[pescetom]

In this auction I could live with the X if not explained misleadingly as 4+ ♥.
But how can my forced bid of 3♥ promise a minimum of 9 TP?
And where are the 15 HCP it promised to bid 4♥ in probable misfit?
But above all, WTH (as mikeh would say) was it doing to bid that X knowing it had an unsupported weak pancake ?

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2026-January-22, 15:38, said:

But how can my forced bid of 3♥ promise a minimum of 9 TP?

IIRC, you should have started with a Lebensohl 2NT bid to show a minimum hand.

[msheald]

With all disrespect to Johnu, I disagree. There will always be disagreements about what partner should have bid. To paraphrase Mr. Meckstroth from several years ago when asked about his partnership, they had disagreements many times about the best bid during tournament play. They tried to come to an understanding and went on.
The issue is not what pescetom "should" have bid, but the robot bid that was substantially different than that promised by the bid explanation.
To BBO's credit, they have stated that they are working on this problem.
My tolerance for poor robot explanations has greatly decreased over the last couple of years. When faced with a similar situation as pescetom, I no longer look at the hand but concede all 13 tricks and go on to the next board, even if I might have gotten an average or above average board. To me, since I play to enjoy bridge and improve my F2F game, such play frustrations are not worth it. Best regards.

Mike

[mycroft]

The systemic meaning of the 3♥ call is "values and hearts". "Customer" didn't have "values and hearts". Oddly enough, there is a sequence in the system for "no values and hearts". Customer could have used it.

Frankly, I like the double, even if it doesn't fit the description. Sure, passing would have been +170 against these opponents, but these opponents can't bid either. And knowing when (and how) to compete against pairs by working out their skill is just something that will remain in "human" territory (and bloody good human territory, at that) for effectively ever.

I am not so thrilled with 4♥, for the reasons specified in the OP. Also not so sure about the double, but I'm sure the simulations assume that the opponents know how to bid after weak 2s. I know *I* have been caught by this sequence more than once (and then put that pair in the "don't help them fix their mistakes" box for next time).

But I am almost certain that if Customer didn't promise values they didn't have, GIB wouldn't have doubled, and they would have still gotten out for A-.

To Mike, absolutely there are good value in disagreements and "come to an understanding". But you *can't* "come to an understanding" with GIB. It does what it does, and *you* have to accommodate *it*. I hate to be a broken record, but it's time to bring out Simon's chapter on playing with Mrs. Guggenheim (actually, the bit I'm remembering here is "playing with the person who thinks 3♣ is forcing after a 2NT rebid." Especially the "you can bid 3♣ with a good hand, knowing partner will go to 3NT, when you read the opponents will believe the auction and double" bit). And the whole bit where Futile Willie is "teaching the partner who can't be taught".

[dsharpcctx]

I believe the 4H bid and the second double by North is probably correct. In a previous Forum discussion, where I was addressing the Laws of Bridge, specifically Law 40. The human player has a responsibility to understand the robot systems when playing with the robots. The robots play Lebensohl 2NT bid in this sequence. The human player needs to understand the conventions and play them if they are going to play with the robots. Obviously, the robot North took South for a better hand and bid more aggressively expecting South to have at least 9 points even if the explanation of the double is not correct.

[dsharpcctx]

In some respects, I wish BBO had the option of robots playing the ACBL Standard Yellow Card. Bidding precision is lost, but beginning players do not have to deal with some of the complexities of the more modern bidding systems.

[johnu]

msheald, on 2026-January-23, 06:39, said:

With all disrespect to Johnu, I disagree. There will always be disagreements about what partner should have bid. To paraphrase Mr. Meckstroth from several years ago when asked about his partnership, they had disagreements many times about the best bid during tournament play. They tried to come to an understanding and went on.
The issue is not what pescetom "should" have bid, but the robot bid that was substantially different than that promised by the bid explanation.

Wrong. When playing with GIB, you have to play GIB's system because there is no "discussing" with GIB. It's GIB's way or the highway. In GIB's system, Lebensohl is used to show a weak hand, 3 level bids show moderate strength bids. 3♥ overstated the actual strength of the hand, and got the partnership on the highway headed in the wrong direction.

This is not a matter of judgement where there is a legitimate decision as to which bid to make. There's a systemic bid that shows the strength of this hand, and the non-systemic bid that shows a stronger hand than the actual hand.


Sure, in real life, North would like to have been dealt 4 hearts, but sometimes that doesn't happen. Any decent player has made a takeout double, especailly in passout seat, with a less than perfect distribution. I don't consider a bid that "suggests" 4 hearts but only has 3 hearts a substantial difference.

