[benellis58]

Declarer play was what the GIB robots were "best" at - at least compared to everything else in their bridge game...and it is also what the GIBBO robots are "best" at.

However, observe the declarer play of the GIBBO robot sitting West in the hand linked below, and you might conclude (as I have concluded on numerous occasions) that he is not likely to win any brilliancy prizes for his declaring ability!

https://www.bridgeba...H5%7Cpc%7CHK%7C

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. On this board, North proves that he is as utterly hopeless at defending as his East and West robot brethren are.

At trick nine, North makes the monumentally stupid decision to play his ACE of clubs rather than his jack, thereby allowing EW to score up a game that had ZERO play until the GIBBO robot sitting North botched an obvious and elementary play that no human defender who was even halfway competent ever would after the auction that occurred.

https://www.bridgeba...H7%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. North-South collect 100 for beating East's 3C one trick, and North-South thereby score a decent 88.46% on the board. So why am I writing up the hand?

Because I think we need to expose and publicize North's ridiculous and illogical DIAMOND shift at trick three. Looking at THAT dummy after THAT auction, why would anyone ever think a diamond shift was right? Well, anyone EXCEPT a GIB or GIBBO robot, anyway!

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

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. West opens 1H (promising at least a five-card suit) and later leads his fourth best heart (the five) against South's 2S contract. East can EASILY determine from the auction, the lead (which was correctly fourth best, as per the GIBBO system), and the Rule of Eleven, that South has exactly one heart higher than the five, and that ONE higher heart will be the STIFF ACE (because West would NOT be underleading the ace on this auction). Yet the GIBBBO robot sitting East foolishly, wastefully, and most of all mindlessly, squanders his heart queen, rather than correctly playing his four.

At trick two, West pops his club ace, turning East-West's two natural club winners into only one.

Given that EW trumps break 5-1 and the AQ of diamonds are offside, these defensive misplays might or might not be relevant on the hand, but that does not diminish the issue that both plays were subpar. NS scored 73.81% for going down only one.

https://www.bridgeba...C7%7Cpc%7CS8%7C

[Huibertus]

benellis58, on 2025-December-30, 06:31, said:

Given that EW trumps break 5-1 and the AQ of diamonds are offside, these defensive misplays might or might not be relevant on the hand, but that does not diminish the issue that both plays were subpar. NS scored 73.81% for going down only one.

Yet as long as West does NOT lead ♦Q (which makes it +1) this contract ALWAYS exactly makes, simply by scoring 1♥, 1♦, 1♣, ♠ AK and eloping 3 small spades by ruffing ♥ from dummy and (if needed when West ducked ♦K) forcing West to lead 1 round of ♥.

So how did the bots convince the human to go down?

[benellis58]

Thanks for your return to the thread, Huibertus. Long time no see! There have been many hands discussed here since you last commented way back in September, so I'm surprised that you had nothing to say until now, but I'm very pleased to have you back.

As for the question you asked, my guess is that "the bots convinced the human to go down" by the simple but effective strategy of not allowing him to look at all four hands before declaring. Perhaps that slight advantage of seeing all 52 cards on the random layout of this random hand aided you slightly in your analysis? For sure it would have aided me!

In any case, rather than simply giving the quick and cursory summary that you did, I think it would be much more helpful to all readers (and of course to myself) if you gave a detailed, card by card presentation (with accompanying explanations, of course) of how exactly the play should go from the very beginning and why that specific line should immediately be chosen prior to seeing all 52 cards. Perhaps when one looks at only the North and South hands there is a possibility that different layouts might exist for the East-West hands, so I'd greatly appreciate your learned analysis of how and why the hand should be played from the moment dummy is exposed and trick one is completed - on a single dummy rather than double dummy perspective. That would probably be helpful not only to the human who the bots convinced to go down but also to all the other humans who played the board and scored even less on it than the meager 73.81 % that the human in question did.

