[1eyedjack]

I concede. You are absolutely right, I was talking a load of Horlicks.

I still think that there is a market for completely random, but human declares, which I would find more attractive than the current classic format, but I must apologise for muddying the waters.

[johnu]

 gordontd, on 2015-August-04, 02:10, said:

I am. I find it boring that we almost never defend and switching declarers already gives us plenty of declarer play.

Most good defenders don't like defending because your GIB partner usually plays random cards when following suit when defending so you have no idea what they have. Also, too many times GIB's random discards and following suit cards toss away a trick or more. Of course, everybody's GIB partner defends the same incompetent way so it's an even playing field but good players blood pressure goes up a lot higher than bad players who don't have a clue how bad some of GIB's defense can be. If you are paying $.25 or $1.00 per 8/12 hands, you expect more from GIB, rightly or wrongly. Since BBO says they don't have the resources for more than cosmetic defensive fixes (ie sometimes cashing the setting trick(s) against slams), allowing the human to be declarer is the only way to improve the playing experience IMHO.

[gordontd]

 johnu, on 2015-August-06, 15:43, said:

Most good defenders don't like defending because your GIB partner usually plays random cards when following suit when defending so you have no idea what they have. Also, too many times GIB's random discards and following suit cards toss away a trick or more. Of course, everybody's GIB partner defends the same incompetent way so it's an even playing field but good players blood pressure goes up a lot higher than bad players who don't have a clue how bad some of GIB's defense can be. If you are paying $.25 or $1.00 per 8/12 hands, you expect more from GIB, rightly or wrongly. Since BBO says they don't have the resources for more than cosmetic defensive fixes (ie sometimes cashing the setting trick(s) against slams), allowing the human to be declarer is the only way to improve the playing experience IMHO.

I can't say I've noticed that the things it does on defence are worse than the atrocities it commits in the auction, but I do find it dreary to have a string of strong NT openers.

[iandayre]

 gordontd, on 2015-August-07, 01:18, said:

I can't say I've noticed that the things it does on defence are worse than the atrocities it commits in the auction, but I do find it dreary to have a string of strong NT openers.

There are some auctions GIB handles well, some it handles OK, some it consistently messes up. But on defense, it never signals, never reads your signals. NO WAY I want to defend with GIB on half the hands.

[1eyedjack]

Speaking personally, while I found it frustrating, at least initially, to defend without signals, I believe that my defensive play strength has improved a lot since I have been forced to rely on human sims.

While they certainly have their place when used properly I think that the availability of signals generally encourages laziness and reliance on signals as a crutch. It is surprising to some how often you should be able to work out the best move without that help.

[Bbradley62]

 1eyedjack, on 2015-August-09, 01:14, said:

While they certainly have their place when used properly I think that the availability of signals generally encourages laziness and reliance on signals as a crutch. It is surprising to some how often you should be able to work out the best move without that help.

Good luck explaining to a potential human partner that you no longer make defensive signals because they are unnecessary, so you expect him to figure things out by himself.

[1eyedjack]

I never said that they were unnecessary. I simply maintain that they are just one part of your defensive armory. Just as depriving yourself of the sense of sight enhances your other senses, so depriving yourself of signals provides an opportunity to hone your other defensive skills.

Many is the time when a intermediate player misdefends by over reliance on partner's supposed signal. Sometimes he gives the wrong signal. Unforgivable but it happens. Sometimes he cannot afford to play the card that conveys the correct systemic signal without in the process throwing tricks. Sometimes he may be in genuine doubt over what would be the best signal. And at hand end what will he say? "but you encouraged in Clubs, partner". Not "Sorry partner I should have worked it out despite what appeared to be a misleading signal".

*All* I said was that practising without signals improved my game. How do you extrapolate from that that I would seek to persuade a partner in a competition not to play them?

[iandayre]

 1eyedjack, on 2015-August-09, 13:35, said:

I never said that they were unnecessary. I simply maintain that they are just one part of your defensive armory. Just as depriving yourself of the sense of sight enhances your other senses, so depriving yourself of signals provides an opportunity to hone your other defensive skills.

Many is the time when a intermediate player misdefends by over reliance on partner's supposed signal. Sometimes he gives the wrong signal. Unforgivable but it happens. Sometimes he cannot afford to play the card that conveys the correct systemic signal without in the process throwing tricks. Sometimes he may be in genuine doubt over what would be the best signal. And at hand end what will he say? "but you encouraged in Clubs, partner". Not "Sorry partner I should have worked it out despite what appeared to be a misleading signal".

*All* I said was that practising without signals improved my game. How do you extrapolate from that that I would seek to persuade a partner in a competition not to play them?

Your point is very valid. Counting the hand for yourself is a skill that is enhanced when partner cannot show count or attitude. That's one reason why I am not concerned if no change to GIB's defensive capabilities is made.