[1eyedjack]

---

MP, best hand South.
Let me be the first to admit that 2S by me is not a good bid. Precisely what it shows in GIBberish is not disclosed. But whatever it shows needs to be consistent with South's previous bidding, and I find it hard to believe that the pass over the double, then protecting with 2S, gives North justification to force to 3N with 3D bid, based on 6-8 total points. And then to raise 4C to 5C?

[steve2005]

this is the sort of thing that was listed as one of the fixes, human balances and GIB then forcing on very little values.I think this situation was too complicated, evidenced by the fact there was no explanation for your 2♠ bid.

But this is the type of situation that needs fixing.

You just have to be able to balance at low levels at MP for decent scores

[mediesel]

BBO Admin, please, please Purge all the robot history from any use with instant tournaments. All the robots in the instant tournament s/b playing the same system. Otherwise, I'll be forced to drop out of the instant tournaments for 3 or 4 months like I did after the last big GIB improvement.

[mediesel]

Wish the robots would quit treating a stiff Ace or King as shortness. Don't splinter with one - unless very strong - and don't show them in Reply to Jacoby 2NT.

[1eyedjack]

 mediesel, on 2014-March-16, 20:09, said:

BBO Admin, please, please Purge all the robot history from any use with instant tournaments. All the robots in the instant tournament s/b playing the same system. Otherwise, I'll be forced to drop out of the instant tournaments for 3 or 4 months like I did after the last big GIB improvement.

I don’t see how it can be possible to have instant tourneys use the latest version of GIB as soon as that latest version has been released. Where would it get its population of completed tourneys before there have been any?

If you insist on playing instant tourneys where the same version of GIB plays at each table then I see no solution other than the one that you have suggested: bow out for a while. Nothing that BBO can do to improve on that.

[helene_t]

This theme comes up a lot - opps double, we pass, and it is unclear whether the pass denies values as it would without the enemy double. In this case, the 4♣ bid means 19-22 total points so apparently you haven't limited your hand.

One could easily say that the solution is not to make undefined calls. The problem is that there will be hands with which you can only pass after the enemy double, and now you have already made an undefined call.

[Bbradley62]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 03:44, said:

 1eyedjack, on 2014-March-16, 05:10, said:

Let me be the first to admit that 2S by me is not a good bid. Precisely what it shows in GIBberish is not disclosed. But whatever it shows needs to be consistent with South's previous bidding, and I find it hard to believe that the pass over the double, then protecting with 2S, gives North justification to force to 3N with 3D bid, based on 6-8 total points. And then to raise 4C to 5C?

This theme comes up a lot - opps double, we pass, and it is unclear whether the pass denies values as it would without the enemy double. In this case, the 4♣ bid means 19-22 total points so apparently you haven't limited your hand.

One could easily say that the solution is not to make undefined calls. The problem is that there will be hands with which you can only pass after the enemy double, and now you have already made an undefined call.

Yes, this is a recurring theme, and one that I would think should be high on the programming staff's to-do list. In competitive auctions, GIB frequently does not consider passes to be at all relevant when determining what bidding sequences show. At another table, South bid 2♠ directly over opponent's double. Clearly, this is a different auction than the one Jack had, and the (unshown) explanation of Jack's 2♠ and the shown explanation of 4♣ should reflect Jack's prior pass. Someone might also want to figure out and try to remedy the cause of Jack's explanations being unshown in the first place.

---

PS: I'm also puzzled as to why the shown explanations of 2♠ and 4♣ don't say anything about South's spade holding. Given that East's double shows 4 spades, I'm not sure what, if anything, South bidding spades should show.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2014-March-17, 09:20

[steve2005]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 03:44, said:

This theme comes up a lot - opps double, we pass, and it is unclear whether the pass denies values as it would without the enemy double. In this case, the 4♣ bid means 19-22 total points so apparently you haven't limited your hand.

Don't you think with game forcing 19-22 pts values 1eyedjack would have made a bid over 2♣X even if it's only redouble? 2♣X isn't game so if it goes all pass game is missed though the overtricks will be nice. Passing has to limit 1eyedjack's hand somehow.

[barmar]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-March-17, 01:04, said:

If you insist on playing instant tourneys where the same version of GIB plays at each table then I see no solution other than the one that you have suggested: bow out for a while. Nothing that BBO can do to improve on that.

Bowing out won't help unless you wait quite a while. We loaded the tournaments at one time, with all the tournaments from a particular time frame (I think it was all of 2012). We aren't adding to them continuously.

We understand that the changes in GIB bidding mean the comparisons aren't perfect. But we also don't want tournaments recent enough that you might be able to find them in myhands. The best we could probably do is load tourneys from the previous version of GIB, to minimize the differences.