USViking

I am a non-programmer, so what follows may not be clearly expressed. The explanations for bids in the left three columns are permitted extend outside the left edge of the bidding box. Would it not be easily possible to copy the relevant code for the left three columns and apply to the rightmost column?

All bidding box bid explanations are mouseover fully visible when playing Robot duplicate live. However, in the archived deals bidding box the explanation for bids on the far right column are usually not fully visible because they are cut off at the box edge. This is annoying when reviewing archived deals and I hope a quick fix is possible for moving the explanation in question far enough to the left so that it is always fully visible for archived hands.

You are absolutely right about the number of tricks available. I thought I learned to count that high, but I guess I didn't. There is still a problem with GIB unnecessarily playing last trump when it did though, isn't there?

From #2881 Robot Duplicate- (MP), 2011-11-30 15:59 http://tinyurl.com/736u85l GIB won the first five tricks, drawing all opponents' trump in the process, at which point it had five more winners running. There was a finesse available for an overtrick at no risk to the contract, provided the 13th trump is retained. However, GIB played the 13th trump at trick 6, and soon after lost the finesse, opponents then taking three side suit tricks for -1.

Ah- OK that makes sense. OK, thanks. Undo acceptable this time. The rest sounds reasonable.

Thank you for replying. I do not understand the 3-card holding requirement for a pass. Is there a LAW site where I can the details? Other tables auction and play-by play were availble to me at my tournament results page. You have my permission to navigate there if the information is ordinarily considered confidential.

From #7200 Robot Duplicate- MP Deal 4; 2011-11-21 16:29 http://tinyurl.com/7y8g3xt GIB underruffed at trick 10. It did not make any difference this time, but I though it should be reported anyway.

From #6947 Robot Duplicate- MP Deal 7; 2011-11-21 15:29 http://tinyurl.com/7csucrc Partner opens then passes 1-2-3 times over GIB’s repeated Spade bids on 7HCP, a Jack-high 6-card trump suit, and a singleton in the suit opened by partner then bid twice by GIB’s RHO. Maybe I was a wimp with my passes. Nevertheless, if GIB's coninued overruling with the weaker hand was the result of simulation rather than a bug I would like to suggest turning off the simulator after the second pass when partner opens and then passes twice. I also notice my GIB was the only one of 22 which failed to make 9 tricks. I wonder how that happened, but not enough to plow through the other table results bid by bid and trick by trick looking for some nuance I might not be able to recognize.

You are the expert, and I am not being sarcastic. If you feel the extras are worth a king then you are right. However, the hand has glaring drawbacks, such as it is aceless, and the trump suit is 10-high. I am curious to know how those drawbacks are discounted. I guess I should at this point admit I was going to bid slam over any move by GIB past game. On the other hand I am not ever going to make a bid worth three points less than the mouseover explanation. So far I am quite sure I have never deliberately bid with more than one point less. Since the best part of GIB's game seems to be its declarer play maybe I will up my lying to two points' worth, if it is clear that GIB will be playing it.

Thank you for the reply. When either book or simulation produce a bid one whole King's worth worse than promised I think serious thought should be given to making a change. I am not sure what, but something.

If your reading comprehension skills were been up to the task it would be obvious to you that I covered this, with perfect clarity. Now, you have been unable to add value to this thread in three replies. Please consider stepping aside, and letting someone else have the next go at it, OK?

I have presented the issues with perfect clarity, and if you have not grasped them then that is your problem.

If 8421 applies only to the Spade suit then the information conveyed by the 5♠ bid is off by a whopping 3 points at the 5 level. That is like saying you have one King when you have zero Kings. I will go out on a limb and express doubt that stars like Gitelmoss, Grall and Meckwell make a practice of deceiving their partners by the value of one King when probing for a slam!

From tournament #1066 Robot Duplicate- MP 2011-11-20, 13:14, Deal 6: http://tinyurl.com/76n89zp The GIB 5♠ bid is explained as “4+ S; 5- 8421 HCP in S; 13+ total points”. Is the 13+ total points a bug? I assume the 8421 treatment apples only to ♠, but even if it applies to the whole hand with ♥K = 4 there are only 11 points, unless the void is upgraded to 5. Also, I wonder if some refinement might be possible in cases like this to convey the information that GIB has 0 or maybe 0-1 points in the trump suit.

