[benellis58]

NS bid to 6NT and make an overtrick, for a score of 82.1 % - but no thanks to their hopeless 2C system.

North's 2NT is defined as "Positive notrump - 2-5 clubs; 2-5 diamonds; 2-4 hearts; 2-4 spades; 8-11 HCP; 12- total points". If using a 2NT response to show this type of hand did not stop in the STONE AGE, it SHOULD have! What a SILLY structure! And - of COURSE - GIB feels it's ESSENTIAL to begin the definition with the totally useless and completely unnecessary words "positive notrump".

The 2NT response needlessly takes up space.

It gives very little SPECIFIC information to the BIG hand that opened 2C...the hand that SHOULD usually be captain.

It potentially wrongsides the contract: Note for example that on this very hand, North, thanks to GIB's hopeless system, bids NT with four little hearts and two little diamonds. Wouldn't it USUALLY be preferable to have the BIG hand declare, to protect any potentially vulnerable holdings on opening lead?

It makes it harder to find 4-4 major fits on hands where it might be GOOD to find them.

It's just a pathetically poor response structure for many reasons, and it's laughable that ANY modern players would use such an antiquated and inefficient joke of a system...but GIB must think it's GREAT.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/ey4add8n

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots.

To his eternal credit, the GIB robot sitting East actually finds the killing lead of a diamond against North's 4S contract. Bravo, Sir! Well done! That is, it WOULD have been well done...if the MORON had played a second diamond after winning his ace of hearts at trick two. Instead the GIB robot SWITCHED to a club and said "Goodbye" to any chance of beating the contract.

Even when these GIB cretins somehow STUMBLE into the best lead, they can STILL find a way to blow the board, as this hand so clearly illustrates.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/4d28nr5x

[benellis58]

Typically ridiculous lead by the incompetent GIB robot sitting West, with a deservedly poor result for the hopeless GIB robots sitting East-West.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/5n8ebksp

[benellis58]

Alert the press! Advise the TV networks! For once the GIB robot sitting West actually found a NORMAL lead that was also the BEST lead! Congratulations, Mr. West!

Uhh, wait a minute! DON'T alert the press. DON'T call the TV networks! After all, we don't want to embarrass the poor GIB SIMPLETON sitting West, because after finding that great (NORMAL!) lead, the pathetic fool SHIFTED (!)...for no reason... thereby NEGATING the good work of his (NORMAL) lead.

The poor sap's braindead shift allowed declarer to make an "impossible" (EXCEPT against GIB robots!) eleven tricks for a NS score of 96.4% and an EW score (for the GIB robots) of 3.6%. Hopeless as usual!

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/5cbcpce9

[diana_eva]

Your posts are derailing from slightly funy and hyperbolic to offensive. Please cool down.

[benellis58]

My sincere apologies if they offend you, Diana. If anyone has the right to be a critic it is you, since you are the person who had the inspiration to create this essential thread (which has received over 100,000 views to date).

I will do my best to continue exposing just a small number of the problems I keep seeing with GIB while at the same time being careful not to offend your sensibilities.

And as we are in the holiday season, I will also take this opportunity to wish you all the best, to invite you to have a wonderful and happy new year in 2026, and to once again thank and congratulate you for your decision to create this thread and for giving me the motivation and inspiration to post in it.

You're the best, Diana!

[benellis58]

The GIB definition of South's 2C is "4+ clubs; 4+ diamonds; 3- hearts; 4+ spades; 14-18 total points".

This GIB definition - even without seeing the actual hand - is guaranteed to be at the very least poorly worded.

Why? Because assuming, as the GIB definition states, that South has at least 4 clubs, at least 4 diamonds, and at least 4 spades, that means that he has at least 12 cards in those three suits combined, which means that he has at most one heart. Therefore, the GIB definition should accurately say "0-1 heart", and not "3- hearts".

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/y8m9mxs9

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. Let's see how the GIB robots defend against North's 3NT.

After winning trick two with his heart king, West plays another heart at trick three. Note that rather than returning the suit that his partner East led (spades), he is returning the suit that his opponent (declarer North) just played.

Defender East wins trick three with his heart king and plays a third round of hearts, at which point NS can basically claim 11 tricks, making 2 overtricks in their 3NT contract for plus 460 and a score on the board of 96.4%. The EW GIB robots who defended score 3.6%.

Note that if West had returned his partner's suit (spades) at trick three rather than declarer's suit (hearts), NS would have been limited to a mere 9 tricks rather than the 11 that they effortlessly took after West continued declarer's suit.

