cloa513

Bamar has implied as much- so much undocumented GIB's bidding rules. Sounds lazy.

More likely they'd embarassed about the loosy sloopy undocumented progamming.

You should say what are your normal hours of play?

For the 6NT example you don't need special rules, first ensure the bidding is correctly entered into GIB's simulation inputs ( I bet its not given 33 HCP in opponents hands and length in two side suits what other possible play could there be than cash your top two winners), then have GIB run more simulations say 100 (maybe some rule of thumb whether its enough for the given hand) before making the lead ensuring the lead still follows its leads database afterall that's just like humans who think a bit more with 3 hands hidden, if his partner is a GIB then it can run a few more simulations than normal with correct information gained from at least the lead and dummy. All that would reduce the rediculous stuff-ups without changing anything fundamental about GIB.

The 2♣ is a rediculous underbid- its surely 3♣ at least. 4 ♥ is also an underbid. The description shows that. The correct bid is 5♥ or 4NT and South easily place the contract at 7♥.

3NT has no chance even played by North even if they lead a spade as you have 8 top tricks. North should just double for no fit and that is a winner with good play you take down 2S by at least 2. After a heart lead, then lead spades and hopefully North wins in a diamonds return and leads more spades if EW tries to set up diamonds to ruff so you take 4 diamonds, 2 clubs, 2 hearts.

Absolutely everything to do with the "upgrate". Nothing important ever fixed.

You didn't answer about declarer's play- it assumes opponents play DD so by leading back diamonds it must lose 4 diamond tricks at least plus what other loser it has.

But won't.

Why does GIB lead back diamonds? Anyway simulations should tell it the correct play- obvious GIB ignores simulations.

So why have that cue bid- remove it for those circumstances to reduce GIB confustion.

That's the problem with it- its a meaningless waiting bid.

Don't start that way- bid 2♣ over 1♣.

What limits did you put for passed partner's hand?

They may be the wrong metric but GIB doesn't have any other metric (well other competently used metric- a misused TP evaluation doesn't help either) to use so its no point suggesting it use the right metric.

For a human, 1S is fine but GIB handles badly followup rebids by doubler so if it bids its full values then there would actually be no followup problem to fix.

Two possibilities, partner has a good hand in clubs and therefore doesn't want to let opener get in a cheap rebid as he think opener has few clubs or he has too much cover in clubs e.g. KJ10x and thinks it is most likely opener is double suited so now you have a second suit poorly or not covered at all- either 3C is forcing.

And GIB's response to the double is pathetic, it should definitely bid 2♠.

Yet you don't explain why GIB bids 4♥ after seeming to sign off at 2. The play is just another failure of the get maximum tricks criterion.

Don't balance! How about (1C)-(1S)- (1NT)-(2S)- - 3H-(3S)-4H 4S - - X It makes because the LHO hand was strong.

I would think you Georgi would surely know that BBO requires the username on BBOforums to be the same as BBO itself.

As I said semi-squeeze, West is keeping spades and has bared his Q♥.

The play is bad because it drops the J♥ and doesn't realise West is semi-squeezed so that he is keeping two spades including an honour.

Why spurn 3NT which is far easier?