junyi_zhu

I just downloaded the new version of bbo and tested gib's bidding in bidding practice room. The most tests I did were 1NT openings. Now gib's bidding is much "saner" than before. One problem I found is that after a RKC sequence and 5NT by gib, it tends to overbid qutite a lot. example 1: AKQxxx ATxx x xx 1NT 4H(by gib) 4S 4N 5H 5N 6D 7S I had xxx KJ9 AKT Axx, so it's a 50% grand slam. luckily I didn't hold something like: Jxx Qxx AKQ Axx Overally, it was a good job. Well done Fred.

The system design should allow the responder to find 4-4 fit and still be able to stay in 3NT if opener has the right cards. Also, so many open 1NT with 5M, so you really don't want to miss 5-4 fit 4M, in that case, skipping stayman should be rather bad. So generally speaking, one should always try for stayman and the system design should allow him to choose 3NT or 4M when the major fit is discovered. Otherwise, many 5-4 fit and 4-4 fit suitable for 4M would be missed.

Thanks Barry - we are excited about this too and the work we are doing is a nice change for me and Uday. The support and help we have received from many of our members (including you!) has been much appreciated. I just wanted to offer a warning that you shouldn't get your hopes up too high for the next version. It will certainly be better in many areas, but there is still a very long way to go. This is a long term project and it will likely take a while until GIB bids well enough to make everyone happy. Also, while we do expect to continue to expend considerable resources on the GIB-improvement project for the foreseeable future, there are still plenty of other aspects of BBO that require our attention. Hopefully we will be able to manage our time effectively so that all aspects of our site will continue to improve in the months and years to come. We are hoping and expecting to bring a new full time programmer on board soon - that should help a lot. I like your idea of putting GIB on vugraph one day, but if this happens I expect we will wait until we are confident that we will be able to truly proud of its performance. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I have tried wbridge5, the free software and winner of 05, 07 , 08 computer bridge. It seems to me that wbridge5's play is actually very strong, both in bidding and in playing. It has been a quite pleasant experience to partner with wbridge5. There are very few mistakes in bidding and the declaring and defending are also very good cause it takes both previous bidding and plays into account and often makes the right constraints and interference. In defending, it implemented a count oriented signal in first 7 tricks and also defend according to partner's signals. It has implemented three bidding systems, wbridge5, which is an extension of French standard, SEF and SAYC. To my surprise, the program is really small and the performance is also no bad in my not so new desktop. It's quite little known to the English speaking world cause it's written by Yves Costel from France. I probably can't rate wbridge5 as a top expert, but I think its bridge is certainly very close to an expert level.

From a bridge point of view, I don't get it either (though some of my friends like Hampson and Grue seem to like to open a Precision 1D with such hands). But Uday and I do understand why GIB does this and it will stop doing it soon. During the past few weeks I have been spending about 50% of my time looking over 1000s of hands that were bid by each day's latest version of the "new and improved GIB" and comparing its performance on these hands to that of the GIB that plays on BBO. Uday has been spending an even larger % of his time learning how GIB decides what bids to make, fixing specific problems that we identify, and fixing general problems relating to things like hand evaluation. We spend hours each day discussing GIB via phone and running long matches of new GIB vs. old GIB. I can confidently claim that the next version of GIB will not: - open a 3-card minor before a 5-card major - make a Jacoby transfer on a 4-card suit - make a Texas transfer on a 5-card suit - bid Stayman and then opt for notrump when a 4-4 major suit fit is discovered - open 1NT with 19 HCP (or do many other similar things as it does now) - after a Blackwood auction play in a King-showing response instead of the agreed trump suit - make plenty of other basic mistakes that the existing GIB makes now I think we have also managed to tone down GIB's tendency to massively overbid in a wide variety of situations. There is still a long way to go, but GIB is getting better every day. It is kind of hard for us to stop so that we can get the new GIB ready for being released, but we are trying to force outselves to do that soon. Junyi - I am afraid you don't really understand why GIB makes most of its bidding mistakes. The main cause is that it has not been properly taught what bids should mean. The more we can teach GIB to understand, the less often we will have to rely on simulations in inappropriate situations in the hope that it does something sane. Often simulations result in something insane for the same reason - it doesn't understand the bids that come up when it tries to project into the future. The earlier in the auction the simulation takes place the more likely the projection is to spiral out of control. There are situations in which simulations are appropriate and work very well, by the way. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Thanks for you input, Fred. Hopefully we'll see a saner version of gib soon. By the way, have you worked on a basic signaling method of gib's defense? For now, there is no signal at all, gib basically discards randomly and often pitches the highest spot card which it thinks wouldn't cost a trick. Also, gib openleads 4th best and high low from doubleton, but when it switches, it often plays low from doubleton. If those problem can be fixed, playing with gib can be more pleasant and you may certainly attract more serous money bridge players I suppose.

