[benellis58]

The M.O.R.O.N.I.C. GIBBO robot sitting in the East chair wins his heart ace at trick two and - fool that he is - plays another heart at trick three.

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

[benellis58]

Silly double by the GIBBO robot in the East, followed by an imbecilic lead by the same *****.

https://www.bridgeba...C6%7Cmc%7C12%7C

[benellis58]

Did a GIB robot sneak into East's chair? As bad as the GIBBO robots are (and they are really, REALLY bad), at least they usually make better leads than the GIB robots (who, hard as it may be to believe, were even WORSE than the new and improved GIBBO robots). I would have expected that maniacal stiff diamond lead from a GIB robot, but not from a GIBBO one.

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

[benellis58]

There are not enough appropriate words in the English language to describe the GIBBO robots, their "ability", their system, and their definitions.

Sure, we have: bad, wretched, clueless, egregious, execrable, hopeless, imbecilic, M.O.R.O.N.I.C.,I.D.I.O.T.I.C., stooge, twit, clown, nincompoop, lowest of the low, disgusting, pathetic, laughable, foolish, insane, repulsive, annoying, unnecessary, needless, useless, worst, ignorant, stupid, braindead, HIDEOUS, LUDICROUS, RIDICULOUS, illogical, inconsistent, bizarre, reprehensible, worthless, garbage, trash, ...and perhaps a few others, but we could really benefit from a larger vocabulary to bring some variety to the reports of GIBBO performance. Until more words are created, though, we will have to keep repeating these tired and boring - but unfortunately accurate - descriptions.

Of course, if the GIBBO robots, system, and definitions actually IMPROVED, which we are hoping for, and which would be good for both BBO and its constituents/users/clients, we could stop constantly repeating the words mentioned above. Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be good for everyone?

[benellis58]

Not my table, but a lead and a "defence" by the GIBBO robots that could best be described by some of the words in the post immediately above this one.

https://www.bridgeba...DQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7C

[benellis58]

Another hand where I'm wondering if a GIB robot threw the West GIBBO robot out of his chair and made the lead.

This very stupid lead was the type that the completely hopeless GIB robots used to foolishly make with great frequency. Fortunately, Lorserker did some work and improved the leading skills of the GIBBO robots, but for some reason on this board the West robot reverted to the astounding ignorance of the wretched GIB robots.

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

[benellis58]

Not my table, but an example of how unutterably hopeless the GIB definitions are:

With no East-West bidding, North passes and South opens 2NT. North bids 3C Stayman, and the anonymous human South, rather than bidding the normal 3D, opts to bid 3NT, which is passed out and becomes the final contract.

3NT is STUPIDLY (what else?) defined as "2-5 clubs; 2-5 diamonds; 2-5 hearts; 2-5 spades; 20-21 HCP". Hey GIB, if South had FIVE hearts or even four, wouldn't he have bid three HEARTS over pard's 3C? And hey again GIB, if South had five SPADES or even four, wouldn't he have bid three SPADES over pard's 3C?

You know what, GIB? Your definition should NOT (incorrectly and IGNORANTLY) say "2-5" for hearts and spades - it should say "2-3" for hearts and spades. Can't you even get a simple little thing like THAT right in your perpetually pathetic and poorly written definitions?

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

[benellis58]

To further illustrate the wretchedness of GIB definitions, and to also examine the inconsistency and total lack of logic of the braindead GIBBO robots, here's a look at the SAME hand that was discussed in the post right before this one, but this time we'll see what happened at my table.

Once again there was no East-West bidding, North passed, South opened 2NT, and North bid 3C Stayman. But then things differed.

