bobade

Thanks for the good ideas, Diana

When playing over the past couple of days - free tournaments and challenges, so far - my play on a board has been frequently interrupted by the table closing and the error message in a yellow box on the screen: "An error has occurred. Table Closing" Is it possible this is a problem with my system (router, PC, or antivirus/firewall software), or is this certainly a Bridge Base problem?

Sorry for the confusion. I'm moving this topic to the Support discussion.

When playing - free tournaments and challenges, so far - my play on a board is frequently interrupted by the table closing and the error message in a yellow box on the screen: "An error has occurred. Table Closing" I have noticed this for a couple of days. Is it possible this is a problem with my system (router or PC), or is this certainly a Bridge Base problem?

smerriman, thank you so much for the great information about testing GIB's performance using the Practice bidding table. Your example code was particularly helpful. After playing with this for a while (starting with the auction 2C - 2D - 2S - ?), I have made the following observations (not statistically tested): 1) When GIB makes a "cheaper minor" 3C bid, the bid explanation may just say "cheaper minor, forcing to 3S" or "cheaper minor 11- HCP, 12- Total Points, forcing to 3S." This happens with weak hands and with strong hands, and is unpredictable. 2) As you mentioned, when GIB has a hand with 5 or more clubs and 5+ HCP, it will bid 3C and alert it as cheaper minor (using one of the two descriptions.) This is a bug. 3) GIB is very aggressive counting points, counting a hand with 4HCP, no 5 card suit, and 1 -2 cards in openers suit as 5+ points. 4) Therefore, after 2C-2D-2S it will bid 3D or 3H with a 4 card suit (headed by an honor) and 4 HCP. 5) The one good thing I can say about GIB: with 3 card support, it will raise openers suit after 2C-2D-2S rather than bid its own suit. My conclusions: 1) Though I didn't test GIB after 2C-2D-2N, I think (based on playing experience) that sequence is probably safe, as would be 2C-2D-3N. So opening 2C with 22+ HCP and a balanced hand is constructive. (But what to do when GIB responds 2N to 2C? I didn't evaluate whether GIB responds logically to 4N quantitative or plays 4C as Gerber.) 2) If you have a long suit and want to open 2C, the suit had better be excellent, able to play opposite a stiff, and you better be near game in hand, because there is a good likelihood that you will never be able to tell what partner is bidding on until you see the dummy.

There is a GIB bug which has never been fixed and nobody seems to care - the "cheaper minor" bid after 2C - 2D - 2M. I raised this as a topic on the GIB forum and was greeted with a big ho-hum. Because I find myself playing with a robot partner pretty often (Daylong tournaments), I'm hoping for some partnership understandings. Not just the expectation that GIB will never be perfect. Sheesh! . . . Neither will I. My plan was to test GIB on Robot Challenges, opening 2C on every hand, rebidding 2M, and compiling a series of hands where GIB bids weaker minor. Trouble it, that auction sequence did not turn up in 32 challenge hands. There must be a better way. Is there a way on Bridge Base to set up a testing platform where I can set criteria an have GIB play a bunch of hands? I might specify opening human as having 22-25 HCP with a 6 card major, and his/her robot partner having less than 11 HCP and no suit longer than 5C. After 100 hands like that, I think we would have an idea of what algorithm GIB is using in order to choose a "weaker minor" rebid.

The bot interpreted 3N as showing 25-32. But that just isn't logical, imo.

I'm seriously question whether it is worth ever opening 2C with a robot partner. Here is my most recent misadventure: https://tinyurl.com/ydmn4k97 A search of this forum shows that the dreaded "cheaper minor" bug is not a new problem. But it apparently never has been fixed. How do you interpret a robot "cheaper minor" bid: a) As a second negative (showing no "values" (2 queens, 1K or better)? b) Showing values and a real suit in that minor? c) Another waiting bid, showing nothing and asking for further description? How should I have responded to 3H in this example, to avoid the robot precipitously jumping to slam? My experience is that after an opening 2C bid, the cheaper minor response comes up frequently. Is it avoidable? I'm inclined to think that opening 2C with a robot partner should be limited to balanced hands preparing to rebid 2N or 3N, and otherwise risk opening at the 1 level. What do you think?

Nullve, don't you play 2H as 4th suit forcing in this auction? If so, 2N would not be the correct response. 2S should show 3 card support, not a doubleton. so I guess I'd bid 3D over 2H. The auction might continue: 1D - 1S 2C - 2H 3D - 3N 4N - 6N

I can't date it exactly, but for at least a month the BridgeBase app crashes on my Samsung G7 Android phone, usually during the animation of a card being played. I'm then offered to send feedback to BBO, which I do, but have never received a reply. The app is currently worthless. I can't even finish an 8 board challenge without a crash. Please fix it!

Thanks, Barry. So does the Star know when they get beaten by a mortal, and vice versa?

I've been playing a lot of friend challenges lately, and find them to be more entertaining than Free Daylong Tournaments, in that it is possible to win! Star challenges are also pretty entertaining. I find the human opponents more consistent than those in arena challenges. In fact, I've never had a Star fail to finish a round. Because the results always return immediately, it seems these challenges must always be initiated, and completed, by a Star before being offered to us mortals. There are differences in Star Challenges I'd like to understand: 1) What is the incentive for "Stars" to play in these challenges, rather than "Challenge a stranger"? 2) Why is it that the stars always play the boards first? I ask, because results are always immediately available after completion. 3) When a Star initiates a Star Challenge, how many of us non-stars play that set of boards? More than one? 4) Is it possible to see statistics, like win percentage of everyone who participates in Star Challenges?

I've been playing star challenges and find the human opponents more consistent than those in arena challenges. In fact, I've never had a Star fail to finish a round. Because the results always return immediately, it seems these challenges must always be initiated, and completed, by a Star before being offered to us mortals. My question - which I'm sure a star could answer - when star initiates a Star Challenge is that challenge played by only one human opponent or by multiple humans?

Incidentally, another variation of non-standard NT opening that was successful in this tournament, was opening 1N on a hand like this: AQTx Axx x AJTxx

I've been looking carefully at my hands and results in the ACBL Individual, and have noticed a recurrent pattern. Don't try this with your favorite partner, but opening 1 NT with 14 or 18 balanced, on many occasions, let to top MP scores. What I don't know is the denominator; how often a non-standard NT opening led to a bottom. Is this a viable strategy for success with robot partners, or is it an example of playing differently than the field and ending up with tops and bottoms?