[benellis58]

Similar theme to the post immediately above. Here the GIBBO robot sitting West decides not to lead spades or diamonds. Looking only at HIS hand, that seems logical, as his LHO North has shown both those suits.

So, West's choices, having eliminated spades and diamonds, are hearts and clubs.

He (again) makes the perverse choice, opting for a heart (!) from Q2 doubleton rather than a club from KJ106. Once again, he has chosen the suit that is more dangerous AND less likely to be successful.

https://www.bridgeba...DK%7Cpc%7CC9%7C

[benellis58]

Lots of stupidity in the EW bids and definitions of the GIBBO robots on this hand:

East, who passed as dealer, later chooses to balance after South opens 1NT and West and North both pass. Okay, fair enough. Might or might not work out depending on the random layout of this random hand in the OFTEN random game of bridge.

His balance is 2H, defined as "Cappelletti - hearts and a minor; 4+ hearts; 3- spades; 11- HCP; 11-12 total points." Okay, fair enough...but now the nonsense is about to begin!

West bids 2NT. WHY, pray tell??? Where is he going, considering that East PASSED as dealer and is now merely competing? West's 2NT asks for East's "other suit", but why does he even CARE what East's other suit (i.e.: his unknown minor) is? West has THREE hearts, so he KNOWS they have at least a seven-card heart fit, and it will OFTEN be at least an EIGHT-card heart fit...at the TWO level, requiring only eight tricks to succeed. Why is he searching for a fit in East's minor? Yes, the minor COULD provide a longer and/or stronger fit...but it might NOT...AND it will be at the THREE level, requiring nine tricks (rather than "only" eight) to succeed...AND it will be in a LOWER-scoring strain (whether clubs OR diamonds) than hearts.

STUPID on all counts!

Anyway, East obediently shows his other suit by bidding 3D, and now...West bids 3H! He's ended up in the SAME strain (hearts) but a level HIGHER...for absolutely NO reason. Justice is served when the contract goes down one and EW score minus 50 when if West had intelligently passed 2H, they would have scored plus 110. Once again, GIBBO stupidity has turned a plus into a minus for NO reason.

For more laughter: West's 3H was defined as "Invitational; 3 card support; 3+ hearts; 11-13 total points". Now, if that's the GIBBO system, so be it, but WHY would West want to invite opposite a hand that PASSED as dealer, especially when West has a pancake flat 3-3-3-4 hand, with (only) three unspectacular trumps in what might be (only) a 4-3 fit, and with (only) 10 HCP AND ONLY 10 total points (despite "promising" "11-13 total points")?

AND: East's 3D was defined as "My better minor; 5+ diamonds; 5+ hearts; 3- spades; 11- HCP; 4-card hearts; 11-12 total points". This GIB definition is so UTTERLY pathetic that it needs to be criticized piece by piece:

"My better minor". Three COMPLETELY useless and unnecessary words! 2NT asked for East's "other suit", so East does NOT need to explain that it is his better minor. The whole world already knows that!

"5+ diamonds". WHY, pray tell? If this is indeed true, then the definition of his earlier 2H call was incomplete and dishonest, because IT said "Hearts and a minor; 4+ hearts..." but made NO mention of the length of the minor. If the minor can be only FOUR cards long, then the definition of 3D cannot MAGICALLY now state that 3D promises at least five, but conversely, if the minor actually MUST be at least five cards, then the definition of 2H should have SAID that the minor is at least five cards long. In other words, WHATEVER the story is, at least ONE of the two definitions (2H and 3D) is GUARANTEED to be at best incomplete and deceptive and at worst just plain wrong! Pure sloppiness in the writing of the definitions!

"5+ hearts". WHY, pray tell? The definition of 2H promised (only) FOUR-plus hearts...so why is it now magically FIVE-plus? Inconsistent and nonsensical. And also a LIE, because on this particular random hand, East does NOT have "5+ hearts" - he has only four.

