[benellis58]

A typically unsuccessful penalty double by the typically unsuccessful GIBBO robot in the West. Note also, that - as happens SO often - he does not adhere to his own GIB definition. (What else is new?) He has a mere 13 HCP for his poorly-judged penalty double, even though the definition claims he's supposed to have "15-21".

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

[benellis58]

The usual collection of bad definitions, but I won't even bother discussing them.

One thing I will discuss is East's failure to open 2S. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that this is probably because the GIBBO robots don't open a weak two when they have four cards in the other major. In and of itself, this is a debatable strategy, but here it seems particularly questionable because he is in THIRD seat.

The other thing I will discuss is: Why the HELL would West bid 3H with his pancake flat nondescript 8-count opposite a partner who had PASSED in third seat and then later made a weak jump overcall?

https://www.bridgeba...D2%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

Bad lead: A diamond INTO declarer South, whose KNOWN first suit is diamonds.

https://www.bridgeba...C9%7Cmc%7C11%7C

[benellis58]

More laughter, courtesy of the always pathetic GIB definitions:

1S: "Major suit opening...". REALLY? No kidding? Gee, thanks - NEVER would have guessed!

3S: "3+ spades; 3-8 total points". Okay, then where ARE the "3-8 total points" in 10982, 65, 97532, J4? Take your time adding them "all" up.

But the funniest of all come from a PAIR that should be examined TOGETHER:

3H: "Jump new suit - 4+ hearts; 11- HCP; 9-12 total points"...and...4H: "4- hearts; 10-11 HCP; biddable hearts; 12- total points; two stops in hearts".

For 3H: Is it (Sigh! Groan! Curse!) REALLY necessary to say "Jump new suit"? No, I didn't think so either!

For 4H: "Biddable hearts". Biddable hearts? Biddable hearts? BIDDABLE HEARTS??? Yeah, I guess they're biddable...since he BID them TWICE! But why doesn't GIB ever say what "biddable" actually MEANS in their world? Give a description of what GIB in its infinite "wisdom" (ha...HA...HA!) considers the minimum requirements for a suit to be deemed "biddable", and do the same for a suit that GIB deems to be "rebiddable" instead of just tossing the terms around like dust in the wind!

And also for 4H: "2 stops in hearts". WHAT? This isn't some NO TRUMP auction where we're concerned about stoppers in an enemy or unbid suit. Here the presumed trump suit is HEARTS, so what's this nonsense about "2 stops in HEARTS"?

But COMPARE the definitions for 3H and 4H for further laughs. They're fairly similar, which is not surprising, since it's...the same hand and he's bidding the same values a second time with NO extra strength, NO extra shape, and NO extra trump length (which is, of course, undisciplined, considering that he's in direct, not passout, seat, and his partner South can bid 4H if it seems right). But...

The two definitions are ESPECIALLY ridiculous, because when he bid "only" 3H, we were told (correctly) that it shows "4+ hearts", meaning at least four, and possibly up to thirteen (in theory) since no upper limit is provided. However, when he later bid FOUR hearts, a level HIGHER, and bidding the suit for a SECOND time, we were now LUDICROUSLY told that it shows "four MINUS (!!!!!) hearts, which literally means at MOST four and possibly as few as ZERO (!), since no lower limit is provided. EVEN in the Bizarro World of GIBBO, where GIB definitions are probably among the worst definitions in the history of mankind, this is astonishingly imbecilic.

https://www.bridgeba...S6%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

I'll begin with a sentence that circumstances have forced me to use far more often than logic would dictate, given that the horrendous leading habits of the astoundingly bad GIB robots (who were even worse than the new, improved GIBBO ones) have presumably been upgraded. Here's the sentence:

Did a GIB robot sneak in and take over the chair from the GIBBO robot sitting West? I ask because whichever clueless robot it was (GIB or GIBBO : relatives in the Ineptitude Family), he chose to lead his stiff 3 of spades after his RHO opened 1NT and his LHO leapt to 3NT. Are these robots trying to lose weight by living on a diet of stupidity pills? And to add to the hilarity, we all know that the GIBBO robots foolishly HATE to return their partner's suit, yet HERE, East actually DID return his partner's "suit", which is a VERY rare occurrence, yet typically he did it on one of the rare times that it was WRONG to return hi partner's "suit". No, you CAN'T make this stuff up!

https://www.bridgeba...CD3%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

The definition of North's 1NT begins with the words "Balanced minimum". What does that mean? Well, later in the definition, it says "10 - HCP". If he can have up to TEN (!) HCP, how the HELL is that a "balanced minimum" on THIS auction?

The definition of South's 2NT begins with the ALWAYS annoying words "Invitational to 3NT game" and goes on to FOOLISHLY (yes, it IS, after all, a GIB definition!) say "4+ diamonds; 3- hearts; 4+ spades". Four PLUS spades??? If he had five or more spades, Mr. GIB, he would have either OPENED 1S or, if he had five spades AND longer diamonds, would have bid 2S over North's 1NT, so here he has EXACTLY four spades, not "4+". Why are GIB definitions almost always so sloppy and often just plain incorrect?

