[benellis58]

Why a heart lead? And after East wins his ace at trick one, why a heart continuation, given that West led the EIGHT?

Oh well, since West and East are both gift horses, I won't look either of them in the mouth. Thanks for the good score, Mr. West. Same to you, Mr. East. Have a good evening. I look forward to playing at your table again...but only if you sit East and West. Please NEVER sit North.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/4z9xufba

[benellis58]

Two main topics on this one: GIB definitions (sigh - not AGAIN!) and GIBBO leads (sigh - not AGAIN!):

The (typically poorly written and inaccurate) GIB definition of 1C is "Minor suit opening - 3+ clubs; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points".

First, a gripe about something that happens far too often with the pathetic GIB definitions: Is it REALLY necessary to have the first three words? Does the writer of the definition REALLY (and insultingly) think that the human players will not realize that 1C is a "minor suit opening" unless they are told that in the definition? Come ON! Next: "11-21 HCP". Guess what? East actually has only ten HCP, and this is NOT a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. The GIBBO robots often (in fact, the correct word might even be "usually"...or maybe even "always") DO open hands such as this, so the definition is inaccurate, incorrect, and possibly even dishonest, since it does not provide full disclosure. Either stop the GIBBO robots from opening such hands or, better yet (MUCH better yet!), change the definitions to make them truthful and accurate! Also, note that the GIB definition, as is so often the case, just pulls the "total" points out of thin air for NO reason by using its usual worthless tactic of simply adding one point to the bottom end of the HCP and one point to the top end and - presto - magically (and ENTIRELY unscientifically) pretending that the "total" points have been arrived at. Why even bother including "total" points in the definitions if they are complete, meaningless guesses?

Next, West's lead: His partner East opened one CLUB, so of course West would never DREAM of leading CLUBS, because the GIBBO robots HATE leading partner's suit. They do, however, LOVE leading DECLARER'S suit, so West (stupidly - regardless of result) leads the 9 of diamonds (curse of Scotland!) INTO declarer South, who is KNOWN to have diamonds as his second suit. And later, after winning his heart king, West AGAIN plays a DIAMOND (his remaining 6). What IS it with these GIBBO robots???!!!

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

[benellis58]

Some questionable defensive plays by the GIBBO robot sitting West lead to his EW partnership scoring a pitiful 3.70 % on the board:

https://www.bridgeba...HA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting East has learned that it can sometimes be effective to duck with an ace. Unfortunately, he does it at the WRONG time on the WRONG hand:

https://www.bridgeba...D8%7Cmc%7C13%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting West decides to lead a major. Perversely, he opts to lead a heart from Q105 rather than a spade from KQ109. Of course, leads often involve guesswork, and their success or failure is often dependent on the random layout of any random hand in question, BUT...a heart lead with West's holding is both MORE likely to give up a trick and/or a tempo and LESS likely to set up and/or cash defensive winners. In other words, it's the worst of BOTH worlds! Gee, I wonder why the GIBBO robots are usually such hopeless defenders? Maybe a total lack of LOGIC (as exemplified by West's lead here) might be a small part of the reason!

https://www.bridgeba...H8%7Cpc%7CHT%7C

[benellis58]

The GIBBO robot sitting West wins his diamond ace at trick two. At trick three he plays...his DIAMOND ten. Of COURSE he plays it, because GIBBO robots foolishly and perversely LOVE to immediately return DECLARER'S suit, which is rarely a brilliant strategy! East wins his diamond king at trick three, and of COURSE...he ALSO plays another diamond. They are frighteningly bad. Note also that they never take even a SINGLE heart trick (!!!!!) even though they COULD take FOUR on the actual layout. Would it be fair to say that the GIBBO robots are not exactly double dummy defenders?

https://www.bridgeba...C5%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

As far as I'm concerned, the 3D call by the GIBBO robot sitting North is a misbid and an overbid, but I'm not complaining, because the GIBBO robots sitting EW were even worse, propelling themselves to a no-play 4H that was doubled and went for 300. (Why am I suddenly thinking of a very successful comedy trio from the past? It included Larry and Moe, and the alternating third member was sometimes Curly, sometimes Shemp, sometimes Joe, and Sometimes Curly Joe. Ahh, yes, that trio gifted us with some funny slapstick.)

https://www.bridgeba...CS2%7Cmc%7C8%7C

[benellis58]

Best defence of the century? Uh, no, I don't think so. I REALLY don't think so!

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

[benellis58]

As Monty Python might say, "And Now For Something Completely Different".

This little story, just like Monty Python, will be FUNNY.

