pretender

Ha, no, my bridge actually used to be a lot better. And playing with robots is no way to improve one's bridge IMO. I have hand records of my tournaments, with hands where GIB takes inferior lines. But more importantly, I have at least one hand where GIB made a blatant mistake (both single and double dummy). Here is what one looked like: [hv=pc=n&s=st87hdak53caq8732&w=sqjh975dj762ckt54&n=sak6432hkt843d8c9&e=s95haqj62dqt94cj6&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1s2h6sppp&p=s5stsjsac9cjcqckc5h4c6c8s8sqsks9h3h2s7h5cac4d8dtdad7h8d9dkd2htd4c7cts6h6hkhad5h9dqd3djs3s4hjc2h7s2hqc3]399|300[/hv] note trick 6 where GIB discards his diamond entry instead of setting up the club and getting back with the diamond. GIB does stuff like this to me all the time, and I'm in a lot more slams than most players so it really hurts.

I am currently still playing BBO on the old downloaded client, not the web version. Is my GIB the same version as the ones on the web version? I ask because I know that GIB was recently upgraded on to become faster. It does feel like it plays faster, but the problem is that it also feels like GIB's play has gotten significantly worse. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I bid a lot of thin slams as part of my robot race strategy, and it's frustrating to watch GIB butcher contracts when different lines of play are available. Sometimes it just makes mistakes in the play.

This was in a best hand robot race, so I didn't open an opening hand. But that should not factor in to GIB's bidding. GIB opened 1♣, not 1♥, which is the thing I find so weird

In 4th seat white all in a robot race, GIB opens 1♣ on ♠x ♥AQJTxx ♦x ♣Q9xxx

Playing a robot race, I passed, and after partner opened a major, I bid 5NT which was Grand Slam Force according to the cc when I moused over the bid. Robot bid 6M with both trumpAK, cold for 7. When I moused over the 6M bid, it just had a generic 12-21, 5cd M description. Is the GSF followup not programmed in or did the robot make a "judgment" call based on my pass?

I would say that I'm fairly good at these best hand robot races. Here's one strategy I'll share although I think most of you probably have come up with it yourselves already: When partner bids something and RHO doubles, REDOUBLE! It's amazing the number of times you get to play it there, often with overtricks. And if not, you just place the contract as you originally would. GIB N won't do anything stupid, and it's not like you needed its cooperation in the first place.

I've seen more and more of these lately, especially with 6 card club suits. ex 1 A J2 A832 K98752 Gib opens 1C and rebids 1N to 1S response ex 2 4 AK86 J6 K97652 gib opens 1C in 2nd seat and rebids 1N to 1S response

Your best chance to stay in 4H once the auction gets to there is to cuebid 3S I think

1S-(2C)-4H-p 4N-ppp 4H (by GIB) explained as 13+HCP, 5+H 4N no explanation Something's very wrong that this sequence can come up 4NT-4 instead of 6H making

Well, you're not really sorry or you wouldn't have done it -- it's not like it was unintentional -- so it doesn't sound genuine, it just sounds like rubbing it in. It doesn't sound like rubbing it in to me, it sounds like remorse for the fact that your opponents got fixed. Sure you may not feel bad in that someone had to get fixed but you can still feel bad for the particular pair that it happened to. Just like I may feel it's the "right" thing overall for unemployment benefits to run out after a period of time but I will still feel bad for anyone that happens to if it was no fault of their own. MikeGill summed up my thoughts very well. People trying to actually rationalize the 6♦ call should read his point 3 in which I think his 10% estimate is extraordinarily generous. I would have guessed that parlay is more like 2%. It definitely sounds like rubbing it in to me. If our side had a bidding misunderstanding and achieved a score we had no intention of getting, then yes, I'd apologize to the opponents for fixing them. If our side intentionally took a swinging action, why would I apologize? As for the new thoughts floating around on possible other UI constructions, how about this one: Suppose LHO had flashed his cards (or not protected them properly) and the bidder saw two or three little diamonds in LHO's hand? I'm sure this would strongly change the probabilities for 6D, probably even more than the DK in partner's hand. This, however, brings up another interesting point in that the flashing of cards by the opponent, as originally mentioned by jkdood, is in fact AUTHORIZED information.

See, I don't care about Howard's guilt or innocence. My point is that Justin's view, that certain bids are soooo suspicious (and as discussed there's selection bias because they're only suspicious when they work out) that they must be punished, is very dangerous groupthink. That's why "I have made bids that wouldn't have occurred to anyone too" matters to me. To me, it's like the guy playing online poker who runs into someone making an atrocious bet or call, hits runner runner, and then feels online poker is rigged because the other guy "must have known".