Later it gets even MORE comical, MORE inconsistent, and MORE stunningly pathetic, because in this SAME 3D definition that magically said that East has "5+ hearts", it NOW states "4-card hearts"!!!!!!!!Make up your MIND, GIB! It is absolutely ludicrous that the SAME definition first says "5+ hearts and then a few words later says "4-card hearts". Hopeless!

https://www.bridgeba...CHJ%7Cmc%7C8%7C

[benellis58]

West's 4H bid is defined as "3+ hearts; 15+ HCP; 16 total points". His bid worked out well (in a way...but not in ANOTHER way - more on that later) and they say that "You can't argue with success". BUT:

West had KJ, KJ97, A74, J1042". Do YOU see "15+ HCP"? Because I see only THIRTEEN HCP!

Do YOU see "16 total points"? Because I see at best FOURTEEN - or if I'm being REALLY generous, fifteen - total points.

If the GIBBO robot is going to bid like this then maybe the DEFINITION needs fixing?

Plus: Earlier I wrote "His bid worked out well" and added "in a way but not in ANOTHER way". I wrote that because the game DID make, so it was good that West bid it...but the EW robots took "only" 10 tricks in 4H and therefore scored ONLY 37.27 % on the board. They beat only the four EW pairs that stopped in a partial, but they scored fewer tricks than 16 other EW pairs who bid 4H, less than one EW pair that was doubled in 4H and made it, and less than one EW pair who doubled NS in 4S and collected 1400. They tied 33 other EW pairs who also bid 4H and took exactly 10 tricks.

https://www.bridgeba...S7%7Cpc%7CDT%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting North did NOT impress me on this hand where we reached 4S.

"Oh, here it comes," some VERY naive readers might be thinking. "Ben went down in 4S after the robot bid it, Ben got a bad score, and now Ben is crying about it and blaming the poor, innocent robot."

Well, uh, if that's what you are thinking, sorry but you're WAY off (and probably for about the ten millionth time).

First, as I've said many times, the purpose of this thread is never to brag about good results or cry about bad ones. The purpose is always to expose the heinous atrocities of the GIB and GIBBO robots in the hope that the powers that be will take notice and then take the appropriate steps in attempting to make the robots competent bridge players. Thankfully, Lorserker has begun this essential process, but the robots are SO incredibly bad that Lorserker still has a huge amount of challenges in making them even marginally decent.

Second, in practice the robot's BAD bidding on this hand actually worked out WELL for our partnership, as we made 4S (as did 66 other humans) for a shared top (a MUCH-shared top, ha, ha) of 69.82 %, beating the 37 humans who went down in 4S, the 6 who passed the hand out, the two who stopped in 3S, and the one who went down in 3NT.

So why am I criticizing the robot if we bid and made a game? Well, first, it wasn't a GOOD game (AND the contest was matchpoints, not IMPs). Looking only at the NS hands and at the auction, you will see that the hand is far from a claimer, to put it MILDLY. To begin with, you are missing three aces. Then, you might also easily be losing a heart to the queen, since North has 95 doubleton, South has KJ doubleton, West (sitting BEHIND South's KJ doubleton) had OVERCALLED one...HEART (!), and EAST was on lead and would very likely be leading a heart THROUGH South's KJ at trick one, as he in fact did. Additionally NS have a 9-card spade (trump) fit, but they are missing the ace AND the JACK. Sometimes they will lose TWO trump tricks if they fail to guess the layout. And in addition to ALL that, NS have a 4-4 club fit missing the queen, so they ALSO have to find the queen of clubs. Is this a GOOD game (ESPECIALLY at matchpoints)? I would say it is NOT...even though it obviously will sometimes make, as it did at my table and 66 others on THIS random layout. Now let's examine North's BAD bidding - bad DESPITE the fact that he actually got us a GOOD score by bidding the game.

