cloa513

That's funny because GIB usually treats 3NT opening as stronger than 2C,-,2D,-,3NT.

Why do you have two rules for the same starting sequence? Why not one rule per starting sequence? By the way, I think 1C,-,-,(1H),1S (should reasonably show 4 clubs for strange hands like 4144 but usually 5 clubs) If it was 1C,-,-,(1H),2C,2H,-,-,2S is 5+ clubs and 3 spades for a strong hand with 3 spades AKx.

What are you gaining by acting at that point? Opener has shown some type of minimum so game would be out and it seems a bit unlikely that you can take down with GIB and your quality of play afterall you don't lead a spade when partner seems to be penalising opponents.

This is more a story of lack of thinking the system. No reason GIB couldn't handle temporizing bids if it was following bidding rules which make it show its hand rather than make a contract decision. It would have to be symetrical so with 1D,-,1S/1H,- 2D,-,3C is forcing with 10+ HCP and 4+ in the major shown.

You call it inflammatory but what the hundreds of posts before me- did those encourage Fred to say we've got to seriously look at the basics and basic bidding of GIB because the basic mistakes are embarassing. No instead it was add more "features" and paper over the faults. The features whether it be Michaels, Soloway are no good because GIB can't handle them right- its a lot of work to get any system convention right with human even more with humans. No one should expect BBO to add more conventions to GIB and them to be perfect. I'd have left the overbidding of preempts to your simulated bids- its just as difficult for humans to decide what to bid in those cases so no reason to expect to GIB to know what to do.

Why did South lead a diamond when there is no danger of dummy getting a ruff, simply return a club and surely partner should win the ace and return a spade.

Just more sloppy programming- as far as choosing a suit the second is nowhere as bad (East's spades suit is so freestanding that sometime excellent players prefer their own suit to a fit with partner) as the first just that the level is too low coming back to the poor Total Points calculator- a good one would have boosted East's hand value and they would have been propelled into game.

This is just another example of the bid descriptions not matching what is in GIB's internal logic- read the bid descriptions.

You provide a good argument for improving GIB's calculation of Total Points rather than simulations- if you followed that argument you be saying think about what you say not actually what you think I wrong. TP which should be dynamically calculated as partner's hand and opponents` hands are bid - the fixed standard is awful.

Doesn't that mean you have to sacrifice 2♦ as natural.

People would like simulations never used in low-level rounds of auctions if there is a clear bidding rule use that not a simulation.

Really so they can pass 2HX- who are these good bridge players you refer to.

Unfortunately the bidding description says you have 7+ (8421) pts in clubs,　　of course who knows what GIB really had in its hand register for you- just more sloopy rubbish in the bidding rules.

Why GIB can't just accept a Jacoby transfer even if its "doubled" whatever his hand is like whether 2 card support, 3 card support or a bad 4 card support so increasing the uncertainty for defenders. Can't the Jacoby transfer be done with more than 5 cards of a major?

Except that means opener is at least 4054- its gotta to be one sad hand to not TO double 2♥ or bid minors 2NT.

I don't say that at all. You should try reading what I write. I said limit the number of sequences and then make sure all those are well defined and it doesn't have to be a complete chain at some point with enough information GIB can just simulate the best place for the contract or partner signs off in the right place. A lot of problems with GIB is because it is creative in a bad way- those simulations used instead of bidding tables (noone expects amazing bidding from a computer program). Good human player do simulations in their head so there is really no difference.

6♣ can handle a　4-2 break provided the hearts and diamonds break reasonably well. Partner should have jumped to 6♣ or bid something more scientific to give partner the choice of suits afterall if partner spades were KQJ10xx or more then spades slam plays better.

Except you are wrong because the opponent GIBs left the contract in hearts where they might have a 2-0 fit so your statements are invalid- you are assuming they will go spades.

That's an invalid comparison, the comparison should be with someone with a filled in convention card　or someone that you pay to play with then you are talking decent players and GIB totally sucks in comparison to those.

No different from GIB as it is now. GIB rarely plays against humans (only as stopgap in express tournaments or in hand but you have to crazy to do that) only GIBs or GIB and a human so that bidding sequence won't come up unless the human is suicidal.

Given there is not even suggestion of what should be in each forum.

Ie. it was sloopily put together, GIB should have a response for every standard sequence- e.g I'd have limited the opening responses over 1 suit openings to 6 (not include Soloway or complex bids), nearest suit bid or 1NT or raise 1 or 2 and make sure those sequences are reasonably complete and absolute- GIB should never be erratic with a reverse bid. 1D,1S,2H and use simulations to cover the gaps not simulations for every single bid which can override the bookbid.

Something like Opener ♣AKxxx ♦x ♥AJxx ♠xxx partner ♣xxxxx ♦xxxx ♥KQx ♠x Sure if opponents compete you could guess to play in game in clubs or agressive rising in clubs could get you to right spot but otherwise its difficult.

First GIB will have to be able to play the system it has- it doesn't always take forcing bids as forcing or take out as take out.