Unlike the anonymous human South in post 667 directly above, I did not now bid an abnormal 3NT. I bid the normal 3D, defined as "No major suits; 2-5 clubs; 2-5 diamonds; 2-3 hearts; 2-3 spades; 20-21 HCP". First, note that "No major suits" is the typical type of needless, unnecessary. poorly written, insulting, incorrect GARBAGE that (sadly!) we see far too often in the pathetic GIB definitions. Saying "no major suits" is a LAUGHABLE error, because if South has, as the definition CORRECTLY states "2-3 hearts" and "2-3 spades", then he HAS MAJOR SUITS! They might not be the four-baggers or five-baggers that the Stayman inquiry sought, but they ARE "major suits" and he DOES have them! The utter stupidity, carelessness, sloppiness, and incompetence here are MIND-BLOWING!

Over my (normal) 3D response, North bids Smolen and later Blackwood, and eventually places us in 6H. Note that this is VERY different from what North did in the previous post. There, North did not continue describing his hand and did not go slamming. He PASSED 3NT. If GIBBO thought that was wise at THAT table, then it was WILDLY inconsistent that he did not opt for the same contract at my table, by bidding 3NT over my (normal) 3D response. Conversely, if North thought it wise to go slamming at MY table, then why did he not do the same thing at the OTHER table?

At BOTH tables, North knew largely the same things: that South had 2-5 cards in each minor and that he had 20-21 HCP. The only difference was that at my table North also CORRECTLY knew that I had only 2-3 cards in each major, whereas at the other table, the wretched GIB definition INCORRECTLY and STUPIDLY stated that South had two to FIVE cards in each major. So if North was going to go slamming in a MAJOR, if ANYTHING it would have been more logical to do so at the OTHER table, where he was (falsely!) told that South COULD have four or even FIVE cards in one or both majors. At MY table, North knew that I had at MOST...THREE cards in each major.

It makes NO sense that with almost identical information, one North went slamming while the other stayed in 3NT. Furthermore, EVEN if we overlook the total lack of consistent behaviour by the two Norths, if one was going slamming, it should have been the one who DIDN'T do so, and if one was going to settle for 3NT, it ALSO should have been the one who DIDN'T do so. These GIBBO robots are not just the stone cold WORST "bridge players" I have ever seen in my life, but they are also inconsistent and often do things completely BACKWARDS. They are repulsive and deserving of nothing but contempt, scorn, and vilification.

I don't care whether settling for 3NT was right or bidding slam was right. What I DO care about is how two GIBBO robots, both in effect identical twins sharing exactly the same programming, and both exposed to basically the same auction and information, went on two completely different paths. The entire GIBBO structure is seriously flawed. If it can't be fixed - after its LONG history - then maybe it should be sent to a garbage heap and replaced with a structure and system that actually make SOME sort of sense!

https://www.bridgeba...D2%7Cmc%7C11%7C

[benellis58]

I have often criticized the GIBBO robots and their even worse predecessors, the truly execrable GIB robots.

I have often said that I have never...EVER...in my decades of playing bridge... seen even a single human player as bad as the aforementioned robots.

In another way of expressing basically that same sentiment, I have often said that even the worst human player I ever encountered was better than the GIB and GIBBO robots.

But now I would just like to clarify that even with all the criticisms I have made, I have still been unable to fully describe how unutterably hopeless the GIB and GIBBO robots are at bridge. There are no words harsh enough to describe the bottomless depths of their neverending stupidity and no words strong enough to portray the enormity of the contempt that their bridge play merits.

[benellis58]

Although we received a decent score of 71.4 % on this board, and although the random layout on this random hand seemed to very luckily justify his actions, I think North's bidding was poor. Yes, I realize that that is probably not shocking news.

He bids 2NT, defined as "Balanced invite - 4-5 spades; 10 - 12 HCP", yet he not only has the maximum possible of 12, but they are a very good 12, what with the AJ of spades in his FIVE-bagger (that might have been only a four-bagger), and more importantly the AJ also in the heart suit his partner South OPENED...AND he has a THIRD heart!

Since the GIB definitions so often LOVE to mention "total" points, although their statements are almost always worthless because they do not have an INTELLIGENT method for calculating their "total" points (and in fact don't even seem to understand the basic concept!), let's look at North's "total" points on this hand:

In support of HEARTS, his hand is worth 13 "total" points - 12 in HCP plus one more for the doubleton club, since he has three-card trump (heart) support.