When you submit your analysis, please make sure to mention all alternate possibilities for both the declarer and the defenders as each trick is played. That will be highly beneficial. I eagerly look forward to reading and learning from your complete detailed report, so thanks in advance.

By the way, just to make certain that you understand the motivation behind the posts in this thread: The purpose is never to gloat about a good result or to cry about a bad one. The purpose is always to expose some of the many atrocities committed by the GIB (or now GIBBO) robots, in the hope that the powers that be will realize the crucial need to vastly improve the performance of the robots. After all, those very robots are probably the single most important element in the day-to-day activities (and ultimately the success or failure) of BBO. Lorserker recently did excellent work in improving some of the robotic actions (such as leads, for example), but many, many features (system, definitions, defending, etc.) still require considerable upgrading and I sincerely hope that this extremely popular thread that Diana created is helping to point some of those things out.

If you read the 17 pages of this thread, I think you will find a fair number of hands where the human might have done something better, so if he somehow erred on this board, it would certainly not be the first time and will undoubtedly not be the last. However, with all hands posted here, including this rare one that actually seems to have captured your attention, the GIB or GIBBO robots did something bad that needed to be exposed - whether the human was flawless...OR whether he was imperfect.

Thanks again for your valued input. I greatly look forward to your detailed analysis of this hand, covering all possibilities, and clearly explaining why and how the exact plan should be formulated at the point when declarer initially sees ONLY his hand, dummy's, and the two hearts played respectively by West and East at trick one (namely the five and the queen). And, Huibertus, please don't be a stranger! I'm sure most readers would welcome further input from you as much as I would. Welcome back, happy holidays, and a very happy new year to you!

[benellis58]

It's normal for NS to bid game on these cards, but on the random layout of this random hand, both 3NT and 4S are slated for down one.

The GIBBO robots, thanks to Lorserker's excellent work, are much better at leads than the truly inept GIB robots were. I would have expected a GIB robot to lead a spade (!) on this auction and with West's hand, and I'm NOT joking, because I saw them do the equivalent on numerous occasions.

To his credit, the vastly improved GIBBO robot sitting West DID lead a diamond, as I WOULD expect a GIBBO robot to do...but NS made (!) their "impossible" 3NT contract anyway! West led the correct suit, but perhaps with his holding of AKQ62 (!), it was not an appropriate time to lead...fourth best.

https://www.bridgeba...D9%7Cpc%7CD8%7C

[benellis58]

What's going on HERE? Did a GIB robot somehow sneak into the West seat and push aside the GIBBO robot who was supposed to be sitting there? Check out his lead against 3NT:

https://www.bridgeba...D4%7Cmc%7C10%7C

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. The vulnerable spade game was cold for EW, so NS did well to bid the non-vul 5D, which was doubled and went down 2. NS were minus 300, for a score of 91.67 % on the board. All well and good, BUT...

North's double of 4S was a highly debatable choice. It did not come close to matching his own GIB definition of "6+ diamonds: "9+ HCP; 10+ total points". He had a mere FIVE HCP, a full FOUR (!) fewer than the "9+" that the definition supposedly (ha, ha) "promised". More importantly, all five of his HCP were in his SEVEN-card diamond suit, so his hand was very unlikely to provide even a SINGLE defensive trick against 4S, yet his hand was VERY powerful offensively, despite its paucity of HCP. It seems to me that his "normal" call should be a simple, straightforward 5D.

https://www.bridgeba...CSQ%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

Once again I ask "What's going on HERE? Did a GIB robot somehow sneak into the West seat and push aside the GIBBO robot who was supposed to be sitting there? Check out his lead against 3NT."

