Takeout Doubles and Unnecessary slam bids

[jmunday]

I thought GIBs responses to takeout doubles had been improved; removing some of the

ridiculous definitions (raises to game showing 25+ etc) but today the robots have

reverted to lunacy.

 

2 sequences that came up that i thought had been improved but now seem even worse

than before.

 

(1H)-X-(P)-2D-(2H)-X

 

Holding a big 4243 hand (but not heart stop), i doubled again to "learn" more without

looking at the description. The robot bid 3C over which i bid 3D. Then i happened to

roll over the bidding and found the following stupendously impossible description:

X # of HCP i was supposed to have (which was close), EXACTLY 2H (bingo) and EXACTLY 1D (WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

This was not a triumph. That was about the 3rd criminal action in 8 board tourney

so i exited (which i rarely do) and thus may not be a record of it in the board history.

(i did finish the board).

 

Next was the following:

 

(P)-P-(2D)-X-(P)-2H-(P)-4H (no way i am cuebidding now)-7H!!!!!!!!!!

4H showed that 25+ description (just get rid of that and you'll be better off) which

i nearly had. I thought these stupid jumps to slam had been solved. Especially when

GIB can at least check for keycards --- certainly should do anyway whether 37 HCP or not

expected but here GIB had a 9 count with an ace, 2 qs, and a jack ).

Slam was indeed cold but could not avoid losing the trump ace.

Even with the 25 count opposite, GIB should be checking for aces before jumping to 7.

 

These 2 boards may have been in the same tourney.

 

Bidding can be tough but these unnecessary blunders are hard to stomach.

I now can neither cuebid, double a 2nd time, or raise after making a takeout

double without GIB assigning me a 0% or -12 IMPs.

[1eyedjack]

These were both in Instant tourneys.

 

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|jmunday,~~M3886whg,~~M3939iwp,~~M4064863|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S9JKAH2JD369KCTQK%2CS23458H6QD5AC6789%2CS7TH37D478TQC345J%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%203-5%20%21D%3B%202-%20%21H%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7C6%2B%20%21H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2015-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%201%20%21D%3B%202%20%21H%3B%203-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%201%20%21D%3B%202%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2021%2B%20HCP%3B%2023-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4C%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%201%20%21D%3B%202%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2021%2B%20HCP%3B%2023-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6C%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cmc%7C0%7C]400|300[/hv]The popular bid was 3D rather than the second double. I happen to agree with 3D but that is not the issue. The problem is that as others did not choose double we have no comparisons against which to judge any change in GIB behaviour between versions.

 

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|jmunday,~~M21726jt,~~M2183x46,~~M33217nw|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S67QKH56JKDAC34KA%2CS289JH9D458C56789%2CS34AH478TQD379CJQ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%204%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7CWeak%20two%20diamond%20--%201-4%20%21C%3B%201-3%20%21H%3B%201-3%20%21S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21D%3B%209%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2013%2B%20total%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%202-%20%21D%3B%204%20%21H%3B%203-4%20%21S%3B%2024%2B%20HCP%3B%2025%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%209%2B%20HCP%3B%209-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cmc%7C12%7C]400|300[/hv]At all the other tables bar one the auction was identical to yours up to and including the 4H bid (and West's next Pass). The previous version of GIB then bid 5H with the North cards, which South either passed or raised to 6, in all cases making 12.

 

Unfortunately we are not informed which previous version of GIB was in play, but it bid this hand better. Some might argue that it is worth 6H by North so as to take away from South a losing option to pass 5H but I think that is resulting.

[iandayre]

I simply do not understand why GIB refuses to fix this issue. Yes, 25 is too high a minimum point range for the jump to 4H. But even given that, with North's 9 it is obvious that the partnership could be off a key card. Jumping to 7 is insane.

 

This is what I mean BB about their unwillingness to address issues. The robots have been doing this as long as I have been playing here, and yet not only do they not fix it, they never mention it.

[Bbradley62]

Some might argue that it is worth 6H by North so as to take away from South a losing option to pass 5H but I think that is resulting.

Since the old description of 4♥ was 25+ total points, and the 5♥ description is an accurate 8-9, maybe that's a grand slam force, not a passable invite to 6♥.

 

And surprising non-double of 7♥ by East.

[cloa513]

I simply do not understand why GIB refuses to fix this issue. Yes, 25 is too high a minimum point range for the jump to 4H. But even given that, with North's 9 it is obvious that the partnership could be off a key card. Jumping to 7 is insane.

 

This is what I mean BB about their unwillingness to address issues. The robots have been doing this as long as I have been playing here, and yet not only do they not fix it, they never mention it.

Regarding Hand 1.

You have to bid 3♦ at the first opportunity.

Your hand has the lousy doubleton hearts- it would difficult for humans to judge on this hand. You could have had 4♣,2♦,3♥,4♠-searching for a cover with strong hand.

 

 

 

 

Regarding Hand 2.

Its absurd it bids only 2♥ with this awesome hand 11 TP and it bids pathetic.

[1eyedjack]

Regarding Hand 2.

Its absurd it bids only 2♥ with this awesome hand 11 TP and it bids pathetic.

I agree with 2H on this pathetic 9 TP hand.