I have very often observed that the GIB robots seem to have a decided preference for playing declarer's suit rather than their partner's. I have also observed that this usually works out poorly for the GIB robots, as it certainly does here. One might question why the GIB robots continue to have this apparently very ineffective preference.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/54st5cej

[benellis58]

Note the GIB definition for North's 3S: "2- diamonds; 4+ hearts; 4+ spades; 11- HCP; 8-12 total points". Then note that the GIB robot sitting North is not following his own GIB definition, and in more ways than one.

He is defined as having "2- diamonds" but actually has (a decent) three: J75. Additionally, he is defined as having "4+ spades" but actually has only three (KJ4).

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2p8f6ctc

[benellis58]

The EW players, both GIB robots, play in 2NT and make an overtrick for plus 150. Their score on the board is 7.1 %, while their NS opponents score 92.9 %.

But even ignoring the result, one might question the auction of the GIB robots sitting EW.

In their uninterrupted auction (with both North and South passing throughout), West's 2NT was defined as "Balanced invite - 2+ clubs; 2+ diamonds; 4+ hearts; 2+ spades; 11-12 HCP".

Thus, the GIB robot sitting East knew that his GIB robot partner West had at least 11 HCP, possibly even 12, and was inviting a game...yet the GIB East robot, with 14 (!) HCP (thereby knowing that the partnership's combined assets totaled either 25 or 26) chose to pass, rejecting the invitation.

That seems curious...and all the more so, since if anything the GIB robots tend to overbid rather than underbid. On this hand, the GIB robot's atypical decision to underbid did not work out well for his partnership.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/yckmsfph

[benellis58]

It will be interesting to see if GIBBO will indeed be an improvement over GIB, as touted. If so, that will be very good news.

[benellis58]

The GIB robots sitting EW are defending against North's 1NT. Several EW plays are worthy of discussion, but in the interest of brevity, we will mention only one: West's pop of the heart jack at trick four. This second hand high play, a play that I have frequently noticed GIB robots making, was perhaps not, and in fact usually is not the wisest choice.

NS took 10 tricks in 1NT for a score of 92.9 %. The GIB robots sitting East-West and defending scored 7.1 %.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/3266aacv

[benellis58]

The two GIB robots sitting East-West are defending against South's 1NT. At trick two the GIB robot sitting West pops his spade king, thereby removing any potential first-round guess declarer might have had concerning the missing king AND jack of spades.

At trick three West does what he so often loves to do: He returns a spade, the suit declarer just played. Now declarer cannot possibly go wrong.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/5645zu65

[benellis58]

Let's look at some GIB definitions on this deal:

East's 1S: "Major suit opening - 5+ spades; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points". First, as GIB definitions unfortunately often do, this one begins with some completely unnecessary and possibly even insulting words ("Major suit opening"). Second, East has a mere ten HCP, not the minimum of 11 promised by the definition. Now, if East opts to open this hand 1S, I certainly have no objection, and many (perhaps even most?) human players would likely also open 1S. However, if this or similar hands are often opened at the one level (and GIB robots often DO open such hands at the one level), that means that the definition here is inaccurate and perhaps even dishonest...or at the least incomplete.

South's double: "Takeout double - 3-5 clubs; 3-5 diamonds; 3-4 hearts; 2- spades; 12+ total points". While this definition will often be accurate, it will not always be accurate, and thus is again incomplete. Also, why MUST the double show two or fewer spades? Yes, it often will - probably most of the time, in fact - but there will also be times when the hand might have a third spade, as it does in this example.

West's 2H: "4+ hearts; 2- spades; 8-9 total points". West's hand here has 9 HCP but looks like it is worth more than 9 total points, meaning that it has more than the defined maximum.

East's 2S: The definition here repeats the false narrative that East has "11+ HCP".

West's 3H: "6+ hearts; 1- spade; 9+ HCP; 9- total points". First, look at the inconsistency of this GIB definition: West's 2H call was defined as "8-9 total points", yet his current 3H call now says that he has at LEAST nine (since "9+" has no upper limit) HIGH CARD points. Those two statements cannot both be simultaneously accurate. Furthermore, we see another common and very silly flaw that often appears in GIB definitions, since HCP can be less than or equal to "total" points, but CANNOT be greater than "total" points, yet this poorly written definition implies the opposite, as it states that West has 9 or MORE HCP (via "9+") but only a maximum of 9 "total" points and possibly fewer (possibly even zero, as per the vague and unlimited "9-").