His 3C is defined as "Game try suit - 3+ clubs; 5+ spades; 10+ HCP; 11+ total points; forcing to 3S". As you can see, I (South) had four pretty good spades (K1092) and four decent (but ONLY "decent") clubs (K754), so why did I REJECT his 3C game try and SIGN OFF in (only) 3S? Several reasons: First, I had OPENED the bidding (1C) and had "only" 12 HCP, basically a bare minimum for my bidding. Second, this was a "best hand" game, so I knew that my partner North had at MOST 12 HCP and probably less, since with 12 (or even some elevens and tens) he might just have leapt to the game , not bothering with a game try. Third. my hand had NO aces. Fourth, four of my (mere) 12 HCP were possibly worthless, given that they were the KJ doubleton of hearts in FRONT of the opponent who had overcalled one HEART. Fifth, my partner ALREADY knew from my 2S bid that I had four spades. Sixth, his game try was in clubs, and while I DID have the king, that was the ONLY good card in the suit (the other three being the lowly 754) - a suit that I had OPENED. Seventh, I am well aware through long and bitter experience that the GIBBO robots are extremely poor bidders and that they tend to OVERBID much more than they underbid. It was WILDLY unlikely that a 4S contract would be a GOOD contract.

So what did North do over my SIGNOFF in 3S? He...raised to 4S! The only time such an action would ever be justified would be if he was actually making a SLAM try. In such a scenario, his 3C would indeed have been honestly, accurately, and correctly explained as and interpreted as a GAME try, but when he then bid AGAIN over partner South's call (whether South signed off in 3S OR accepted and bid 4S), it would now become evident that the presumed GAME try of 3C had actually been the first step towards a SLAM try. With a GOOD partner (NOT a hopeless robot!) this would be obvious. Here, however, it was quite obvious to me that it was not now a slam try, but just yet ANOTHER example of robot ignorance. There is no way that it makes sense for him to make a GAME try and then later OVERRULE his partner's decision to sign off. Here, what he did worked out WELL, but it was STILL ridiculous (and, let's not forget that it worked out well ONLY because the BAD 4S game happened to LUCKILY make). Had North chosen to merely LEAP to 4S by himself over my 2S, it would STILL have been a bad game that very LUCKILY happened to make on THIS random layout, but I would not have issued a single word of criticism and would not have written this post (whether or not I agreed with his call), but when he makes a "game try"...ASKING his partner's opinion...and THEN...OVERRULES his partner and bids the game anyway, he is not only playing a HOPELESS and pathetic game of bridge, but he is also INSULTING his partner... and in "real" F2F bridge with HUMANS...would probably cause the partnership to END then and there. I have seen these wildly incompetent GIB and GIBBO robots commit this same atrocity several times, and I think that - not surprisingly -this is the first and ONLY time that it has actually been successful. (You know the old saying: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) The GIBBO robots are, despite Lorserker's valiant and much appreciated improvements, still LOUSY bridge players...but at least they are a bit LESS lousy than the truly execrable GIB ones were before Lorserker worked some magic.

https://www.bridgeba...D6%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

Here's how easy it is to bamboozle the witless GIBBO robots. This is funny!

I, South, won West's heart lead in dummy (North) and saw that I was in big trouble in my 1NT contract. After Lorserker's huge improvements to robot leads, they now usually make intelligent ones, and usually lead fourth best. Thus, it looked like enemy hearts were probably 5-2. I needed 7 tricks to make 1NT and so far had only one (dummy's heart queen that had just held trick one). I could take the AK of clubs and AK of diamonds, but that would only give me a total of 5, not the 7 that I needed. I could probably set up a lot of club tricks...but sadly I would have to first GIVE UP at least one club to do so, and when I gave up that club, the opponents would not only score a presumed FOUR established heart tricks (thanks to West's GOOD lead), but they could ALSO take a LARGE number of spades, since I had NO spade stopper, with only Q2 in my hand and 1087 in dummy.

Rather than cashing out and settling for down two, I decided to try some subterfuge. I might end up going down WAY more than "only" two, but at least it would be an interesting experiment and at least I'd have some "fun" in a weird sort of way. PLUS, I was playing against...drum roll, please...GIBBO robots (!), who are not exactly renowned for their defensive prowess! So...at trick two...I led...the THREE OF HEARTS (!) from dummy!

West, of course, cashed all four of his remaining hearts, as expected. Dummy and I followed to the first two, but then at trick four, we both pitched...CLUBS, as I was attempting to feign WEAKNESS in CLUBS and encourage an eventual CLUB shift from West. East, meanwhile, had already pitched two spades, understandably feeling that he might have to guard his J1085 of diamonds (dummy's FIVE-bagger to the queen, where I had NOT pitched ANY cards so far) and his Q107 of clubs (behind dummy's original J4 doubleton, which I had now pitched down to stiff jack).