Every day, to clear my head from the utter nonsense I continually see from the GIBBO robots in BRIDGE games, I play some BBO Challenges against the robots...but I do it with a twist. For a change of pace, I play the 4-board Challenge (just me against a robot - no one else involved) "hearts-style", by which I mean that I try to LOSE as many tricks as possible. On every hand I bid 7NT at my first opportunity, and if I am doubled I redouble...and then try to take as FEW tricks as possible (ideally ZERO).

Even when I TRY to lose tricks, the robots are often so irredeemably hopeless that they STILL throw tricks away left, right, and centre. The hand linked below is an example of how COMPLETELY incompetent they are. In fairness, I believe that in the Challenges the robots are not the (so-called!) "advanced" robots, but they still are GIB (or GIBBO?) robots. Watch what they HILARIOUSLY do on the hand in question.

Look at the first two tricks, and then look at what the (GIB or GIBBO) robot in the West plays at trick three. ASTOUNDING stupidity!

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/37fm6dvf

[benellis58]

South deals and opens 1C. West passes. North bids 1NT. All pass.

East is on lead with K853, AJ9, A5, Q742. A spade lead seems obvious. Does the GIBBO robot lead a spade? Of COURSE he doesn't. The opponents didn't BID spades. If they DID bid spades, he probably would have JUMPED at the opportunity to lead one, but the opponents bid CLUBS, so of COURSE the GIBBO robot led a...CLUB...because they apparently LOVE to lead the ENEMY suit. This lead gave the declarer an EASY (and otherwise IMPOSSIBLE!) four club tricks.

At trick four East won his diamond ace. At trick five he immediately returned a...DIAMOND (!) because the GIBBO robots LOVE to immediately return DECLARER'S suit.

For their "brilliant" defence on this board, the GIBBO robots sitting East-West "earned" themselves a tied bottom, picking up 4.76 % on the board, while North-South graciously accepted the GIFT of a shared top of 95.24 % and profusely thanked the robots for their USUAL generosity.

https://www.bridgeba...HQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7C

[benellis58]

Another STERLING defence (NOT!), as West gives away an early club trick and later gets pseudo-squeezed, making (of course) the LOSING pitch.

https://www.bridgeba...H9%7Cpc%7CHT%7C

[benellis58]

Another BBO player sent me two hands involving the GIBBO robots and gave me permission (in fact, encouraged me) to post them, so I will discuss them in the two posts immediately below this one.

He commented, by the way, "These were 2 of the first 12-and led me to believe I was doing better than I was". I think this raises an interesting point, namely that in playing in games with THREE GIBBO robots, it is quite easy to be seduced into thinking that your game is either better or worse than it actually turns out to be.

Why? Simple! It's because ALL the GIBBO robots (whether North, West, or East) are agonizingly, stupefyingly bad. So West or East might do something insane and you consequently get what looks like a fabulous result and which WOULD be fabulous in any normal game. You now expect an excellent score on the board...but later discover that it's only around average. Why? Because all the other East-West GIBBO robots at the other tables also committed the same mind-blowingly stupid actions.

Alternately, NORTH does something amazingly stupid and you figure it's a bottom. But when you check the scores, you see that it's around average. Why? Same reason: all the OTHER GIBBO robots at all the OTHER tables ALSO committed the same imbecilic move as the North GIBBO robot that YOU were saddled with.

In estimating how you're doing, as you play the game, it's important to remember that ALL the humans are BLESSED by the total incompetence of the GIBBO robots sitting EW, while ALL the humans are CURSED by the total incompetence of the GIBBO robots sitting North.

[benellis58]

First of the two hands the other BBO player sent me:

He scored 91 % on this board, which displays the totally clueless bidding of the GIBBO robots sitting East-West.

East passes (!) his partner West's 1D opening with his...5-6-0-2 (!) hand! Yes, he only has 1 HCP, and yes, a pass COULD...SOMETIMES...work out best, but I firmly believe it is LOSING bridge to pass with a hand where you might be going DOWN in a lowly 1D contract when on the same hand you could conceivably be cold for a GAME in one of the majors.

Later, over the human South's balancing bid of 2C, the GIBBO robot sitting West...DOUBLES (!!!) for takeout! The oblivious fool does this RED against WHITE, facing a partner who passed originally and then couldn't even respond (!) to West's lowly 1D opening! And to make it even MORE obvious how fantastically STUPID the double is, just look at West's amazingly unexceptional hand: Q42, KQ72, AK74, 109! Massive extra strength? Ha, ha - NO! He has a nondescript 14-count and one lonely ace. Spectacular shape? Ha, ha - NO! He has an ALMOST-pancake flat shape of 3-4-4-2! A fabulous suit of his own? Ha, ha - NO! His LONGEST suit (two of them, actually) is a mere FOUR-bagger. Why is this nincompoop doing anything other than passing? The GIB definition of his double is as pathetic as usual, but I won't even bother commenting on it.