As is often the case, I am singularly unimpressed by GIB definitions.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/3kusjb46

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. Despite the fact that NS reached 4S and made 11 tricks for plus 650 and a score of 100 % on the board, there were, as there so often are, several very bad GIB definitions. Sadly, this was not surprising, as the GIB definitions are frequently very poor for many different reasons. Let's look at some of them on just this one hand:

North's 1H: "One over one - 4+ hearts, 11- HCP, 6-12 total points". Once again we see totally unnecessary verbiage at the beginning. Surely there is absolutely no need whatsoever to mention that this bid is "one over one".

South's 2S: "5+ diamonds; 3- hearts; 4-card diamonds; rebiddable spades; 14-18 total points." This call should and does show at least 6 diamonds and at least 5 spades, so the definition should begin by saying "6+ diamonds" rather than "5+ diamonds"...but at least it's on the right track, even if it's not perfect. But then it gets far worse. Instead of saying "rebiddable spades", with "rebiddable" being undefined, it should say simply and clearly "5+ spades". Next, it ludicrously, incorrectly, and inconsistently says "4-card diamonds"...despite having stated a mere few words earlier in the same definition "5+ diamonds". How about at least a little consistency within a definition, GIB?

North's 2NT: "Invitational to 3NT game - 2+ clubs; 2-3 diamonds; 4+ hearts; 2-3 spades; 10 HCP". First, here we go again with GIB's unnecessary and even insulting words "Invitational to 3NT game". Does GIB really feel that its users need to be alerted to the fact that 3NT is "game"? Next: "2-3 spades". If North actually had three spades on this auction - where his partner has promised at least five (even though the very poor GIB definition did not expressly state this), why would he now be bidding NT rather than supporting spades? For that matter, why IS North bidding no trump here when his "stopper" in clubs, the unbid suit, is a feeble 986 tripleton...particularly when he holds excellent support (KJ6 in diamonds and K6 in spades) for the two suits in which his partner has promised at least ELEVEN cards?

North's 4S: "2+ clubs; 2-3 diamonds; 4+ hearts"; 3 spades; 10 HCP; 11+ total points". First, if he actually had three spades, he should have supported spades on the previous round, and second, he doesn't HAVE three spades - he has two.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/bdffuj79

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. The fact that NS made 9 tricks in their 3S contract, for plus 110 and a score of 100 % on the board, does not alter the facts that as so often happens, the GIB definitions were less than stellar or that the GIB robot sitting North made a call that might be considered questionable. Here is the latest exposé:

North's 2S is defined as "Free major raise - 3+ spades; 6-10 total points". Broken record time: Is it REALLY necessary to write those three opening words ("Free major raise")? Answer: No, of course it isn't. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of the bid, not to present a bridge course for rank beginners...or to basically insult anyone who is not a rank beginner.

North's 3S is defined as "4+ spades; 6-9 total points". Yes, it almost certainly should show four or more spades...yet West has only three of them. Either he is ignoring his own GIB system or the GIB definition is inaccurate and/or possibly even dishonest.

Also, his earlier 2S call was defined as showing "6-10 total points", yet now - a level higher - his 3S call claims to show at MOST 9 via the statement "6-9 total points". Why this ridiculous inconsistency between the two, and...if anything, would it not be logical for the bid at a higher level to be the one with a potentially higher point total (although of course that would still be ridiculously inconsistent!)?

Furthermore, despite the good result, was North's direct 3S call justified? Some might say yes, some no...but the bid is certainly at least questionable. His hand is really nothing more than he had already shown with his earlier 2S call. True, he has 9 HCP when he might have had fewer, but it's not as if his 2S call had been misleading. He also has only three trumps, when direct raises of this type usually show extra trump length (as indeed his own GIB definition states!) or extra shape. He lacks both of those attributes, and most importantly, he is NOT in the passout seat. Even if North passed over West's 3H, North's partner South would still be able to compete with 3S if it seemed the right action to take. In short, the GIB robot sitting North was masterminding and arbitrarily making a decision which his cards perhaps did not merit...whether or not his decision happened to succeed. In practice, had North made a disciplined pass over 3H, South almost certainly would have competed with 3S anyway, because South DID have a hand that justified competing. Thus, although North's 3S call sort of succeeded (despite his undisciplined call contradicting his OWN GIB definition), it really gained NOTHING, since South would have bid 3S anyway.

Colour me unimpressed by GIB...once again!

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/yyczesps

[benellis58]

The GIB robot sitting North makes a perfectly normal pass at his first opportunity. He bids a perfectly normal 1S at his second opportunity. He competes with a perfectly normal and very reasonable 2D at his third opportunity. He makes an aggressive but again very reasonable call of 2S at his fourth opportunity. He's doing GREAT!