Thus, he CLEARLY has a GAME FORCE...in HEARTS, yet he NEVER even says ANYTHING about HEARTS! Instead, he merely invites...and in what rates to be the WRONG strain (NT instead of hearts). To make his action even MORE nonsensical, he has only a tenuous stopper in diamonds, the unbid suit. His 2NT bid is M.O.R.O.N.I.C. for several reasons. But, to be fair, making M.O.R.O.N.I.C. calls is one of the few things that the GIBBO robots are EXCELLENT at!

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/25r3u4kk

[benellis58]

Here we go again: pathetic GIB definitions and highly questionable GIBBO actions.

The repulsive GIB definition of East's 1D opening begins with the three needless, useless, annoying, and insulting words "Minor suit opening".

The repulsive GIB definition of West's 1H begins with the four needless, useless, annoying, and insulting words "Free bid, new suit".

The repulsive GIB definition of North's 1S begins with the exact same four needless, useless, annoying, and insulting words "Free bid, new suit".

The repulsive GIB definition of East's 2D begins with the three needless, useless, annoying, and insulting words "Opener rebids diamonds" and then goes on to include some inaccurate trash that I won't even waste my time tearing apart.

The inept and inaccurate definition of West's 3S promises "12+ HCP", but West has only 10.

Eventually, North "sacrifices" in 4S...over the East-West PARTIAL of 4D. His 4S is defined as showing "10+ HCP" despite the fact that he actually has only SIX. According to the same GIB definition, he also has "10- total points"...exposing for the Nth time that GIB has absolutely NO IDEA of what "total" points are and NO IDEA about the ELEMENTARY fact that "total" points CANNOT be LESS than HCP. In so doing, it also exposes for the Nth time that GIB definitions are nothing but GARBAGE.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2rzbaf9r

[benellis58]

The first three words of the GIB definition for 1C: "Minor suit opening". Gee, thanks so much, but you know what? Maybe it wasn't SUPER essential to tell us that.

The first three words of the GIB definition for 1H: "One-level overcall". Gee, thanks so much, but you know what? Maybe it wasn't SUPER essential to tell us that.

East's 1NT bid: Nice club stopper, Mr. East...or then again, maybe not.

The GIB definition of South's double of 1NT: "3+ clubs; 18-21 HCP; 22- total points". You know what, Mr. GIB? I think I have a shorter, better, and more accurate definition that actually clearly STATES what the double is. Two words: "PENALTY double". That wasn't so hard, was it, Mr. GIB? You go out of your WAY to make CERTAIN that we know 1C is a "minor suit opening" or that when an opponent bids 1H directly over that "minor suit opening" it's a "one-level overcall", so how about going out of your WAY to tell us something USEFUL - namely what type of DOUBLE it is in your GIB/GIBBO system!!!

And while we're at it, Mr. GIB, your cute little mention of "22- total points" is as useless and irrelevant as usual, for the usual reasons.

Oh, and the requirement, as per your GIB definition of the double, for South to have "18-21 HCP"? Guess what? I only had FIFTEEN HCP. According to your joke of a definition, I shouldn't have DARED to double, yet somehow - ASTONISHINGLY, I guess, since I had "only" 15 HCP (I'm SO disobedient!) - somehow, SOMEHOW we managed to be plus 800. Golly gee, maybe a PENALTY double is more about how many TRICKS you can take than about how many points you have! And maybe it's time the GIBBO robots LEARNED that! It might bring them one SMALL step closer to climbing up that HUGE mountain they must ascend in order to become at least MINIMALLY competent. To be fair, however, I have sympathy for the robots: It's hard to play a decent game of bridge when you're handcuffed by an inefficient, antiquated bidding system and some of the most poorly-written definitions in the history of the world.

https://www.bridgeba...CD8%7Cmc%7C4%7C

[benellis58]

Here we have the usual ineptly written GIB definitions, but we're also treated to imbecilic bidding by the GIBBO robot in the North.

