helene_t Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 http://tinyurl.com/pnr3hdq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 It appears to me that the culprit is that 3♣ is defined as 14-HCP, instead of 12-14HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2005 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 It appears to me that the culprit is that 3♣ is defined as 14-HCP, instead of 12-14HCP.12-14 14- no big deal. GIB has 15 HCP and a club fit should keep trying. 3N likely on power just need Qx or 4-4 split, but should at least try 3♦ and if no 3N comes out take a shot at 5♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 12-14 14- no big deal.If North thinks his partner has 14-HCP and simulates based on that, he may be including the possibility that partner has 6 or 8 HCP. Then, investigating game (especially in a minor) might not be so clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 If North thinks his partner has 14-HCP and simulates based on that, he may be including the possibility that partner has 6 or 8 HCP. Then, investigating game (especially in a minor) might not be so clear.Huh? North's partner opened the bidding. I would think that the chances of partner having 6 or 8 HCP would be pretty small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Huh? North's partner opened the bidding. I would think that the chances of partner having 6 or 8 HCP would be pretty small.To a human, yes. But it's not clear whether GIB "looks at" all the prior definitions of his partner's bids, or just the last one which is supposed to be an accumulation of all the information provided. It's my guess that this is a hole in the bidding table. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iandayre Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 I would say that, simulations aside, GIB should not be allowed to force to game (with 2S here), then pass at the 3 level below game. 5C is better than 3NT here, although both will make on the lie of the cards. I wonder if BB is correct that it's possible that GIB N essentially forgot that partner opened the bidding now that he has shown "14-". I wonder even more if the programmers (or however we should be referring to Uday, Barmar and others who comment on behalf of BBO here) would admit that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 I wonder even more if the programmers (or however we should be referring to Uday, Barmar and others who comment on behalf of BBO here) would admit that.I think BBO staff has always been completely truthful about GIB's shortcomings and the sources of those shortcomings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iandayre Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 I think BBO staff has always been completely truthful about GIB's shortcomings and the sources of those shortcomings. I just cant agree with you there. They have NEVER addressed the issue of GIB bidding short suits at high levels. They have yet to address the issue of GIB passing takeout doubles at completely inappropriate times, despite the fact it has come up many, many times,. Yes, when they recognize and fix a problem, they acknowledge it. When they can't or don't fix a problem, they ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.