But of course perfection is not permanent, because at his FIFTH opportunity, the GIB robot sitting North does something which, regardless of what the result turns out to be on the hand, seems very stupid. After his partner South competes with 3D over East's 3C, North foolishly pulls to 3S. Why the HELL would he do this and how the HELL can it make sense? First, from South's earlier support double, North knows that South has exactly three spades, so he knows that the partnership has only a 4-3 spade fit. Second, until now North has described his hand very well, and South, using that good description, has decided that diamonds will be the optimal NS strain, so it is not only a foolish decision bridgewise for North to convert to spades. It is also a rude slap in the face to his partner - the type of thing that could even destroy a human bridge partnership. It would not be going too far to say that in addition to being stupid, the GIB robot's action is also offensive.

Yes, I'm unimpressed...again...and the actual result is irrelevant to that opinion.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/4an754wd

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. After West, as dealer, opens 4S and North and East pass, the human South feels that there is no clearcut action (be it to pass, double, or bid). He checks the GIB definition for double, only to find that it provides not even a single iota of useful information. The complete, entire, totally useless GIB definition of double here is "2+ spades". That's IT, that's ALL. NOTHING about points, shape, or anything else. It's completely and utterly useless. The human South decides to double, knowing full well that it might turn out poorly, but taking the risk because it's the most flexible action and perhaps (he hopes) has the biggest potential upside.

All pass, so 4S doubled becomes the final contract. The contract, on any lead, can always be made as long as declarer West guesses the clubs correctly. Against the GIB robot sitting North, however, declarer West does not even HAVE to guess the clubs correctly, since North guesses them for him by making an opening lead of the club queen, immediately resolving the issue. The contract is now ice cold and EW take their obvious 10 tricks for plus 590 and a score of 96.4 % on the board, with NS scoring a dismal 3.6 %.

Should South have doubled? Well it CERTAINLY did not work out well for him, so maybe not! Consider, however, that the GIB definition of the double was absolutely useless, and more importantly, consider that the GIB robot sitting North elected to PASS the double of 4S with 10 (!!!), K1098542 (!!!), A98, Q3 - a VERY questionable decision. Of course, on any random hand, any decision might or might not work out, depending on the actual random layout of the actual random hand. Consider, however, that on this random hand, for what it's worth, A. West can always make 10 tricks in spades as long as he guesses the clubs, and B. North can always make twelve tricks in hearts - even if EW defend perfectly - as long as he guesses the hearts. Furthermore, even if East-West defend perfectly AND North misguesses the hearts, he can still always make 11 tricks in hearts.

Conclusions: 1. Even the most ardent defender of GIB must surely admit that its definition for the double of 4S is absolutely and totally useless. 2. South's choice of double might or might not have been "right" in theory, but in practice, at least on the random layout of this random hand, it probably was "right" with any partner other than a GIB robot. 3. Although "any" action might turn out right or wrong with North's hand, it certainly seems (to me, anyway) that 5H will likely be more successful most times than passing, and certainly that would have been true on this random hand.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/539m5ddc

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. On this board. EW are silent throughout. NS have an uninterrupted auction to 5D and take all 13 tricks, for plus 440 and a score of 71.4 % on the board. As is often the case, this post will focus largely on the GIB definitions, and also a little bit on the bidding choices of NS.

South's 1S and North's 2D are both obvious, but the GIB definition of 1S is, as is often the case with GIB definitions, annoying and possibly even insulting: "Major suit opening - 5+ spades; 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points". Is it (here we go again!) REALLY necessary to begin with the totally useless statement of the OBVIOUS fact that 1S is a "Major suit opening"? Compare this needless waste of time and space to the dismal definition of the double of 4S in the post immediately above, where GIB did not even bother to include ANY useful information!

Over North's 2D, South really has no choice but to rebid 2S, since his hand does not merit a 3C call and as per the GIB system a raise to 3D would require at least four-card diamond support (a questionable philosophy, by the way!). 2S in the GIB system does not promise a sixth spade, although South certainly could have a sixth. Once again (and here we go again!) the GIB definition has totally unnecessary verbiage. 2S is defined as "Opener rebids suit - 3- hearts; 5+ spades, 11-21 HCP; 12-22 total points; fo". Is it REALLY essential to mention that "Opener rebids suit"? You know, I think most BBO players might actually be able to figure that out for themselves even without that oh-so-helpful statement in the definition! Meanwhile, what's NOT "oh-so-helpful" is the final part of the definition: "fo". "Fo"? What the HELL is that supposed to mean?

