[helene_t]

https://www.bridgeba...C7%7Cpc%7CD8%7C

[smerriman]

No, it doesn't think you have clubs as such.. but the issue is that you never once showed diamonds.

From GIB's perspective your double and cue showed a balanced hand with doubts about a club stopper, as described (since it expects a strong offshape double would bid a new suit or raise diamonds), but it requires more values to bid NT itself.

Most of its rules have parameters of "the best fit we've shown" or "the best fit based on my cards"; when you bid 2♣ it knew about a 7 card club fit, and telling it you had a 4 card heart suit didn't change that. By the time you were at the 4 level it was too late.

[benellis58]

Stephen, your explanation is undoubtedly totally correct (as usual), but this hand - like COUNTLESS others - is further continuing evidence of the astounding, never-ending, MONUMENTAL incompetence of GIB.

[Huibertus]

benellis58, on 2025-June-08, 23:51, said:

Stephen, your explanation is undoubtedly totally correct (as usual), but this hand - like COUNTLESS others - is further continuing evidence of the astounding, never-ending, MONUMENTAL incompetence of GIB.

That's just pure nonsense. it is evidence of having clumsy agreements on the meaning of bids in many cases.

And it is evidence of the pure competence of them NEVER forgetting what their own or partner's bid means.

Where this hand also is evidence many humans arrogantly don't even bother to check what bids mean by hovering over it before deciding what to do while simultaneous falsely believing they know better what's in their book than the robots.

[msheald]

Except that bid descriptions are many times wrong.

[helene_t]

smerriman, on 2025-June-08, 23:36, said:

No, it doesn't think you have clubs as such.. but the issue is that you never once showed diamonds.

Yes, silly me, I should have bid 3♦ instead of 3♥.

It is a bit weird that 4♦ is a cuebid, though. We haven't agreed a suit so I would think 4♦ should be natural.

[smerriman]

 helene_t, on 2025-June-09, 10:53, said:

It is a bit weird that 4♦ is a cuebid, though. We haven't agreed a suit so I would think 4♦ should be natural.

Yeah, but even though GIB is "forced" to bid 4♣ with just 5 cards in this situation, generic rules about rebidding a suit at the 4 level have altered the description to "twice rebiddable", which has confirmed a fit opposite two.

[johnu]

Once again, an offshape takeout double has led to a GIB disaster. Just don't make offshape takeout doubles playing with GIB.

[benellis58]

Huibertus, are you so totally obtuse that you think the GIB robots are competent? Are your own skills so sadly lacking that you are unable to see how bad they are on SO many occasions? Never mind the hand in question, and never mind the fact that humans are not flawless either, but if you think the GIB robots are skilled players, then you either have no idea of how to play or you are living in a dream world.

[shyams]

benellis58, on 2025-June-10, 02:29, said:

Huibertus, are you so totally obtuse that you think the GIB robots are competent? Are your own skills so sadly lacking that you are unable to see how bad they are on SO many occasions? Never mind the hand in question, and never mind the fact that humans are not flawless either, but if you think the GIB robots are skilled players, then you either have no idea of how to play or you are living in a dream world.

ROFL