Also, notice that East at trick three falls into the apparently corrected and supposedly former GIB bad habit of second HIGH (although here it's second hand MIDDLE, when he plays the jack from KJ7) and then commits the usual GIB/GIBBO silliness of immediately returning DECLARER's suit by next playing the club king after the human declarer allowed the robot's jack to hold trick three. The human declarer was CONFIDENT that East WOULD play a second club!

https://www.bridgeba...H9%7Cpc%7CH7%7C

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIBBO robots. West's duck of the diamond ensures that his side will score only one of their two TOP diamond tricks. GIB and GIBBO robots often needlessly and foolishly pop their high cards for no reason, often to their detriment, and sometimes crashing their partner's honours. Here, the GIBBO robot finds a variation on the theme by FAILING to play a high card when he SHOULD.

Also, the GIB definition of North's 3H is typically annoying: "Jump new suit - 4+ hearts; 9-15 total points". Is it REALLY necessary to begin with "Jump new suit"? Do they think that BBO users are too dim to realize that without being told?

https://www.bridgeba...S9%7Cmc%7C11%7C

[benellis58]

Yet ANOTHER hand where I ask "What's going on HERE? Did a GIB robot somehow sneak into the West seat and push aside the GIBBO robot who was supposed to be sitting there? Check out his lead against 3NT."

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

[benellis58]

And on the same hand at another table, North declared 3NT. North won the opening heart lead in dummy and led dummy's stiff diamond.

West, with J94 of diamonds, followed the bad GIB practice of (needlessly and pointlessly) playing second hand HIGH, as he immediately played his jack. I thought that this idiocy had been corrected and that the new, improved GIBBO robots were now going to make NORMAL, COMMON SENSE plays?

Anyway, North played the queen and East won his offside king, after which...

East did what both the GIB and GIBBO robots perversely, illogically, and stupidly LOVE to do: He IMMEDIATELY played back another diamond. Well, that did not work out well for him, which should not be a surprise! Why do these incompetent robots LOVE to return DECLARER's suit but HATE to return partner's?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that that particular habit is one of the many flaws that make the GIB and GIBBO robots worse bridge players than ANY human bridge player that I have ever encountered.

https://www.bridgeba...CJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7C

[benellis58]

I bid 5C non-vul over East-West's vulnerable 4H. I was not doubled, so I lost the obvious four tricks and went down two for minus 100 and a shared top of 85.42 % on the board, as seven other NS pairs were also only minus 100 in the same contract.

So the purpose of this post is to brag about my shared top, right? Of COURSE not! As I have said a few times in the past, the purpose of these posts is NEVER to brag or gloat about a good result and NEVER to cry or complain about a bad one. The sole purpose is always ONLY to expose the deficiencies of GIB and GIBBO robots - their play, their system, and their definitions...and the REASON for that purpose is my hope that when these issues ARE exposed BBO will do its best to finally correct them...for the ultimate benefit of all BBO players...and indeed for the ultimate benefit of BBO itself!

Now here is the specific motivation for THIS post. After East's leap to 4H, I judged that it would probably be wise to compete. I had no guarantee, but I thought it would be "right", and in practice, on THIS random board, it WAS "right".

BUT...I thought that there was a possibility that our best save as NS might have been in diamonds, rather than clubs, so before bidding 5C I checked the definition for 4NT, hoping that it might say something along the lines of "long clubs with secondary diamonds" (which would be a good description of my hand). I was displeased to see the GIB definition of 4NT: "3+ clubs, 11-21 HCP, 12-22 total points". Thus, handcuffed by the total lack of a DECENT definition, I shrugged my shoulders and bid 5C, which fortunately turned out well.