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/5bpsuuuf

[benellis58]

Typically witless lead of a stiff trump:

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/3knz68py

[benellis58]

What's my opinion of the GIBBO system, the GIB definitions, and the GIBBO robots? Thank you for asking. My opinion is that each of them is a total embarrassment and that they all require huge improvements.

[benellis58]

I scored 100 % on this board thanks to a typically horrendous defence by the incompetent GIBBO robots sitting East-West, but despite the good result I am singularly unimpressed by the bidding of the equally incompetent GIBBO robot sitting North. Surely he should respond 1D rather than sputtering out his cowardly and typically poorly judged pass. The GIBBO robots all deserve each other because they're all hopeless at bridge.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2j75d8wy

[benellis58]

Another hand. Another spectacularly inept "defence" by another pair of GIBBO robots who are embarrassments to the game.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/m7e6s3y9

[benellis58]

West fails to give East a club ruff at trick three. Okay, I'll let that go without criticism. We all take a wrong view from time to time, and I HAD followed with my NINE of clubs (hiding my two), so from West's perspective East COULD have been born with 42 doubleton rather than his actual holding of stiff four.

However, if West wasn't going to play a club at trick three, surely a heart would have been a wiser choice than the LAME diamond that he played, because he KNEW (or should have known!) from the play to trick one that a second diamond would be hopeless.

But the REAL dimwit was East! East's remarkably stupid play didn't cost in practice, because I was going to guess the spades correctly anyway because of East's club play at trick two. However, NOBODY guesses EVERYTHING right, and that includes me. So although I WOULD have guessed right anyway on THIS random hand, East didn't KNOW that I would be guessing right...and he made a phenomenally stupid play that made it IMPOSSIBLE for me (or anyone!) to go wrong. Here's what happened:

When West woodenly played a diamond at trick three, I won in my hand (which was automatic, since my two remaining diamonds were the HIGH king and queen. I then decided that I would play East for the spade queen unless it first popped up in West on the FIRST round of spades. Thus, at trick four, I led the spade 5 from my hand towards dummy North's KJ109. West played the 6, and as per my plan, I hopped all the way up with dummy's king. East followed with the 2.

Then I played dummy's spade jack, intending to slide it if it wasn't covered, as per my decision (based on the club plays at trick two) to play East for the trump (spade) queen? Was my assumption guaranteed to be correct? No, of course not. I might well have lost to a doubleton spade queen in West's hand...but I had made my educated guess about the spade layout and was willing to back my judgment. If it turned out wrong, so be it. It wouldn't be the first (or last) time that I guessed wrong, but I will ALWAYS back my judgment.

However, when I led the spade jack, East (stupid, stupid, STUPID East!) played the...queen (!). The immediate logical assumption would be that spades were 2-2 and East had had no choice but to follow with his presumed LAST spade, the queen. But...that wasn't the case here, because the stunningly HOPELESS GIBBO robot in the East had made the MONUMENTALLY ignorant play of the spade queen from his remaining Q8! What an absolute TROUT! HE didn't know that I was going to guess right anyway. As far as HE knew, if he played his 8 instead of his queen, maybe I would have flown with my ace, playing for spades to be 2-2. This clueless clown removed any guess that I might have had at that point, and he GUARANTEED that I would get the spades right EVEN if I had been planning to play for them 2-2. His play could ONLY cost and could NEVER gain, because he knew from the auction that his partner West had NO spades left.

Braindead, zero percent plays like East's are why I have SO often said that even the WORST human player I have ever encountered in my entire life is STILL better than the utterly hopeless and pathetic GIBBO robots.

https://www.bridgeba...S8%7Cmc%7C11%7C

[benellis58]

I have no problem with North's 3NT bid, but the GIB definition says that this call shows "10-11 HCP", and he has only 9... so if he's GOING to bid this way (as he not infrequently does), then...CHANGE THE GIB DEFINITION so that it's accurate and HONEST!

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

[benellis58]

Typically useless GIB definition of North's double:

https://www.bridgeba...CH3%7Cmc%7C7%7C

[benellis58]

Not exactly a double dummy defence!

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

[benellis58]

As I do every day for a slight change of pace, I played some Hearts-style challenges today. I explained what I mean by this in a previous post, but I'll explain it again for those who may not have read that earlier post.

I go the "Challenge" section to play a free four board match with a presumably GIBBO robot partner against two presumably GIBBO robot opponents. No one else is involved except me and the three robots. The "competition" is ONLY at this one table, so no human games are interfered with in any way.

We are supposedly playing bridge, but unbeknownst to the three robots, I am actually trying to LOSE as many tricks as possible, which is why I refer to it as a "Hearts-style challenge" (my own term).

At my first opportunity on every board, I bid 7NT and if I am doubled I redouble. I then try to take as FEW tricks as possible. My ideal result would be ZERO tricks for North-South.

This is an amusing way to see how stratospherically incompetent the GIBBO robots are. Even when I get rid of all my high cards as quickly as possible, even when I purposely crash our NS honours, even when I paint the EW "defenders" a road map, they STILL usually manage to botch things. They are stupendously, staggeringly, unimaginably bad at bridge.