those are just small issues. You may never imagine what gib bid with this hand: Sx HQJxxx D- CQTxxxxx over partner's 1NT opening. either 2D, 2NT, or even 4D, 5C are all human bids. Gib chose to pass. As I said again and again and again, gib's whole bidding design is completely wrong. Bidding should not base on simulations of a few hands, which gib is doing. And the the fundamental of gib bidding is so called "points", which is a complete disaster. For example, in this hand, gib overbid 6 "points" with xx KQxxxx Kxx xx, the bidding went 1C 3D, gib overbid 3H, which in system agreement shows at least 14 "points", there is no way in the world to count 14 points in this hand. This bidding weirdness only shows the programmer limited understanding of bridge bidding. If one doesn't fix the basic design structure of gib bidding, there is nothing much for serious players to expect in gib's bidding improvement.

The worst bid is actually 6S. For south's hand, 5C is an overbid, which still may win in some layouts, for example: partner may hold AKxxxx Ax Jx xxx, in that case 6S is quite cold. North's opening is certainly light, but with two aces, it's just a small overbid as well. The worst bid is 6S. South's hand isn't strong enough to push to slam facing a minimum, and partner's 5H shows a H control, so now it's time for south to retreat to 5S and let partner decide. There is no way for south to push to slam facing any minimum balanced hand with a heart control, which is actually a frequent mistake by many intermediate to advanced bidders.

lol, you want to undo cause you may not belong to games after an 2/1 gf sequence. Basically, 2S says "my hand isn't not suitable for NT". Let's assume the simple case that partner holds 5 spades and semibalanced, here, you can can't expect Qx from partner in clubs, cause if he holds Qx in clubs, it's hard for him to open the hand without H honors, but with H honors, he can rebid 2NT. So what's his likely hand? Kxxxx AKQ xx xxx, now you have to hope that opps don't have 5 club tricks and spades are 3-3, which means you are already too high, no matter what:) Your shot in 4S is no better if they find club lead and promote their trump tricks. So now, you are asking which negative EV contract you want to bid if partner holds a minimum with 5 spades, I'd say 4S can be slightly better cause partner may hold the right minimum like: KJxxx Axx KJx xx. Then you may ask me which bid you like? I'd say, still 2NT, cause partner would bid 3D over your 2NT, then you bid 3S and he can bid 4S. Also, 2NT allows you to find 5D sometimes, for example: XXXXX AKQ KJx xx, or xxxxx AKQ Kxxx x if you raise to 3S, you will most likely declare in 4S and if you bid 2NT, it would go like: 2N 3D 3S 5D(4D) The basic idea here is that you don't want to play in 3NT, but your 2NT keeps you low and allows your partner to raise you at a low level. You may ask me what if partner bids 3NT over your 2NT? I'd say, good luck, although you have one suit wide open, you still hold 6 cards in that suit and opps may not find the right lead and partner may hold SKJxxx xxx xx AKQ, 3NT is probably slightly worse than 4S, but it is still pretty good if they don't lead H.

yeah, our system wasn't designed for good partials. It usually lands us at reasonable partials, not the best partials. So we miss more 5-3 M fit partials than standard treatment, but we generally do better in game and especially slam biddings cause 1NT usually keeps the bidding low and we can usually make a lot of accurate bids after 1NT rebid, such as two way nmf.

