fuburules3

http://tinyurl.com/886lb7p I know I shaded a bit to double second time, but it seems better if GIB just bids 3S here. There is no reason we couldn't have a vul game (not to mention the fact that they could make 3HX). Are simulations suggesting pass is best?

http://tinyurl.com/7a9wwj9 This sort of thing has been discussed, but it seems that with nothing unexpected, GIB should not pull 3NT to play the 5-2 fit. Are simulations suggesting 4S is better?

In this auction, responder could have a "bad" limit raise and one of 3 spades and 4 spades should show that. Responder also has to have a way to bid a bad raise to 2 spades and a preference to spades. Preferably the same bid does not show all of these hand types.

http://tinyurl.com/d7xbk6t It seems that GIB will bid 3S both with the 3 card limit raise and with 3 card spades support and a hand not good enough to bid 2S. Perhaps GIB should bid 4S here instead?

I think it can be considered pretentious. Using a "fancy" word when a "simple" one would suffice annoys some people. Ergo doesn't really bother me personally.

http://tinyurl.com/7wjjb3b I find that often GIB's weak or preemptive raises don't really fit a traditional definition. GIB's 3D is within its point range, but I would prefer GIB bid 2D here. Thoughts? (ignore our "defense", GIB and I weren't quite on the same page here)

I always just thought partner was being ornery when I give him a ruff with the 2 and he returns a spade :rolleyes:

I think perhaps you should settle for a Midnight Knockout.

The point of the forum is to post hands that the developers can use to improve GIB. If I come across as complaining, I apologize as being a developer for GIB seems to be a thankless task and I'm largely happy with the end product (there is no forum to post hands where you have a normal, smooth auction with GIB!). As far as the hand in question, in my opinion opening 4S is not "real" bridge as we could easily miss a slam. I'm fine if GIB "thinks" we have a slam after 2C, because we very well could. In any event, in general I try to bid as normally as possible with GIB (because I find playing this way most enjoyable). In this sequence, I think when I bid spades for the third time, it should show spades I am willing to play opposite a void. It seems if I bid 4S instead of 3S the second time, GIB is willing to pass. I think GIB should be just as willing to pass in the auction I posted and the definition of 4S could be tweaked to show a stronger suit (if I had hearts and an unwillingness to play in spades opposite a void, I could bid hearts!).

http://tinyurl.com/7omv5sh How should this be bid in GIB? I think in real life I would rebid 3S, but I've been told GIB does not know what to make of this. I personally think GIB should not bid 5H even with a spade void here.

http://tinyurl.com/7syrfz6 3NT seems suboptimal. Not a huge fan of 3D either.

http://tinyurl.com/7zr9mxj It would seem better if GIB bid NT at some point in the auction, but perhaps GIB can't bid 2NT for a systemic reason over 2S (or 1NT over 1D). Given the 3D how can I get GIB to bid 3NT (ignoring the fact that it goes down on this hand) with a heart stopper? 3S seems like wrong bid, but I think 3H shows something in hearts (correct me if I'm wrong) and 3NT shows stopper. Also, having 3S shows 4 diamonds and 4+ spades seems like a bad description.

Pretend I have xx in clubs and the A is somewhere else if you need to.

http://tinyurl.com/7b3ogqf These sort of sequences don't come up enough for me to know what the "best" way to play them are, but it seems like the way GIB does it is not ideal. Over 2D, it doesn't seem too unusual to want to bid some denomination of NT with extras, but 2NT shows something like 19 HCP and 3NT shows 22-25 (if I remember accurately). Since experience has shown either one of these bids might lead GIB to bid a bad slam, I'm left with making the cue. Perhaps this isn't horrible, but it doesn't really seem necessary to reserve 2NT/3NT for such strong hands.

With regards to total points, since GIB counts shortness (without honors) as points, any hand with a six card suit will usually be worth more total points than HCP and 17-20 total points might not be too far off "standard."

http://tinyurl.com/77u7m3q What does GIB want me to do over 3D? I thought he would be longer and maybe this 5-2 fit would be better. I would prefer GIB bid 3S or pass (or give better definition to 3D). I also notice that GIB seems to bid 1NT with 3 card support and a sub-minimum hand a lot. Is this systemic or is it the result of simulations? Since it seems to do this a lot, maybe 1NT should not promise 6+ HCP. FWIW, I'm not really sure what I think of my 2NT call.

Maybe it decided that diamonds won't be 4-0 and if diamonds are 3-1 it can protect against a lead through the king of clubs by always finessing in diamonds (and therefore it has entry in diamonds and it doesn't matter what spade it plays). At trick five he just pulled the wrong card.

Maybe my topic title was too dramatic--I agree that GIB should be able to bid 3D as a preempt here, but just not on a hand like this.

Well, sure, but mostly this one was so stupid it made me laugh and I think in past they've said it's hard to change anything about how it plays the cards.

With no discussion I would assume natural.

Perhaps you can elaborate, but this math seems off. You need need club king on plus either hearts 3-3 or club length in right place. Opening 2NT has nothing to do with playing with GIB imo. This hand seems worth an upgrade regardless of whether or not partner is sentient. See for instance: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=a43+AKQxx+1098+AQ

I typically don't post just to complain about bad results. IMO this is a shortcoming in GIB that could easily be fixed by the developers. Since I seem to be in the minority in thinking this, I guess they'll leave things as they are ;)

So you think this 3D is a winning bid in the long run? Nothing you have said has really convinced me that the bid isn't awful.

I have a hard time believing 3D is a +EV call in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/7c8r277

I don't like this. Why should your opponents have to wait for two or three minutes while your partner (maybe) reconnects? Perhaps this would be ok you agreed to accept an average minus for any unplayed boards, but this opens a whole new can of worms (your opponents deliberately playing slow to try to get an average plus).