The definitions of 1C and 1H both start with the usual annoying, needless words.

North's mind-blowingly stupid 3S bid is defined as "4+ diamonds; 5+ spades; 6-11 total points". WHY did I describe it as "mind-blowingly stupid"? Well, to begin with, he is mot adhering to his own GIB definition, since he has only four spades. More importantly, though, he is doing what the horridly incompetent GIBBO robots do FAR too often in FAR too many situations. He is effectively REVERSING at a HIGH level (the three level) with very moderate values, and he is doing it in a suit that he knows from the auction will be breaking badly. Hopeless!

East passes, as does South (who by doing so is hoping that his partnership can stay at the three level). West, in the passout seat, competes with 4C. North and East pass, and South thinks it's probably right to compete. He's correct, as it turns out, since East-West can actually make at least 11 tricks in clubs.

Unlike North, South actually remembers West's 1S call and is therefore actually aware that enemy spades are not breaking. He also knows that he and North have at LEAST a nine-card fit in diamonds, and he STRONGLY suspects that they have only an EIGHT-card fit in spades. He knows that according to the GIB definition of 3S, North is SUPPOSED to have at LEAST five spades, but he also knows that the GIBBO robots often ignore their own GIB definitions (and who can blame them for that, since their own GIB definitions are so often total garbage?).

South wants to compete and wants to do it in DIAMONDS. He checks the GIB definition for 4D and sees that it is typically a very, VERY stupid definition - in other words, a TYPICAL GIB definition! The first two words make this VERY clear, as the first two words are "Cue bid". Cue bid??? Why the HELL would North now be CUEBIDDING when he earlier limited his hand by PASSING over East's 3C, which could easily have ended the auction then and there, and later by PASSING his partner North's 3S bid, which could have again ended the auction then and there? There is NO logical way that this 4D call can be a cue bid! It is CLEARLY a suggestion of contract!

South decides, as he often does, to ignore the ludicrous and pathetic GIB definition and bid 4D anyway. He hopes that his partner North will be clever enough to pass and is willing to take the chance. He figures that even if North stupidly bids 4S, it might turn out okay anyway, and there is always a hope that North might actually figure things out for once. But...of COURSE North doesn't figure it OUT and of COURSE he pulls to 4S. (In North's defence, THIS time he is trusting the GIB definition, despite the fact that he himself disobeyed a GIB definition with the 3S bid he made on the previous round).

The final contract is 4D by North. NS go down two for minus 100, but still salvage a slightly above average score of 60.94 %.

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

[benellis58]

Amazingly stupid lead by West, silly shift by East. Yes, bridge IS a partnership game, as the GIBBO robots sitting East-West prove when their COMBINED "efforts" allow South to take an "impossible" 12 tricks.

https://www.bridgeba...H4%7Cmc%7C12%7C

[benellis58]

Can't complain about the result of 98.48 % on the board, but it seems strange that AFTER first deciding to bid Stayman, North then INCONSISTENTLY bid 3NT rather than Smolen (assuming that the robots DO play Smolen in this situation?).

https://www.bridgeba...S5%7Cmc%7C12%7C

[benellis58]

Is anyone looking for further examples of how bad the GIBBO robots are? Oh, really? Well then, since you asked:

South deals and opens 1S. West passes. The GIBBO robot sitting North has 32, 10, A98732, 8762, and...PASSES, which is pretty stupid. Yes, I see that he has "only" 4 HCP, and yes, I'm aware that on some random hands and random layouts, passing COULD work out better than bidding. BUT I also see that he has - have I mentioned it (?) - an ACE. He also has a SIX-card diamond suit and a four-card club suit. He even has two (admittedly small) spades. His hand is potentially playable in THREE strains (and his STIFF heart might be a valuable asset in any of them), and while obviously not a super-strong hand, is FAR from a bust. I think passing with this hand is the mark of a cowardly, unimaginative, and ill-informed bidder who plays a LOSING game of bridge. As Jerry Helms has written, "Look for an excuse to bid, NOT for an excuse to pass".

