Stefan_O

See: http://tinyurl.com/hfkttno Very weird. 2 robots having a misunderstanding with each other :) (if the LIN content is correct....)

NO, a bug in the bidding does NOT HAVE to be a "very complex issue". If the robot bids something that NO 2/1 players would agree with, and which most likely ends up in a WORSE result, it certainly IS a BUG, simply because 2/1 is the system we have AGREED upon. In BIDDING, it is as SIMPLE as that. Card-play issues, on the other hand, MIGHT be very complex, because the robot uses VERY different methods from humans, and you may have to use a lot of mathematics to tell what is right or wrong and ALSO understand the robots algorithms and especially their LIMITATIONS. But OBVIOUS bidding errors are always VERY EASY to spot.

Yes, THAT one certainly IS an error/bug/defect in the bidding-logic, EVEN if ALL the other sequences are OK. Such obvious errors should be CORRECTED. Somehow, I start to believe you don't know what the word "bug" means.... It does NOT mean that EVERYTHING is wrong. It CAN mean there is an error ONLY in a very specific situation or detail. "Bug" simply means "SOMETHING that needs to be CORRECTED". The robot should NOT bid 2♠ over 2♥ here -- that's all it means. The simple reason is that 2♠ here DEVIATES from what the EVERY 2/1 player expect for that bid.

Cannot answer that one, but I think in a std system (already having denied 4cd major) 3♥ and 3♠ would show a stopper in the suit and indicating NO stopper in the other major (to avoid bad 3NTs). I never saw Gib use stuff like that, but wish somebody could add it to the bidding-db :)

I'm not sure the redouble has actually been defined... doesn't it just show the same hand-description as the preceeding 2H bid? (unfortunately the end of the descriptions run outside the image-frame in my browser, so I can't tell exactly...) Still, I agree -- of course, the 2H bid description should be enough to conclude there is some better contract than 2HXX :) Somebody should look into this.

So looks like a fault in bidding-db. 3♦ should be defined as at least 5+, if not 6+. I'm just thinking, though... with such a fat ♥ suit -- esp. after the X of 2♣ -- the robot might figure 3♦ on 4-4 or 3♥ on 4-3 would be a better play than 2NT, and expects you to either pass with 4 diamonds or correct to 3♥ ?

Yes, that's how Gib bids like, since 1NT-2NT is transfer to clubs. Actually, 2♠ shows exactly 4 spades (not 4+) since it would rather start with 2♥ transfer when holding 5+spades and no ♥ suit.

I dont see any bid from South promising the Jack of spades.... and all of South's bids seem consistent with the bid-descriptions given. Technically, of course, it COULD be that in NONE of the monte-carlo samples generated before playing the Spade ten, East happened to be dealt the Jack. But doesnt Gib generate some 50 sample deals or more? If so, it seems extremely unlikely... Certainly, this play looks very weird...

OK, thanks Bradley. That's about what I figured then :)

First, this example seems quite different, since both opening 2D weak on West and Pass are completely reasonable bids. More a matter of personal style and "taste", and neither would classify as a "bug" to me. But are you saying that Gib will sometimes randomize between which option to choose? I have looked through many hand-travellers after playing robot-tournaments to see what happened at other tables, and I am under the impression that, as long as different humans act exactly the same on a specific deal, the robots will always take exactly the same actions, too. Only after humans take different actions (might be only small differences like one human playing the 3 from 953 in a suit, while another human chooses the 5) may the robots diverge in their responses. This is a very good approach, of course, to achieve maximum fairness in the robot tournaments. In programming, the obvious way to achieve this feature (i.e. identical human actions at different tables is guaranteed to generate identical robot responses, even though Gib uses monte-carlo random sampling in bidding an play) is for each deal to initialize the random-generator with exactly the same numeric seed at all tables. However, I have mostly looked at pure robot-tournaments (always 1 human + 3 robots at every table), so it might be that BBO for some reason is not using the same approach when a robot is playing in a competition with a mix of human-human and human-robot pairs, like your example shows. I dont see any technical reason, though, why the same approach could not be used in such tournaments, too, as long as the robots are playing the hands from the start of the deal. Only when a robot is substituted into the middle of deal (because a human left the table or was "timed out") it is generally not possible, of course.

With Qxx in trumps as only defensive value, Double seems like an extremely silly bid. And why do you assume East has 3-card spade-support? He has not shown anything, and might just as well be singleton or void in spades.

OK, so I understand that robot actions are based on all players having exactly what the bidding database/conventions prescribe.... So South should have 6+diamonds and North 2+diamonds for his 1NT bid. And 4C is then a quebid looking for a diamond-slam? :) But East's Double of 4D... what does that mean to Gib? There seems to be some detectable conflict between all these bids, isnt there? :) How does Gib resolve such things when NO card-layout can match all the actual bids made? Bottomline, I think, it seems Gib places much more "trust" here in opp's bids than his pd's Double. If opp's bids really are what they "should be", what on earth could East have to throw in a Double in the middle of this bidding? :)

Ok, thanks, lycier. No problem :)

Hi lycier! OK, where to start here.....? :) First, YES, I play a LOT with the robots and ENJOY it, simply because I think it's much more fun/rewarding than playing with random pickup humans on bbo. Random human pds make a LOT more stupid and upsetting things than Gib does -- for sure! This deal was from a more rare occasion where I played in an individual tournament with a temporary robot substitute. Second, this post was NOT AT ALL meant as a general criticism or disparaging of Gib, but only reporting an issue, that I felt could stand some improvement in the application to make it even more enjoying. I understand you dont like the term "bug". OK. I'm a long-time developer myself. When I see unintended, unexpected, harmful things coming out of my own code, "bug" -- or sometimes "feature", but in a humorous way :) -- is what we routinely call it, no matter what the root-cause is. But whether you call it so, or an "issue" or "trouble report" or whatever, I dont have a strong opinion on. How do you suggest I should have crafted the subject line? "Harmful 4S bid. Can the robots be improved here?" Would that be acceptable? :) ps. As a curiousity, I once helped Matt Ginsberg in the early days of GIB being tested on OKB by reporting a cardplay issue to him, which he confirmed was a code-bug and fixed. He was very grateful for that, and thanked me by sending me a free copy of the program :)

OK, I see... just curious... what browser are u using that doesnt even display inlined images? ... Lynx? :)

Does this work better? http://s31.postimg.org/m1ynb0yob/image.png ...

yes --- not that it matters... :)

If this 4S bid isn't a bug in the bidding-db or algorithm, I don't know what is :) http://s31.postimg.org/m1ynb0yob/image.png