At trick 5, as West cashed his last heart, I pitched a diamond from dummy and a spade from hand (hey, I NEEDED to keep the REST of my clubs, as I would later NEED all those tricks if my plan worked!), and East, feeling the pressure, let go a diamond. That was safe, since I had AK doubleton and the suit was blocked, but in fairness to East, he didn't know that, and HE might have thought that West was suicide-squeezing him.

At trick 6, West - as I had HOPED he would (!) - shifted to...a...CLUB! However, he STUPIDLY, in typical GIB/GIBBO incompetence, shifted to the SIX from 96 doubleton! Hopeless as usual! I played, perforce, dummy's now-stiff jack. East made the normal play of covering with his queen from Q107, and I...CONTINUED with the subterfuge by DUCKING, playing the 3 from my remaining AK853. Poor, relatively innocent East, perhaps misled by my early CLUB pitches from hand and dummy, and ALSO by the fact that his partner West had SHIFTED to clubs, AND also by the fact that his (East's) club queen had WON the trick, AND also by the fact that his partner West's club shift had (stupidly, erroneously, and misleadingly!) been to the SIX of clubs (rather than the correct NINE!), continued with...the 10 of CLUBS. I now had all the remaining tricks except for the final spade, and I made 1NT for plus 90, and a score on the board of 81.52 %. The only NS scores that beat that were plus 150 for three NS pairs who...DEFENDED (!) 1NT and beat East (!) three tricks. and plus 100 for 13 NS pairs who defended East's 2D and beat it two tricks.

And for the geniuses who say that I could have taken one more trick had I NOT pitched a club from hand (you know, the geniuses who are at their best when they look at all four hands, and often not even then), I will say "Find a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'subterfuge'". Anyway, when I decided on this experiment, I had no idea if it would work, and if the robots hadn't fallen for the subterfuge, I would undoubtedly have had a bottom, but I figured it was worth a try and if it failed I would have still had some "fun" AND a good story. Fortunately it worked, so I even had the BONUS of a good score. But as always, the purpose is to EXPOSE the robots, and one of the MAIN reasons that my ploy was successful was that West made the stupid and incomprehensible ERROR of playing his SIX of clubs from 96 doubleton!

https://www.bridgeba...DQ%7Cpc%7CSA%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting North loses his mind...again...and makes a ridiculous bid...again, yet lucks out...again and gets a good score. He makes a normal 1S response to his partner South's 1D opening, and then he makes a normal (in the GIBBO system, anyway) 2C new minor forcing call over South's 1NT rebid, but then over South's 2H response to 2C, North makes a crazy, undisciplined leap to...THREE NO TRUMP. He has a mere 10 HCP (although they are indeed a GOOD 10, with two nice five-baggers and three tens), and his partner South is KNOWN to hold "only" 12 or 13 HCP from the definition to his 2H bid.

You don't USUALLY...LEAP to 3NT with 10 opposite 12 (as is the actual case here) or even 10 opposite 13 (which South MIGHT have had according to the definition). Obviously, North's 5-5 hand would be much "better" in a black suit than in NT. North, as the GIB and GIBBO robots (sadly) OFTEN do, is also telling a barefaced LIE, because according to his own GIB definition, 3NT shows "5- hearts; 4-5 spades; 13-20 HCP". THIRTEEN TO TWENTY? He has TEN! He has a full TEN (!) less than the maximum that the (typically bad) definition claims he could have, and he even has a full THREE less than the bare MINIMUM of 13 that it "promises". Why do they even BOTHER with definitions if this is how meaningless they are and if even their OWN robots IGNORE them?

For all that, however, 3NT is certainly not a hopeless contract looking at only the NS hands, and on a good day, and/or with "friendly" defenders (as the GIBBO robots SO often are) might even produce overtricks. So even if North's BIDDING is not the greatest, the contract itself is not at all bad.