GIB North went off the rails starting with bidding 4♥ but that's one of the endearing traits of GIB. If South had made an initial Lebensohl bid, North could have passed in further competition.

[johnu]

dsharpcctx, on 2026-January-23, 22:35, said:

In some respects, I wish BBO had the option of robots playing the ACBL Standard Yellow Card. Bidding precision is lost, but beginning players do not have to deal with some of the complexities of the more modern bidding systems.

Well, playing with GIB, you can always check the meaning of bids you aren't familiar with. As far as playing a simple versus more detailed system, you are trading memory requirements for the detailed systems, and bidding judgement for the simple systems. Beginners are most likely to have poor bidding judgement, but are more likely to have good memories. Also, the Yellow Card system has a number of offbeat/complicated methods which will have to be relearned/forgotten if the players advance out of beginner class.

[msheald]

Perhaps, but I still disagree. It would be nice if folks would discuss op's point, that is, that the bid description was incorrect. Discussing whether op played the robot's system or not is irrelevant. The theme of the post addresses one of the weaknesses of the robot system that has been discussed numerous times on the forum. To its credit, BBO has stated that it recognizes the significant frustration that robot play can cause when robot bid descriptions do not match the robot hand, and it is working on correcting the problem. Best regards.

Mike

[Huibertus]

msheald, on 2026-January-24, 06:01, said:

With all disrespect to Johnu, I disagree.

You fail to understand a Bot is not a real life partner. With a human partner you CAN disagree on what a bid is supposed to mean and negotiate an agreement you both can live with.

With a bot you can not disagree, the Bot plays Lebensohl and that is the end of the discussion.

A bot therefore expects values (9TP+) of a 3♥ bid because you failed to bid 2NT. You can dislike it, but this simply is a fact. If you want to prevent being raised without any extra's you just have to bid 2NT first.

[msheald]

With all due respects to the robot defenders, we are not discussing op's 3H bid, but the erroneous description of robot's 4H bid. I find it curious that folks have never discussed that since it was op's main point (in my opinion).

Let's all get on the same wavelength. Op should have bid Lebensohl. Can we agree that the robot's description of its 4H bid was erroneous?

Since we appear to be talking over one another, I'll sign off on this thread. The errors in robot's bid descriptions have been discussed numerous times before, so I doubt that further discussion in this thread is warranted. Best regards.

Mike

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2026-January-24, 05:15, said:

Well, playing with GIB, you can always check the meaning of bids you aren't familiar with.

'Always' is an overbid. I think I did check the explanation of 2NT before bidding hearts, so it can't have been encouraging (perhaps "lebensohl, forces 3♣" but no mention of 0-8 TP).

Which is not to say that one should not be familiar with the conventions GiB plays, even if used to playing something else in those circumstances: I agree that one should, mea culpa.

I still think that even with human holding the minimum for 3H, 4H is pushing it and X is plain silly. Misexplanations apart.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2026-January-24, 07:39, said:

I still think that even with human holding the minimum for 3H, 4H is pushing it and X is plain silly. Misexplanations apart.

I called North's bid of 4♥ an "endearing trait"! FYI, that wasn't a compliment.

Obviously GIB has always had trouble evaluating hands in competition. With a weak 2♠ bid by LHO, the value of the ♠K is suspect in a hand that is already a minimum.

[dsharpcctx]

Regarding johnu's response to the ACBL yellow card, you are probably right. I taught a beginner's bridge class for 3-4 years. However, that was about 10 years ago. I based my response on the beginners in my class at that time. The quality of the beginner's play is probably different now. Still, I would like to see a simplified system for beginners with the understanding that they would advance out it at a later date. Yes, that requires relearning by the advancing player.

[mycroft]

Please do not conflate "simple system" with "Standard American Yellow Card". It is neither a simple system nor one suitable for newer players (in fact, it's probably more suitable for long-time experts! Not that any of them would want to play a crippled version of 1970's standard, but at least they would understand when to use the tools, and how to read when partner used the tools).

SAYC is a *specific set of conventions*, created by a committee, to be able to play a "one card" event at Regional tournaments in the ACBL in the late 70s (time approximate, I wasn't there). The intent was to have something regular tournament players at the time *could play* that basically hung together. It explicitly did not have to be a better system than others (because it was only to be played in a "one card" event), it did not even have to be a *good* system (again, because it, explicitly, wasn't competing against anything else); it just had to be a system players could play in order to satisfy the demands for "remove all the complications and win-by-confusing the 'New Scientists' are using, and let the Actual Bridj Skillz of Judgement, Table Feel, and Card Play shine."