I tend to bid 2D here, this is a good 7, and when you find S fit, it certainly worths more than 7. S fit isn't likely, but still possible. also, you like to play 5C if partner can bid 3C over 2D, for example, he may hold x xx AQJxx AKJxx, the chance for 5C is good enough IMO. If he holds x xx AQxxx AKQxx, you really don't want to miss 5C. 3c is an overbid, which is my second choice. A third choice is pass. Still, pass may work out well sometimes.

I just open 1C with 4-5 in m cause our 1NT rebid doesn't promise a doubleton or longer in responder's suit.

if you face an unpassed partner, it's a clear 2D rebid. 2C is a bid that looks pretty but may lead you landing at wrong slams when partner has some sort of club fit and extra value. In the real situation, 2C is still a bid that looks pretty but may get you nowhere after partner's raise to 3C, cause you know this hand is quite misfitted and 3nt doesn't have to be good. 1NT is my second choice, but many nowadays upgrade 14 and open 1NT, so partner may not expect you to rebid 1NT with a pretty good 15 and may pass your 1NT rebid with some pretty good 10 or very bad 11, still even when he has a bad 11 or good 10, 3nt doesn't have to be very good if he has no diamond fit. That's why 2D is good, it shows your partner the major feature of this hand, also, 2D's range is rather wide, from good 10 to bad 16, so partner can make some educated guess to bid more when he has diamond fit and pass it when he detects misfit. Even if you play 4 card major, this hand is still the best to open 1D IMO. Another issue is that whether you should open 1NT, I'd open it only when I hold stiff SK or SA and bad diamonds. like this: A AKxx Jxxxx Kxx. For the real hand, 1NT is a big distortion and may cost you a lot of imps cause you won't be able to show your 5-4 red suits which can be critical for slam or game bidding facing an unpassed partner. even facing an passed partner, xxx Axx Kxxxx Kx, 6D is cold, 3NT has no play after spade lead and you have no normal gadget to find your D fit if you open 1NT. Although you don't have to find 6D, at least 5D should be bid IMO. IMO, when you have a choice, you want to avoid rebidding 3 card suit, especially face an unpassed partner, cause he may sometimes take your second suit too seriously, and the damage can rarely be recovered.

it's fairly easy if you play 2H to show weakness. 2S to show extra and long h, 2N shows extra and sp support. 3C shows 5-5 extra. 3D shows extra, but can't bid NT. the it would go like 1H 1S 2C 2D 3D 4D(RKC in C) 4S(3 or 0 kc) 4N(CQ?) 5H(yes and HK) 7C

I tend not to turn over my cards in real play unless I have 100% seen opponents cards. Some really turn over their cards way too fast to follow. hehe. Still, the concentration level is usually the best on line for me, cause in real tournaments, there are so many players, people sometimes walking, chatting, and sometimes, you have an angry partner or opponents or both that you have to face...

With 4 hearts or spades plus 5+♦s and extra, do you first show majors or ♦s? yeah, I show 5D first, later, we usually have a chance to find our 4-4 fit either at two level or three level.

I've already said why: because it's statistically unlikely for that to happen. I've only came across it once in my life (something like 10 000-20 000 boards played :)). Oh， well, it's still not very rare. Actually with that splinter weapon available, a lot of good low HCP slams can be bid and it's actually very high to make a natural jump raise when a simple raise is already gf, it simply preempts a lot of cue bidding space.

This slam is biddable, in regular treatment with nonserious 3NT: 1S 2C 2D 2S 3H(no other choices available) 3N(mild slam interest, as a reverse to serious 3NT) 4C(cuebid, honor) 4H(cuebid) 5D(cuebid, not strong enough to rkc, but still have the right value for 5 level after partner's show of mild slam interest) 5H(last train, with CJ and good trumps, gotta make the last train slam invitation) 6S(CQ can have good value, so take the push) Great now we got a 3h rebid which seems to be neither shape bidding nor cuebidding.....geez talk about confusing. Up to this point the whole thread was about those two issues. Now I am even more confused. you can take 3H as a shape showing bid, which shows either 5-2-4-2 no H stopper, or 5-3-4-1, no H stopper. If one wants accurate shape and stopper information by bidding 2NT or 3 C/D/S, one gotta have 3H reserved for a none of above bid, which is certainly better than a lie of the shape.

