[doodlin]

I am an intermediate player. In my view, expert scoring derives mostly from expert defense and expert contract play. Bidding, though the most talked-about aspect of the game, is less often the downfall of good duplicate pairs than the play of the hand. I like BridgeBase in many regards; graphically, it is excellent. However, the Robot's bidding conventions too often interfere with one's ability to practice good defense and contract play. Just one of a dozen things I dislike about Robot is the difficulty, or impossibility really, I have when attempting to lodge a penalty double in the event that North has never bid. Spending money working on BB or ACBL masterpoints? Better routinely check what Robot means by each and every bid! Very tiresome. And not real bridge in my view.

[1eyedjack]

Not to detract from your point, which perhaps has some validity, please note with respect to the subheading in your post that GIB does not play SAYC at all, so it should not come as a total surprise that it regularly deviates from SAYC.

With regular practice you SHOULD be accumulating a familiarity with at least the more common sequences. Probably not a bad idea to check on meanings of doubles in involved auctions even so.

Learning up on GIB system before the start may take away some of the pain:

https://www.bridgeba...ystem_notes.php

https://www.bridgeba...escriptions.php

[steve2005]

Hi
I don't think doodlin ever mentioned Gib plays SAYC.
That said as an experienced player I check the meaning of almost every bid for two reasons:
Gib's version of 2/1 is different from standard and has some quarks thrown in.
You have to be very careful with your own bids if they show a bigger hand than you have, Gib will invariably hangs you out to dry in an impossible contract or by doubling opponents in cold contract.

[1eyedjack]

Not in the main body perhaps but check the subject header. It has a secondary field not visible in the mobile skin.

[johnu]

doodlin, on 2016-April-30, 08:42, said:

In my view, expert scoring derives mostly from expert defense and expert contract play.
.....
However, the Robot's bidding conventions too often interfere with one's ability to practice good defense and contract play.

I'm not sure how bidding conventions would affect declarer play (by humans). You can check the meaning of any defensive bid you are unsure of. Or, are you implying that you end up in hopeless contracts? Even then, expert declarer play will pay off in the long run.

Same for defense, but I'm sure you noticed that GIB isn't programmed for partnership cooperation in defense and pretty much gives random signals that won't help you make critical decisions. Of course, that has nothing to do with bidding conventions.

doodlin, on 2016-April-30, 08:42, said:

I like BridgeBase in many regards; graphically, it is excellent.

I think the windows version of the playing and bidding table which is probably 10+ years old is light years ahead of the current browser based version. As a BBO newcomer, I don't think you are allowed to use the old version.

doodlin, on 2016-April-30, 08:42, said:

Better routinely check what Robot means by each and every bid! Very tiresome. And not real bridge in my view.

After the same bid or sequence comes up a few times, you will start to remember what the more common bids mean. The more you play, the fewer times you will need to check the meaning of bids.

[barmar]

johnu, on 2016-April-30, 14:44, said:

I'm not sure how bidding conventions would affect declarer play (by humans). You can check the meaning of any defensive bid you are unsure of. Or, are you implying that you end up in hopeless contracts? Even then, expert declarer play will pay off in the long run.

I think he's just complaining that many doubles that he thinks should be penalty are programmed as takeout in the robot's system, so he can't punish the robots' overbidding. Even when the description doesn't specifically say takeout, the robot often pulls it.

Conversely, the robot sometimes leaves in high-level doubles that are described as takeout, even though it doesn't have much defense.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2016-April-30, 19:56, said:

I think he's just complaining that many doubles that he thinks should be penalty are programmed as takeout in the robot's system, so he can't punish the robots' overbidding. Even when the description doesn't specifically say takeout, the robot often pulls it.

Conversely, the robot sometimes leaves in high-level doubles that are described as takeout, even though it doesn't have much defense.

OP says that the very well reported "double" issues are just 1 of a dozen problems