Explanation "4+ spades"

[peachy]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...HQ|pc|DT|pc|H5|

 

Was this a judgment call by GIB (if GIB is able to make judgment calls :) )or is the explanation wrong? Should it be fixed?

[calm01]

The 3S bid by the robot suggests four questions to me. The first three are:

 

- does it make bridge sense for to mention other than decent 5 card suits (Q10xxx) or better as responder, as the partnership is likely to be in the slam zone in which case even the description promising a 4 card spade suit is deficient - but I guess that is a matter of partnership style,

 

- does it make send to bid any three card suit (even AKQ) when partner may support with 4 to when playing in game will likely be in the wrong strain,

 

- why suppress a decent 6 card suit with enough values exist to play in 4N unless the system always plays 4N as Blackwood.

 

The fourth question is if GIB is actually showing partial stops for 3NT, not a suits at all. Not my preferred bidding style when partner has failed to rebid in NT but has some limited merit.

 

My conclusion is- until persuaded otherwise by wiser souls - is that GIB is just wrong with its bid and/or its description.

 

Perphaps GIB has been on the GIN and that will also explain the delays other are reporting!

[peachy]

I think in problem reporting, it is best to stick to one (1) item at a time. My intention was to report a potential program bug to ari & company, not to start a GIB system discussion. Interesting as it the discussion might be, it is best to start a new thread, IMO.

[barmar]

I think GIB was stuck for a bid, because it didn't think it was strong enough to bid 4♣, and didn't have stoppers for 3NT.

 

When faced with a problem like this, GIB (like humans) makes bids that don't fit the description.

[cloa513]

If that isn't enough for 4♣ after a negative to 2♣ then what is? Its a max hand for a negative there aren't many stronger.

[ahydra]

Personally I'd bid 3NT. Opener can't really have 5♠ (unless he's 6-5), as he'd have bid them after 2♦ - so why should GIB bother bidding a 3 card suit?

 

ahydra

[Bbradley62]

Personally I'd bid 3NT. Opener can't really have 5♠ (unless he's 6-5), as he'd have bid them after 2♦ - so why should GIB bother bidding a 3 card suit?

 

ahydra

Out of curiosity: What would you do as South after North bids 3N?

[Bbradley62]

I think in problem reporting, it is best to stick to one (1) item at a time. My intention was to report a potential program bug to ari & company, not to start a GIB system discussion. Interesting as it the discussion might be, it is best to start a new thread, IMO.

But, when reporting a problem it's frequently helpful (though not always possible) to suggest a solution. As long as the discussion sticks to the question of what action GIB should take in this situation (and what the explanation of that action should be), it's right for one thread.

[peachy]

I think in problem reporting, it is best to stick to one (1) item at a time.  My intention was to report a potential program bug to ari & company, not to start a GIB system discussion.  Interesting as it the discussion might be, it is best to start a new thread, IMO.

But, when reporting a problem it's frequently helpful (though not always possible) to suggest a solution. As long as the discussion sticks to the question of what action GIB should take in this situation (and what the explanation of that action should be), it's right for one thread.

My solution is to make the explanation fit the bid and vice versa. Since this is a difficult hand to bid in the GIB system, might something like "tends to be 4+ spades" be appropriate for changing the explanation. My 3D bid denied GIB the chance to bid a Dbl-negative - not that GIB needed that option in this hand - which is why I asked if GIB is able to make judgment calls. Being a "computer", I thought it was sticking to the scripts and not deviating. Or at least that this is how it was intended.

[barmar]

When there's no "book" bid, GIB does simulations. That's its equivalent of judgement calls.

 

Just assume that every bid explanation is preceded by "tends to be". Do you really want to waste the space in the explanation area for that all the time? Or do you think there are times when it really guarantees its bid, so the qualifier could be omitted then.

[calm01]

Barman,

 

I like the idea of GIB simulations being equivalent to judgement calls. This makes sense as it seems encoded logic is employed - do a simulation - when no described bid seems to fit the hand.

 

Humans make judgement calls when their bridge logic is not up to the job - it is often called taking a 'punt'.

 

Beginners often make more faulty judgement calls as they have less bridge logic to fall back on, or worse hold inferior bidding rules compared to more experienced players that gets them into bidding problems more often than more experienced players.

 

Here the underlying problem appears to be failure to encode better bridge logic - for example bidding only good 5 card suits when responding to a 2C opener is perhaps that missing bridge logic.

 

Thus depending on simulations would be required less - the equivalent of making GUB a more experienced player. GIB would need to punt (simulate) less oftem.

 

Time to add some better bridge logic into responding to 2C openers.