Please note, however, that I was not disgusted by the GIB definition PURELY because it was not my "dream" definition of "long clubs with secondary diamonds", but because, as is so often the case with GIB definitions, it was completely useless. If it had said "long clubs with secondary diamonds"...or if it had said "Blackwood"...or if it had said "natural, to play"...or if it had said "two-suited takeout"...or if it had said ANYTHING useful (whether I agreed with it or not), I never would have written this post! But it said NOTHING of ANY use! All it did was repeat...word for word...EXACTLY what the definition of the opening one club bid had said! At least, mind you, it did not repeat the hugely annoying and totally unnecessary three words that BEGAN the definition of 1C: "Minor suit opening"!!! Why do GIB definitions so often include completely needless and obvious stuff like that ("minor suit opening") when so many (like the definition of 4NT on this hand) do not give KEY information that WOULD be not just useful, but essential?

https://www.bridgeba...CST%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[benellis58]

With 2026 about to arrive, I think it is a good time to thank two people whose actions are giving us hope that one day in the future the GIBBO robots might begin to approach a basic level of competence.

The first and most obvious is Lorserker, whose recent actions have greatly improved the leads of the GIBBO robots and have also perhaps made them use more common sense than their woeful GIB predecessors did. Well done, Lorserker, and good luck in your very difficult task of upgrading the robots.

The second is Diana, whose excellent decision to create this essential and very popular thread has helped to expose some of the many serious weaknesses regularly exhibited by the robots. Diana was even wise enough to accurately subtitle this thread "Groundhog Day", as that is an amusing and very accurate description of how every day, without fail, the robots perform as poorly as they did the day before. I always get a chuckle when I see that very creative subtitle, so thank you, Diana, for your innovation, inspiration, and cleverness.

If the GIBBO robots ever become decent bridge players, a huge amount of the credit will belong to Lorserker and Diana, so I congratulate and praise both of them for their hard work in this very difficult struggle. Their perseverance inspires me to do my small part by posting in this thread and exposing a small sample of the many GIB or GIBBO weaknesses I see every day. Happy new year to all, and let's hope that by the time 2026 ends Lorserker will have done more of his magic and made further improvements...and that we can again end the year by once more praising him and Diana.

[benellis58]

The GIB definition of West's 2C bid is "New suit - 3+ clubs; 5+ hearts; 11+ HCP; 12-18 total points". This is a shameful, incorrect, misleading, and possibly even dishonest statement.

The LEAST of its faults is the completely unnecessary beginning: "New suit". Oh, REALLY? It's a "new suit"? Gee, I guess no one would ever have realized that if GIB had not so considerately pointed it out. Please forgive the sarcasm that I just used, but as I have often pointed out, it is annoying and possibly even insulting that GIB so often includes such obvious and totally unnecessary "information" when at the same time it very often does not even bother to include very important and very necessary information in its definitions. But there is a much bigger issue with this particular definition of 2C:

You will note that West actually has only two clubs, not the "3+" that the definition promises. West did not err, and this is not a once-in-a-lifetime deviation. It is a major flaw with this atrocious GIB definition! Why? Because in the GIB system, if a player is 4-5-2-2 with an opening bid but without the strength to reverse over his partner's forcing 1NT response, what is he to do? He can't pass, because...DUH...his partner bid a FORCING 1NT. He can't rebid his hearts via 2H, because that would show at least six of them. He can't show his spades via 2S, because he's not strong enough to reverse. He can't bid 2NT because that would show more HCP than he has. The ONLY thing he can do is bid 2C (or 2D...but 2C, which is lower, safer, and more flexible, is the obvious and normal "default" action)!

Hands such as West's DO occur...and when this situation arises, the correct action is always to do what West does here...by correctly (in the GIB system) bidding 2C. The PROBLEM is not West's bid - it is the LIE told in the VERY poorly written GIB definition! An honest and accurate definition would say "2+ clubs", not the blatantly inaccurate, incorrect, and misleading "3+" that the reprehensible GIB definition states! A possible alternative would be to define it as "3+ clubs unless the hand is 4-5-2-2 with insufficient strength to reverse, in which case it might be only 2 clubs".