After declarer has two heart tricks set up (thanks to the opponents winning their high honours at tricks one and two), he can always take ten tricks via five clubs, three spades, and the two established hearts. Declarer, however is looking at only TWO hands (North and South), not FOUR like the double-dummy geniuses who proudly give their opinions after looking at all 52 cards. After declarer plays the fourth spade, West can hold him to "only" 9 tricks by cashing the diamond ace, but he instead plays a club, picking up the suit, allowing declarer to take 10 tricks, and resulting in West's diamond ace never taking even a single trick. NS get a shared top of 97.41 % on the board for bidding and making 3NT with an overtrick, so the North robot's 3NT call WAS successful in practice, even though it was clearly wrong according to the GIB definition and was clearly a wild (albeit successful) swing at a pitch.

https://www.bridgeba...CK%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

Interesting spade DUCK (!!!) by the GIBBO robot sitting East at trick five. Not successful...not at ALL successful...not even CLOSE to successful...but CERTAINLY "interesting"!

https://www.bridgeba...SQ%7Cpc%7CSA%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robots sitting East-West show off their bidding "skills".

East's second double is a stretch, but West's LEAP to 4D (!) on his THREE-bagger is complete madness, and these two intellectual wizards are doing this at UNFAVOURABLE vulnerability to boot!

https://www.bridgeba...H4%7Cpc%7CS3%7C

[benellis58]

On what PLANET did the GIBBO robots learn to bid?

West never shows his 6 good diamonds. East never shows his 5 good hearts. In fairness, East has an excuse: namely that that the GIBBO robots have no idea whatsoever how to bid two-suiters and almost always bid them ridiculously.

West finally comes alive, just as I was becoming concerned for his welfare and was about to call for medical assistance...but he "comes alive" with a typically ludicrous bid of 3S, not only potentially hanging his partner for merely competing with a MERE 2C, but also saying NOTHING useful, as 3S (THREE spades, please note - the GIBBO robot is effectively pushing his partner to the FOUR level, despite NEVER having bid before, despite STILL not showing his diamonds, and despite not having identified ANY fit) is fairly uselessly defined as "2+ clubs, 9+ HCP, forcing".

They stumble into 4C, which happens purely by accident to be a decent spot, but they still score only 37.50 % on the board although even that is much more than they deserve for their atrocious bidding.

https://www.bridgeba...CQ%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

Another hand where I ask "What's going on here? Did a GIB robot somehow sneak into the West seat and push aside the GIBBO robot who was supposed to be sitting there?" Check out his very foolish lead against my 3NT:

https://www.bridgeba...DT%7Cpc%7CST%7C

[benellis58]

It seems to me that the definition of South's double of 2H is just plain BAD. It also seems that North's decision to PULL the double to 3C is just plain BAD. SURELY NS, in any decent and logical system, should be able to double the opponents (ESPECIALLY vulnerable opponents, as was the case here) for penalty after the auction begins 1C - double - redouble.

In fact, EVEN the GIB definition of the redouble SAYS "opponents cannot play undoubled below 2NT"!

EW are VULNERABLE and NS are NOT! 2H doubled would have been an EASY plus 500 (at least) for NS, but the typically hopeless GIBBO robot sitting North stupidly pulled the double.

The board was still a shared top when South bid 3NT and made 10 tricks, but WHATEVER the result was (whether it ended up being a top or a bottom) would not have changed the basic issue that it is ridiculous that a player cannot make a penalty double without fearing that his ignorant robot partner might stupidly pull it.

As a side observation, the EW defence was less than perfect, which is never surprising.

https://www.bridgeba...C8%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

The more I play with the GIBBO robots, the more I see what stunningly incompetent bridge players they are, but what's amusing is that as bad as they are, they are still considerably better than the absolutely horrendous GIB robots were. Lorserker has done great work in eliminating some of the stupidity of the GIB robots, but the poor guy still has a ton of work to do before the GIBBO robots become as "good" as even the WEAKEST human players. Good luck, Lorserker. It's quite a challenge that you face.

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. The board discussed here was quite flat at my table, as NS scored 51 % and EW 49 % when EW reached the normal contract of 4S and took the obvious and entirely normal 10 tricks.

So the robots sitting EW got to a good, normal spot, right? Well, yes, they did...but it's HOW they got there that provides the "amusement" (?) in this post.

