[fuburules3]

http://tinyurl.com/py2c38n

I think it would be preferable if in this auction GIB gave preference to 3S

[helene_t]

actually the 3♦ bid was also wrong as it denies 3-card spades support

[iandayre]

To address Helene's point first, I believe that GIB plays support doubles through 2H. That is how I do it and it's the most common treatment.

To the main point, and without being personal, I believe that Fred Gitelman should be quite embarrassed, from a business perspective, to be promoting a bridge-playing program that has been in use for quite some years, and that is still making egregious blunders such as this. Perhaps GIB is too small a part of the overall BBO enterprise to merit investing sufficient resources to improve the programming and bid descriptions to a decent level. I saw a recent hand with similar bidding where GIB incorrectly failed to take a S preference with Qx vs xx in H, but the pass of 3H here defies any rationality.

For my part, I will say that I am paying to play in ACBL games with these GIB robots, and as a consumer I demand better.

[georgi]

Thanks for reporting.

Fixed in next version. It won't find problem to pick the fit call.

Btw, 3♠ would have mean: 5+ ♦; 3+ ♠; 10-14 total points

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2014-September-07, 15:25, said:

helene_t, on 2014-September-06, 13:37, said:

actually the 3♦ bid was also wrong as it denies 3-card spades support

To address Helene's point first, I believe that GIB plays support doubles through 2H. That is how I do it and it's the most common treatment.

Helene's comment was probably based on the fact that the description of 3♦ includes "2-♠".