[Bbradley62]

---

1)East's double is described as simply "13+ total points". Nothing at all about shape?
2)The description of North's 4♠ bid includes "1+H". Where'd that come from? Similarly, South's first double includes "1+S".
3)Why didn't East hit 4♠?

---

4)I know one of the two is human, but at some point isn't either North or South supposed to decide that he's described his hand and he's supposed to trust partner?
5)East waited until 7 to double spades?
6)Why does South's redouble get an explanation at the second table but not at the first?

Note: At other tables, when South doesn't redouble, North passes out 4♥x.

[xxhong]

I am really sick of those definitions of "biddable", "rebiddable", "strong rebiddable". These terms are very bad terms, only belong to ancient times of bridge. For example, AKxx is biddable if you open a minor, and not biddable if it is a major suit for one level openings. Also, suppose you open 1C with xxx, it doesn't mean xxxx becomes rebiddable. However, gib's logic is often like that. That's why you can see explanations like 1C (1S) 2H (3S), 4C: 4+C, 12+ points, which is simply a nonsense.

Also, 2/1 is a game of waiting bids. Therefore, even if you rebid a suit, it doesn't mean it is rebiddable in 2/1 sequences. For example, if you hold
Sxxxxx HAx DAKxxx Cx, after 1S p 2H p you have to bid 2S here because 3D shows extra. This doesn't really mean xxxxx is rebiddable.

A much more clear way of definition is just based on length. Therefore, a major suit opening is 5+. After 1/1, a rebid at two level should show 6+, blabla. 1C shows 3+ and 2C after 1/1 shows 6+ or good 5+. (A good suit is a suit topped with at least 2 of 3 top honors, of course, this is open to discussions.) A jump rebid after 2/1 or a rebid after an initial strong jumpshift shows a solid suit, a solid suit is AKQxxxx or better.

For the above example, a 4H should show a good 6 card suit with short spades and a redouble should show a good 7 card suit with extra strength. With all these in mind, bidding would be much more accurate and gib would less often override your decision like the above example.

[calm01]

I agree with xxhong.

It seems GIB does not understand that bidding in 2/1 normally communicates length or is a waiting bid as he describes.

Strength is also communicated, but is mostly implied by level of bidding of length except perhaps for 2C and no trump openers..

Most bids thus show length and usually imply some indication of strength.

Rebiddable suits are just those that are rebid unless they are waiting bids as xxhong suggests.

So GIB mentioning of various forms of rebiddable is mostly redundant.

Often GIB does not always honour length information - e.g. GIB frequently normally does not give false preference and sometimes does not return to a 'known' 8 card fit, preferring to languish in a 4-2 or Moysian fit.

Until GIB is programmed understand and remember and honour basic length information from its partner it will continue to perform, on occasion, like a palooka bidding partner.

But that is perhaps part of the charm and attraction - the sheer randomness of playing with a bidding palooka - and it is a level playing field for everyone playing with GIB after all.

I do agree with Fred that GIB can be an above average declarer and sometimes a decent defender.

Shame about the bidding algorithms. Palookas usually begin understand what partners distribution information is after about 100 hands and to communicate back distribution after another 100 hands. GIB will require a reprogramming as it appears to have no learning algorithims related to what length partner has shown.

Calm01