North bids 2D and East passes for the THIRD consecutive time. South bids 3C, West (finally) passes, and North bids 3NT...and now...now...NOW (!) after passing three consecutive times...including PASSING his partner's 1D opening bid (!)...NOW the GENIUS in the East seat decides to bid his hearts...at the FOUR level...RED against WHITE! And on top of everything else, what if it hypothetically turned out that SPADES rather than hearts were actually a better fit? Hopeless, UTTERLY hopeless bidding by the GIBBO robots...as is SO often the case.

https://www.bridgeba...CS6%7Cmc%7C7%7C

[benellis58]

Second of the two hands the other BBO player sent me. His comment here was "Only 58% on this one: (one person doubled it down 4 for 100%)."

Here, the incompetent GIBBO robot sitting West doubles 2S for "takeout" (ha, HA, HA!!!). The definition is "Takeout double - 3+ clubs; 3+ diamonds, 3+ hearts; 2- spades; 21- HCP; 16-22 total points".

"21- HCP" literally means zero to 21, so that piece of "information" is so broad and vague that it's completely useless. "16-22 total points" is untrustworthy, because GIB definitions almost always pull "total" points out of thin air for no discernible reason, so it too is useless.

The statements about suit length ARE useful...except that...a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, because:

West is SUPPOSED to have "3+ hearts", but he has ONLY two, and he's SUPPOSED to have "2- spades", but he has THREE. As is SO often the case with these bumpkinish, buffoonish GIBBO robots, West is not even following his own GIB definition. He's not only an incompetent bridge player - he's also a DISOBEDIENT one! (As certain people have been known to chant in the USA, "Lock him up!") As in the previous hand, the simpleminded sap should just be passing.

North passes. East bids 3H. Whether or not this is a wise choice (as opposed to 3C, for example), at least HE is adhering to the definition, since the COMPLETE definition of 3H says ONLY "4+ hearts".

https://www.bridgeba...HA%7Cpc%7CHT%7C

[benellis58]

Just a brief comment: The hands I write about in this thread are just a small number of the hands that COULD be written about, because the GIBBO robots commit atrocities, whether big or small, on the majority of hands they play. It's not surprising, really. If a player is completely incompetent, he WILL show his incompetence with nearly every opportunity he gets.

[benellis58]

I can't complain about the 89.3 % that we scored on this board, but that does NOT mean that the GIBBO robot sitting North bid it well. As is usually the case when GIBBO robots bid slams, he STUMBLED into it with a blind leap and THIS time it happened to be a decent spot.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/yr87fsdr

[benellis58]

Just on general principles, why is the dimwitted GIBBO robot in the East leading a CLUB on this auction after South OPENED 1C?

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2p9f5w2h

[benellis58]

This hand is proof that the robots are incapable of thinking, which is just one of many reasons why they are such incredibly bad bridge players.

West is on lead against South's 6C. He has two aces and displays his monumental, earth-shattering ignorance by leading the wrong one.

North had bid 3H, showing at most one heart. Later North had cue bid 4H, showing first round control (although the typically pathetic GIB definition said something not as accurate - more on that below!). Thus, any bridge player with the ability to THINK would KNOW that North had a heart void, but of course the blindingly stupid GIBBO robot was unable to work out the OBVIOUS truth and demonstrated his monumental ignorance of the game by leading the heart ace. A chimpanzee would have had a 50-50 chance of leading the right ace and thereby outperforming the very inaccurately named "intelligent bridge player".

The poorly written (as usual) GIB definition of 3H was "Cue bid - 4+ clubs; 4+ diamonds; 1- heart; no ace of diamonds; ace of hearts; 16+ total points". It should NOT say "ace of hearts", as the actual hand PROVES. It SHOULD say either "first round control of hearts" or "ace of hearts or void in hearts".

https://www.bridgeba...SK%7Cpc%7CS7%7C

[benellis58]

At trick 4 the GIBBO robot sitting East foolishly discards a diamond instead of a heart, thereby ultimately costing his side a trick.

https://www.bridgeba...CQ%7Cpc%7CH7%7C

[benellis58]

That's right, Mr. West: Whatever you do, don't EVER play clubs. You don't want to be expelled from the GIBBO robot union.

https://www.bridgeba...CQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7C