Is GIB getting worse - Redux

[ArtK78]

In a recent thread, a poster raised the issue of whether GIB was getting worse. This morning, I played in an ACBL BBO Robot matchpoint game, and I had three (!) hands on which GIB committed atrocities that a novice would not commit.

 

#1:

 

GIB held:

 

AQxxx

----

xx

Axxxxx

 

Partner....GIB

..1NT........2♥

...2♠........3♣

..3NT.........P????

 

Sure, 3NT might be the right contract, but would anyone actually pass 3NT with 5-6 in the blacks? 3NT was a lucky make (opening underlead of the ♥A, 3-3 break in diamonds (declarer had AKQxx) and the spade finesse onside) but 6♣ required significantly less luck and was an easy make.

 

#2

 

GIB held, all vul in 3rd seat:

 

Tx

Qxx

KQx

JTxxx

 

1♦ - (4♠) - X???? - All Pass.

 

Making 5.

 

#3

 

GIB held, no one vul in 3rd seat:

 

KT

8642

AJT9

J96

 

1♣ - (1♥) - P - (2♥)

x - (P) - P???? - (P)

 

Making 2.

 

Just to make it clear that this is not all sour grapes, I was the declarer on the second one, scoring +990.

[Antrax]

About the first, I think it's a system thing. IIRC 3NT denies support for clubs - GIB has no Hamman rule to make it bid 3NT as a practical make.

[1eyedjack]

They are all bad decisions. But they are all decisions which with a favourable wind might have been the winning action. We see so many things that GIB does which can never be right, that I wonder whether prioritising these cases is the right thing to do. Still, it is certainly worth putting them on the "to do" list.

[ArtK78]

Here is another one.

 

ACBL BBO MP Robot game.

 

GIB holds, at equal nonvul, in 4th seat:

 

Ax

AKQTxxxx

----

KJx

 

(1♠) - P - (4♠) - x???

(xx) - P - (P) - P?????

 

I have played enough against GIB to figure that I might be allowed to play in 4♠xx. But I never expected that GIB would pass with a hand like this one! By the way, 5♥ was cold. I scored +880.

[Lord Molyb]

Here is another one.

 

ACBL BBO MP Robot game.

 

GIB holds, at equal nonvul, in 4th seat:

 

Ax

AKQTxxxx

----

KJx

 

(1♠) - P - (4♠) - x???

(xx) - P - (P) - P?????

 

I have played enough against GIB to figure that I might be allowed to play in 4♠xx. But I never expected that GIB would pass with a hand like this one! By the way, 5♥ was cold. I scored +880.

I believe that double is actually valid given the constraints of GIB (it has enough points and 2+ spades) even though it is extremely silly.

[manudude03]

I guess GiB just doesn't like long suits, my favorite case was (admittedly 2 years ago) this:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46699-ten-solid/

[cherdano]

I guess GiB just doesn't like long suits, my favorite case was (admittedly 2 years ago) this:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46699-ten-solid/

 

I guess so - here GIB had 8 solid diamonds but didnt think them worth mentioning opposite a partner who opened:

http://tinyurl.com/lc7kl9u

(To his credit, he was willing to risk playing in diamonds opposite partner's reopening double.)

[Stephen Tu]

I think the problems are probably like defaults requiring 5 level bids to be like 25+ total points or maybe even 28+ total points. There are some basic rules that basically tells it that to bid game it needs this much and if it is doing it opposite potentially nothing it has to have everything. This stuff is maybe OK in uncontested auctions but it has to be thrown out in competitive sequences.

 

If 5♥ was defined more reasonably and higher priority than double it would probably choose it but likely there is some silly requirement stopping it from choosing 5♥, and also it thinks dbl > pass, and is only choosing between dbl and pass.

[cloa513]

I think the problems are probably like defaults requiring 5 level bids to be like 25+ total points or maybe even 28+ total points. There are some basic rules that basically tells it that to bid game it needs this much and if it is doing it opposite potentially nothing it has to have everything. This stuff is maybe OK in uncontested auctions but it has to be thrown out in competitive sequences.

 

If 5♥ was defined more reasonably and higher priority than double it would probably choose it but likely there is some silly requirement stopping it from choosing 5♥, and also it thinks dbl > pass, and is only choosing between dbl and pass.

I don't think bidding to 5 (Major) with 25 in uncontested is sensible either- it should show a very specific hand- one with all the keycards but nothing else- assuming partner supported to some degree.

[chasetb]

What else isn't sensible is this definition of 3NT, as seen here. Really? 5- ♠, so that 3NT is not playable?

[helene_t]

I think many novices, even intermediate players, would make the same bids as in OP and I have seen GIB making much worse bids.

 

But generally it passes t/o doubles way too often. Probably it includes too many off-shape t/o doubles in its simulations.

[1eyedjack]

I think many novices, even intermediate players, would make the same bids as in OP and I have seen GIB making much worse bids.

 

But generally it passes t/o doubles way too often. Probably it includes too many off-shape t/o doubles in its simulations.

 

I think that it removes penalty doubles that it should stand at least as frequently as it stands take-out doubles which it should remove.