Anyway, the GIB robot sitting North now makes the highly questionable call of 2NT. It's forcing to 3NT, no problem, BUT...he has six diamonds, six pretty good diamonds, when he might have had only five (or possibly even four? - the GIB definition of 2D sadly did not specify a minimum length!), and 3D, like 2NT, would have been a game force. Furthermore, he lacks a true club stopper, since he has only J94. Even his stiff spade might be a contraindication to this precipitous and undescriptive RUSH to "hog" the no trump.

In any case, South now has an easy 3C bid and North a reasonable 3D. South bids 4D, which seems "normal" at this point, and which aligns perfectly with the GIB definition. North opts to merely bid 5D when he might (?) have chosen to cue 4H on the way, and South makes a cautious but conservative pass. NS end up missig what looks like a very good, but not guaranteed 6D contract, and on the actual layout 13 tricks happen to be cold. Not the end of the world, at least, as NS score a decent 71.4 % on the board, but they probably should have reached a small slam. Oh well, that's life, but as is often (unfortunately!) the case, the real story here is the wording of the GIB definitions.

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/2tmc99xy

[benellis58]

West, North, and East are all GIB robots. Let's take a look at the matchpoint tactics of the GIB robot sitting North.

In a "best hand" game, South opens 1C, defined as (sigh, here we go again) "Minor suit opening". Yes, GIB, we KNOW. In fact, GIB, guess what? We knew even BEFORE you (needlessly) told us this in the definition. Anyway, the definition continues "3+ clubs, 11-21 HCP, 12-22 total points".

North responds a normal 1S (which the definition - SIGH! - needlessly begins by informing us is "One over one"...which I somehow THINK we could have worked out by ourselves!). After East leaps to 3H, South, with his four-card spade support, checks the GIB definition of 3S and prudently decides NOT to bid, but to PASS, because he has fewer points than a 3S call would show according to GIB's definition, and he does not want to encourage his partner North.

West passes. North, with 11 HCP, five spades of good quality, and an encouraging shape of 5-1-4-3, decides to compete, which certainly seems normal even though 2 of his 11 HCP are the queen of hearts, meaning that on this auction those 2 points are probably useless. North seems to have two reasonable choices: double and 3S. My instinct is that double is probably superior, but I could be wrong, and in any case I can't criticize North's decision to rebid his chunky five-bagger in spades, even though his chosen 3S call does not adhere to the GIB definition claiming that it shows "6+".

East and South pass, and West, in passout seat, competes with a belated raise to 4H. North now...bids...FOUR spades, thereby bidding his "mere" five-bagger - where his partner could theoretically be VOID - for the THIRD time. Though I didn't quibble with his earlier 3S call (despite the fact that even for that he had one fewer spade than his OWN GIB definition promised), but I think bidding this suit a THIRD time is excessive. And yes, I'm aware that he has 11 HCP , and yes I'm aware that South has a mere 11 HCP also, when his opening 1C bid MIGHT have produced more.

North's 4S is defined as "6+ spades"; 12+ HCP; 12- total points". First, as I have mentioned many times, HCP can be less than or equal to "total" points, but they CANNOT be greater, so this is once again a poor GIB definition because it paints the OPPOSITE picture, an INCORRECT picture. But more importantly, North fulfills NEITHER of the key requirements of his OWN GIB definition. He has only 11 HCP, not the 12+ promised, AND only 5 spades, not the 6+ promised. Additionally, his 11 HCP are probably really worth only 9 on the auction, AND he is doing this opposite a partner who has been silent ever since opening the bidding.

North's 4S ends the auction. The contract goes down THREE, for minus 300 NS, and a poor (but much better than expected, given the bad result!) NS score of 42.9 %. The human declarer certainly could have dome better but failed to read East's diamond holding after East (cleverly perhaps?) shifted to the 10 of diamonds from Q10 doubleton. However, the contract was a very poor one and was always slated for failure anyway. 4H East-West could always have been beaten, although if NS slipped up in defending, the contract might have made. But here is the bottom line about North's matchpoint "strategy":

In the passout seat, he opted reasonably enough to compete rather than passing out 3H, but by so doing he PUSHED East-West into a game (4H) that they would not otherwise have bid. THEN, in effect, he "sacrificed" against that very game that HE had pushed them into! That CERTAINLY does not seem like a winning strategy REGARDLESS of what actually happened on this particular board (where 4H might or might not have gone down, depending on how well or how poorly NS would have defended).

https://tinyurl.brid...se.com/bddhvxrk