rwbarton

I assume the time GIB is given per play is limited by how much BBO spends on running all the GIBs on their servers, not by how long the typical user is willing to wait for GIB to play. The advanced bots play slower, right? That extra thinking time is what you're paying extra for.

GIB (specifically, the version of GIB on BBO) has no notion of considering suits in isolation. All it does is generate entire layouts that are consistent with the information it has so far, compute the double-dummy value of each valid play in each layout, and pick the play (or one of the plays) that has the highest average double-dummy value. Double-dummy analysis of a specific 12-card position takes a fairly long time, on the computer time scale. Based on the reports of GIB's play here, I would guess that the robots typically are not given time to analyze much more than 10 layouts on average, and perhaps at early stages as low as 1 layout. Maybe barmar knows the actual number? If no layout among the (say) 10 that were analyzed has the specific JT63 - trump layout, then GIB's choice at trick 2 between South's spades will be random. This is not an easy problem to solve, given that BBO's resources for running GIB are finite.

The first three are not so surprising if you know how GIB works, considering how little time it is given to calculate per play in the robot races. If you think you can write a better bridge-playing robot, give it a try B-) The fourth hand is truly odd, though. The play on trick 5 is not so good either. This one looks like an honest bug as far as I can see.

Assuming you are referring to "Competitive" section, item 2, you missed a word. 1♣ (1♦) 1♥=♠ is not GCC-legal (unless 1♣ was strong and forcing, not the case under discussion here, or 1♦ was conventional, unlikely).

I cannot imagine you really believe that it is equally easy for a citizen of any country to enter any other country, but anyways here is an example: this page indicates that there are special requirements for Indonesian or Malaysian citizens to obtain a visa for entry into Israel.

A 2♠ rebid showing a spade one-suiter or a two-suiter with spades? How about "natural"?

You also gain 3♠-3N-4♣ and 3♠-3N-4♦ to use as signoffs or more asking bids. Assuming you want 4 RKC asking bids, you could arrange them like this: 3♦ shape resolution then 3♥ = QP ask 3♠ then pass or bid game = signoff 3♠ then 4♣ = RKC 1 3♠ then 4♦ = RKC 2 3N = RKC 3 4♣ = RKC 4 so your asking bids come at 3N, 4♣, 4♣, 4♦. Comparing to the original 3♥ = QP ask 3♠ = RKC 1 3N = signoff 4♣ = RKC 2 4♦ = PES 4♥ = RKC 3 4♠ = RKC 4 with asking bids at 3♠, 4♣, 4♥, 4♠, it looks like an improvement. (This is ignoring potential wrong-siding considerations, of course...)

Thanks. While I'd be the last person to subscribe to the notion of "convention disruption", for this flagrant three-way disagreement between South's explanation, North's explanation, and North's actual hand, I'd give N/S a PP for not having two identically filled-out convention cards regardless of the level of play, even though it feels a bit like getting the mob boss for tax evasion.

I interpreted this as meaning that East asked North, after hearing South's explanation then glancing at North's convention card, "is that correct?", i.e., whether South's explanation was correct. Maybe DuaneC can clarify exactly what question North answered.

See http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deals/parzero/ for a large number of examples with analysis.

I thought it was illegal in the ACBL, though I'm not sure where I got that idea or where I should look to check. I don't know whether it is illegal in other places.

Hmm. The IBer's LHO can accept the IB, right? Let's say they pass; what are you going to do now? If you are going to accept the transfer by bidding 2♥, then maybe you really should alert the insufficient bid. But if it's illegal to have an agreement about an IB, then when an opponent accepts an IB, they put you in the untenable position of having to bid in an auction where you are not allowed to have any agreements... can they really do this?

GIB's play here is correct, there are two layouts (swap ♦9 for ♦8 or ♦7) where the unblock is necessary to hold declarer to two of the last four tricks.

Kantar 3NT, as seen for example on page 2 here.

Another note of clarification. I'm not 100% sure but I think that "Standard English" here means English broadly as it is spoken by native English speakers in the Commonwealth and in the US, as opposed to say "Ebonics" (a politically incorrect term, but I assume most Americans here know what it means, and I imagine the British can supply their own examples of regional or class-based non-Standard varieties of English). It does not mean the kind of English you find in a textbook as opposed to the kind of English you find in the essays of those who are getting bad grades in English class. The latter concept might be called "standard English". Consider that pair at the club who "doesn't play reverses". If they still play 5-card majors, 15-17 NT, 2/1 which is forcing and invitational but not game forcing, and a strong 2♣ opening, and most importantly if they themselves say they play "Standard American", then a "bridge linguist" might say something like "their status as players of Standard American is clear". They just don't play it very well—they don't play "standard Standard American".