The only caveat I will offer is that in the free "Challenge" games the robots MIGHT not be the so-called "advanced robots"...but then again, I've played often enough against the laughably-named "advanced" GIBBO robots that I know that they too are complete chowderheads at bridge.

[benellis58]

North-S0uth score 75.41 % on the board after the GIBBO robot sitting West (and holding four trumps to the AK) foolishly leads his stiff 10 of clubs INTO declarer South, who had shown on the auction that CLUBS was his second suit.

https://www.bridgeba...CC2%7Cmc%7C7%7C

[benellis58]

At trick four, North proves that he is indeed a GIBBO robot by making the phenomenally stupid play of the 5 of hearts. Despite the GIBBO robot's complete and total lack of defensive ability, the EW contract still goes down one, NS still collect plus 200, and NS still score 95.69 % on the board. North also scores an idiocy prize, although he doesn't really need it, since his trophy cabinet is already overflowing with the numerous idiocy prizes he has won in the past.

As a minor side observation, the GIB definition of South's double is far from the worst GIB definition ever (because there are SO many horrendous GIB definitions far worse than this), but it is still flawed (which is not at ALL a surprise). The definition of the double is "5+ spades; 14+ HCP; biddable clubs; 14- total points". Let's examine this piece by silly piece:

"5+ spades". Yes, most times South probably would have at least five spades, since he overcalled 1S...but he does not HAVE to have five spades! Some of the poor misguided souls who vainly attempt to defend the execrable GIBBO robots might say, "Yeah, but it wasn't a ROBOT who overcalled 1S - it was YOU, Benellis58!" That is quite true, but I would simply remind the delusional robot defenders that the GIBBO robots (to their CREDIT!) also overcall on sturdy four-baggers on occasion. Thus, an accurate, correct, and indeed HONEST definition would most definitely NOT say "5+ spades". It would say either "4+ spades" or "usually at least 5 spades, but CAN sometimes be only 4". No surprise at ALL, unfortunately, that yet ANOTHER GIB definition has been exposed as a LIE.

"14+ HCP". Why, pray tell, WHY??? South happens to have 15 HCP, but he could CERTAINLY have fewer than 14. His double is NOT about HCP - it is simply a penalty double stating that he thinks he will beat 4C. And by the way, the poorly written definition, while IMPLYING that it is a penalty double, does not directly state that it is...but it SHOULD state it. Far too often, the poorly written GIB definitions FAIL to properly explain the meaning of the bid - perhaps because they're too busy mentioning useless drivel such as 3NT is "game", a response to an opening bid is "one over one", and other totally obvious bits of insulting nonsense.

"Biddable clubs". Yeah, right, sure: How about explaining - for ONCE - what "biddable" means within the context of this specific auction or any other specific auction where GIB cavalierly tosses the word "biddable" into the definition without DEFINING it in context? No, I guess that would be too USEFUL for a GIB definition to include!

"14- total points". Hey, GIB, for the Nth time I will point out this OBVIOUS fact that seems to have escaped GIB: HCP can be less than or equal to "total" points, but they CANNOT be more. Yet here, as is SO often the case with the stunningly bad GIB definitions, the reverse is implied, since it states that the double shows "14+ HCP" (which literally means at LEAST 14 with NO upper limit) while it also shows at MOST 14 "total" points with no lower limit. This is completely backwards. I believe the scientific term for this GIB definition is "utter hogwash". And to make this even more laughable, why are "total" points even IN the definition here, since NS will presumably be DEFENDING against an enemy contract, and NOT declaring (where "total" points might actually be relevant).

https://www.bridgeba...CH6%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

The GIB definition of South's double is actually (alert the press!) quite reasonable and is a fine description of South's hand. But just for fun, I checked to see what the definition of 2NT would have been on this specific auction or others like it. It SHOULD have said something to the effect of "at least 5-5 in the minors", but what it DID say was something so irredeemably and offensively stupid that it was obvious that it was a GIB definition: "Invitational to 3NT game - 20+ HCP; 20- total points; stop in spades".

This garbage is SO pathetic that it makes the (bad) definition in the post above look like The Holy Grail in comparison!

"Invitational to 3NT game". First, why the fantastically annoying and totally unnecessary use of the word "game"? Please remove all such trash, GIB. More importantly, though, can South REALLY be inviting 3NT on THIS auction - where he has been SILENT until now, and where he KNOWS that West has 15-17 HCP behind him?

Then we see the usual GIB totally backwards implication that HCP (at LEAST 20 and possibly more) can be GREATER than "total" points (at MOST 20 and possibly less). No, no, no, GIB : you have the concept wrong AGAIN. I don't know if it's because of ignorance or sloppiness, but it's wrong, it's OFTEN wrong, and it should have been corrected long ago.

https://www.bridgeba...DJ%7Cpc%7CSQ%7C

[benellis58]

What a ridiculous THREE spade bid:

https://www.bridgeba...SK%7Cpc%7CS6%7C

[benellis58]

The Poetry Corner:

I believe that I will never see
A player as bad as GIB