zhasbeen

Gib passes as dealer with this hand: http://tinyurl.com/ybzebx2v and opens 1♠with this one: http://tinyurl.com/ycx5jdoe

I was talking about declarer play only. However, my assessment of GIB's declarer play could be distorted since I only see it while defending, which is about 25% of the time. I've been end played or squeezed many a time--I play only the tournaments where the human declares all the hands. I don't know if you agree on this, but it seems that a high percentage are set ups when GIB plays the hand, such as when 2 passed hands bid up to game and a magic dummy comes down. Typically there are 4 trumps or more, a long running side suit, and/or void. You usually have an impossible lead. Actually, it seems that all hands are set ups when I think about it. Have you ever noticed how often that there are 2 or 3 small in your hand and a suit headed by KJ in the dummy, or vice versa? It seems like more than half the time. I see GIB making a lot more errors on defense. On that topic I'll never understand why it would be programmed to lead a stiff trump so often, which is often the K or Q. Another common situation is when it gets off to killing lead or switch but doesn't continue. To it's credit, however, it lays down quite a few slick defenses and all the false cards make it more difficult to keep track of the spot cards, such as discarding the 7 first, then the 8, and saving the 6. I'm sure you've noticed that when it comes down to 2 key spot cards, with you having 1 and defense the other, GIB usually has you by one, e.g. your 5 vs his 6.

I see the light. "...after knocking out..." were the words you used that woke me up. You don't need the diamond finesse to work in order to make 2 tricks in the suit. You can afford to give one up if you still have entries and the clubs come in.

Sorry, I'm still not counting 12 tricks without both finesses working. Also, there is no diamond holding that will yield 5 tricks that wouldn't work with GIB's line except if west held exactly 3. In that case you would STILL need at least one club finesse to work. For making the contract I'm not seeing a better line. That being said, your line is better in terms of damage control. You would be down 1 instead of 5 like GIB was, although it looks to me that you reduce your chances of making with 5 diamonds and only 2 clubs when west holds all 5 clubs. "I used to dread having GIB declare a hand..." I have a friend who said the same thing but am wondering if this isn't one area of GIB's game that has improved in the last year or so. I played my first robot tournament in August.

I suppose that could help in terms of damage control if the club loses, but GIB's line was pretty decent in terms of making. He's combining chances of Kx of diamonds with club finesse and taking only 2 club tricks if they happened to be 5-0 Compared to some of the stuff GIB does it was wonderful. Either way you'll need more than one club to make.

GIB has only 11 tricks without the club finesse (or stiff K). Note he didn't cash majors until after cashing the AD, giving him an extra chance if the KD was doubleton. The only other combination that would allow him to take 5 diamonds would be Kxx. That would mean he'd need only 2 club tricks, but he'd have to get them without losing one first (he'd have to use his last heart to reach dummy to finesse clubs.) His other entry would be used by crossing to dummy's QS to repeat diamond finesse. In a nutshell it looks like GIB gave himself the best chance. Declarer play is only part of GIB's game that is usually good, and at times it is great. Defense is a distant 2nd and bidding is horrific.

Why would it be a guess? Is it because GIB is not sure whether the 2H rebid is a cue bid or real suit?

One of GIB's most serious problems, IMO, and it seldom gets the attention it deserves. GIB seems to have a magnet that pulls it to the 2-card preference, especially if the opening bid is a major. Although your example is extreme, I wouldn't call it rare. I don't even bother to look for a 4-4 major fit any more when a known 5-3 exists.

Nope, it was me. Hope I can shrug it off to being tired, rattled, or whatever, rather than something worse. Seems that I'm having more than my share of gaffes these days.

deleted

Sounds like best solution. Keep your mouth shut after making a preempt unless you are asked (that includes doubling)

"I think it would be best to keep this forum concentrated on regularly occurring, clear-cut bidding sequence bugs" I couldn't agree more, and with a strong emphasis on "regularly occurring". First things first, and then maybe we can worry about some of the others. I get as frustrated as anyone, but if even even half of major issues could be fixed it would make a huge difference.

me too...without a second thought

I felt anxious to comment, so I haven't looked for the actual hand. However, I'm certain of the pattern. It was 15 hcp, with AK10xx and worthless doubleton. I bring it up because I don't care for NT opening in this case and made a mental note to add to my GIB "know what to expect file." One of the main reasons to open a 1N with 5-card major is to solve rebid problem, which doesn't exist with a 15 pointer. I base my decisions mostly on rebid considerations. I consider a worthless doubleton, and only 2 of other major to be slight negatives. One of the advantages of opening 1NT with 5 of major is that it is often easier to find 5-3 fit in other major than it would be otherwise. All that said, I have no great objection any one of the above. It's when there are two or 3 negatives that I start to lean in direction of opening 1 of the major. All based on my opinion only.

