NT, and vul against not that's very risky. I won't force partner beyond the 1 level. Yes to double.

Yes, I will focus on the play first as declarer. After that, I will think that N bid too much. Pushing for marginal games at pairs is a losing strategy. 3 will often go down when partner is minimum.

West didn't redouble, so has 2 or less H. 2H is very poor, you are right.

It's true, in my experience I'd expect GIB to find the way to 4S on a hand like this. As you said the normal bid is a jump to 4S over 1NT, but GIB rarely if ever chooses this call. A similar auction GIB handles poorly is 1m-1H-1S when responder has 4 spades and 13-14 or so. Once again the normal action is a jump to game, but GIB will typically bid 4SF before raising Spades. Apparently the original programmer wasn't aware that this auction shows extra values, and BBO has never changed it.

I am not trying to be difficult BB. If I were asked my opinion of whether "human best hand" is a sound tournament format, I would say no. I have expressed that opinion in the past, suggesting that an improvement would be "no opponent better hand". I would not support normal random dealing since it would drive me nuts having to defend with non-signaling GIB on half the hands. However since in the ACBL tourneys, the playing field is level - everyone is playing "human best hand" - I have no ethical compunctions against using that information.

Agreed. I had planned to use GSF if that happened. And yes I'll admit to trying to be nice to GIB (or the BBO staff) for a change. But really my main point was that on THAT PARTICULAR hand it was easy to reach the great grand slam, just by making 3 straighforward bids within GIB's system.