Why is that? If you have a singleton or void facing partner's Axxxx or xxxxx, it's great.

This slam is biddable, in regular treatment with nonserious 3NT: 1S 2C 2D 2S 3H(no other choices available) 3N(mild slam interest, as a reverse to serious 3NT) 4C(cuebid, honor) 4H(cuebid) 5D(cuebid, not strong enough to rkc, but still have the right value for 5 level after partner's show of mild slam interest) 5H(last train, with CJ and good trumps, gotta make the last train slam invitation) 6S(CQ can have good value, so take the push)

4C should be bid based on a very good hand, so this hand is very slamish. There is no point to bid 3C then pull partner's 3NT with a weak hand with long and weak clubs. In that case, you shouldn't balance 3C.

This is a clear 3H bid, your overall strength justifies the invitation. HQJ can be very good, DKQJ, CQ can have some value. 4H is a clear overbid because of the poor control. Pass is just way too chicken.

In principle, the third round bid should show some shape information. 2N: NT can be a spot. 3C: 3 clubs or more clubs, natural. 3D: no other choices available, usually designed for 5-4-2-2 shape without D stopper, sometimes can be 5-4-3-1 shape, without D stopper and that singleton club is an honor. 3H: 5 hearts. 3S: 6 spades. 4C: splinter. 4D: splinter. The key here is to take advantage of the low bidding level and define one's hand as accurate as possible. The draw back is that when nobody has extra, the bidding just discloses too much distributional information. That's actually why I like 1M 2x 2x+1 to show minimum, so bidding can often end very fast: 1S 2C 2D 4S pass, and opps can still be in dark.

Here, I use 2D to show any shape, but minimum, from 12 to bad 14. 2H: 5 or more D, extra. 2S: 4 or more H, extra. 2N: 4 or more S, extra. 3C: natural and extra. 3D: set up trumps. 3H/S: splinter. Basically, all bids are quite natural and it's rather easy to handle IMO.

We don't have a direct voting system to vote for the chairman in China. The current chairman, Hu, was nominated by Deng. So it's quite different in China. And Hu has no opponents who can challenge his chairmanship so far. The next one will most likely be nominated by him as well. That's why some said China has no democracy, which might not be completely true, cause we do have a voting system to vote for congressman. Also, China is the first country that developed a government employee testing system in the world, which worked well for more than 1000 years, so it's just different from western tradition IMO. For the "we didn't vote for Bush" incident. I can fully understand the ladies of team USA1, some of them are also my good friends. I don't really think it's a very serious issue and it's just a small joke and a small political statement. It's not even an insult to anybody, cause they just said "we didn't vote for Bush", not "Bush is bad". That's my opinion, but also, some of my Chinese friends hold a similar opinion.

cue and set up H as trumps. With very long C, you either gamble 5C or 3nt. Actually I play sequences like: 2C 2D 3D 4C as a conventional raise as well, with long C, I'd still gamble 3nt or 5C. The basic idea is that when partner shows a strong hand and you can't show your club suit below 3nt, there is no reason to assume that 4C is a better bid than 3NT or 5C.

You were talking about Pairs and top dutch players might not be familiar with jack. For a long team match, any computer programs simply have no chance against a top flight team of humanbeing, cause those programs all have numerous bugs and humanbeing can explore their weakness and take the full advantage of their bugs. The declarer play of gib is slightly better than intermediate human players (they don't usually understand safe plays, cause those are rare events and hard to produce in a limit number of random deals; they don't understand opp's bidding, cause it's extremely hard to set those right constraints, which requires a big advance in AI), the bidding of gib is way worse than intermediate human players,, that means gibs tend to make very costly mistakes in bidding and we all know how important bidding is in bridge. Also the truth is not that most people underrate computer, the situation is that the programmers often overate the programs IMO. I am only trying to be objective after played thousands of hands with gib and few in this forum may have played the same number of hands as I have done.