So, where are we with all this? Evidently there is no fixing a problem once it is clear that there is one. Will the programmers need to start from scratch, is BBO looking for a new robot, or what? Has anyone heard anything? Pretty embarrassing for BBO to have this happen at a teaching table, of all places.

What happened to "The Law" with at least 10 known spades?

GIB has its problems but I wouldn't have expected this. "He" is usually decent in competitive situations like this. He is contributing 5 trump, a void, and good 2nd suit, but chose to pass--go figure. Six is actually a good contract. It would only take 4-3 clubs and 2-1 trumps, even if Qd and Ac were both off side. Ac lead made it easy.

It took a reopening double for GIB to bid 4S. My question is why it wouldn't do so directly after the 4H bid. It's north's first pass that I'm talking about. The same robots managed to reach 4H with a weak 2 opposite a passed hand, but could not find a 4S bid with the north hand?? From my experience GIB is not usually shy in this type of situation. I was puzzled, and wondering if something else hadn't gone wrong with his inner workings. My reopening double seems much more in question than a 4S call by north. What would I do if GIB bid 5C? I was prepared for 5S, 5D, or having double left in, but would still be in the tank after 5C. At least he didn't leave the double in with that hand. I had decided not to post any more GIB bugs, glitches, figuring that if programmers could fix most of the ones they already know about it would be a huge plus. However, this one is little different than what I have been accustomed to, and some may not even consider it a problem. See link for full deal >> http://tinyurl.com/yd7wudqe [hv=pc=n&n=st9653hd642ckq973&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2h2s4hppdp4sppp]133|200[/hv]

“You have 16 HCP and think partner made a GF bid with zero aces and zero kings?” This comment is not even related to the conversation. “Notrump opener –can have 5-card major” or something very close is what definition says. It doesn’t promise a stopper in any suit, since you can have a worthless doubleton. The 3NT response we are talking about is unique to a particular type of auction. “Yes. The explanation said "partial stopper club, partial stopper diamond, partial stopper heart". A partial stopper is Qxx or worse. So you are positing that partner has Txxx Qxx Qxx Jxx and bid Jacoby 2nt, if you take partial stopper 100% literally and are assuming an "exactly, no more than" qualifier.” I am looser on the various descriptions of partial stopper. The part I won’t bend on is that it could contain an ace. Part stoppers can’t contain aces; plain and simple. However, I am confident I can handle the current definition as is. It's a definition I haven't seen used anywhere other than these tournaments. If it’s too hard to change the definition to describe what it really means, then so be it. “Basically this forum has been around a long time and you are the first to have complained about the wording of this as thinking full stopper is denied.” This forum makes up a tiny fraction of the players that have entered BBO tournaments and others who will enter them in the future. From my experience forum members are not your typical players either. Most of the exchanges I’ve had since joining have been with members having programming backgrounds to go with their strong bridge credentials. I’ve also looked in on a few threads that I could understand only small parts of. You can’t expect your new customers to apply the same reasoning you do. “There are many more, much bigger fish to fry than asking for them to spend time on this one to make it more verbose just for you.” I couldn’t agree more on the underlined part, and I personally don’t need it to be changed. However, I believe it is possible to make a more accurate description than what is in place now that is even more compact.

"It has some rules, but some our silly like passing when it can't find a bid" Your entire comment is so well put, and this particular problem is one I have encountered on several occasions. The more I hang around here the less I feel the need to point out problems I run into. If even half of the major issues that have already been pointed out by others were fixed it would be plenty enough for me. I'd rank this one high up on the list of priorities.

“Sorry but I think you were being a bit too literal.” No doubt about that part “"we are all in agreement there with the ACBL def you quoted"” Finally, following post after post, it was finally confirmed. That was enough for me to let this thing go, but… “Common sense must be used” This one strikes a nerve, as do words like “ridiculous” and “absurd” I would wager that I’m not the only person who has been confused by this one. Of course these people with the double digit, K, Q, R, star, and double digit number ratings will have learned their lesson after a couple years of play or longer. I just learned mine after 3 months. When I enter a tournament I am often “flight B” with my 7 rating, but I have enough common sense to have consistently finished in top 3 overall (45% after 613 tournaments). You give me a great excuse for bringing up my playing record for at least the 3rd time. I know that I’m outgunned by some of you but I’m still pretty good at this. Remember, not everyone who plays in robot tournaments looks at these situations the way a programmer would. It seems that many, if not most, of the people who post here are programmers that have years of experience playing with robots. Does it really take a lack of common sense to run your cursor over the 3NT definition without having to ask yourself “I know it says partial stopper, but does it really mean that?” The players should be able to put their energies into deciding how to bid and play the hands. I was on my 11th board. After GIB’s 3NT bid I ran my cursor over the call and it landed squarely on “Partial stop in [heart icon]” and I ran with it. Normally I wouldn’t bother with definition following a NT response, but I thought it might have a systemic meaning in the context of this auction, and that it did. I would have been much better off with no definition in this case. Would it be that unfeasible to incorporate “or better” into the definition? It makes such a huge difference in how the definition could be interpreted. Click on tinyurl link in first post of thread, and then look at definition of 3NT bid. It is about a foot wide with “Partial stop” appearing 3 times. You could save 9 characters just by saying “Part” rather than partial. How about saying it only once rather than 3 times, and using the suit symbols? Couldn’t it be something like: “14-21 hcp; 4+trump; Part stop or better ♠;♥;♦;♣" Btw, the north hand has only 13 hcp.

