smerriman

Which tournament are you talking about? BBO lets each tournament director specify their own rules about the number of boards + time limit per board; some have 2 per round, some have 3 per round, etc. So you may be directing your question to the wrong place.

It's not about finding situations where playing 6 was right, it's about how many situations playing 6 wasn't wrong. By my calculations: - a 10 deal simulation will tell GIB to play low 9.2% of the time - a 20 deal simulation will tell GIB to play low 2.5% of the time - a 30 deal simulation will tell GIB to play low 0.7% of the time - a 40 deal simulation will tell GIB to play low 0.2% of the time We don't know how exactly how many deals BBO has configured GIB to simulate, but according to barmar it is "a few dozen" for advanced robots, so playing low will be rare but still within the realms of possibility, even if there weren't any bugs in the intended algorithm. (And of course, with basic bots it would be considerably less rare).

It seems clubs from the top works too :) Were the auctions and lead identical at other tables?

Oops, no idea why I wrote Fred, meant to write Matt. But you're right; it could have originated even earlier. Still seems very strange to be deliberate, regardless of who came up with the idea, compared to most other issues which are unintentional bugs. Was it a common usage back then?

It's not like this is even unintentional. The old version of the database specifically says: 11+ total points, biddable clubs or diamonds, rebiddable major -> bid 2M 11+ total points, rebiddable clubs or diamonds, biddable major -> bid 2M That's it, no other conditions, but both cases specifically listed. Why the programmer Fred Matt, or whoever (the exact same rule existed in his pre-BBO version) thought this was a good idea is beyond me..

If we take a finesse and it loses, they'll clear hearts and then we'll be down every time the ♣K is offside. I think I'd just play clubs from the top. If the opponents clear hearts we then have a guaranteed 9 tricks and free shot at 10 by taking the diamond then spade finesses into the safe hand.

Nah, it's not that at all. It's just the usual situation of GIB not making any deductions / assumptions based on past played cards. So even though there is a 0% chance you would have played the ♦J on the first round with ♦KJ, it simply doesn't know that. In fact, quite the opposite - when deciding what to play at trick 3 it thinks there's about a 65% chance you have the ♦K to make up the points that S/W have shown. (I've said a few times in the past on the forum it used to have this type of logic built in when Ginsberg originally programmed it, but it got removed for being too slow / not working properly).

GIB's forcing pass rules / when to double, pass or bid 5 are 100% broken, and basically force South to double here (and North to pass). The other options that North considers at its first bid also break in similar ways when following the book to the end of the auction, leading to its wacky limit raise. That latter part may also be caused by the fact the old version of GIB only considers 2♠ and 3♥, never a 4♥ preempt for who knows why.. so it might just pick 2♠ as the only route to game, even if it results in defending doubled once in a while..

No logic here. Old version of GIB plays high 100% of the time at both IMPs and MPs. BBO's version seems to play random cards at times for no reason.

If you swap the positions of the J and 9 so that West has JT643 left and East played 9 on a previous trick, it will never lead the T, despite being a 100% identical state from a play position. But here with T9643 and J played on a previous trick, if it decides to lead a high card, it will lead T and 9 equally as often. I guess its rules about when to lead high from equals during the middle of the hand only apply to honors.

I'm not sure why there was a long discussion about which call was the 'withdrawn' one then, since 16A1b about which information is authorized points to 16C, which says *no* information is AI to the offending side regardless. Are you therefore saying in the other situation I mentioned - where if you make an insufficient bid, and when not replacing it with a simple higher alternative, the director warns you that if you make a different bid your partner will be barred - you're not allowed to know that partner will be barred? Everything I've read says that not only are you allowed, but you're encouraged to make a 'sign-off' bid that you would never make otherwise. [Edit] This came before your edit. Where are the other laws?

As far as I'm aware Walsh style only refers to 1♣ - 1♦ auctions, and is quite a simple idea since you'll never miss a major fit. Bypassing 1♠ with a balanced hand after 1♦ - 1♥ is a different kettle of fish, since you'll miss a 4-4 fit if responder is weak - Kit Woolsey has argued if playing MPs you're better off bidding 1♠, but if IMPs then 1NT. So with AL78 playing MP I don't think it's old fashioned at all.

You're probably thinking of v3, and not v4. It's still not very good, but it's able to play complete games of chess.

You have these backwards. A chess game has a finite number of possible states, and each position is a theoretical win, draw, or loss. (And endgames with up to 7 pieces have been 'solved' via a tablebase, so you instantly know what the right move is). It's bridge which has an infinite number of states, since you have to take into account not just the current state of the cards, but also the potential reasoning that was behind every past bid and play from everyone else at the table.

Very nice hand! Goes to show the dangers of using two suited bids..