[benellis58]

3S is I.D.I.O.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y. defined by GIB as showing "15-16 HCP". WHY, pray tell? South happens to have 14, and he could have 15 or 16, but why SHOULD he? He could ALSO have as few as ELEVEN! For example, change his KING of diamonds to the THREE of diamonds, and he might STILL open 1H and then make the normal second round call of 2D, and then be FORCED to bid 3S over the FSF 3C.

North's 4NT (!) bid is just plain insane and his subsequent 6S is just plain pathetic. Besides the missing ace, he lacks first OR second round controls in BOTH red suits, and most importantly of all, he has a MERE 13 (!) HCP opposite a partner, South, who (despite the piece of trash masquerading as a GIB definition), has shown NOTHING more than an opening bid. Yes, I see North's sixth spade and I see that his doubleton heart queen COULD be a very useful card opposite pard's opening one HEART bid, but...big deal! His bidding is STILL that of a lunatic.

I figured it was about 99 % that East was leading a STIFF heart and that by playing small from dummy South there was an excellent chance that I'd go down two tricks instead of "only" one, but I also figured that I might as well play low, as it was my ONLY chance of making this INSANE contract that my always contemptible and nauseating GIBBO lunatic of a "partner" had condemned us to. As expected, it WAS a stiff, and as expected, it led to down two instead of down "only" one, but big deal again. Minus "only" 100 was NEVER going to be a good score on a hand where we SHOULD have been PLUS 650!

There were many different results on this board. The ludicrous 6S was reached at 7 tables. At 5 of them (including mine), it went down 2. At one, it went down three, and at another one, it went down "only" one. FOUR spades was the contract at two tables. At one of them it made exactly, and at the other it...went down one (in FOUR!). Incredibly, the contract at one table was...a mere TWO (!!!) spades, which made with two overtricks. At three tables, the contract was an "impossible" 3NT, but since GIBBO robots (!) were "defending", the "impossible" 3NT made NINE tricks at one table, ELEVEN (!) at another, and...TWELVE (!!!!!) at the third!

In the two posts immediately following this one, I will show what happened with this board at two other tables. I will probably not be surprising ANYONE by stating as a preview that the GIBBO robots were also positively EXECRABLE at those two tables also. GIBBO robots are the WORST of the worst and the LOWEST of the low. They absolutely stink at bridge.

Here's the link to the hand at my table, but please be SURE to read the next two posts for further "amusement" regarding this board.

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

[benellis58]

Okay, as promised, here's the same hand from post #1601 immediately above, but from another table.

Whereas the piece of GIBBO garbage partnering me stupidly propelled us into a ridiculous SIX spades, the contract at THIS table was an equally astonishing TWO (!) spades - thanks again, of COURSE - to the ridiculous bidding of ANOTHER typically braindead GIBBO piece of trash.

Here, the human South was quite obviously operating (either that or he misclicked), because in second seat he opened one DIAMOND rather than 1H on his 3-5-4-1 hand. West overcalled 1H and North bid a normal 1S (although I believe that in the execrable GIBBO system he had the option of bidding a natural and game-forcing 2S - but I prefer his choice of a NORMAL 1S). East passed.

The human South, who for whatever reason had earlier opened a bizarre 1D, now bid 2H. This was his SECOND bizarre bid, because it was defined by GIB as "3+ diamonds; 18-21 HCP; 19-22 total points"; forcing to 3NT". He indeed had the requisite diamond length, as he had four of them. The stuff about "total" points was irrelevant, because that subject is ALWAYS irrelevant in the pathetic GIB definitions, since GIB has no idea about "total" points. BUT the hopeless definition states that South SHOULD have "18-21 HCP" and he actually has ONLY a "mere" 14, a full FOUR fewer than his "promised" MINIMUM (!) and a huge SEVEN less than his potential maximum. It also says that 2H is "forcing to 3NT", yet South has "only" 14 HCP and his partner North's 1S bid could have been made on as FEW as 6 HCP according to the GIB definition.

Quite a LIE by the human, but that is NOT the point of this post. The purpose is NEVER to bash humans, but ALWAYS to bash the truly contemptible and revolting GIB/GIBBO robots, as set forth in the title that Diana gave this essential, hugely popular thread when she had the great inspiration and wisdom to create it. I faithfully use Diana's excellent title as my mission statement in exposing the horrendous atrocities of the contemptible GIBBO robots. And now we get to the BASHING, because, over South's bizarre 2H call, West passes, and...

The GIBBO robot in the North bids... TWO spades. TWO! In fairness, the GIB definition DOES say that this is "forcing to 3NT", but that is ONLY because it respects the "forcing to 3NT" that appeared in South's 2H definition. The GIB definitions adhere to the pattern that was set, and they CANNOT undo a PARTNERSHIP force that was already established. But in any case, a MERE two spades CERTAINLY does not describe the North hand. The full GIB definition is "twice rebiddable spades - whatever the Hell THAT'S supposed to mean-; 6+ total points; forcing to 3NT."

