[benellis58]

There are undoubtedly numerous reasons why the GIB robots are so laughably and disgustingly bad at bridge. Included in their immense catalogue of ignorance is that they seem to give no consideration to vulnerability.

In the hand below, West, North, and East are all GIB robots.

North passes at his first opportunity (as dealer). North passes again at his second opportunity, when he certainly MIGHT have made a call. But then at his THIRD opportunity, and now for no apparent reason (especially considering his pass on the previous round) he voluntarily bids 3C.

He survives this, as East, his LHO, competes with 3S (which is exactly what he would have bid even if North had passed for a THIRD time), passed around to North, who NOW bids FOUR clubs...at UNFAVOURABLE vulnerability...opposite a partner who has shown length and values in his VOID...in a hand that therefore might well be (and in fact actually is) a misfit...and with a hand that he PASSED at his first two opportunities (INCLUDING his second opportunity, where it would have been cheap and easy to make a negative double showing both minors).

He did all this to "sacrifice"...RED AGAINST WHITE...at the FOUR level...against a PARTIAL...a partial of 3S that in practice would not even have made.

Competing for part scores can be wise. Taking PROFITABLE sacrifices (not PHANTOM ones) can be wise. For the reasons described above, what the GIB robot did on this hand was NOT wise.

Colour me COMPLETELY unsurprised.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/54vdfpj4

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. Just to BEGIN with, the GIB robot "defending" in the East seat fails to overtake his partner's opening lead of the spade 10. Other errors follow.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2y6yksfe

[benellis58]

Check out the typically pathetic GIB definitions:

GIB feels it's ESSENTIAL to begin its definition of 1C by stating that it's a "minor suit opening". GIB's hopeless definitions often neglect to include IMPORTANT information, yet they put in useless, insulting garbage like this.

The definition of 4H is not very informative, but again includes a totally NEEDLESS statement that 4H is a "cue bid".

The definition of double is vague and useless.

The definition of 4NT merely repeats the information provided for South's 1C opening and says NOTHING useful about what 4NT MEANS.

If South had redoubled instead of bidding 4NT, the definition would AGAIN have merely repeated the information given with his 1C opening, and would have stated that the redouble was forcing to 4NT.

If South had bid 4S instead of 4NT, it at least would have given some information ("6+ clubs, rebiddable spades") but WHY would the call necessarily have required at least 6 clubs and REBIDDABLE spades?

Maybe it's time to throw all GIB definitions into a garbage can and start over.

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