Anyway, after Mr. No Guts in the North timidly squeaks out his cowardly pass, East, in the passout position, bids 2H. South has a rock, but his "partner" North (who would probably be played by Don Knotts if a movie was made) PASSED South's 1S opening bid, so he doesn't have much and could have nothing. South bids 3S, obviously BEGGING his "partner" to raise to four if at all possible, but staying as low as possible (given that bidding only TWO spades would be as cowardly as North's craven pass) in case North is bankrupt.

West passes and North bids...four DIAMONDS. WHAT? It's defined as "1- spade; 4- HCP; twice rebiddable diamonds; 5+ total points". Okay, let's take out our surgical tools and slice up this sucker. There WILL be blood!

"1- spade". Oh, really? So he has zero or one spade then, correct? Well, if so, why do I see the three AND the two in his hand? By my very complicated calculations, I think that means that he actually has TWO spades, and I think THAT means that either the GIB definition is flat-out wrong as well as being a barefaced LIE, OR the GIBBO robot in the North is once AGAIN ignoring his own GIB definition. Why? Is it because he's blind (?), illiterate (?), unable to add (?), undisciplined (?), or just plain stupid?

"4- HCP". Fair enough, because he DOES have 4...but how does the definition KNOW that he has at most four? He MIGHT have passed with FIVE HCP, so this GIB definition will not always be accurate, and it is therefore inaccurate and a LIE. It should say "5-", not "4-".

"Twice rebiddable diamonds". HERE'S a suggestion, GIB: How about you start EXPLAINING what constitutes a "biddable" or "rebiddable" suit within the specific contexts of each auction where you merrily trot out these terms?

"5+ total points". Where the Hell did you pull THIS from? This very definition says that he has "4- HCP", which literally means that he could have ZERO. Additionally, no fit has yet been established, since diamonds have just been bid for the first time and since North SUPPOSEDLY has at most one spade and possibly even none. That's a LIE, mind you, but it IS supposedly true. East passes. South, not trusting his "partner" (because South NEVER trusts his partner when that "partner" is a GIBBO robot!), converts to 4S and all pass.

West leads a heart into the mashed potatoes and later stupidly pitches a diamond, falling (as usual) for the pseudo squeeze. South takes all 13 tricks to score 100 % on the board, as the GIBBO robots get themselves yet another ZERO to add to their IMMENSE and ever-growing collection.

South's 4S bid, BTW, includes in its GIB definition "strong rebiddable spades", so, hey GIB, how about for ONCE giving us MEANINGFUL explanations of the differences between "biddable", "rebiddable", "twice rebiddable", and "strong rebiddable" in YOUR little corner of the world! Maybe we'd rather be told about THAT than hear that 1C is a "minor suit opening" or that a 1D response is "one over one" or any of the other similar nonsense that we're forced to read in the GIB definitions.

And finally, for anyone who didn't know, Don Knotts starred in a movie called..."The Ghost and Mr. [u]Chicken

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/yc6pewr2

[benellis58]

North's 4H bid is defined as showing "3 hearts". This is North's hand: Q10954, Q4, A94, A74.

Do YOU see three hearts? Me neither. The result was fine, but North's bidding WASN'T.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/3b8w94ew

[benellis58]

Once again the result was okay (71.4 % for going down "only" one in 2NT), but why were we IN 2NT?

Why did North (a GIBBO robot, as if that wasn't OBVIOUS!) invite with his low quality 8 HCP and 3-2-4-4 shape? WHY? Answer: Because he's a GIBBO robot!

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/yckjrx42

[benellis58]

Ridiculous cash of the ace of hearts by East at trick four.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/4kkrt2p2

[benellis58]

Here's an interesting phenomenon I've noticed about the GIBBO robots: Every single time that I play a game with and against them, my utter CONTEMPT for them increases. There's a saying that "familiarity breeds contempt", and with the GIBBO robots it's definitely true, because each time you play with them, you get more knowledgeable about how absolutely atrocious they are.