Help
I think just about any human player would bid 4♠ with the North hand, especially black on red. GIB refuses to. This originated in a hand posted on Facebook. I duplicated it and ran it through a teaching table with the Advanced 2/1 robots. North passes every time.
Page 1 of 1
Why doesn't GIB bid 4S?
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 2012-April-01
- Gender:Male
Posted 2024-December-30, 14:59
I think just about any human player would bid 4♠ with the North hand, especially black on red. GIB refuses to. This originated in a hand posted on Facebook. I duplicated it and ran it through a teaching table with the Advanced 2/1 robots. North passes every time.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,119
- Joined: 2014-March-15
- Gender:Male
Posted 2024-December-30, 15:06
4♠ shows 12+ HCP 
Another casualty of BBO's decision to limit which bids advanced GIB is allowed to consider, it can't find anything close so passes without simulating. Though with that poor of a definition it probably wouldn't bid it anyway or it'd expect partner to go overboard with way less.
Another casualty of BBO's decision to limit which bids advanced GIB is allowed to consider, it can't find anything close so passes without simulating. Though with that poor of a definition it probably wouldn't bid it anyway or it'd expect partner to go overboard with way less.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,094
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2024-December-30, 15:40
smerriman, on 2024-December-30, 15:06, said:
4♠ shows 12+ HCP Another casualty of BBO's decision to limit which bids advanced GIB is allowed to consider, it can't find anything close so passes without simulating. Though with that poor of a definition it probably wouldn't bid it anyway or it'd expect partner to go overboard with way less.
Another casualty of BBO's decision to limit which bids advanced GIB is allowed to consider, it can't find anything close so passes without simulating. Though with that poor of a definition it probably wouldn't bid it anyway or it'd expect partner to go overboard with way less.A related problem is that in a few circumstances it does attempt to follow LoTT and pompously explains the bid as "The Law", which can mislead opponents to think it follows LoTT always or at least often.
"Bid to length of fit with a weak hand (in these particular circumstances)" would be more appropriate disclosure.
A related problem is its bad habit of supplying the name of a Convention rather than an explanation of the agreement, e.g. "Michaels" rather than "5+ hearts and a 5+ minor".
Page 1 of 1