East's 3S is defined as "6+ spades; 12+ HCP; 13+ total points; forcing".

First, I firmly believe that saying 3S is "forcing" is a belief that is shared by very few good bridge players. Surely it is more normal for a jump rebid of the type in this auction to be invitational rather than forcing.

Second, East, according to his own GIB definition, promises at LEAST 12 HCP (and could theoretically have up to 37, since no upper limit is stated), yet he actually has ONLY 9 - a full THREE points fewer than even his promised MINIMUM. I don't really object to his BID of 3S (although I would prefer to first show the hearts, using whatever methods are required to do so in a player's preferred system), but I think his HAND fits much more with "my" NORMAL definition of 3S here, which, as I noted above, would be invitational, not forcing. In any case, SOMETHING needs to change! Either change the robot's BIDDING so that it actually matches his own GIB definitions, OR - preferably (!) write BETTER definitions than the silly and often incorrect or useless ones that GIB so often spews out.

West's 4C is a remarkably stupid bid defined as: "2-5 clubs; 3-5 diamonds; 2-3 spades; ace of clubs; 14- HCP; 14+ total points; stop in clubs; stop in hearts; forcing". Problem" West does NOT have the club ace that his own GIB definition "promises".

East's 4S basically repeats the LIES that he told with his 3S bid.

https://www.bridgeba...CJ%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

NS bid to 4H, make it with 2 overtricks, and share a top with one other NS pair, each scoring 98 % on the board. But that is not the story. The story is the BAD bidding by the GIBBO robot sitting North and the BAD attempt at defending by the GIBBO robots sitting EW.

North's 3D is defined as "New suit - 4+ diamonds; 5+ hearts; 9+ total points".

First, as is ANNOYINGLY so often the case, the GIB definition begins with some TOTALLY useless words. Does GIB really need to inform its users that diamonds is a "new suit"? Next: "4+ diamonds"? West has exactly THREE diamonds! Either make the robots FOLLOW their own GIB definitions, or CHANGE the definitions! AND "9+ total points"! If so, where the Hell are they HIDING, because I see only SIX HCP and I don't see any justification at this point for adding even a SINGLE distribution point to increase the "total" points. AGAIN: Either have the robots follow their own GIB definitions or change the often hopeless definitions! The definition of North's 4H is - quite unsurprisingly - also hilariously incompatible with his actual hand.

On this auction, why on Earth would East lead a DIAMOND, North's supposed second suit? And even after his incredibly stupid lead, why would his partner West RETURN a DIAMOND after winning his heart ace? Thanks to the usual abject incompetence of these EW GIBBO robots, declarer scored TWELVE tricks, NEVER losing a spade to East's ace! These incompetent bozos couldn't even manage to ever play the ONE and ONLY suit that NS had NOT bid!

https://www.bridgeba...CT%7Cmc%7C12%7C

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. North-South scored 98.15 % on this board, so obviously I am not crying - and no, I'm not gloating either. As always, the ONLY reason I am writing up this hand is to expose the antics of the GIBBO robots in the hope that the heavy hitters at BBO might be inspired to improve them (as Lorserker has already begun to do).

To those wondering why I passed (!) North's response to my 1C opener, the answer is simple: This was a "best hand" game, and since I had only 12 HCP, North could not possibly have more and might (and often WOULD) have less. With my three good hearts (KJ4), there was a good chance that hearts would play as well for us as anything, and there was also a good chance that we had no game, so - given that the GIBBO robots are BAD bidders and tend to be OVERbidders - I gambled on there being no game and on our partnership staying low enough to get a plus score. I often use this strategy in "best hand" games. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it's irrelevant, and sometimes I get burned if it turns out that we DO have a makeable game...but on the whole I think the results have been better than average.

West now balanced with a double in passout seat, North passed, and East bid 2D. I didn't want to sell out to 2D, since I had a legitimate opening bid even if it was a minimum, so I bid 2H. Yes, I had "only" three of them, but they were good ones, and given my previous (and perhaps bizarre) pass of pard's 1H, this seemed like the safest (?) way for me to now compete. Strangely, as far as I am concerned, the definition claimed that my 2H call showed "4+ hearts". With four, let alone four PLUS (!), would I not have been expected to raise pard's hearts at my previous opportunity? Anyway, West passed and...