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable? Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set. Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board. Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL. But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it? It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less. "Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences. I made no direct accusation of cheating. The point of this post is that: The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment. I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally. The problem here with "expert" testimony is that this is not a science. I've been known to many of my partners and opponents over the years to have made bids that wouldn't occur to most players and yet I never make such bids without bridge reasons, whether others agree with those reasons or not. When you just assign a "top players" group to such a question, you also have strong possibilities for groupthink. If your intention is that there should be a civil/criminal court resolution to such matters, then I really think you should have made it clear that that was the purpose of this discussion thread. As someone who read the post objectively, it sounded fairly accusatory enough, let alone if I was the one who was being addressed. As someone who prides himself on thinking outside the box, especially at bridge, I hate when people use something along the lines of "no one else would do that" as a "reason". I once played on a team in a side swiss event with a teammate whom I'm pretty sure you know, who knew he was so far ahead in the match that he made a red on white psych and it worked. Again, another case of something "zero people polled would do", but it worked. Are you to punish him for that?

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable? Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set. Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board. Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL. But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it? It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less. "Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

When I wrote earlier I mentioned that we needed more information. I think we now have that and it feels like there are more objective posts on this thread than there were before. With regards to the phone call, I do not comment on whether it is "despicable" or "unwise". What I will say is that it is Justin, who went to a public forum, and wrote things such as "Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen." This to me is fairly strong accusatory language. I think it is perfectly human to feel the need to defend yourself and speak directly to your accuser. As far as trying to avoid a committee hearing of any sort. The ACBL really is a very political place. It is clear the bidder wishes to avoid having anything decided by the powers that be at the ACBL. Remember, this is also a person's livelihood at stake, which explains the urgency of the bidder's responses.

I mean, I've seen GIB bid 2S with AJTxxx xx xxx xx vulnerable and also bid 2H with Qxxx KQJxxx - Qxx third seat nonvulnerable. The range is too wide IMO

There are many ways for colluders to gain an edge, and it often just depends on what game. The most recent big collusion scandal was this one. Pretty good read. http://daleroxxu.blogspot.com/2010/05/49-p...scandal-on.html

From what I recall you can correct a mechanical error only before your partner has made a call.

Justin posted this at halftime of his match, so it occured during the first half. I think it's fair to assume the opponents weren't in "jump to slam on 4 card suit and pray" mode just yet. Well that's good to know. Although I still think the score is relevant. It could be a "either we get this or we withdraw" type of thing, especially for a pro team. Unlike most people who only know the bidder by reputation, I actually know him and have played with him. I know he is capable of both making the bid for state-of-the-match reasons and for other "extra" reasons. I'm not defending him per se, but rather defending the bid. I feel that there is a need for all the circumstances to be known, before forum people start bashing players who are actually capable of thinking outside the box for being lunatics or cheats.

I understand the suspiciousness of the call itself, and I certainly understand the skepticism given the perpetrator of the bid. However, I would like to know the conditions when the board came up. Was the bidder's team already be behind by a lot? If so, bidding 6♦ seems to me an adequate gamble. You need to be in a slam that makes (and diamonds is as likely to make as any other strain) and to get the actual swing, you need the slam to not actually be biddable by your very competent opponents. From a bridge perspective, I think most of the people who are bashing the bid tend to just think too much down the middle. Asking 1000 experts is irrelevant. If I told you you were behind by 100 imps with 10 boards to go, you might give way different bids. So I would actually like to know the score situation when this hand came up. The more important question probably comes from whether the director has the right to ask for an immediate explanation, instead of waiting for a C&E committee to deal with all the possibilities way after the fact.

GIB holds KT652 A9632 K8 T I open 1H, GIB bids 1S, I rebid 2NT, GIB bids 3NT

Today's ACBL robot duplicate #3875 Board 3 The auction went 1C by player, 1D by GIB N, 1H by GIB E, 1NT by player, 3NT by GIB N ending the auction. GIB held - 63 AQJ6543 KT96 and thinks 3NT was the best contract? Also, why did GIB E bid 1H holding 6 spades and 5 hearts?

The auction goes, starting with GIB E (1C)-X-(p)-1S (p)-1NT-(p)-3H (p)-3NT-(p)-4H (p)-4S-(p)-5H ppp Naturally I bid 3NT when I could and over 4H gave preference to 4S with my 3 spades and 2 hearts. Oops. Looking back at the explanations, 3H showed 6! hearts and 4 spades, and 4S was taken as a cuebid in support of hearts. Except that wasn't what GIB had. It had 4 spades and 4 hearts.

$5 Robot Race. NV vs V GIB N holds A98 T9 xx AJTxxx GIB E opens 1NT I make a penalty X GIB bids 2C showing 11- HCP biddable clubs which ends the auction. Wha??

Should I bother with trap passes or always bid 3NT? Anyone know GIBs reopening criteria (reopening with a double)? I assume it's much less aggressive than a human.

http://tinyurl.com/23oks9z