Commentary on GIB-GIB vs Jeff Meckstroth-Eric Rodwell, 29 July 1997 by David desJardins Board 1: North's double is reasonable if minimum. South's 5H bid is clearly wrong. GIB does not understand that if 5H is making, then North should have a huge hand and will be bidding again. GIB does not understand that 5H will get partner to bid too much. Meckstroth misses the killing defense (spade shift at trick 4) which would have scored 1100. Suit preference in diamonds should have been able to indicate that defense. Perhaps Rodwell was concerned about giving away the trump position; however, GIB probably can't understand their suit preference signals anyway. Board 2: The NS bidding is unobjectionable, if aggressive at this vulnerability. (Does GIB play 2D as weak?) South's lead of the diamond ace is fatal, but normal. Meckstroth plays clubs correctly. An unlucky board for GIB. Board 3: South's 2H bid is unobjectionable at this vulnerability. North shows good judgment in staying out, but should double 5D for the lead. (Does GIB understand this sort of auction?) As it turns out it did not matter, but on another day it might. Board 4: NS bid quite well to 4S, and there are no problems in the play. NS deserve a considerable IMP gain for achieving the par result, but the field lets GIB down. Board 5: North's bidding is fine; South's 2NT bid is bizarre. GIB's bad result is well deserved. It's too bad that NS did not find their way to 4H, which is unbeatable but may require careful handling; that would have been a good test of GIB's declarer play. Board 6: South's late entry into the auction is ghastly. (South seems to have consistently bid much more poorly than North!) Among other problems, GIB perhaps does not understand that it become more dangerous to enter the auction after the opponents have exchanged more information, since they have a better idea of what to do. (Although if Meckstroth was expecting Rodwell to have a slam try, perhaps not! I don't know what GIB was told about the meaning of the 2NT-3H-3S-4S sequence.) GIB then (understandably) runs from its best spot to a worse one. At least it stopped eventually, and played the hand reasonably. Board 7: South is surprisingly silent for once, on a hand where many would enter the auction with 2D or 3D. The diamond ace lead is unusual by expert standards but not grossly inferior. The auction does not indicate a diamond stopper in declarer's hand with absolute certainty; conceivably either opponent might show up with the stiff king, or even partner. Furthermore, the other queens in South's hand make it less likely that partner has a side entry. Most experts would still decide to lead the queen, but if this lead were the worst error that GIB were to make, it would be playing very well indeed. In the play, Meckstroth guesses or judges well to make the hand. The IMP loss on this board cannot be blamed on GIB. Board 8: GIB is lucky as Rodwell-Meckstroth miss a good slam. This is the only board where GIB gained substantial IMPs, and GIB can expect few gifts of this sort when competing at this level. Board 9: North's takeout double is eccentric and inferior. After East's redouble (transfer to hearts), North shows poor judgment by bidding again. Could GIB really have thought that this hand is too good for a 1S overcall? GIB is then lucky in the play as Rodwell takes a questionable line which fails, perhaps confused by the doubling. Net lag could also have been a distraction on this hand. GIB does get credit for defending well to create the possibility. Again, the field gives GIB fewer IMPs than it deserves for +50. Board 10: North makes a bad takeout double. South makes an incomprehensible pass, apparently failing to understand the auction. North's 1NT is actually understandable, if wrong. South continues to defy understanding by passing again. GIB benefits from time pressure, as Rodwell-Meckstroth accept +800 when +1400 is available. The time pressure is unfortunate, as this would have been an interesting board to watch GIB play. Conclusions: GIB's bidding would not be competitive in an ACBL Flight C event. I have long been a proponent of the belief that good bidding is very hard; here we see that GIB has many relatively minor hurdles to overcome before it can even start to solve the *hard* problems of bidding. We are also reminded that bidding is very unforgiving: a single error or misjudgment will wipe out the IMPs that it takes many hands to gain. GIB's level of card play seems sufficient that, if an expert human pair had been bidding its cards, it would have had a reasonable chance to win this 10-board match. There were certainly enough opportunities to win substantial IMPs (Boards 5, 6, 8, and 9). From this small sample, with few challenges in the play for NS, it is too hard to say more than that.