And bidding has moved on so much in the last 50 years that *nobody can play* SAYC any more. Even the ones who claim to do so.

Is there a place in "playing with robots" for "simple systems"? Sure. Is GIB 2/1 more complicated than necessary? I don't think so, but it does shut out those who haven't learned 2/1 (and, more specifically, those who play standard because they haven't learned the tools needed to make 2/1 "work". Which, except for 1NT (semi-)forcing and continuations after a 2/1 GF, are required to make standard "work", too). It also shuts out those who aren't ACBL-centred, to at least some extent (do the Chinese still teach Precision to newbies? The English still teach 4cM. The Poles teach a 3-way forcing 1♣. The Dutch teach something, but I'm sure it deviates in major ways from GIB 2/1. The Italians, it seems, don't play lebensohl/weak 2 doubled to the point where "lebensohl, 0-8, asks partner to bid 3♣" doesn't equate to "2NT, then 3♥ is how I show a poor hand with hearts". What to do?

Bridge is a complicated game. Given the other thread, with its 12 or so "you aren't a bridge player unless" list (and I could, in fact, come up with a different dozen. I'm not going to, because "if you can't adjust your game to get the best out of partner, however bad they are, you're not advanced"), and, frankly, given how bad the median bridge player (even the median club, or tournament, bridge player) is - and Carlin's line applies in spades, here!, I don't think that there's a point where "simple" is going to be possible.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-January-25, 10:43, said:

Is there a place in "playing with robots" for "simple systems"? Sure. Is GIB 2/1 more complicated than necessary? I don't think so, but it does shut out those who haven't learned 2/1 (and, more specifically, those who play standard because they haven't learned the tools needed to make 2/1 "work". Which, except for 1NT (semi-)forcing and continuations after a 2/1 GF, are required to make standard "work", too). It also shuts out those who aren't ACBL-centred, to at least some extent (do the Chinese still teach Precision to newbies? The English still teach 4cM. The Poles teach a 3-way forcing 1♣. The Dutch teach something, but I'm sure it deviates in major ways from GIB 2/1. The Italians, it seems, don't play lebensohl/weak 2 doubled to the point where "lebensohl, 0-8, asks partner to bid 3♣" doesn't equate to "2NT, then 3♥ is how I show a poor hand with hearts". What to do?

I think GiB 2/1 is not so much over-complicated as disorderly and disfunctional: it could be cleaned up considerably without losing effectiveness.
Something like the 2/1 system that everyone in Turkey is taught and plays.

The Italians tend to play transfers after weak 2 doubled, but would have no problem recognising that Rubensohl was the poor hand if it actually did say "0-8" rather than just giving a name

[mycroft]

I agree with you. 100%. But I don't think that would solve the "playing with GIB" problem.

GIB is a set of rules "based on" a written system with "conventions most U.S. tournament players have heard of, even if they wouldn't choose to play them." Right there, we've alienated the RoW, who have different defaults (Rubensohl vs lebensohl after 2Mx, for instance, "nobody plays Cappelletti except for Americans and those who play a different system with a different name, but the same meaning for all the calls" for another). Streamlining the system (and I'm not sure that is possible: frankly, "Calgary standard Flight A 2/1" is just as disjointed as GIB 2/1, if not as dysfunctional) isn't going to solve that problem, except for the one person doing the streamlining and his partners.

And unlike how humans learn how to show their hand when off-book, GIB is "sim up a bunch of hands and see which entry in my list is most likely to lead to a good score DD". Which is so far away from human "judgement" that we can't "go there" unless you're willing to do smerriman levels of testing and analysis, or are willing to do LeoL levels of playing against it and using human "judgement" to guess what crazy thing GIB did this time.

I assume that Ben and the other robots being lorsekered up using neural networks have yet a third judgement pattern (and different places they're off-book); the chance it's any closer to how humans judge things I'm guessing is "flip a coin". And it's not one-dimensional - it could be much closer to human judgement, but the variations could be in a totally different direction from GIB's variations.

And, of course, --> that way is Chthonic and its "8,305,746 meanings for 1♣". We won't go there :-)

We're just stuck with a quite good cardplayer who learned its bridge in Elbonia and is too old to change. It can be fun to play with JohnL (of blessed memory, and a much better cardplayer than GIB), as long as you know what you're getting and don't *try* to change him.