[benellis58]

Incompetence is what is expected from GIB robots. Be they West, North, or East, they are glaringly inept. Here's an amusing action today by the East GIB robot:

GIB East deals and opens 1D. Human South overcalls 1S. GIB West passes. GIB North passes.

GIB East decides that he's very happy to let the auction end in 1S by South, so of course...

GIB East...PASSES...with...VOID, Q9, KQJ987432, A8!!!

[benellis58]

Every now and then it's only fair to congratulate the GIB robots for being consistent. True, they're consistently INCOMPETENT, but at least they ARE consistent.

[diana_eva]

Here';s one from yesterday, to counter a little Benellis58's relentless creativity in spawning new adjectives for GIB.

Adv GIB. North played the hand, I was at a training table.

---

[pescetom]

I hate the auction, although it may be opportune in order to avoid risking 1NT-6NT; 7NT from an overheated GiB
The play is indeed neat.

I don't think anyone objective complains about the overall level of declarer play of GiB, just specific problems. Occasionally it is genial and in any case rarely worse than an average human.

It's hard not to complain about the bidding and the well known problems never fixed.

[benellis58]

As you so often do, you have provided excellent comments, Pescetom. And there is no doubt that GIB's declarer play is considerably better than its grossly ineffective system, the remarkably poor definitions it provides, its really bad leads, and its pathetic defending. Compared to those ongoing atrocities, its declarer play indeed shines like a beacon.

[benellis58]

If you play in a game with three GIB robots, do not be discouraged by North's staggering ineptitude. Keep a smile on your face and remember that West and East are also hopelessly incompetent, so the odds are in your favour.

[benellis58]

Here's an example of GIB's hopeless system, ridiculous definitions, and staggeringly poor judgment.

NS are white, EW red. North passes. East opens 1H. South doubles. West bids 4H.

North passes. East passes. South doubles again. This is ludicrously defined as "3-5 clubs, 3-5 diamonds, 2- hearts, 3-4 spades, (and a ridiculous) 23+ total points". West passes.

North...PASSES... with J85, 5, Q108654, Q43 ! Hopeless as always.

[benellis58]

Here is another example of pure GIB stupidity:

NS are white, EW are red. South opens 1D. West bids 1S. North bids 2S.

The GIB robot sitting East has VOID, 9742, Q103, AKJ832...and bids...three HEARTS!

Even the worst human player I have ever seen would not do something THIS stupid.

[benellis58]

Typically idiotic bidding by GIB robot:

Nobody vul, North and East pass. South opens 1C. West bids 1D.

North bids 2C, defined as "4+ clubs, 6-10 total points". East doubles, responsive. South passes. West bids 2S.

North bids THREE SPADES! Without even looking at his hand, we ALREADY know that whatever he has, he is an idiot, but just for fun, this is the hopeless GIB robot's hand: A6, 1042, KJ4, Q6432. The definition is "5+ clubs, 10 total points", but that does not excuse his utterly ludicrous sequence.

[benellis58]

I congratulate the GIB robots on their creativity. That - after all this time - they can continue to regularly find new ways to demonstrate their astounding incompetence is truly impressive.

[benellis58]

Nobody vulnerable. North and East pass. South opens 1D. West passes.

North bids 1S. East passes. South bids 1NT. All pass.

West, a GIB robot, is on lead with 842, QJ3, QJ6, 5432. West, a GIB robot, leads...the THREE OF HEARTS.

[benellis58]

Both sides are vulnerable. South opens 1S. West bids 2H. North and East pass.

South bids 2S. West passes.

North, a GIB robot, has 72, K863, KQ8, 10865. He...LEAPS to FOUR spades! All pass.

This contract has FIVE...TOP losers and should easily be down two, but West and East are ALSO GIB robots, and their typically horrendous defending allows the contract to make.

[benellis58]

Not only are the GIB robots stupendously incompetent at all facets of the game, but even their definitions are pathetic...and in many different ways. Here is but one example of just ONE way the GIB definitions are bad. They are also bad in MANY other ways, but we'll leave those for future discussions.

No EW bidding. South opens 1S. North bids 1NT forcing. South bids 2D. North bids 2S.

South now bids 3C, defined, according to GIB, as "4+ clubs, 4+ diamonds, 3- hearts, 5+ spades". You may or may not agree with the basic concept of the definition, but that is not the issue with this particular example. The issue is the LUDICROUS wording. Assuming, as the definition claims, that South has at LEAST 4 clubs, at LEAST 4 diamonds, and at LEAST 5 spades, that ALREADY adds up to 13 cards, so instead of saying "3- hearts", the definition (again, assuming - rightly or wrongly - that the facts of South's shape are correctly stated in the definition) should say "ZERO hearts". Furthermore, since the presumed 4 clubs, 4 diamonds, and 5 spades ALREADY add up to 13 cards, those three suits would be exactly 4, 4, and 5 in length, NOT the "4 PLUS", "4 PLUS", and "5 PLUS" that the wording states in the definition.