Fast arrival?

[Bbradley62]

[hv=lin=pn|bbradley62,~~M19862,~~M19860,~~M19861|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S9H6JQD34AC2679KA%2CS356TKH4DTJQC45TJ%2CS278QH79TKAD2568C%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7COpener%20rebid%20--%206%2B%20C%3B%2017-20%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7CNew%20suit%20--%204%2B%20D%3B%205%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7C6%2B%20C%3B%203%2B%20H%3B%2020%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20D%3B%205%2B%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CC6%7C]360|270[/hv]

After the 3♣ bid showed 17-20 total points, a jump to 4♥ is explained 17-20 with 6+C and 3H whereas my 3♥ bid showed 20 with 6+C and 3H. I'm surprised that the jump is weaker, since GIB doesn't seem to use fast arrival in many other cases that I'd expect. Shouldn't the point counts on 3H and 4H be complementary, encompassing the 17-20 range between them, rather than overlapping?

[barmar]

I was under the impression GIB usually uses fast arrival. I know it uses it if you transfer and then bid a new suit.

[calm01]

Bbradley62/Barmar,

 

Both true in my experience.

 

In particlar well-defined sequences GIB seems to notice what you have not bid - such the class of situations mentioned by Barmar.

 

In general situations GIB appears to have little or no memory at all - such as the recently mentioned post where a 20 point assessment was made by GIB of a hand that opened and and passed at the next opportunity but bid to the 4 level with a ten card fit.

 

The bridge principle that:

 

.

[calm01]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: reply completed after connection failure

 

 

Bbradley62/Barmar,

 

Both of your are correct in my experience.

 

In particlar well-defined sequences, GIB seems to notice what you have not bid - such the class of situations mentioned by Barmar.

 

In general situations GIB appears to have little or no actual memory or partners bids and their meanings let alone and failure to bid at all - such as the recent post where a 20 point assessment was made by GIB of a human that opened and immediately passed at the next opportunity but bid later to the 4 level with a ten card fit.

 

The two core basic bridge bridge principles could be said to exist within the framework of any agreed bidding system:

 

a1) Every bid made communicates a meaning (strength and/or length) to partner,

a2) every bid NOT made communicates a (strength and/or length) meaning to partner,

a3) you can add to the meanings previously communicated to partner (extra strength and/or length),

a4) you CANNOT UNcommunicate what you have already told partner.

 

b1) You can tell the truth,

b2) you can misrepresent your holding just for fun or for upsetting/confusing the opponents,

b3) you can be pessimistic or optimistic or downright crazy, cognisant of the vulnerability or trust to some extent the opponents,

b4) you must live or die by what you say or do not say and partners responses.

 

For these princincles to operate it is necessary for GIB to be programmed to:

 

i) notice and take account of strength and length meanings of partners bids both made and not made,

ii) use discrimination.

 

To a fair extent both can be programmed and provide a core to be built upon.

 

GIB is not yet very strong on either of these core bidding principles. The evidence of this is clear to anyone who actually plays with GIB over hundreds and thousands of hands as many on this site have clearly done.

 

One cannot judge without seeing any GIB design specifications, let alone the code implemented, but there is little evidence of these basic bidding principles being substantively employed by GIB.

 

The use of sheer computing power to differentiate between $1 a day and $1 a week versions of GIB suggests that the principles used by GIB are of a completely different order as neither memory or discrimination require much computing power to implement.

 

To he extent this assessment is even partly true, our expectations of substantive improvement in GIB bidding may be destined to be unsatisfied.

 

Regards, Calm01