The bottom line is that North COULD have initially bid a natural and game-forcing 2S over West's 1H but (fair enough) opted not to. Then, after his partner South supposedly showed at LEAST 18 HCP, North bid a MERE two spades with his six good spades and 13 HCP - the SAME hand where at MY table, where I had NOT shown any more than a MINIMUM opener (despite the incorrect, piece of trash GIB definition), the North robot took control, Blackwooded, and then blasted into a slam! Where is the LOGIC? Where is the consistency? Where is there even an IOTA of intelligence or bridge ability? Answer: Certainly NOT anywhere in the GIB/GIBBO universe of madness and failure. GIB/GIBBO rots! Please BULLDOZE it!

https://www.bridgeba...HJ%7Cpc%7CCT%7C

[benellis58]

And here, again as promised, is what happened at a THIRD table with the same hand that was discussed in posts 1601 and 1602 above. At this table, NS sailed into an "impossible" 3NT and made...TWELVE (!) tricks - thanks to the ever-hopeless GIBBO robots.

The human South at this table, like the one in the post immediately above, made a truly bizarre call - a DIFFERENT bizarre call from the two that the human in 1602 made. Here, the human bid 3NT (!) over his partner North's 4SF call of 3C. Clubs was the ONLY unbid sui, and South's "stopper" was the...STIFF JACK. Luckily for him, though, and perhaps this is WHY he risked his 3NT call, his opponents were two GIBBO robots, so it was almost guaranteed that he would get an ATROCIOUS "defence", because as the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid", and the GIBBO robots are undeniably and astoundingly stupid.

The easy, simple, straightforward, completely OBVIOUS lead of the club king would have beaten 3NT at lest one trick, as South had only eight top tricks. Instead, Muttonbrain Mike (yes, he's a new member of the GIBBO robot brotherhood - and JUST as stupid as all his other GIBBO brothers and sisters) led - of ALL things - a HEART (!!!) INTO (!) the South declarer who had...OPENED (!) one HEART!!! South politely controlled the gales of laughter welling up inside him. He won dummy's heart queen, knocked out the diamond ace, and had 12 tricks: 6 spades, TWO hearts (the ace and the earlier QUEEN that had been GIFTED to him on the braindead opening lead), three diamonds, and the ace of clubs.

Please dump the GIBBO robots into a river - a very DEEP river with very STRONG currents.

https://www.bridgeba...C8%7Cmc%7C12%7C

[benellis58]

A shared top for "only" going one down in 1NT. I offer my sincere gratitude to the shared HOPELESSNESS of the two zoned-out, clueless GIBBO dweebs sitting EW and "defending".

The lowbrow jerk in the East wins trick two with his offside club king and then at trick three instead of returning a heart STUPIDLY plays a spade. Of COURSE the dimwit didn't return a HEART because his "partner" West LED a HEART, and these abject GIBBO losers HATE to EVER play partner's suit.

The *****ous dolt didn't even have the WIT to return the correct spade. The M.O.R.O.N. led the 7 from J743.

West won his king and then cashed his heart queen, setting up my jack! Golly gee, HERE'S a thought: Maybe if EAST had played a HEART at trick three, it might have been better for the "defenders". Maybe if a heart had been led THROUGH my remaining J3 doubleton (!), I...would never have scored my jack! If stupidity was a crime, every prison on Earth would be jampacked with GIBBO prisoners!

https://www.bridgeba...CS6%7Cmc%7C6%7C

[benellis58]

The GIB definition of 1H is "One-level overcall". You know what, Mr. GIB? It is NOT necessary to include that in your pathetic definition. The WORLD already KNOWS that it is a one-level overcall. Including it in the definition is needless, useless, annoying, and insulting. This type of garbage appears frequently in GIB definitions, but probably ONLY in GIB definitions, because no DECENT definition would ever include such bilge. The definition continues "5+ hearts; 8-17 HCP; 9=19 total points". The stuff about points is BAD, because there are many hands where a perfectly fine one-level overcall could be made on 7 or even 6 HCP, and there are certainly some EIGHTEEN point hands where a "mere" one-level overcall is the best choice. The nonsense about "total" points is well, uh, NONSENSE , as ALWAYS in GIB definitions, since GIB has no comprehension of even the CONCEPT of "total" points.

But the REAL reason I'm posting this hand is the part of the definition that says "5+ hearts", because...guess what...West has only FOUR hearts. His hand is AG62, KQJ6, 97, 1095. I am NOT criticizing his bid, and I might make the same call myself. I have often seen the GIBBO robots overcall on "mere" four-baggers. Fine. No problem. No problem at ALL...but change the definition (!!!) so that it's accurate and truthful! Change it! Change it to either "4+ hearts" OR ""usually 5+ hearts but CAN sometimes be only 4+". Take your pick, but CHANGE it, because as it currently stands (and HAS stood for an unforgivably long time), it is WRONG and it is FALSE.

But I actually have an even better suggestion: Don't waste time changing this definition, because almost ALL GIB definitions require massive changes. Just JUNK every single one of them - the sooner the better - and replace the whole lot of them with DECENT definitions.

The definition of 3S repeats the LIE, as it too promises "5+ hearts". JUNK them...PLEASE!

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