North, with Q4, AQ972, 1062, A52 (although I obviously did know that at the time), bid...2S!!! What the HELL? Why on Earth would anyone bid two SPADES(!) with that? Anyway, I read the definition: "4+ hearts; 12+ HCP; 13+ total points; forcing to 3NT". In fairness, the definition is actually a reasonable description of West's hand, but BIZARRELY the definition says not a single word about SPADES, the suit that he just BID. Why the HELL would be 2S defined as it is? I know the GIBBO system is BAD, but it's clearly also bizarre, as the 2S bid AND the 2S definition illustrate.

East passed, and having read the definition, and not having learned much from it, I reverted to 3H (defined as "3+ clubs; 4+ hearts; 11+ HCP; 12-15 total points; forcing to 3NT"). Clearly in a NORMAL world with a HUMAN partner I would have preferred spades to hearts, but here, since the definition said NOT A WORD about spades, I had no IDEA if North had them or not, but I DID know that he had hearts. It was beginning to seem that I had picked the wrong time to use my bizarre strategy of passing 1H, because I was now in a rabbit hole and not knowing what was happening or where the rabbit hole would end.

West passed and... North...PASSED! WHAT? His 2S bid had been defined as "forcing to 3NT" (and, for that matter, my 3H call had ALSO been defined as "forcing to 3NT") , and now HE was passing my 3H call...BELOW the 3NT that HE had "forced" to. Amazing - even for a GIBBO robot!

Everyone passed, so 3H by North was the final contract. We made 9 tricks for plus 140 and 98.15 % on the board, with only one NS pair doing better. as they scored plus 180 for making 2NT with two overtricks. 6 NS pairs went down either 1 or 2 tricks in 4H. 6 NS pairs went down either 1 or 2 tricks in THREE hearts. One NS pair went down 1 trick in TWO hearts. 35 NS pairs went down various numbers of tricks in 2NT or 3NT. One NS pair bid and made 2NT. One NS pair bid and made 1NT.

There is no doubt that I started the weirdness in our auction with my bizarre "strategy" of passing 1H, but pard's 2S bid (AND the GIB definition of 2S!) are worth noting, as is North's final pass of 3H...after HIS 2S bid (AND my "retreat" to 3H) had BOTH been defined as "forcing to 3NT". Regardless of the fact that the result happened to be good (and on ANOTHER random hand might just as easily have happened to be bad), there was a LOT of strange stuff going on in the auction AND the definitions.

https://www.bridgeba...CH9%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

Of interest here: North's 3NT bid with a "stopper" of J32 in the enemy suit. With his good hand but NO spade stopper, I would think that his correct call would be 3S, not 3NT. But he emerged a hero, because...maybe a GIB robot pushed the GIBBO East out of his chair! East led his...stiff heart deuce! Thankful to have escaped the killing spade lead, I took my 9 top tricks and ran for cover, even though with the diamond king onside I COULD have taken 10. Bottom line: questionable (albeit successful) 3NT bid by the North robot and questionable (and UNsuccessful) lead by the East robot.

https://www.bridgeba...D9%7Cpc%7CDQ%7C

[benellis58]

Truly BIZARRE 3D call by the GIBBO robot sitting West!

https://www.bridgeba...CDK%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

Stupid club lead by West. He has what looks like a perfectly normal king of diamonds lead and instead he tables the 8 of clubs from 84 doubleton. To make it even sillier, declarer South had BID 2C over North's forcing 1NT. The later defence was also weak, so declarer emerged with 10 tricks on a hand where he has FOUR obvious and inescapable (EXCEPT against GIBBO robots!) losers. Just one MORE example of the overwhelming defensive ineptitude of the GIBBO robots.

https://www.bridgeba...DK%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting West failed to lead HIS suit at BOTH of his opportunities. His poor judgment (or cowardice?) did not work out well for him.

https://www.bridgeba...SK%7Cmc%7C11%7C

[benellis58]

Not the greatest defence of all time:

https://www.bridgeba...DQ%7Cpc%7CDK%7C