Thank you for replying. I think I understand what you mean about my Club suit having to have at least 4 cards. I am not sure what you mean about the correct evaluation of GIB point value. That would still be an issue regarless of the length of South's Clubs.

From 2011-11-19 18:22 #7197 Robot Duplicate- MP Deal 8. http://tinyurl.com/88ujbqq GIB 4♣ bid explained as 11- HCP; 12 total points. It looks like the GIB hand = 8HCP plus a singleton = 10 total points. And besides the overall weakness, isn't the 4-level bid inappropriate in a suit in which partner may only have three small?

OK, so no bug after all. Thanks for the reply.

Oops. I did notice the switch. Wonder what that was all about?

This opening lead by GIB vs 3NT has got to be a bug, it has just got to be: From #2013 Express- Free TCR80% Automated Fun 2011-11-18 18:52 http://tinyurl.com/7qont6d I mean, a singelton when holding ♠AJ96543 vs a declarer who has denied a 4-card major, and no inference that dummy has any strength in Spades? After a slightly different auction at one other table GIB did lead a Spade.

I have been playing too much bridge today, and I may be too bleary-eyed to track the discards, but it seems to me this is the endgame, with no chance for declarer to avoid two losers: [hv=pc=n&s=sh984dc&w=shk5dtc&n=sha32dc&e=shqj7dc]399|300[/hv]

Thanks you very much for replying. Do you have any thoughts about deal #8 from that tournament? A similar sutuation arose in the next tournament I played in: #6190 Robot Dupilcate- MP, deal #8: http://tinyurl.com/d5oh9za This time I knew my 4♠ bid was not signoff. I checked the meaning of 3♠, and although I now forget what 3♠meant, it did not convey what I wanted either, so I bid 4 and hoped for the best, but got into another very poor slam. Two declarers were able to make 6♠ on that deal on what appear to me to be two different misdefences by GIB. I hope someone can look at that separate issue.

Thank you for the input. I hope a staff member will be able to comment also. Might it be preferable in significantly more cases to allow the 4♠ bidder to possess a good but not great hand such as 15hcp?

OK, thanks- this was as discussed before and I should have reread the earlier thread instead of relying on my foggy memory. I should also have added GIB system notes to my faorites for easy reference whenever there is a GIB at the table; I have done so now.

For well over 100 deals has GIB been a pleasure to work with, and I have had no one to blame but myself for my poor results. However, GIB bidding in deals 4, 6 and 8 of Tournament #5351 Robot Duplicate- MP 2011-11-15 12:52 make me wonder about bugs somewhere: #3 http://tinyurl.com/739wv3b I learned in an earlier thread that there may be unusual circumstances where GIB thinks a misleading Stayman is the best bid, but surely 2NT is an obviously much better bid here. #6 http://tinyurl.com/6rsoutg I did misinform GIB with my first bid, but is that an excuse for GIB raising with 2-card support when two decent 5-card suits were more cheaply available? How about the 2nd raise with 2-card support instead of trusting partner's judgement? #8 http://tinyurl.com/794mvnx I assumed at the time I made the bid that my 4 Spades was a signoff. I now see that it promises 19+ total points; is that standard? If so how does takeout doubler manage the auction to reach game and no more after GIB bids 3 Spades? I also wonder about GIB insisting on slam with such a hand, particularly in view of the possibly worthless ♦Q, and the hazardous 5 cards in a suit rebid by opener.

I have every reason to believe that BBO developers possess a faultlessly robust work ethic. An issue I raised in another post was explained by the system notes, and the reason I mention the notes here is to confirm I did check them this time. Although I have no experience in such matters, I have read an interview of a former multiple world champ who said his partnership's notes were over 200 pages long. I do think that GIB refinement would best serve most customers by keeping complexity to a minumum.