fred Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 When you play against GIBs in (for example) the Main Bridge Club, you should not expect identical bidding and play from the GIBs at every table because there can be at least 3 different versions of GIB in play. Furthermore, in at least 1 of these versions the user has control over GIB's "thinking time" and the value of this setting can impact the decisions that GIB makes. The same is not supposed to be true in a robot tournament context. There all GIBs should behave the same way in the same circumstances. If you think you have seen a counter-example, it would be best if you sent a report to support@bridgebase.com so that we can investigate and fix the apparent bug. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinst22 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Thanks for the clarification, Fred. The above hands were in an ACBL tourney. I'll send to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 From the gripes i have seen on the forums and some of the results i have seen online, i think this is blatantly false. This is, at least to me, unfortunate. I am glad that BBO is making sufficient profits off of this (I think) to keep the other services free, but the conclusion stated in this quote makes me sad.I think on the playing field it shows how you stack up against others when it comes to YOUR technique playing the hand and bidding. Everyone is faced with the same problem, but I would prefer the choice of where to sit NSEW, not having the best hand at the table, and of playing either IMPS or MPpoints in the ACBL robot games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcw Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 You might want to look again. 2 tables led the same spot card and the robot did something different. Here are the examples: http://tinyurl.com/5ublkms http://tinyurl.com/62xgrf7 Both tables played the exact same way (only the KC on trick 1 versus AC which shouldn't make a difference). The rest of the plays were identical. And please don't try to tell me the "subtle" lead of the KC made all the difference and is what made the GIB ruff in this instance(which is the incorrect lead, I might add, since GIB plays standard leads). I did not address my earlier post to you, nor would I presume to tell you anything. I don't know you! Draw whatever conclusion you wish from the examples you attached. However, it might be more helpful if you were to provide a possible explaination for the divergence in play. In my earlier post I offered one possible explaination, Fred has provide another (thankyou). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 When you play against GIBs in (for example) the Main Bridge Club, you should not expect identical bidding and play from the GIBs at every table because there can be at least 3 different versions of GIB in play. Furthermore, in at least 1 of these versions the user has control over GIB's "thinking time" and the value of this setting can impact the decisions that GIB makes. The same is not supposed to be true in a robot tournament context. There all GIBs should behave the same way in the same circumstances. If you think you have seen a counter-example, it would be best if you sent a report to support@bridgebase.com so that we can investigate and fix the apparent bug. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.comgenerally when i go over the hands in the ACBL robot games the GIB is very consistent on leads and bidding following the constraints of the auction, if someone does something different then that has an effect....but still there are times I watch GIB and wonder why it does what it does. takes this hold96♥ K105♥ the 96♥ is in dummy and GIB has K105♥declarer has opened 1♥........on almost ever hand when declarer played the 9♥ GIB played low, when the 6♥ was played GIB played the King....also GIB played the King♥ in several instances when declarer played the second finesse....but what caught my eye was the difference in the play when the 9 or 6 ♥ was lead initially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 When you play against GIBs in (for example) the Main Bridge Club, you should not expect identical bidding and play from the GIBs at every table because there can be at least 3 different versions of GIB in play. Furthermore, in at least 1 of these versions the user has control over GIB's "thinking time" and the value of this setting can impact the decisions that GIB makes. The same is not supposed to be true in a robot tournament context. There all GIBs should behave the same way in the same circumstances. If you think you have seen a counter-example, it would be best if you sent a report to support@bridgebase.com so that we can investigate and fix the apparent bug. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.comPigpenz reported this in a GIB tournament, where some Norths responded 2D to a 1S opener, but some responded 1NT. http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1310468494-28539085&username=pigpenz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.