[iandayre]

No one can tell me that whoever wrote the explanation here has even intermediate-level bridge knowledge.

http://tinyurl.com/mdrnstc

6+ ♣ (certainly reasonable) and 6+ ♥????? NONSENSE!! One would open 1H with 6-6 in the round suits. What is one supposed to do with 5♥ and 6 (or more) ♣? The explanation of 4H (instead of 3H) also showed 6+, 6+ with 13+ HCP.

Gotta love the add-on after 6+, 6+ of "3-Card ♣". LOL if it weren't so ridiculous.

Since there was no call I could apparently make to show my actual hand, I made the call I would make with a human partner, 3H. I played there, surprisingly losing less than 2 IMPS since much of the field either also floundered in a part score or reached 5H and went down. I will look at the other auctions after the tournament ends.

I am starting to believe that BBO has stopped responding to this forum because they are too embarrassed to admit how bad some of the bridge is. Or maybe I'm too mean, nasty and critical. TOO BAD, BBO, suck it up and do something!

[uday]

Nah, there is another possibility.

Actually, if you believe some guy named Ted there are 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 possibilities.

The 6-6 is ofc. a glitch. We're testing the next upgrade as we speak, and we might or might not choose to open it up again for this vs save it for the next, but we'll look at it.

I'm more interested in why it passed. Is this sequence forcing? Should it be? Who would know? As usual, I'll just go bother Fred G. with this and take his word as Gospel.

Someday I'll figure out how to bid (myself) and then we'll be better positioned to help the bots bid. This whole process is very iterative.

[Bbradley62]

iandayre, on 2014-November-19, 11:35, said:

...
6+ ♣ (certainly reasonable) and 6+ ♥????? NONSENSE!! <<snip>>

I am starting to believe that BBO has stopped responding to this forum because .... Or maybe I'm too mean, nasty and critical.

Can't say I'd blame them. Your attitude sucks.

[iandayre]

uday, on 2014-November-19, 12:34, said:

Nah, there is another possibility.

Actually, if you believe some guy named Ted there are 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 possibilities.

The 6-6 is ofc. a glitch. We're testing the next upgrade as we speak, and we might or might not choose to open it up again for this vs save it for the next, but we'll look at it.

I'm more interested in why it passed. Is this sequence forcing? Should it be? Who would know? As usual, I'll just go bother Fred G. with this and take his word as Gospel.

Someday I'll figure out how to bid (myself) and then we'll be better positioned to help the bots bid. This whole process is very iterative.

Thank you for your reply Uday. There are two issues, the bids themselves, and the descriptions. Look at my recent post "Descriptions much worse than bids" for a pertinent example. I am looking forward to the next update. For all the complaining I do I enjoy playing with GIB.

And let me add this. I understand that programming is a highly specialized skill very subject to error. GIB's pass of 3H may be a "glitch". Writing descriptions requires only a solid command of the English language and at least an advanced level of familiarity with the 2/1 bidding system. Most of the regular posters here, myself included, could improve GIB significantly by going through the descriptions and modifying those that are blatantly incorrect as the system is normally played. Whoever described opening 1C, then bidding and rebidding Hearts as "6+, 6+" did not suffer a "glitch". Even more than this one, the many situations where bids of new suits at the 3 level or higher are described as "4+", when longer length would clearly be required, is the one area that leads to silly results more than any other.