The wording of the actual GIB definition is inexcusable.

https://www.bridgeba...C7%7Cpc%7CC2%7C

[benellis58]

Although GIBBO leads are considerably better than GIB ones were, logic is still sometimes absent. Leading can certainly involve guesswork and luck, but on the hand linked below, it would seem that from West's perspective a major suit should be led against South's 3NT. To the credit of the GIBBO robot sitting West, he did lead a major suit (whereas I would have expected a GIB robot to lead a...CLUB!).

But given that West chose to lead a major, why on Earth would he lead a heart from Q76 rather than a spade from Q1097? He chose his shorter AND weaker major. It did not work out well on this random hand, and to be fair on another random hand with a different random layout (because bridge IS in many ways a random game), a heart might have been the "winner". The point, though, is that a spade is a better shot in general, because it is not only less dangerous and less likely to give something away, but it is also MORE likely to set up defensive winners.

https://www.bridgeba...ST%7Cpc%7CS2%7C

[benellis58]

Did a GIB robot sneak into the game and sit North? Well, I guess not, but the robot in the North seat certainly performed more like GIB than like the new and improved GIBBO!

First, the hopeless GIB-style lead! Yes, leads can be guesses. Yes, their success or failure can depend on luck and on the random layout of the random hand in question. But having said that, and looking ONLY at North's hand and hearing the EW auction, a heart lead certainly seems like the normal and OBVIOUS choice. In practice it would work well here, but even if - on a different layout - it was a failure, that would not in any way mean that it had been a bad choice.

Okay, so for reasons best known only to himself, the GIBBO robot did not lead a heart...but why in HELL would he make the completely silly lead of a SPADE? That is incompetence on a GIB level!

Then, to add to North's shame: After winning his diamond queen at trick two, he...immediately...cashed (!) his ace of...DIAMONDS (!!!)...and then...played...a...THIRD DIAMOND! When, oh WHEN, will the GIB and GIBBO robots EVER learn that it is probably not a good idea to keep playing the same suit that DECLARER is playing???

Performances such as North's on this hand are a major part of the reason that I say I have never seen even a single human competitor play as consistently poorly as the GIB (and perhaps even GIBBO) robots.

https://www.bridgeba...CCK%7Cmc%7C9%7C

[Huibertus]

benellis58, on 2025-December-30, 12:31, said:

As for the question you asked, my guess is that "the bots convinced the human to go down" by the simple but effective strategy of not allowing him to look at all four hands before declaring.

Happy new year to you too, here's to a significant decrease of moaning about bots. And to a significant improvement in bridge skills.

As to the actual hand: https://www.bridgeba...C7%7Cpc%7CS8%7C

You should realize you are very likely to HAVE to play for elopement of 3 ♠ in your hand as you WILL normally lose 2♣, 2♦ and 2♠ if you don't. And also have to realize you do have the entries in ♣/♦ and ♠ to do it. The only way you are NOT losing 2 ♠ without eleopmenmt is the unlikely event they are 3-3, and the infrequent cases of 42 splits with a doubleton QJ. But in most of these cases the elopement still works. As it works on the actual lay out and other 4-2 splits.

So it simply is the way to play, no double dummy analysis needed, but it'll probably confirm what I suggested, yes.

[benellis58]

Sorry, Huibertus: Your answer is not satisfactory. It is not detailed and does not mention or explain all possibilities. It contains assumptions that might NOT be true. Just for starters: sometimes you will lose only one spade. The suit HAS been known to break 3-3 on occasion. Sometimes you will lose only one club - either by finding a doubleton ace or by the opponents erring, which they are certainly capable of doing. Sometimes the EW hands might be reversed. Sometimes you get a good score by going down as few tricks as possible. And by the way, in playing FROM THE BEGINNING for the elopement, you might give the opponents the opportunity to make plays countering it, in one way or another, which is why I asked you to provide a detailed analysis. Sometimes your line will be far worse than others. I could go on, but there is no point in pursuing a discussion with someone who finds what he THINKS is the best line only AFTER he has looked at all four hands.