I am a customer who uses BBO almost exlusively for its robot tournaments. I am currently averaging 3-4 rounds per day, and there was one point when 6 would have been a light day. The great majority of the time I play the ACBL 12-board matches. I’ve contacted BBO’s first level of support several times; they have responded promptly and left me with the feeling they were doing their best to help. On some of those occasions they forwarded my questions and suggestions to robot programming department. I also filed a few bug reports, with comments and a civil tone each time. Not once did I receive a reply to forwarded messages or bug reports. Eventually I took main support’s advice and found this forum. I jokingly said to a support person, “there’s probably one guy in a room reading complaints and drinking coffee.” It was no surprise to find some frustrated users here, but the level of frustration and "take it or leave it" attitude of GIB management was worse than I expected. However, I will probably stick with the BBO robot tournaments until something better comes along. Bugs and all GIB is still pretty amazing, and I believe the tournaments are great for practicing card play and improving judgment. After more than 600 tournaments I still get excited about playing. I can play more challenging deals in a day than I can at the offline clubs in a week or 2. My perception is that the incidence of tricky hands (no pun…)is much higher than in normal offline play. Add the video replays of every deal that you and your opponent’s bid and play, and you have an awesome resource for working on your game. I’ve gradually migrated towards accepting GIB as is, and putting more energy into trying to understand how it thinks rather than waiting for any fixes. The forums have been very helpful in this respect. ……………………………………………………………… Getting back to the “until something better comes along” I think of my experience with phone, internet, and tv providers. I was loyal to my ISP for more than 10 years, including the last 3 when I knew there was something more than 3 x’ as fast for the same money. During those years I had also merged my phone and TV services into their package. I finally got tired of the promises for faster internet service and switched. Shortly after that I moved my phone and TV to the new provider. If BBO continues to take its customers for granted they are not likely to keep them forever. Once the buzz starts it usually moves faster than I did…” Hey, did you hear about that new bridge web site? They are a lot like BBO but their robots are much better". Before you know it most of your customers are gone.

Thanks, merriman--greatly appreciated. People who are insensitive don't do what you just did. I didn't do the greatest job of explaining where I was coming from.

They'd better get going while they still have a good base. Somebody will surely come along and build a better mouse trap robot. Just ask OkBridge.

That's a relief. This exchange is one of many times that words have failed me. It's one reason why I only play robot tournaments online. I tried playing with humans on OkBridge several years ago before I finally got tired of trying to communicate with people using only keyboard and mouse. That wasn't the only thing, but it was a big part of it. With the robots I can sit in my easy chair and click away, without using the keyboard once the game starts. That's it--no discussion with anyone until the round is over. I much prefer offline clubs for playing with humans. That's where the real test is. I think I get what you've been saying, but have trouble find the words to confirm it. " To think that people have to explicitly put "at least partial stopper" in their notes or else the default implication should be "exactly and at most partial stopper" is insane." That's not what I believe, but I don't doubt that you could find a quote(s) of mine that suggests otherwise. What started all this was my not knowing when certain definitions promised the ace and when they didn't. I still don't have clarity in that respect but haven't done all the homework I need to do. Most of the time I don't depend on definitions, and more often than not they've been helpful when I've need them. The trick for me will be learning how taking better advantage of them. I understand that having crystal clear explanations for every deal is not feasible. And there's the challenge of finding fixes for the problems. I read merriman's "what's the purpose of this forum?" post earlier. "Nobody is trying to put you down, it's not personal, we are attacking the idea not the personal." My perception has gone back and forth. Sometimes it feels personal and there are other times it feels more like a teacher scolding when they are trying to help you. Sometimes it can be so frustrating to get you point across that you want to scream at them. Anyway, I know that I've learned some things since I started hanging around here. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts, as well as others.